Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Yes, Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump, but the real question is [View all]Gothmog
(154,549 posts)88. The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino
Sanders was soundly rejected by three key groups in the base of the Democratic Party. The claim that the DNC fixed the primary process is wrong http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of the people. This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.
Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the partys nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldnt figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....
According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And thats what happenedjust a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandistsworking through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emailsMay 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the primaries were rigged narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didnt change the outcome.) Two other emailsone from April 24 and May 1were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, So much for a traditional presumptive nominee. Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didnt know what the DNCs job actually waswhich he didnt, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
Bottom line: The scandalous DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clintons, fed into the misinformation.
In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.
Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the partys nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldnt figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....
According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And thats what happenedjust a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandistsworking through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emailsMay 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the primaries were rigged narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didnt change the outcome.) Two other emailsone from April 24 and May 1were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, So much for a traditional presumptive nominee. Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didnt know what the DNCs job actually waswhich he didnt, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
Bottom line: The scandalous DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clintons, fed into the misinformation.
In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.
I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump, but the real question is [View all]
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
OP
AA, Latinos, Jewish voters, etc? What did Weaver do to bring those voters to Bernie?
emulatorloo
Jan 2017
#120
The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#88
Never again. He trashed the party all through the primaries and then wouldn't concede when beaten
brush
Jan 2017
#65
That was during the general in a debate with trump. Frankly, I have no problem with that.
brush
Jan 2017
#69
That's not how I remember it. But why did the Sanders campaign take the info, firewall or not?
brush
Jan 2017
#98
He was not in that debate, nor did he EVER debate Trump. Sanders lost the Primary ... remember?
Lil Missy
Jan 2017
#110
He was in the debate in Flint where Hillary was fed a question in advance.
Qutzupalotl
Jan 2017
#111
Donna has denied that actually...but when I heard the questions she supposedly
Demsrule86
Jan 2017
#147
It was obvious to any objective observer the games played over the debates.
Hassin Bin Sober
Jan 2017
#53
What happened to Russ Feingold, Zypher Teachout, and every Democrat running for Senate in those
still_one
Jan 2017
#11
Lets see, lost primary, zypher teachout and Russ feingold heavily endorsed by Bernie lost, and every
still_one
Jan 2017
#9
No, I am refuting the speculation of those who say Bernie would have won, and for those
still_one
Jan 2017
#23
Sorry, Hillary got more votes, and the bullshit from people like greg palast who falsely
still_one
Jan 2017
#38
well you think that all you want doesnt make it so. bernie is a socialist who said our taxes
Ohioblue22
Jan 2017
#16
Exactly. This attacking the Democrats who voted, Hillary supporters and the DNC
synergie
Jan 2017
#83
Thank you. And to Hillary's credit she didn't use the negative oppo research against Sanders, . . .
brush
Jan 2017
#100
They seem to spend more time bashing Democrats and Hillary than Trump, GOP or Putin.
synergie
Jan 2017
#118
I think you are over-thinking. Really - does the "republican base" give a shit who trump
jmg257
Jan 2017
#26
good point. and russ feingold lost to johnson by several percentage points, while Hillary lost
still_one
Jan 2017
#39
Young people stayed home in Wisconsin in the ge. You can't pin that on Bernie.
Hassin Bin Sober
Jan 2017
#50
Lol, I'm not "pinning" anything on Bernie. Just pointing out that OP's reasoning is faulty
emulatorloo
Jan 2017
#75
You are pretending the top of the ticket doesn't have a huge influence down ballot. Ridiculous
Hassin Bin Sober
Jan 2017
#81
The DNC had nothing to do with the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected
Gothmog
Jan 2017
#130
Fairy tales?? Hahaha, look who's talking, the matriarch of fairy tales and fables herself!
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
#64
Sure she did. That's why everyone's talking about President-elect Clinton, right?
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
#66
Would it have made a difference with both houses of Congress being republican?
no_hypocrisy
Jan 2017
#101
Understand what you are saying there. That said; I really do not think Clinton could have beaten a
Alekzander
Jan 2017
#104
There's nothing about Russia in my post, so either you meant to post that in a different thread
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
#135
You are desperately trying to hijack a thread again by getting it off subject.
mtnsnake
Jan 2017
#137