I know we’re talking about the primary. What did the DNC do to help her?
That’s a lot, here’s a good start:
Yes, the DNC was tilted massively to Hillary. They really tried and wanted her to win the primary. I accept all that. I’m asserting that they were so obvious, and so incompetent, that their efforts did nothing but reveal their own bias and increase resentment of Hillary.
What, specifically, do you assert the DNC did that actually helped her beat Sanders?
Money mostly. That’s no small thing at all. It’s almost everything.
Lining up superdelegates.
Also, Brazile gave Clinton questions ahead of a debate with Sanders.
I suggest you read about it. It’s actually interesting.
Quoting from your article. Was it this money ?
Or this money?
or this money?
I’ve read about it for years. It’s obvious they tried. It’s also obvious to me that the super delegates were already for Hillary, and any monetary gain from controlling the DNC was minimal. Debate questions maybe helped in an extremely trivial way, and then when this incompetence was revealed publicly, increased resentment way more than it helped her.
Here’s how I see it - the DNC was an arm of the Hillary campaign. If they hadn’t controlled the DNC then the DNC would have been a bystander and it would have been the Hillary campaign that did everything the DNC did (including getting the debate questions). It would have been cleaner and with less resentment and I think Hillary would have won the primary by a larger margin.
Are these the superdelegates who are long time Democrats and have been working with Hillary for 20 years? They needed “lining up” to support her over a person who joined the party 3 months ago?
You can wiggle and dance all you want.
The DNC was in the bag for Clinton. And no amount of nitpicking will change that and it’s not ok and not unimportant.
They are not supposed to be there as your buddies. They are supposed to be there for the best interests of the party.
The biggest reason Bernie supporters are as agitated and angry as they are is because they see no valid reason why their proposals can’t or shouldn’t be implemented. Compromise is like giving away half of the good for no discernible reason. In their minds, if a $20/hour minimum wage is what’s truly best for America, then why accept anything less? That would be like a football coach telling fans that his team only intends to score 4 touchdowns per game when (in the minds of fans) the team is totally capable of scoring 7 per game. And so when centrist Democrats tell them what, to their ears, sounds like “We could achieve 100% good but we’ve decided to go with only 60% good,” it just about gives the Bernie Bros an aneurysm.
You didn’t answer the question. Was the “Money” you said the DNC helped her with the money they owed to other people, the money she gave them to help settle their debts, or the millions she raised at her own fundraisers?
I missed the part of the article with Bernie gave the DNC anything to help their mission. What did Bernie do in the 2 weeks he was part of the Democratic Party to better the interests of the Party? Did he even promise to not declare himself an Independent the day of his inauguration?
I have provided many, many cites throughout this thread supporting my case. You have provided none.
I think it is time you support your case.
No, compromise is how differing sides arrive at a solution that’s better than nothing. It used to be the cornerstone of successful politics.
Because they might be able to get $17, which is a hell of lot better than $12.
I know you’re not advocating this “no compromise” stance (are you?), but American politics really started to fall apart when the GOP decided “compromise” was a dirty word. It’s no better when the Bernie Bros. say the same thing.
I think I was unclear. Let’s try again.
You said the DNC helped Hillary Clinton with money.
I’m asking for clarification, because the article you cited said that the DNC was flat broke, and Hillary gave them $10 million to help with their debts, and held lavish fundraisers that brought in $80 million more.
What did Bernie do? Oh yes, he did this.
But, yeah, tell me how the DNC was being unfair by supporting the person funneling tens of millions of dollars into their empty bank account instead of the person who complained about Hillary getting some of the money Hillary raised.
Who is even disputing this? What we’re disputing is whether being “in the bag” mattered. I hold it didn’t, because DWS and the DNC were such a pathetic and incompetent organization.
See, the conspiracy theory that the DNC has any such power. Yes, one member of the DNC did slip the Clinton campaign the questions to the debate.
No, they were progressives.
Because he didnt withdraw and back Clinton after he had lost- waiting two months + to do that.
Yep.
See, again the conspiracy theory that the DNC can even do any such thing.
Yes, Clinton was well ahead in regular delegates. Not form the start- Sanders did well in caucuses.
One staffer leaked the questions to one debate.
They can’t, or at least the 2016 DNC couldn’t, because they were so incompetent. But they tried – DWS and the DNC organization were quite clearly biased towards Hillary. Because of their pathetic incompetence, they failed miserably, and Hillary won the primary in spite of their incompetence.
Sure, and why not? Clinton was a Democrat. But the DNC has no such authority or power.
So…Clinton co-opted the DNC so she could pay them millions? Is that your stance?
If so, Clinton frankly deserved to lose. That’s a special kind of stupid.
Is that a stance or just a fact?
Does it make a difference?
I suspect @Cheesesteak is giving me busy-work. I can’t imagine Clinton co-opted the DNC so she cold write million dollar checks to them. I’ll leave it to others to determine if that is what she was actually doing.
Personally, I think she did it to benefit her campaign. YMMV