General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: DNC rule change angers Sanders supporters [View all]mythology
(9,527 posts)He said he thought it would be good for small d democracy for there to be a primary. He didn't run, he didn't endorse any of the people who did.
Which just serves to underscore just how ambiguous the suggested rule is. You think that saying what Sanders said is harmful to the party (difficult to argue when it had no noticeable impact on Obama's reelection) is objectively harmful, I would argue an unbiased person would disagree. You have an end goal in mind, no Sanders, and working backwards from that conclusion. Your standard isn't something you can objectively measure. In April 2008, the Democratic primary was effectively over as there was no plausible path for Clinton to catch up. Was her staying in the election detrimental to the Democratic party since Obama was going to be the nominee?
If in 2000 a candidate said the party should endorse marriage equality, that would have gone against the party platform and against the conventional wisdom at the time that marriage equality was something that would cost us votes?
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)