We’re talking about an agreement where the influence given to her was explicit, so we needn’t speculate. And, as I’ve already posted several times, I don’t think people would object if this agreement had been executed after the convention, when she was the chosen candidate and the de facto leader of the party. However, it was executed in Sept of 2015, several months before the first primary. She wasn’t the leader then (except maybe in her own mind).
If you haven’t read the agreement, you might want to do so. I linked to in post 159, but here it is again. I also posted a short summary in post 215 if the ol’ modem balks at downloading a PDF.
Not sure how much national news you watch, but the last year and a half has been flooded with Democratic politicians and DNC members insulting, belittling, and marginalizing progressives. And a parade of stories of them being purged from the party and their policies reversed.
They kick out the ones within their party, and berate those outside their party…sooner or later progressives will take the hint and stop trying to be Democrats. With the shit-show the Republicans are putting on at every level of government, and the abject failure the DNC is becoming, who knows? Maybe come 2020 there’ll be a viable 3rd party from everyone jumping ship from the RNC and DNC.
Was it really not clear that is was the generic “you”? As in those who did not recognize that their responsibility was to all of us? As already stated, it isn’t about you personally.
Describing a statement as an insult instead of responding thoughtfully is a very common avoidance tactic. I think you can do better.
I’m not arguing with those who protest the agreement, but this is something that could be debated. Biden was the only true Democrat that stood a chance against Clinton and it’s not just because of the agreement; it’s because of the name-recognition and influence within the party and the ability to raise money. Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb never stood a chance and nobody could seriously debate otherwise. Biden hadn’t decided to run at that point and formally declared that he wouldn’t a few weeks after the agreement was finalized. But with or without the agreement, Biden would have disrupted the race and compounded Clinton’s problems. The basic assumption (or question depending on how you look at it) had to do with Clinton’s inevitability. Biden, with or without being disadvantaged, would have completely destroyed that aura of invincibility and would have shaken up the race in a major way. But he didn’t run for what we can assume are personal reasons.
That left Clinton to run against Sanders, and as I’ve pointed out before multiple times, Sanders was running a political insurgency rather than trying to represent the Democratic party. Sanders was not really a Democrat and the Democratic party was under no obligation to treat him the same way that they treated a loyal member and leader of the party. People can rightly claim that Sanders was a progressive and that the Democratic party should have been more flexible in how it treated Sanders from the start in the event that Hillary showed signs of weakness. Not only would have that been perceived as fairer but it might have been the smarter approach in the long run as well - or maybe not. We’re speculating in hindsight.
But in terms of how the Democratic party functioned in the 2016 cycle, while it’s fair to point out that they might have miscalculated by stacking the deck in favor of Clinton - and I agree that they basically did - I don’t see this as unethical as much as perhaps just unwise. Donna Brazile has proven to be less than credible in her accounts since coming out with this trash, which I perceive as just her way of trying to distance herself from the failures of the Democrats (the Clinton machine to be more specific) on her watch.
Regardless, we know now that 2016 marked the end of the Clinton dynasty and the Democratic party as we know it. 2017 seems like it might be the beginning of a new kind of Democratic party, which is probably a good thing.
If I understand you correctly, and I’m not certain I do, it seems you are conflating the leader in the polls at any given moment with the leader of the party. Anointing one of the candidates as the party leader before the first primary begins, even if she is leading in the polls at the time, and granting her significant control over the national party activities is a great way to have the other candidates get royally pissed and call “RIGGED”. If we’re talking about an incumbent, then maybe the norms might be different-- I don’t know.
Though perfectly legal, this still has a Nixonian feel to it. I’m thinking that HRC didn’t want anyone to steal her nomination form her the way that pesky Obama did in 2008.
I’m still waiting to hear what actual concrete actions the DNC took to rig the campaign. The only thing I have heard so far is that Clinton was told that there would be a question about Flint’s water at a debate in Flint. Is it cheating if I tell my niece that her History of the American Revolution exam will have a question about George Washington? The part of the election that the DNC is actually in charge of was the state caucuses. It might have been the case that they could have arranged them in a way to Clinton’s advantage, except for the fact that the Caucuses was where Bernie did best. So if the DNC was trying to rig the primary they were doing a piss poor job of it.
Cite?
I welcome the progressive side of the Democratic party, in fact I probably sympathize more with them than I do with the more conservative side. At the start I welcomed Bernie as a voice for the left to contrast with Clinton and to move the overton window. If Bernie had won I would gladly have voted for him in the general. But more than either the progressive or centrist side of the party I believe that party unity is the only way to keep the Republicans from destroying this country. The progressives need to recognize that in 2016 (and possibly still) they represent the minority of the party. But for some reason the progressives believe that their interests should take precedence because… they are the loudest? they able going sink the party unless they get their way? They want it the most?
What happens if the Dems give in and lunge to the progressive side and suddenly a whole bunch of moderates (outnumbering the progressives) get together and say, I refuse to vote Democrat unless they take a more centrist stance. The party needs me to get elected so they better do what I say, or else I will join a third party. The only way we can get a centrist third party is if people reject both the radical left and radical right. What are the Dems supposed to do then, (other than sit back and watch the country turn into a mixed the/plut/klept-ocracsy under Republican rule.
If you want a progressive party, do the hard work, pound the pavement, make the relationships, work the deals, move the public opinion, but don’t just jump in make demands and threaten to quit just because you don’t get everything you want.,
If you were responding to me, then I probably shouldn’t have used that term. I wasn’t saying I thought the campaign was rigged (I don’t), but just using that term as shorthand for "she had an unfair advantage. My bad, since for me, “rigged” carries an implication of actual vote manipulation.
Do you agree that DNC allowed candidate Hillary to have unfair influence over it’s day-to-day operations during the primaries? Do you understand why some of her opponents would be pissed about that?
No. The Democratic Party and the Democratic candidate were intertwined, yes, but so what?
I understand why they would be, but not why they should be. Unless there’s some reason (there isn’t) to believe the vote count was affected, they have no complaint with anyone but their candidate. If you want a party’s support, it really helps you to be a member of it.
I’ve explained several times why I think it’s bad. Not going to re-hash it. If it doesn’t bother you, it doesn’t bother you. I suspect a large number of Hillary supporters are not bothered.
I don’t necessarily believe that Clinton was the leader of the party, but she was certainly among its leadership having been elected and re-elected as US Senator, having served as Secretary of State, having competed fairly well in a previous presidential contest, (along with her husband) having raised a lot of money for the party, having served as an activist First Lady on behalf of the Democrats for 2 presidential terms while her husband occupied the White House (say what one will about that activism and about her husband’s tumultuous presidency). It’s an established fact that she was among the party’s more prominent voices.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters can claimed “rigged” all they want, but the party is under no obligation to treat people the same. I’m a Democrat. I could run for mayor of my Democrat-governed city. I could sign all the paperwork required to do so and contact the local Democratic party to see how they can help. I wouldn’t be so foolish to believe that my candidacy would be taken as seriously as someone who’s been an active and visible part of its fundraising and caucusing for the better part of a decade. I could still shock the pundits and pull off the improbable victory anyway, but if I do it would be because my strategy of being a lukewarm Democrat worked and the opposition’s loyalty to the party line did not.
The Democratic party is really like any other volunteer organization. You can, for instance, join your local rotary club today, make a lot of new friends, and propose some changes to its bylaws that other members like. But you shouldn’t expect to be treated as a leader of the organization in the same way as someone who’s volunteered their time and been a part of that organization for 10 or 20 years, organized special events, organized and managed fundraisers, and been an active member of its Board of Directors. That’s just not how these things work.
I don’t have a problem with Bernie’s campaign or voters, except for when it comes to doubling down on claims of conspiracies and unfair treatment. Sanders ran as an outsider all along and he knows it - his voters should know that. They stubbornly refuse to accept it because they like Bernie Sanders and strongly dislike Hillary Clinton, which is their right. But don’t confuse personal feelings about the candidates with the facts.
Can you elaborate on this? I’m not sure if I’m really getting what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that some voters have a responsibility to relinquish their right to vote for the candidate of their choice to fulfill the wishes of other voters?
OK, now you have me confused (emphasis added). The first quote is from you in response to a similar, longer post by me on the same subject. Just to be clear:
I agree that the DNC can do whatever it damn well pleases. That is not the point. Certainly you don’t agree that anything it does is OK. Right? So, let’s put that baby to bed. I don’t think it cheapen’s Hillary’s victory either. It cheapens her a bit, but she’s done.
I don’t believe the election was literally rigged. I already apologized for using that term.
This is not just about Bernie. It’s about how anyone who is not a die-hard Hillary supporter is going to feel about giving her unprecedented control over the party’s actions during the primaries. It could be Bernie running against her, or Biden, Jerry Brown, Chaffee or Elizabeth Warren. Can you honestly say that those folks would not feel they were treated unfairly? (We already know what Warren thinks.)
The DNC does not need to treat every candidate equally. If there are too many, they don’t all get invited to the debate. But it should not allow one candidate to use the DNC as if it were simply another arm of that candidate’s campaign organization during the primary process. That is essentially what was done here. If that really doesn’t bother you, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
If a person’s preferred first choice candidate is not on the ballet, then yes civic duty should mean that you go with the next best choice or risk getting the worst option inflicted upon you and upon everyone else. Since everyone has to live with the result of the election, it’s important to make these choices with that in mind.
Obviously the choice is yours. I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise, but with choice comes consequence and taking responsibility for that choice.
Re: The whole trump as Hitler thing here’s a quote: “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.” Now considering that definition came from Benito Mussolini, who kind of has to be regarded as one of the premier fascists of the 20th century we should take it seriously. By that definition, I would contend that today’s Republican party is, if not fascist, doing a darned good imitation of it. It doesn’t take being a Hitler to qualify. In fact, fascists might argue that Hitler “damaged the brand” in much the same sense that the USSR did to Socialism.
So essentially Republican/conservative voters had a responsibility to vote for Trump given that’s what the party offered them? Is that the way it works?
The usual way that quote is presented is: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” But it has never been legitimately attributed to the big M. If you’ve found a legit attribution, that would be worth seeing.
However, what that has to do with Donna Brazile is a mystery.
They had a responsibility to consider the ramifications of their choice on the rest of the country, yes, but that doesn’t mean they had a responsibility to make a particular choice. They could have felt that voting for Gary Johnson was better for America, or even Hillary if they were that unhappy with Trump as the nominee. Refusing to vote, or throwing away their vote on a write in candidate because their number one preferred candidate did not win the primary would seem to be a more self centered choice, but still their choice. I’m not saying the choice doesn’t belong to each voter, but what I’m reading in your posts is that you want to make your choice but not have to accept that that choice has consequences to others beside yourself. If I’ve misconstrued that I apologize.
