There’s not much to say, as was stated throughout the primaries and denied by the DNC and Hillary fans of all ages, the DNC did not conduct a fair primary process, their job was to guarantee Hillary’s nomination and blame Bernie for the mess they were making.
I’m shocked. SHOCKED!
Hey, whatever works. I’ll bet the Republican powers that be are reading this carefully, so they can learn how to do it right next time.
Exactly. Bernie was a loose cannon that needed to be squelched.
The emails mentioned in the cited article occurred in April and May, by which time Sanders was already virtually eliminated from the nomination. Whatever the content of the emails, it’s hard to see how they would have significantly influenced the nomination.
So: irrelevant. I’m not familiar with The Hill, the cited publication, but clearly they have an agenda which is attempting to seriously slant this news into something more significant than it really is.
It’s a short article but I missed it: how did they rig the primaries? Stuffed some ballot boxes? Disqualified Bernie voters? All I see is mention of a couple of emails not liking Bernie’s campaign.
Yeah, it’s silly. The actually rig the process they would have had to do it years ago to make sure it maximally discomfited Sanders. Sanders was saying nasty things about them in public. They were saying nasty things about him in private. Which one comes off more mature?
I’ve seen a bit of The Hill, have yet to detect any strong political bias. Also, reading the article, appears to be more about the effort to remove Ms. Wasserman-Shultz than anything else. To my eyes, she had a clear preference for Hillary, and I am not the least bit surprised. Apparently, a lot of Democrats did.
Sanders: the sytem is rigged! The DNC is biased
DNC: Quit saying that!
Sanders: See? Rigged!
I will now sit and watch the responses from the Hillary fan boys who will insist that this is not wrong, nothing happened, it’s Bernie’s fault, and anyone who dares to criticize even Hillary’s friend is evil. Luckily we have the Democratic party to preserve democracy by preventing it.
So you’re saying (well, the article is saying) that instead of trying to game the system, change the rules for delegate selection, and use questionable parliamentary tactics to try to influence the election, the people in the Democratic Party establishment responsible for promoting Democratic values and policies and for guiding the party in selecting the most qualified and electable candidates chose to raise questions in the media about the values, qualifications, and electability of a Democratic candidate?
Whew, that’s a relief! As a former Bernie supporter, I’m extremely glad to know that he lost the nomination fair and square and that I can now support Hillary without the specter of shady politicking hanging over the campaign anymore.
This is how i see it. “Rigging the process” is cheating to make sure Hillary wins, simply trying to win is not rigging the process. And of course the DNC favored Hillary, her being an actual democrat and all. The process was biased in favor of Sanders, he got a higher % of delegates than he had of votes, no email changes that.
Your thread title is not based on reality. Either you don’t know what “rigged” means or jumping several steps because your article does not point to rigging of anything. And I am no Clinton fanboy, you are just flat out wrong.
LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
Is that what we’re supposed to do here? I lost my RNC playbill.
If, and there seems to be a decent probability of this being the case, we have access to these emails due to hacks by the Russian government, I think they actually show that foreign powers are attempting to influence the results of our elections.
There’s evidence that not everyone in the DNC was neutral in who they wanted to win the nomination. Do you honestly expect that? But if you are going to make not so sly insinuations that the primaries were not conducted fairly then you have to point out things more substantial than an email complaining about the disarray of his campaign or his constant decrying of the DNC.
who cares; he was and is a communist. Any responsible political party needs to keep that kind of thing under wraps.
Right, and wasn’t this after he’d called for DW-S to be primaried and endorsed her opponent? It’s not really fair to expect her never to say anything negative about Bernie, even privately. And it seems that these messages primarily dealt with attacks that never ended up happening, so this affected the primary how exactly? Yes, the DNC didn’t like Bernie and they preferred that he lose, but this is a far cry from “rigging” anything.
The word “rigged” these days seems to mean “I don’t know how this thing works but I seem to be losing at it.”
I think you’re reading into what I said a different kind of sarcasm than was intended. I meant what I said and was mocking the OP, who apparently did expect virginal purity and Solomonic disinterest on the part of the party apparatchiks.