Privilege and Primaries

[bonemachine]

For those who have been die-hard Clinton supporters, claims that the primary system has been rigged in favor of their candidate have been dismissed and disregarded.

It's very easy to ignore a slanted playing field when it is in your advantage.

Consider the clueless heterosexual white male, who walks through life with a surplus of privilege, and laughs off claims that he did anything but earn his place at the table.

Consider his outrage at the idea of affirmative action - he made it to where he is without a finger on the scales, he says...

Is it really so hard to acknowledge, that yes, you won, but that you also had a whole toolbox of systematic advantages that were leveraged mercilessly?

[geek tragedy]

1. Sanders benefited from the anti-democratic caucus mechanisms

Clinton had one big advantage: she's been a Democrat for the past 40+years.

Turns out, in a Democratic primary the Democrat won.

Also, some irony in this post, considering that Sanders's core demographic was white men.

[bonemachine]

3. Ah yes, keep blowing that dog whistle...

...and keep trying to erase the POC and women who supported Bernie.


Clinton has more advantages than having been a registered democrat. Just to name a few:


She has the name recognition, and received nearly three times as many media mentions in the 6 months leading up to Iowa as Sanders did

She has several super PACs, including one that she has been collaborating directly with because "the internet"...

She had Debbie Wasserman-Schultz carrying water for her all the way including how the DNC reversed direction on Obama's campaign finance reform and got the ban on donations from lobbyists and PACs lifted.

[geek tragedy]

6. facts are facts, Sanders's strongest demographic

groups were young voters, independents, and white men

Clinton was more famous, yes this is true, having narrowly lost the 2008 primary. Sanders had 30 years in Washington to develop a national presence and did not do so. That is an earned advantage, not an unearned one.

Clinton's super PACs didn't hit Sanders--they hoarded all of their cash for Trump

you did not specify how any of those things hurt Sanders.

You also do not specify how it is that Sanders lost so heavily amongst Latinos and African-Americans. Again, this is simple fact, not disappearing the 25% or so that did support him, but rather pointing out he lost by huge margins overall amongst those groups.

That's why he lost--African-Americans are 20% of the Democratic primary electorate, and he lost them by at least 75-25%.

In other words 15% of the primary electorate was blacks voting for Clinton, and 5% were blacks voting for Sanders.

In other words, had he split black voters 50/50 with Clinton the race would have been a dead heat.

[bonemachine]

14. Hmmmm...

Clinton's super PACs didn't hit Sanders--they hoarded all of their cash for Trump

I'm just going to take a moment to Correct The Record on this one... Because I seem to remember them spending some money during this primary, don't you?

That's why he lost--African-Americans are 20% of the Democratic primary electorate, and he lost them by at least 75-25%.

Well, whatever it was, I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton being a household name...

[geek tragedy]

15. Sanders won white voters. so household name

excuse won't fly

[bonemachine]

18. Remind me, where the majority of those colored voters live

and whether those states voted early in the season or later, after media coverage of Sanders became unavoidable?

[geek tragedy]

23. "Colored" voters?

He lost black voters in every damn state, by wide margins. Check out his disastrous performances in Maryland and NYC late in the cycle.

[bonemachine]

25. Well, all this back and forth does do one thing...

I have an answer to my question about how willing you are to acknowledge the advantages your candidate had.

[Fresh_Start]

2. CLinton had decades of contribution to the democratic party working on her behalf

Sanders had 25 years in Congress but wasn't able to play nice and therefore he did not benefit as much from his insider status.
After 25 years in Congress, you are no longer an outsider: you are part of the establishment.

[TwilightZone]

4. "After 25 years in Congress...you are part of the establishment."

Agreed. The claims that Sanders was somehow not part of the establishment after 25 years in one of the more exclusive clubs in the country always seemed rather ridiculous.

[bonemachine]

8. I suppose that means

that you believe that it is just plain impossible to fight the system from within?

[TwilightZone]

9. Nope, not at all.

Wouldn't "fight the system from within" assume he's part of the system, by definition?

Thanks for making my point.

[bonemachine]

10. So, by nope

you mean yes. Gotcha.

[TwilightZone]

11. To fight the system from within, one must be within the system.

This isn't complicated.

[bonemachine]

12. It's also not complicated

to see that there's a vast difference between someone who is fighting they system and someone who is embracing it.

[NurseJackie]

5. Glass ceilings.

[jamese777]

7. Well Yeah

When you put someone who has been a member of the Democratic Party for 46 years up against someone who joined the party 16 months ago, the person with that much seniority is going to have the privilege of an advantage in name-recognition, money, party loyalty and familiarity with the process.
For example, while Bernie was fighting against the concept of Superdelegates a year and a half ago, Hillary was collecting Superdelegate endorsements at the same time.
Democratic Primary voters had the choice between a 74 year old "New School" candidate or a 68 year old "Old School" candidate. A majority decided to go "Old School."

[RobertEarl]

13. Amazing isn't it?

With all those advantages the old school candidate came close to losing outright. Says a lot for how good the message is from the new school.

[bonemachine]

16. But we're just supposed to sit down and shut up

Because we lost a fixed fight.

[RobertEarl]

21. They are very upset that we don't STFU

What is not understood is that this isn't about just elections in the near term, but the future of the party and the direction of the country in the long term.

They should realize they will not defeat our cause. In reality, they should join us. No reason not too, eh?

[jamese777]

19. Came Close To Losing?

Clinton beat Sanders by 56% to 43% and by 34 primaries and caucuses won to 23 primaries and caucuses won. That's no where near close.
With some votes still being counted its Hillary Clinton: 16,463,532 (55.6%) and Bernie Sanders: 12,650,663 (42.7%); Clinton over Sanders by 3,812,869 votes.
That's not my idea of "close."

[RobertEarl]

20. That's pretty close

Old school was getting mighty nervous. The delegate count was really close and after all the votes are finally counted in Calif, indications are the counts will be narrowed.

No, really, given all the advantages old school had, old school should have blown away the new school. But since the messages were so very different, the race got really close.

Had the media and the DNC set a level field, the race might have gone all new school.

[RobertEarl]

22. And

To be clear, I am someone who has no faith in the veracity of the electronic vote counting.

If you do have faith, please tell me why you have faith.

[bonemachine]

24. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose

For a cranky old man from Vermont who was forecasted early to get somewhere south of 10 percent of the vote, it's a hell of a lot closer than anyone expected, Clinton and Sanders included.

Like I said, it can be very hard to see the tilt of the playfield when it's in your advantage.

[BobbyDrake]

26. LOL, define "close." Bernie lead in delegates after the second primary voted, and then NEVER AGAIN.

Enjoy the fantasy, though.

[jalan48]

17. Don't forget the clueless heterosexual white female.