No! Biden still would have won. Bernie would never had been forced on anybody, by not colluding in this way. Your “if this is true, then the inverse is true” is a false equivalency.
The result of Biden not being manipulated into the candidacy by the DNC is Biden winning the primary - not Sanders being manipulated into the candidacy. The difference is in once case the DNC is medaling and manipulating, in the other we vote and choose. Thats the difference here.
You have tied yourself in so many knots in this argument that I’m having trouble keeping up.
What you’re contending now is that Biden would have won even absent the DNC allegedly “meddling” by allegedly “manipulating” Klobuchar, Buttigieg, etc., into dropping out, despite all the polling that indicated Sanders would continue to win plurality victories as long as opposition to him remained divided among other non-Bernie candidates?
So what you’re complaining about isn’t the result of having Biden “forced” on you, it’s the entirely theoretical process you’re postulating by which the DNC somehow strongarmed the other candidates who couldn’t win into doing the right thing and dropping out?
That is a weird hill to die on, especially without shred one of evidence.
This has some truth if you’re a white working class straight guy. If you’re gay - you can get married. If you’re trans or gay you had zero rights in this country fifty years ago. Outside of the two states that passed laws permitting you to change your birth certificate. But then you could still be fired, refused a ticket on a bus or an apartment or service in an emergency room. And we were refused services in emergency rooms and died.
If you’re a woman- the Dem party platform looks very different from 50 years ago about your rights and society looks different. If you’re a minority- the Dem Party platform looks very different from when it had so many Dixiecrats. Non discrimination legislation has been extended to areas like college, work, public accommodations and government contracting. Poorly - but poorly isn’t worse than what was under Jim Crow.
There has certainly been a concerted effort since Regan to erase gains- yet still gains were made. But if we’re being honest - the ones who are unequivocally doing worse are the ones who lost some privilege.
Edit:
Less than fifty years ago:
Not really - you are making it more complicated than it seems. Say nobody dropped out and the delegates were spread out between Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, and Sanders came in to the convention with the highest delegate count, but not a majority - the delgates would have been consolidated at that point and the nomination handed to the candidate that the DNC wished.
My gripe here is and has been that the DNC should not be advocating for candidates in this way - they were caught doing it in 2016 and I suspect we witnessed the same shenanigans here. And particularly not for candidates that are not committed to serving the voters. See the title - that’s what it’s about.
All the rest of the discussion, the many forking paths its take is all periphery, all topics raised by other commenters. I’m not going to hide my preferences when the questions are asked or the conversation goes that way, but I’ve not chosen any hill to die on - I’m not responsible for the course of the discussion. I chose to engage here, and respond to people who take the time to contribute. But that does not equal some sort of crusade on my part. Don’t feel bad - you are not the only respondent that insists on attribution wild assumptions to my thinking.
I just want to interject into this side thread that both arguments are correct.
The current state of the Democratic party has taken strong positions on many progressive issues.
The current state of the Democratic party also reflects a slide into centrism at the expense of the working citizen, unions, and the poor.
In general social gains were made - but the money was continuously taken away.
You are both correct. We can correct the second, but not if democrats lay down like sheep and accept a candidate that won’t even work for Medicare for All.
That is only correct if you exclude women, minorities and LGBT people from working citizens and the poor.
Except, again, you are imagining a scenario that was not going to come to pass, because the DNC imposed a 15% threshold for getting any delegates, and Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Warren, Bloomberg, et al. were polling to repeatedly come in below that threshold but still to divide the non-Bernie vote. Which is why for essentially the entire month of February–until South Carolina and the subsequent consolidation of the field around Biden–Bernie Sanders was likely to win the nomination.
Why the hell not? They’re the organization that is at least nominally in charge of a major political party. Bernie Sanders has never been a member of that party except when he runs for President.
I wish the RNC had done a hell of a lot more gatekeeping in 2016.
So you are perfectly fine with the DNC “manipulating” who gets the nomination at the convention, just not before. Got it.
No - these gain and losses are in no way mutually exclusive. Surely they interact, but middle class and poor women, minorities and LGBT people boat still rises and falls with the rest of us while their specific issues may have improved. My statement does not exclude anybody.
I’m not sure if you realize this, but the presidency isn’t the only way to make change, and in fact, is probably far less important than you seem to think. Organizing from below matters far more, in fact. You get people from the actual left in positions from the local to the state level, and into congress, you have a better chance at making real, actually change than just getting one leftist into the presidency.
Oh I get that entirely - and am astounded by the party opposing progressive candidates that have a huge following. I support this kind of change all the way down the ballot.
Ah - the radical totally non centrist “a rising tide effects all boats” approach.
Where on earth do I say that? Do not make assumptions about what I am thinking.
What I describe is the process, as revised after the 2016 election. I did not say that I was “perfectly fine” with it, in fact I have not said at all how I am with it. But since those are the rules, my assumption is that is how it would play out. You are the one who is characterizing the DNC rules as “manipulation”.
Manipulating the vote by pressuring candidates to retire and circulating untrue stories (yes -its only my hypothesis) is not the rules, and we should be concerned that the Dems would operate that way.
The point is, since we know it would go their way, why the hell are they “cheating” in the first place.
Both parties do this, and both parties are deeply entrenched in our political systems. We’re going to have to change the democratic party from the inside, because that’s what the racists and religious bigots did with the GOP. If you just abandon the Democartic party because of their corporate connections, then you’re just abandoning any sort of way to make changes at the national level.
I said nothing about abandoning anything. Do not make assumptions about what I am thinking - because obviously you may be wrong.
Oh. I get it. You’re the only one here who has the right answer. Duly noted.
No, you don’t get it. Read the sentence again - I said “Do not make assumptions about what I am thinking - because obviously you may be wrong”.
You implied I was advocating abandoning the Democratic party - you are assuming, because I never said such a thing. I am telling you the assumption is wrong.
I said nothing about having the “right” or “wrong” answer.
Then the DNC needs to change its rules to prevent Sanders from doing so. Till then he is following the rules and is entitled to a neutral non-bias treatment from the DNC. Period.
But the won’t, and they shouldn’t because Sanders delivers an entire class of voters that the DNC would never get. Sanders would have even more if he wasn’t cooperating with the DNC.
So - you’re telling us to discount what you say? Because we’ll never be able to assess your statements?
For a person who gets super up in arms about anybody assuming anything beyond the extremely narrow boundaries of the precise words you’re saying, you sure are ready to make broad assumptions about other people’s supposedly crooked behavior and then to cast aspersions against them for “cheating” based on [checks notes] literally nothing at all.
He’s “entitled” based on what? Your outraged sense of fair play?
We’re going by what you are saying, so perhaps you’re not being clear… or maybe, shock of shocks, we have a different point of view than you on these issues, based on our own knowledge and experiences?
