No, the system wasn’t rigged against him The system was rigged, for sure, but in his favor. The fir

[Ohioblue22]

No, the system wasn’t rigged against him

The system was rigged, for sure, but in his favor. The first two states? Two of the most unrepresentative states in the union, states that glossed over his failures in reaching communities of color. It’s a calendar that benefits white candidates and silences the issues that matter to the communities that drive the modern Democratic Party.

And how about them caucuses? Sanders won nine of 11, getting a significant percentage of his delegate haul from these undemocratic, exclusionary contests. In fact, those nine states are exactly half of his victory total. Take caucuses out, and Sanders is barely in the frame.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with winning caucuses as long as they exist! In fact, Barack Obama owes his presidency to them. But designing a system that prevents people from participating and eliminates the secret ballot is exactly what rigging the system looks like, and it wasn’t Clinton that benefited from that.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

[Katashi_itto]

1. The new meme of the hour I see.

[Ohioblue22]

4. . It whines, shimmies and shakes. Well it has a quota to make after all

[Hortensis]

20. "The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders"

Want to know why? Here's yet another of many explanations.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

But the short form is "Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee."

Actually, a lot more than the count shows. Overall, the caucus and open primaries have tilted the table to Bernie's advantage. When the table is leveled, far more people vote for Hillary than merely the popular vote's extra 3 million shown.

Combine that with her broad and diverse appeal to so many, and I hope at least some who did hope Bernie would win can accept that Hillary is a true peoples' choice.

[Garrett78]

21. Caucuses, yes. But Clinton's done well, overall, in open primaries.

Caucuses suppress the vote in a big way. Many working people, parents, persons with disabilities and people who simply wish to keep their vote private are not able to take part.

Look no further than the fact that a meaningless WA primary had much greater turnout than the WA caucus.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. The WA primary is only meanginless as a result of litigation by the Democratic Party of WA to

render it meaningless and to employ a caucus to allot their delegates. Why does the Party make that choice, to suppress votes of the most vulnerable? The Washington legislature created a by mail primary which the Party rejected in favor of the caucus.
It's a hell of a position for the Party to take. Why do you think it does so?

[tonyt53]

27. "To suppress votes of the most vulnerable" Odd choice of words

To most people, those most vulnerable are the poorest, and primarily those in the southern states. Odd how now Bernie's base of mainly middle class white people are now the most vulnerable. Very odd.

[bkkyosemite]

2. The DNC rigged the system against Bernie from day one!

[mikeysnot]

3. Pretty much unsubscribed from my DK email

the partisan hack articles like this were getting even to much for me to take them seriously.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Yup. Remember when 80% of the SD's announced for Sanders before he announced he was running? n/t

[progressoid]

6. Stopped reading after the first paragraph

"The first two states? .... It’s a calendar that benefits white candidates"

Really? Benefits white candidates?
Hmmm, who won IA in 08?
Oh yeah, that non-white candidate with the Muslim sounding name.

[B Calm]

7. Those 500+ super delegates Hillary had before the first vote was cast in Iowa was rigged for Bernie'

benefit. Oh, okay. . .

[leeroysphitz]

8. Somebody is smoking crack. n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

9. The Dem Party & DNC changed from a BOTTOM-UP to a TOP-DOWN organization, like the Reps/RNC.

.


It no longer is a political system built and shaped by its base, but managed by gatekeepers.


.

[Triana]

10. KOS has pretty much turned into HRC Central.

I have to take anything from there with a lot of grains of salt lately.

[Garrett78]

11. Caucuses get romanticized, but the fact of the matter is they suppress turnout in a big way.

Even a meaningless WA primary had much greater turnout than the WA caucus. Caucuses are not easily accessible for working people, parents, persons with disabilities, people who wish to keep their vote private, etc.

Caucuses and superdelegates are 2 things I would do away with. And, yes, without caucuses Sanders would have been out of the running long ago. That's not reason enough to keep caucuses, though.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. States that have a caucus have one because that's their choice, often the direct choice of the

Democratic Party. In Washington, the Democratic Party sued to allot delegates via caucus instead of via the Primary. In Nevada, the Democratic Party advocated the switch to caucus, which they did in 2008. Hillary has won all contested Nevada caucuses ever.

So if you notice, the supporters of both candidates have big, giant issues with the chosen protocols of the Party.

It's funny to me that Team Hillary does not understand that those caucuses exist due to Democratic initiative and in WA because of Democratic Party litigation against the State for holding a Primary. They don't even seem to fathom that they are being just as critical of the Party as Sanders supporters are. The Party sued to make the WA caucus legitimate, this OP claims that was the Party rigging the system. Harsh accusation.

[mythology]

13. The reason they exist is irrelevant

They greatly reduce turnout and the national party should do away with them for the next election season.

[Garrett78]

14. And I don't think anyone fails to understand that they exist due to Dem Party decisions.

Simply put, caucuses greatly suppress the vote and should be done away with. I would also do away with superdelegates.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. No it isn't. I oppose caucuses, no need to preach. But you have to know how they got put in

place, who supports them and who does not if you have any mind to getting rid of them. It is in fact our very own Party that often insists upon them. When you criticize the WA caucus, you are leveling a specific criticism at the Democratic Party in WA, because they are the reason one is used to allot delegates.
Clinton fans have major criticisms of the Party's processes. So do Sanders fans. That's called common ground and that's where reform can be sown and later harvested.

But you have to understand the process and who put it in place if you seek to change it. Yammering about it does not help.
The National Party can't do away with them. They could persuade State Parties to stop pursuing them, but thus far the National leadership has been fully on the Caucus Train. Harry Reid pushed for the Nevada caucus, which Hillary won and Sanders supports see as dubious. The WA Democrats pushed for the WA caucus which Hillary supporter are not happy about. The common object of criticism is the Democratic Party.

Caucuses were not made by God, they are not natural features of States like Iowa. They are a choice made by political people in those States.
Why do you think the Party favors caucuses?

[Garrett78]

16. Where is the evidence that people don't realize all of that already?

You seem to be building a straw man.

Of course it was a decision of WA Democrats. I don't think that's being disputed.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. The OP says it was 'rigged' by having caucuses. Thus the OP says the Democratic Party rigged

the elections. What else could it mean? They set up the caucuses. Aggressively in many cases. The OP says that was 'rigging' the election.

If people realize that why are they not pointing their criticisms where they should be pointed? After Nevada Hillary supporters were declaring vast loyalty to the Party process and claiming that any criticism of it is a terrible thing. But today here you are saying the Party rigged the election.

The evidence that the OP author does not understand this is in every bit of verbiage, emphasis and stated priority of the materials.

The straw man is yours, that one can have great issues with the choices made by the Party but that those choices are not really the Party's doing, it does not matter who did it. Of course it matters. If it did not matter, using words like 'rigged' would be very much over the top.

Who do you claim 'rigged' the elections if not the Party that set them up?

[Garrett78]

19. The OP in no way suggests an ignorance of the fact that Democrats...

...set the rules for the Democratic primary/caucus process. Again, nobody is disputing that.

And obviously the word "rigged" was chosen as a tongue in cheek response to all of the grand conspiracies about "rigging" things for Clinton.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. That's silly. Look at the author's language about the caucuses:

"And how about them caucuses? Sanders won nine of 11, getting a significant percentage of his delegate haul from these undemocratic, exclusionary contests. In fact, those nine states are exactly half of his victory total. Take caucuses out, and Sanders is barely in the frame."
'Take the caucuses out'? Well kid, who put the caucuses in? The Democratic Party. But the author leaves them out of the rhetoric while yammering away about Bernie. As if the caucuses were Bernie's choice. No mention of the fact that the Party runs the caucuses, insists upon them and litigates against States that attempt to replace them with Primaries as the Party did in Washington.

Hillary fans keep yammering that the Primary should count. The Democratic Party strongly disagrees with them. The Party has made their case in courts of law. Hillary fans have large criticisms of the Party, as do Sanders fans. It's common ground. That seems to bother you very very much.

[Garrett78]

23. No. I'm not disputing that both candidates have issues with the process.

And neither is the OP. It's a given that the Democratic Party sets the rules for the Democratic Party nominating process. It's a given that the Democratic Party in each state determines if it has a caucus or a primary. You're the only one who seems to think that needs to be mentioned, even though it's as obvious as water being wet.

People can object to caucuses while recognizing that the Dem Party in each state determines if that state will have a caucus or a primary, and if it'll be open or closed or mixed, and when voter registration deadlines will be set, and so on. Of course the Democratic Party is setting those rules and procedures in each state. Again, that's a given. Nobody is disputing that.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. And yet the article you link to has no criticisms of the Party processes but full focus on Bernie

The author of the article is not critical of the Party at all. He's blaming Bernie for what the Party does.

Here's the thing. Soon, the cycle will be over and that's the time to seek changes for next time. Some States making those changes will involve direct objection to the Party's positions. Our candidates won't be in the picture, it will be all about the next cycle. So at the very root of the problem there is no Hillary, there is no Bernie there is just the Democratic Party and the choices it makes. These problems were problems in between cycles, but no one cares in between cycles and that hinders progress. During the cycle, the winning side does not mind the problems in States they win, decries the problems in States they lose (Nevada Caucus = Honest Will of the People, WA Caucus = a big set up. Or vice versa) and that hinders progress.

So the author, his entire piece is about Bernie. It's not about the process or the Party pushing caucuses, it presents the caucuses as if they were simply there, like a river and not what they are which is a process this Party wants. Who is the Party establishment? Not Bernie, or so I'm told on DU by Hillary supporters who say he's not even a Democrat like the Democrats who insisted upon those caucuses!

[Garrett78]

26. It's a commentary on the process.

A commentary on, among other things, how caucuses suppress the vote and favored Sanders. With a tongue in cheek comment about "rigging" thrown in, because Sanders and many of his supporters have promoted grand conspiracy nonsense. Such as when posters on DU were writing on the night of the Indiana primary that there was no media mention of Bernie's win...when, in fact, there were headlines EVERYWHERE.

And I didn't link to anything, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

You keep insisting that the author should have mentioned what is a given. That would be like an author writing, "The water, which was wet, ran down his back..." You really don't need the "which was wet" part.

Nowhere does the OP dispute the glaringly obvious fact that the Dem Party in each state sets the rules and procedures for that state. Because DUH!

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Seriously...this is one of the most hilariously fucked-up effusions of "goatee universe" delusion I've read in ages.