And so having asked for “specific’ three times, what I get is " *the advantages the other person has is left up to your imagination. That is generally not a good thing.”
*
Which is about as vague as possible.
Remember, there really is little DWS could do. The labyrinthine primary rules are state by state, and heavily favored Bernie.
“Since then, the negotiations have been a tangled mess of failed proposals, stonewalling and rejections from both camps. In recent days and weeks, a wide variety of proposals have been thrown out, rejected, or kept on the table by both sides…For weeks in March, both parties found reasons to delay, sources said. Clinton aides wanted to hold out in the hopes that they could marginalize Sanders in the primary with a series of defeats and not have to debate him. Sanders’ staff, meanwhile, was not eager to schedule debates either, as the issue helps galvanize supporters.”
Sanders was doing very well at his rallies and kept rejecting debate dates- as his campaign could then just blame it on the eviiiilll DWS.
I think most Americans would be surprised to hear that the system is intentionally rigged and that it is acceptable for party insiders to tilt the playing field in favor of on candidate over another. Is that both parties or just the Democratic party?
The Republicans nominated Donald Fucking Trump. Yu SURE they are concerned about electability?
The Democrats used to nominate liberals. They wanted THEIR candidate, win or lose, the wanted their candidate, not the candidate selected by party elders.
Now you’re telling me that its OK for the party bosses to tilt the playing field in favor of the candidates that they think will do better in a general election? That sounds like a lot of bullshit. If the party bosses know who is best then why even bother with a primary, why not just nominate who they think is most likely to win? Are they just giving us the illusion of control over the Democratic process?
Are you really so sure that Hillary is more electable than Bernie? People say that Hillary is lucky she is running against Trump, but I bet Trump is almost as lucky that he is running against Hillary.
Why not just admit that its fucked up that Debra Wasserman Shultz and the folks at the DNC were in the bag for Hillary and denounce it? Shame on DWS and the DNC staff for plotting against a candidate during the primaries. It makes Democrats look corrupt, maybe that’s OK with you but I find it pretty distasteful.
You can only be surprised by this if you don’t know how private organizations work.
People this year are chastising the Republican party for not tilting the deck against Trump (“they need super delegates!”) and are upset that the Dems might have done so against an outsider with 1 yrs membership.
You can’t have it both ways - either the parties exist to put forth their best possible candidate or they exist so that any demagogue can hijack them for the demagogues purpose.
I suspect that “most Americans” believe at first glance that the party leadership should be neutral. But I also believe that “most Americans” and certainly most party members would come to a different conclusion if they thought about it.
If David Duke were to reclaim his Democratic roots (he has 'em, you know), and decide to run for President in a primary against a progressive like Elizabeth Warren or Jeff Merkley, I doubt very much that “most” Democrats would say that the party should remain neutral. I certainly wouldn’t. I don’t think I know any Democrats who would. Would you?
If a LaRouchie came along and wanted to run as a Democrat, I would want, and hope, that the party machinery would work on behalf of somebody else. (I know there are few if any LaRouchies left, but you might want to look up the 1986 Illinois gubernatorial election to see what kind of damage can be done to a party when LaRouchies are allowed to roam free.)
I know that many people remain angry about the specifics of the Clinton-Sanders race and the perception that the DNC was not entirely unbiased. But looking through the lens of a particular situation is necessarily cloudy. It is entirely within the right of the party–in fact, it is the responsibility of the party–to come up with the person that party leaders feel is the best candidate available, one best able to represent the party ideals and win the election. Evenhandedness is nice, but not required. Unless you honestly believe that David Duke should have the same access to party resources as Elizabeth Warren–a stance that I believe few Democrats would be willing to take.
There’s no proof that the DNC as a whole did anything to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting votes. He got about 13 million of them. He consistently polled poorly across demographics, and that trend manifest itself in the actual primaries.
In fact I think the email dump is, in retrospect, a non-story. It’s a story because it came from Wikileaks.
This isn’t imagined. This is real smoke and the other posters here seem to be saying "so what if there is fire, its the DNC and they don’t have to hand over the reins to whoever the primary voters would choose, we can stack the deck and that’s perfectly alright. Oddly I have not heard the DNC o the Hillary campaign express these sort of sentiments. I wonder why.
If David Duke would actually gets nominated by the Democratic primary process, that is something I would want to know.
Democracy is messy.
I believe that if David Duke is able to garner enough support from Democrats to warrant those resources then he should get them. I have enough faith in the party to believe that it would never happen. Not while we had a functional Democratic party.
Nowhere but on this board would people peg me for a conservative.
I haven’t voted for a Republican since the 90’s They didn’t really start going off the rails until the 1980s and there were still plenty of good ones left in the 1990s.
Its a story because the Sanders folks had been complaining about bias for a while and being told they were imagining things. You just open yourself up to all sorts of speculation when the people running the primaries are biased.
