Can we please stop pushing the 'DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders' myth

[SocialDemocrat61]

Sorry for the rant but I'm tired of seeing this still pop up in threads here. Bad enough it is still being pushed elsewhere.

Yes, there were emails in 16 from DNC staffers where they voiced a preference for Hillary Clinton (an actual Democrat) over Bernie Sanders (an independent who refuses to become a Democrat) in the primary that year. But beyond those email, there has never been any evidence that any action was taken by the DNC to sway the outcome in favor of Clinton. Anyone who claims this is just engaging in a conspiracy theory.

I hate that this even needs to be brought up 8 years later, but we should be a fact based community. Not one that indulges in rumors. Thank you.

[brush]

1. Old news. Very old news.

[SocialDemocrat61]

4. Yes it is

Unfortunately people keep bringing it up.

[Think. Again.]

25. such as yourself.

[SocialDemocrat61]

26. And others too

in several threads, just yesterday.

[Think. Again.]

29. I suggest you reply to those posts then and not amplify the division by...

....creating yet another divisive OP about it.

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. What divisive is the lie about the DNC

How is stating the truth divisive?

[Happy Hoosier]

43. I keep hearing from "progressives"...

about how the Democrats are as bad as the Republucans since they cheated Bernie.

YMMV. I hear that shot all the time.

[iemanja]

115. It was about patriarchy and whiteness

That was no small subtext in the 2016 primaries. There is a reason some of those people voted for Trump.

[Emile]

2. Why are you bringing this up?

[SocialDemocrat61]

5. Because I saw it

in two different threads yesterday, pushed by two different people, with several others agreeing with them.

[MineralMan]

8. Would not those threads be the appropriate place for your post, then?

How so?

[SocialDemocrat61]

10. Why

does my posting an OP about it offend you?

[MineralMan]

13. Oh, I'm not offended at all.

It is, however, re-visiting 2016, something that has been frowned upon on DU for some time.

In today's political reality, it is completely irrelevant, I think. Time has moved us far beyond that.

[SocialDemocrat61]

15. I'm not the one re-visiting

I've seen this brought up in multi threads and thought it should be addressed. Why does it bother you?

[MineralMan]

17. I'm just going to let you carry on with your carrying on...

[SocialDemocrat61]

18. Sorry if trying to stand up for the truth bothers you

[MineralMan]

19. LOL!

[SocialDemocrat61]

22. Have a nice day!

[ProfessorGAC]

67. The OP Is Correct

I'll send you PM for details.

[Emile]

9. Must have really bothered you. Seriously

if you have a problem with it, this will only divide the party. Surely you don't want that.

[SocialDemocrat61]

11. People pushing the myth

are the ones dividing the party based on a discredited conspiracy theory.

[Emile]

14. Well if what you say if true, go to those posts

and argue your case. This OP is not needed!

[SocialDemocrat61]

16. Why not?

And what I am saying is true or are you accusing me of lying?

[Emile]

23. Did I say you lied? I just see no reason to start

an unnecessary divisive op. What's your agenda for posting this?

[SocialDemocrat61]

24. My agenda is to stand up for the truth

and to put an end to a divisive conspiracy theory.

And when you say "if what you say if true", you're implying that someone is lying. But if you want proof, I'll email evidence.

[Emile]

27. Take your argument there.

[SocialDemocrat61]

28. I'll take my argument

where ever I want. Please don't try to censor me.

[H2O Man]

95. That's a good question.

Also, quite often, people aren't lying. They are just wrong. Sometimes way wrong.

[obamanut2012]

34. Because posters keep saying it on here

[gab13by13]

3. Water over the dam,

but I did read Donna Brazile's book.

Elizabeth Warren also has an opinion that is not favorable toward the DNC.

[SocialDemocrat61]

6. Everyone is entitled to their opinion

but not to their own facts. And their have been no facts ever presented that the DNC took any substantive action against Sanders.

[MineralMan]

7. Who is pushing that. I've not seen it.

It seems to me that you are the one bringing it up.
Since Sanders is not a Democrat, he would never be picked as a Presidential candidate by the Democratic Party. Period.

[SocialDemocrat61]

12. Again

I've seen it come up in two different threads just yesterday and many other ones over time. If you haven't seen it, good for you.

[Hekate]

20. There's been a lot of crap flying around here the past few days. It's like someone in authority said...

… “Let a thousand flowers bloom” and a vocal minority decided what was needed was manure.

‘Strewth.

[Nixie]

36. There is definitely an uptick in the familiar crap flying.

[betsuni]

82. Getting a head start on polarizing Democrats to suppress the vote in the next election.

Starting up the fake revolution business again. Trump voters are allies in that, remember, myth they voted because of economic anxiety Democrats caused, not culture wars. This propaganda will be going strong.

[obamanut2012]

35. There has been a flurry on here and Reddit saying that

It has been pretty obvious.

[MichMan]

38. Sanders ran in the 2016 Democratic Primary

Won 40% of the total number of delegates.

Are you saying that even had he won the 2016 primary, he wouldn't have been chosen as the nominee ?

[MineralMan]

39. I am saying that he did not and could not win that primary.

Proof is in the numbers, isn't it?

[MichMan]

40. Clearly he didn't get enough delegates in 2016

"Since Sanders is not a Democrat, he would never be picked as a Presidential candidate by the Democratic Party. Period."

My interpretation of that statement is that even had he won the majority of primary delegates, he would have been still disqualified by the Democratic Party and not permitted to be the nominee.

Didn't he change his affiliation from Independent to Democrat at that time?

[MineralMan]

41. Yes, he did change it, temporarily, reverting back to an independent

after failing to get the nomination.

For me, he has never been a Democrat, really. And that, I'm sure, is why he did not get enough delegates. Someone else did. Sadly, we still lost to Trump that year, much as we did this year. More's the pity.

I like Bernie Sanders, but he is not a Democrat. I vote for Democrats.

[egduj]

21. I like Elizabeth Warren's quote when asked about this very subject.

"Yes."

[redqueen]

164. Pretty straightforward really. nt

[dutch777]

30. I suspect folks at DNC level put their fingers on the scale to some degree fairly regularly. Nature of POLITICS.

While one could hope they are candidate and even policy proposal agnostics until such a time as primaries, committee vetting and so on defines a direction from the grass roots, I doubt that has been a reality for quite some time. May be part of our problem of late but short of cleaning house of everyone and starting with a new mandate and leadership I wouldn't expect perfection.

[SocialDemocrat61]

32. Evidence?

[leftstreet]

42. The poster said they "suspect." Do we have to prove our hunches now?

[SocialDemocrat61]

44. And Trump supporters "suspect" the 2020 election was stolen

So yes. If you’re going going to make an accusation, you should have evidence to back it up.

[leftstreet]

47. Yet you haven't proven your own assertion

That DU is teeming with members swamping the forum with posts claiming the DNC tanked Sanders

Or maybe it was just a hunch on your part

[SocialDemocrat61]

49. First, I never claimed that

“ DU is teeming with members swamping the forum with posts claiming the DNC tanked Sanders”

I just said I saw some posts saying that. I can email a few to you if you like.

[leftstreet]

50. My mistake. Indeed you claimed you only saw 2. n/t

[iemanja]

160. Hunches mean nothing without evidence

Otherwise it’s just bullshit.

[H2O Man]

97. Of course they did.

[JI7]

33. It was pushed by the Fraud Tulsi Gabbard and others

pushing the Russian conspiracy in order to hurt Democrats.

[ThePartyThatListens]

37. History means something and makes a difference

It's why everything the way it is today, because of history.

Too many people like to avoid history or downright rewrite it to something more palatable to them.

[iemanja]

102. History has an evidentiary basis

Historians are required to do research and cite their sources. History is not sour grapes because your favored candidate couldn’t get enough votes. As much as you resent it, the candidate with the most votes (delegates) wins.

[intheflow]

45. That's exactly the way I remember it.

The DNC was so hellbent on it being "Hillary's turn" that Sanders supporters were maligned and demonized, which - unsurprisingly - turned some would-be Dem voters to vote for 45 or no one at all. The DNC insisted it was all misogyny but some of us had real concerns that were dismissed out of hand and we were told to shut up. She was one of the most hated women in the US but the DNC put their hands over their ears and shouted "La-la-la!!" at anyone who dared question that "truth."

[ThePartyThatListens]

110. That resentment only spread, which resulted in what happened last month

But some people simply refuse to learn.

Let's see if they snap out of their stupor within the next 2 and 4 years.

If not, it's all lost.

[Kid Berwyn]

46. Donna Brazile documented it.

The DNC owes Bernie Sanders and all Dems an apology

BY BRENT BUDOWSKY
The Hill, November 2, 2017

Excerpt…

According to the new book by Brazile, excerpted in Politico, President Obama and his campaign had left the DNC with massive debt after the 2012 campaign, and in August 2015, almost a year before the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the DNC signed a secret deal with the Clinton campaign that gave Clinton virtual ownership over the DNC in return for raising money to pay off the debt.

In other words, regarding the Democratic National Committee that should represent all Democrats equally and treat all candidates equally throughout presidential primaries, the fix was in before the 2016 primaries had even begun.

Two points are key:

First, the DNC has for some time been so incompetent and ineffective that any DNC-Clinton deal probably did not make much difference in the 2016 primaries.

Second, and more importantly, this DNC-Clinton deal, if it happened as Brazile suggests, was a disgraceful and unethical venture that violated a core principle of the DNC: that it should be neutral in presidential primaries between competing candidates.

Continues…

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/358389-the-dnc-owes-bernie-sanders-and-all-dems-an-apology/

[SocialDemocrat61]

48. I have no doubt

that the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders. But I have never seen any evidence that it took any substantial action to skew the primary results to Clinton.

[Kid Berwyn]

51. Controlling the Party apparatus before the nomination qualifies.

DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile’s own words:

Excerpt…

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

Source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

PS: Don’t have anything against Hillary or Bernie. This is what happened.

[SocialDemocrat61]

53. Not really

Nothing there would change the results of any of the primaries. Yes, it gives Clinton an edge in messaging but it still doesn’t change legally cast ballots.

[Cirsium]

73. Ridiculous

No one has suggested ballot tampering by the Clinton campaign.

An edge in messaging is not important? Really? That can't affect the results of elections? I guess we just wasted $1.6 billion then.

[SocialDemocrat61]

75. From the results of the election

messaging didn’t make much of a difference.

[Cirsium]

86. oh

Cheating is cheating, whether or not it works.

[SocialDemocrat61]

90. If there was any actual cheating

there would be evidence and people could be prosecuted.

[Cirsium]

142. Thumb on the scale

The DNC putting their thumb on the scale for one of the candidates is cheating.

[SocialDemocrat61]

143. Exactly what did they do

to put their “thumb on the scale”? What actions did they take that did that?

[Cirsium]

145. Coordinated

As is well documented.

[SocialDemocrat61]

146. What did they coordinate?

What actions did they coordinate that hurt the Sanders campaign?

[Cirsium]

152. OK enough

That question has been more than adequately answered over and over again. You don't like the answer. So be it.

[SocialDemocrat61]

153. No it hasn't

No one has provided any evidence of any specific actions taken that sabotaged the Sanders campaign.

[Cirsium]

154. Bye

...

[SocialDemocrat61]

155. Have nice day

[iemanja]

141. Clinton won 3.7 million more popular votes than Sanders

That's not cheating. It's the will of the electorate that you insist should not have been respected.

[Cirsium]

144. Not my argument

Secretary Clinton got more votes, and may well have won without cheating. I am not saying anything to the contrary.

The will of the electorate is short-circuited when the DNC coordinates with one of the candidates during the primaries. That is what happened.

[iemanja]

147. She did not cheat

Russian propaganda non-withstanding.

[Cirsium]

150. Russian?

Donna Brazile? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Those are my sources.

The DNC cheated. Coordinating with one campaign and not the other in the middle of the primaries is cheating.

Ironically, those who are frantically trying to deny this are proving my point. There are forces within the Democratic party, among the leadership and the rank and file, who desperately do not want Sanders, AOC, and Progressives in general to have any influence in the party. This thread illustrates just how extreme that prejudice is.

[iemanja]

159. That is not what Brazile said

She talked about an agreement a year before the primary that had no impact on voters. Your contempt for the will of the people is noted.

The Russians perpetrated the myth that the election was stolen. Bernie supporters continually repeated Russian propaganda during and after the primary and thereby contributed in part to Trump’s victory by convincing some disgruntled Sanders supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. The result was fascism. Now we have Trump again, which is only possible because he won in 2016.

[Cirsium]

165. Amazing

"Bernie supporters continually repeated Russian propaganda during and after the primary and thereby contributed in part to Trump’s victory..."

But, oh, no, we aren't bashing Sanders and his supporters.

I quoted Brazile's exact words.

I didn't question let alone express contempt for "the will of the people."

[cadoman]

78. who needs to earn ballots when you have superdelegates?

https://apnews.com/events-united-states-presidential-election-0617d451fe3b403b846c4dd1847cb5f8

WASHINGTON (AP) — So much for Bernie Sanders’ big win in New Hampshire.

Since then, Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 more superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention, dwarfing Sanders’ gain from the New Hampshire primary, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders has added just 11 superdelegate endorsements.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Clinton for playing tough and taking advantage of the DNC's financial situation. She ponied up cash from her war chest and rightfully wanted something in return. She gained power and influence and got to place her friends in the party machinery.

That is raw political skill. People like that, you get a bit angry at them for doing you wrong, then you forget it and embrace them and be grateful they're on your side. People like that have what it takes to win in a world where things aren't as fair as the middle class naively believes.

Believe me, if you were at a poker game with the likes of Clinton, Elias, Mook, etc. you would be right to check every sleeve and sock in the place--and they'd respect you for it.

But let's also not gaslight ourselves and pretend the DNC didn't have a deeply vested interest in a certain outcome, which I'm sure to Sanders supporters rightfully felt a bit un-democratic.

[SocialDemocrat61]

80. Super delegates are undemocratic

and I wish the party would get rid of them.

[iemanja]

122. The super delegates did not determine the election

Either in number or order. THAT is a fact.

[iemanja]

123. The super delegates did not determine the election

Either in number or order. THAT is a fact.

[cadoman]

132. superdelegates absolutely had an effect

Why else would they exist and why else would Clinton have strategized locking them up and strategically announcing their support during the primary? Why would the press report on them if they didn't matter? Why would the DNC antagonize voters with their existence if they didn't?

Fact: The superdelegates are clearly there as a check on incorrect popular votes. Whether from GQP chicanery or the party swooning over an untenable candidate. Some in the party felt that Bernie was untenable.

Clinton recognized the psychological effect of neutering Bernie's New Hampshire win with a large bucket of Superdelegates. Clinton continued to successfully use superdelegates to create an aura of invulnerability, disengage Bernie supporters from voting, etc.

Be wary of taking political rhetoric as directional fact. It was necessary to run cover for these actions back in 2016, but the past is the past. There's no need to gaslight folks on this any more because there's nothing at stake politically for the involved parties.

This is a time when we need to be open and honest about what the party processes are, what works and what doesn't, and what we can change to make a party the public is excited about supporting.

[iemanja]

139. You have cultivated selective memory

1) New Hampshire is one tiny state that does not determine the outcome of the overall Democratic primary. Winners of New Hampshire do not always win the primary. New Hampshire is not demographically similar to the overall Democratic electorate. It is a VERY white state, whereas the dominant voting block in the Democratic party is comprised of black women. The Democratic Party has since removed New Hampshire from its place as first in the nation because of those demographic reasons.

2) Clinton won not only S Carolina (remember that was one of the states that Bernie supporters said shouldn't count?), which has far more delegates, but she also dominated on Super Tuesday. She had a substantial majority at that point. Any other candidate would have dropped out at that point.

3) Superdelegates have an effect, but they do not determine the primaries--voters do. Bernie could not get enough of his supporters to the polls to win the primary. That is a fact. Clinton won 55.2% of the popular vote. Bernie won 43.1%. Clinton thereby won over 3.7 million votes more than Bernie. Clinton therefore won substantially more popular votes than Bernie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

4) Despite Clinton's win in the popular vote and overall delegate count, Bernie's supporters insisted that Bernie was entitled to the primary anyway because, they argued, Bernie led in corporate media polls. (Quite the irony for the so-called anti-corporate contingency.) They were shocked that they didn't get their way. They felt entitled to determine the nominee over the will of the majority of voters because, as overwhelmingly white men, they couldn't imagine a world in which everything they wanted didn't fall to them.

5) Despite their anti-democratic demands, the primary went to the person who won the majority of votes.

6) you are now seeking to rewrite history.

Bernie went on to again lose in 2020. He lost the primaries twice for much the same reason: his supporters didn't get to the polls, and he didn't have majority support. As we saw in this last GE, rally sizes and votes do not necessarily correspond. Pictures on TV don't determine election results. Polls don't determine election results. Voters determine the popular vote.

There is indeed a time to be honest. That time was in 2016 (and always). Because of the lies of the Sanders supporters about the primary, they convinced SOME of their ranks to either 1) vote for Jill Stein, 2) vote for Donald Trump, or 3) not vote at all. They played a role--not the sole cause but a role--in bringing Trump to power. Their argument was also perpetrated by Russian bots, as was much of what they claimed about Clinton. Some of them therefore unwittingly worked with Russia to put Donald Trump in office. If not for that win, he wouldn't be our incoming president today.

Unfortunately, your post repeats that same Russian-promoted disinformation. Your claims are not honest; they are sour grapes.

[StevieM]

59. The media piled on Hillary after she lost in 2016.

Anyone who wanted to trash her, and add to her list of supposed sins, was encouraged to do so. And the list went on and on--they never stopped adding to it. We were told that she ignored the Midwest, that she had a terrible ground game, that her campaign was chaotic behind the scenes, that she protected a sexual harasser on her 2008 campaign. Donna Brazille decided to cash in an get the major rewards being offered at the time for anyone who attacked Hillary and made up a story about her doing evil or incompetent things.

Most secret conspiracies don't involve the conspirators laying out their nefarious plans in writing. In any event, here is a quote from that agreement:

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates."

[Celerity]

61. it had enough impact to cause this: Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders

[iemanja]

108. The voters chose Clinton

Not the DNC. I know anti-democratic elements argued that the candidate with the fewest votes should be entitled to the nomination because he was a white male, but that is not how democracy works. Your so called evidence says absolutely nothing about the votes. In fact, it says the DNC deal made no difference in the primaries. The DNC does not control voters. Sanders also lost in 2020. Was that the DNC’s fault too? A candidate has to be able to get his supporters to the polls. Bernie fell short in that regard.

[Skittles]

138. they thoroughly rejected BS

for good reason

[Voltaire2]

52. They did. The DNC favors their anointed candidates.

[SocialDemocrat61]

54. Yes the DNC did favor Clinton

But in the end the voters chose Clinton.

[Voltaire2]

63. Yes well, the DNC is both in charge of organizing and funding primaries and candidates and 'favoring' their candidate.

That is a conflict. They should be neutral.

[SocialDemocrat61]

65. Yes they should

No argument there. But I have yet to see any evidence of substantial actions taken that sabotaged Sanders or swung primary results to Clinton.

[Cirsium]

89. There we go

"I robbed the bank, but in the end I had the money."

[SocialDemocrat61]

91. Robbing a bank is a crime

Do you have any evidence of a crime being committed?

[Cirsium]

112. No

Al Capone was not involved, either. So there is that. And there was no bank. So I guess you win.

[SocialDemocrat61]

118. Maybe it was FDR

since he appropriated Capone’s car 😉

[Cirsium]

130. That's it

I think we are finally on the same page.

[cadoman]

133. you are engaged in semantic gaslighting

There's some grey area to terms like "sabotage", but you do understand that the loser in a situation where a "referee" has exhibited partiality is going to see it much more negatively--and use much more negative language to describe it--than the side that benefitted?

And that your attempt to narrow the characterization of that situation by acknowledging there was favoritism, but that favoritism doesn't rise to the level of "sabotage' is just a form of semantic gaslighting that is only making people frustrated with you?

[SocialDemocrat61]

134. No

I’m asking for actual facts that prove that the DNC took actions to sabotage the Sanders campaign and throw the nomination to Clinton. No one has yet provided anything. Can you?

[H2O Man]

99. Without question.

[intheflow]

55. Second point I'd like to make:

(aside from the one I made, above), is that this take places party over governing communally for all citizens.

...there were emails in 16 from DNC staffers where they voiced a preference for Hillary Clinton (an actual Democrat) over Bernie Sanders (an independent who refuses to become a Democrat) in the primary that year

Sanders voted Democratic party line something like 96% of the time. We have actual Democrats who don't vote party line that often. So the "Sanders isn't one of us!" is a really awful argument to make. Strikes me as similar to MAGA saying Liz Cheney isn't a Republican, because she's not walking in lockstep with them.

[SocialDemocrat61]

58. Sorry but Sanders

has repeatedly refused to register as a democrat. He’s a registered independent. Liz Cheney is and always has been a registered Republican, so the analogy is not factual.

And I never once said “ Sanders isn't one of us!”. I just pointed out he’s an independent which is the truth.

[intheflow]

69. He registered as a Democrat in 2019 to primary.

And any time someone says, "But he's not a member of the party!" they are implicitly signaling that he is "other," not one of us. That's why I say the DNC is more interested in its identity and keeping existing power structures in place than in governing all The People. Anyone who caucuses over 95% with Democrats is a Democrat, even if they aren't an official member of the party. And in my mind, Sanders' ideas are much more aligned with where the future of the party needs to go; they resonate with younger people more than whatever the fuck the majority of DNC are doing now by basically remaining silent (save a few notable voices) in the face of Trump coming in with Musk at the helm. Pelosi submarining AOC's committee appointment is another example of party purity and the old guard clutching power until thy die. Labels are less important than actions, and Sanders actions tell me he's a Democrat, more in keeping with the New Deal than the DNC has been for some time. (Though it's nice to see some factions waking up.)

[SocialDemocrat61]

71. Yes he's done that before

Then goes back to being an independent after the primaries are over. I’m not saying that Sanders is a bad guy. He’s a good guy. He was more loyal to Biden than a lot of democrats were. I just pointing out his status as a registered independent.

[Autumn]

72. He caucuses with Democrats and that's enough. His state voters prefer he remain an Independent

and he does. I wouldn't respect him is he ignored the people he represents just to make some party happy.
.

[SocialDemocrat61]

77. No argument there

I just pointed out that he’s an independent and not a democrat. That’s reality. Why are people so triggered by a simple statement of fact?

[betsuni]

84. Because he's told them FDR/LBJ aren't liberal democrats but "democratic socialists" which are the true roots

of the Democratic Party. If one believes this myth they think Sanders is the true Democrat and the rest have ideologically and morally destroyed the party. He has said so for many years. This is confusing for supporters and they feel uncomfortable.

[intheflow]

104. Because it was weaponized against him in 2015-16.

I was here an continually told to shut up about Sanders because he wasn't a Democrat and therefore, NOT A REAL DEMOCRAT!! Seriously, people were really mean on here, and accused anyone who supported him of being a troll and a misogynist.

[SocialDemocrat61]

106. Well that is unfortunate

and shouldn’t have been allowed.

But I had nothing to do with that and was simply stating a fact.

[intheflow]

114. Oh, just seeing you're a ralative noob.

That explains why you didn't understand why that statement was so triggering for so many of us. I, personally, had to leave for a couple years before I got kicked out. A large chunk of DUers who supported Bernie were banned once Hillary secured the actual nomination. It wasn't a happy time here.

Sorry you inadvertently stumbled into a DU pocket of Sturm und Drang.

[SocialDemocrat61]

116. Sorry that happened to you

Stuff like that shouldn’t happen.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

136. Banned?

I thought they refused to sign the terms of service.
But pretend you were persecuted and didn’t take your ball to JPR because your candidate lost and you did t line the e-mail lady.

[iemanja]

111. Voters chose the nominee

Not a DNC memo. Despite the demands that the candidate with the least votes was entitled to the nomination, that is not how a democratic or Democratic system works.

Bernie lost in 2020 too. Who rigged that? The fact was he could never get enough votes, which is why he lost TWICE.

[iemanja]

120. Bernie chooses not to register as a Democrat

But despite that, the party allowed him to run for the nomination. Cheney is a registered Republican. The difference is one of Bernie’s own choice.

[TheFarseer]

56. Don't want to rehash this

Can we just agree to disagree?

[Blue_Tires]

57. I didn't know anyone was still spreading it?

It's been long debunked...

Besides, can we please just let the 2016 primary finally DIE? Especially single the angry orange idiot and his apartheid errand boy are about to kill us all? Can we please focus on our problems in the immediate present?

[Cirsium]

60. There is a probelm with that

The interim Chair of the DNC at the time did not agree with you that it is a myth.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Donna Brazile

excerpts:

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

...

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

...

I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

Supporters of Sanders have good cause to be suspicious of the DNC during the 2016 primaries. You are the one spreading myths and being divisive.

[SocialDemocrat61]

62. What actions did they do

that swung the primaries from Sanders to Clinton?

Never denied that the DNC favored Clinton. That is accurate and evidence exists to show that. But I’ve yet to see evidence of any actions were taken to “sabotage” Sanders or change ballots to Clinton. If you have some please feel free to present.

[egduj]

64. In post 53 you acknowledged that the DNC gave "an edge" to Clinton.

Giving an edge is giving an advantage. Creating and advantage for one competitor creates a disadvantage for the other party. Creating a disadvantage for someone is hindering, impairing, obstructing, etc...their ability to succeed. All those words are synonymous with "sabotaging."

[SocialDemocrat61]

66. Giving an edge

is not sabotaging a candidate or swinging the results of a primary.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

167. It is literally that.

[SocialDemocrat61]

168. No it's not

don't pretend that it is.

[Cirsium]

70. That is not how this works

"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. "

The burden of proof is not on the Sanders supporters. The fact that we don't know what actions they did is the very problem, it isn't exculpatory. One campaign taking control over the DNC before the nomination is in and of itself sabotage of the process.

Sabotage: The deliberate obstruction of normal operations.

[SocialDemocrat61]

74. No

All that has been proven is that the DNC and the Clinton coordinated on messaging. Was it wrong? Yes, no argument there. But unless there is evidence of actual actions taken to sabotage the Sanders campaign, it’s just indulging in conspiracy theories.

[Cirsium]

85. Give it up

"...the DNC and the Clinton coordinated on messaging..."

"But unless there is evidence of actual actions taken to sabotage the Sanders campaign..."

Coordinating on messaging with one candidate is "actual actions." Messaging is the main thing that campaigns do.

[SocialDemocrat61]

88. Please

Coordinating on messaging does not sabotage a campaign or change the results of ballots cast by voters.

[Cirsium]

94. Of course it does

Pretty obvious. Campaigns are messaging. You can't say that the messaging was affected but the campaign wasn't. Helping one campaign with messaging and not the other is sabotage.

If that were not enough, we have the actual emails from staffers talking about how to sabotage the Sanders campaign. "Raise questions about his religion" was one bright idea.

[SocialDemocrat61]

98. Have you ever worked in a campaign?

Messaging is just one aspect.

And staffers discussing things is still not evidence of sabotage. Is there any evidence that, even from a messaging stand point that the DNC took actual actions which sabotaged the Sanders campaign.

[Cirsium]

105. Many

I have worked in many campaigns for over 50 years. Everything we did was about messaging - door to door, phone banking, media appearances, ads. That's politics.

If you are asking did the Clinton campaign tamper with ballots, the answer is no. Did the Clinton campaign commit any crimes? No.

[SocialDemocrat61]

107. Thanks for your honesty.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

156. " action was taken by the DNC that swayed the outcome in favor of Clinton"

Agreeing to give such control to Clinton, in return for the cash flow, certainly helped sway the outcome.

[SocialDemocrat61]

157. How?

Please be specific

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

161. There is a lot. I found some stuff.

It seems Hillary could plant loyalists in key positions.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff."

And those key people helped create perception.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

His campaign accused the committee of scheduling debates on weekends so fewer people would see them. And in May, Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, said on CNN that “we could have a long conversation just about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and how she’s been throwing shade at the Sanders campaign since the very beginning.”

In an email exchange that month, another committee official wrote to both Mr. Paustenbach and Amy Dacey, the committee’s chief executive, to suggest finding a way to bring attention to the religious beliefs of an unnamed person, apparently Mr. Sanders.

“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God,” wrote Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the committee. “He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.”

[SocialDemocrat61]

162. Was anything actually acted upon?

I don’t remember Sanders religion coming up.

And what actions did Clinton loyalists do that hurt the Sanders campaign?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

170. Scheduled debates on weekends?

2016 West Virginia primary, CNN reporter Dana Bash asked about Sanders' Jewish faith.

During the Nevada convention changes to procedural rules and the disqualification of Sanders delegates may have helped Clinton win Nevada

[SocialDemocrat61]

171. Debates have always been scheduled on weekends

and how would that favor one candidate over another? So that’s total BS.

Dana Bash works for CNN, not the DNC. Plus she’s Jewish herself. So that makes no sense.

And Clinton had won the Nevada caucus, months before the convention. https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/20/politics/nevada-caucus-democrats-2016/index.html
Plus the state party controls the convention, not the DNC. So that one is ridiculous too.

[Lunabell]

68. Stop it.

[betsuni]

76. Yes, it's the basis of the myth "the establishment" hate the anti-establishment and rig elections to stop them.

Behind the recent conspiracy theory about Pelosi controlling the recent AOC vote. It won't go away --- foundation of the weaponization of evil Democratic "establishment" out to get the pure righteous group. As if. Ridiculous.

[SnoopDog]

79. This is simply a means to stir up infighting amongst us.

We need to fight the fascism that is already hitting us. Sanders is a true and honorable American who FDR would have welcomed every idea Sanders has.

Fight the fascism not fellow decent Left Americans.

[Emile]

81. Yep, very divisive. It's like someone has an agenda.

[Dave Bowman]

83. I haven't seen anything about that recently until your post.

This OP is just pot stirring for no good reason.

[SocialDemocrat61]

93. Yes he won several primaries

but there are primaries and caucuses in every state. Some were won by Sanders, more were won by Clinton. Same thing happened in 08. Clinton won some primaries, but Obama won more. That’s how the primary process works.

[ornotna]

92. I'm not seeing that stated here

Well,except for here on this post.

[iemanja]

121. Try reading the responses to this thread

Everyone else has seen it plenty.

[ornotna]

124. Everyone?

Okay, guess I'm not in the loop.

[iemanja]

125. Since you apparantly refuse to read the thread

You choose to be out of the loop.

[ornotna]

127. Oh, you got me figured out

So fast too.

[Andy823]

100. Some people who come here

cause trouble and push false information!

[SocialDemocrat61]

101. Some yes

but some just have an honest difference of opinion.

[ornotna]

103. Got your message

Read your links and it seems you have quite a bit invested in this old news. You really should let this go. So many other much more pressing issues ahead of us right now.

[SocialDemocrat61]

109. Not old news

Those were posted yesterday. Maybe those who are still pushing this conspiracy theory need to let it go.

[iemanja]

113. And they are all over this thread.

[Emile]

119. They wouldn't be if someone hadn't started this divisive thread.

[iemanja]

126. I saw the claim just yesterday

Before this thread was posted.

[Emile]

129. Now you are seeing it again, thanks to this divisive thread!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

137. They are forced to rehash decade old conspiracy theories?

They can’t just scroll on by?
Or go back to JPR and whine about the mean Democrats there?

[Oopsie Daisy]

117. No... thank YOU! Thank you VERY much.

I know. It's SO fucking tiresome! And so fucking untrue! I'm pleased to see posts like this that promote truth over myth.

>> but we should be a fact based community. Not one that indulges in rumors. Thank you.
No... thank YOU! Thank you VERY much.

[Alpeduez21]

128. "I hate that this even needs to be brought up," but Imma do it anyway.

I haven't seen one of these threads in a while. I'm pretty preoccupied with the gov't shutting down and the future of Democracy in America becoming impossible. I worry that minorities are in for a world of hurt. I worry that women are being demonized for existing, basically. I think WWIII will start in Europe or the Middle East . But, yeah, what you said.

[betsuni]

131. Easily debunked by Kurt Eichenwald (Newsweek -- The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them

the Presidential Election). Brazile and Warren both took back rigged accusations (because easily debunked). Conspiracy theory.

[SocialDemocrat61]

135. Here's a link

for anyone wishing to read.
https://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[betsuni]

158. Thanks. Voters don't count, evidently, and the majority wanted Sanders (he lost 30% support by 2020, not a

sign of increasing popularity) but the DNC (such a loose and toothless organization that meets once in a while that Nixon laughed when he heard his people had broken into their office -- why?) somehow threatened or mesmerized voters to go against their preference. Do voters still call one of them up when they have to decide things and expect a DNC member to tell them what to do? Must be busy around the holidays -- would Joan prefer a blue sweater or a black one as a gift?

I really want details how ordinary DNC members did that! Why don't the voters count in an election? Nutty!

[Meowmee]

140. Agree about this particular issue

But I doubt those who feel that way will ever agree or stop bringing it up here and there. One issue is it was tied in to rw attacks on hrc etc. she was attacked from everywhere before the election too. The behavior of some b supporters at the convention etc. was terrible when they didn’t get their way Imo, and misogyny of b bros etc.

Some feel if he had been the candidate he would have beaten the psycho. I disagree, he lost the primary and would not have won a general. A lot of the support for him imo was fake on the other side. Also other issues I won’t get into here.

I would not have voted for him in a primary whoever was favored.

[Jack Valentino]

148. Agreed, the DNC as a whole did not "take any action" to sway the 2016 Dem nomination

in favor of Hillary Clinton. Certain DNC individual members DID take such actions,
(sending emails), as was their right.

In the end, the 2016 Democratic nomination was decided on the basis of African-American primary voters....

... and the 2016 presidential election results were mostly decided by a lower African-American voting turnout---
especially in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia---

and this was not so surprising--- after having elected and re-elected
the first African-American President--
the ALL-WHITE Clinton 2016 ticket was a HUGE LETDOWN for AA general election voters.

At the time, I argued that Sec. Clinton "MUST" choose an African-American running mate
on various internet sites--- but I'm just a guy on the internet, not a 'paid consultant', unfortunately.

Mrs. Clinton unfortunately chose to target the 'white middle'--
most of whom she didn't have a chance of winning over,
with a white-bread, so-called "safe" choice. She lost because AA voters
were not inspired by that choice.

President Joe Biden chose differently, and he won.


It is just my opinion, and I have no facts to back it up---
but I think that Bernie Sanders would have realized his weakness
with AA voters after the primaries, if he had won the nomination---

and would have chosen an AA running mate,
who would have become an instant celebrity,
and they would have won the general election in 2016

[SocialDemocrat61]

163. Yes. Facts are facts

Are you planning on citing any facts or just more innuendo?

[xocetaceans]

151. No. It is not a myth. n/t

[Jose Garcia]

166. Sanders isn't a Democrat. I am disappointed that the DNC did little or nothing to stop him