Excuse me…?! They broke their own rules to advantage an “anointed” candidate, silly, that’s the exact problem. And they successfully affirmed their right to do so in court, at their leisure, disregarding ANY public input (such as polls) at will. As a private, non-profit corporation, the DNC can legally choose the Democratic candidate at will, using any method they desire, without a single citizen vote. And any other political party can do the same; only the general election is actually protected in the way most people think the primaries are.
And you don’t have a problem with this? Wow. I personally find your blase acceptance of known, proven, and admitted direct corruption to be reprehensible and disturbing. Your willingness to continue with “business as usual” is no better. And don’t bother trying to float any “it’s legal” bollocks, thanks; “legal” does not equate to “moral” or “justifiable”, not even close.
It’s bad enough when Darth Chee-To/the GOP pulls that kind of crap. It’s infinitely worse, when the supposed “White Knight” is rolling in the mud with the swine. It will also be the ruination of any Democratic candidate if the DNC keeps it up, just as it was in 2016.
Depends on the nature of the rules and number of political parties you have. If there are several viable parties, maybe the rules are just spice. What if there is only one party, is it OK for them to make decisions non-democratically?
But show me – how did ANY of the DNC’s antics actually cost him votes, OTHER than the superdelegates that Bernie knew about before running, and knew full well would probably not back him, BECAUSE HE’S NOT A DEMOCRAT AND THIS IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
If I ran for an office in a particular party’s primary, and I was not a member of that party, had never been, and didn’t even change my party affiliation before running in that party’s primary, yeah, I would kind of expect the rules to not favor me! Again, I strongly strongly supported Bernie in the 2016 primary! I can’t stand the Clintons, frankly. I definitely thought the DNC pulled some shady shit, DWS and all that stuff. But you’re acting like you either have to share your view entirely, or you are some totally pro-DNC, pro-Hillary, pro-corruption threat to freedom kind of clueless voter. And I am calling BS on that.
I actually think it’s this idea that “the DNC are a bunch of dirty rotten criminals” that is the risk to the party, and even more so, the country. Let’s get VERY real about what the real, real threat is right now. It has NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party, despite all of the problems it most definitely has and should work to reform. But you know what? Let’s all just get the FUCKING FASCISTS out of power first, and then we can sort out the shit that actually CAN be sorted out.
History people – the way the fascists take over countries is by splitting their foes. Russian information warfare is totally contributing to this narrative. Addressing some of the truths, yes truths, you speak to? It can wait. It does NOT help things to repeatedly and unendingly make them your primary focus right now.
But ARE the decisions being made “non-democratically?” The DNC officials are accountable to the people who get to vote in DNC elections, for those very officials. I went to an event in 2017 here in Baltimore where people running gave talks to voting members of the DNC, a debate kind of thing. It was totally open to the public, was part of a well-advertised series of events that covered a fairly wide region if I’m remembering correctly. You could watch it live online, and they had video of it up after the fact. You could submit questions, even if you were from the public and not a voting member of the DNC (maybe you had to be a registered Democrat?)
All these voting DNC members? From what I can tell, they put a lot of work for many years into working their way through the Democratic Party, to get to that position. Something Sanders has NEVER DONE. We’re really going to act like it was barbarism for the party to have a system in place to prefer “their own?” I’m sorry, what am I missing here? Don’t like it, start your own party – nobody ever said getting to do things exactly how you think they should be done was easy, and didn’t require some elbow grease.
We’re not going to agree, sorry. And convincing me aside, your argument has already failed in that context: YES, the DNC’s actions hurt HRC in the election, when push came to shove, and were oft-quoted as a reason for not voting for her. Yes, it was f*cking stupid. Donna Brazile was another arrow to Hillary’s knee.
Can the armwaving; your argument was lost long ago. You and the DNC badly need to remember that a) NO ONE owes you or any given party their vote, period, and b) the single biggest bloc of voters are independent of either party; they don’t have your True Believer™ card. You MUST, however, sell your candidate to those people or your candidate is doomed, that simple.
Edit -> I see, you thought I was merely a brocialist*, is that it? No. What I am saying is that that it’s worse than a conspiracy; they’re arrogant idiots, to boot. THAT is the face you are showing to a huge chunk of the US that isn’t registered to either party, as you shake your fist at 1/3-1/2 of your own party and mutter about “BernieBros”. Marinate on that, for a moment.
I only registered as a Democrat SO I could have a role in pushing the party in the direction I think is more useful. I’m way more of a socialist than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, at least based on their public stances. It’s convenient and totally intellectually lazy to want to lump me in with some kind of “DNC elite” but the problem is, in reality you are simply wrong. I am not even close to such a thing. Sorry I’m failing your purity test? No really, I’m not.
What the heck really is the point, of being “an independent?” Please. The level of entitlement associated with “this thing I’m not a part of and haven’t lifted a finger to make better through the vectors totally open to me, should completely operate by the rules I dictate” is off the scale. IMHO of course.
Yeah… Wow. Once again, each political party is roughly one quarter of the population, give or take, last I checked (been a few months). Simple math: How many people are NOT a member of either party?
Half of the freaking country.
Yeah, go on wif yer bad self and keep sneering at the unwashed masses, chum. Worked so great last time, amirite? Yeah, that’s the ticket…
That’s the exact arrogant dismissiveness I’m referring to, so thanks for providing such an excellent example, I guess? But you illustrate perfectly what’s wrong with the Democratic party, as a whole. Not a good look.
I see that you resorted 100% to personal attacks there, and can’t be bothered to address any actual point I’ve made. Bernie Bro much? Or if you’re a woman I think Bernie Betty could work? I haven’t come up with one for gender agnostic/neutral/non-defined/amorphous folks, working on it though!
It is funny to me, how the virulent aspects of people on both sides of the political spectrum so closely resemble one another. Maybe you guys can just form a third party called The Haterz (with a z of course) and the Republicans and Democrats can go back to being a functional system? I would support that.
Except I made no personal attacks, beyond ironic use of the word “chum”. You’re just trying the lazy way out, because you don’t have any counterpoints. Yeah, I noticed. I note, specifically, that you cannot gainsay a single thing I’ve said; how’s that for ya?
And nah, not going to vote for Bernie in the primary, not that it’s your business. A heart attack during the campaign is pretty on-point for the “too old” argument, sorry to burst your bubble. Assumption fail =) .
I’d like to see Buttigieg or Warren. I’m worried about a few positions Warren has taken but I like her more than Buttigieg. I think Buttigieg is a type of moderate I can deal with that can also get some votes from people outside the party, and is thus probably the better candidate, but Warren appeals to me more.
And a dead opossum will do, before Dolt 45 of course.
Socialist revolutions have not had much success in the past when measured agains the metrics of the intended goals of socialism. When you find a socialist leader that is powerful and ruthless enough to bring about a complete shift of life and philosophy to a mostly unwilling country by blood and force but is also miraculously and ironically a benevolent leader from that point on then maybe you have a chance. Of course, after this once in a 1000 lifetimes unicorn dies, we would be left with whomever was brutal enough to wrestle party control after the death and I’m sure they won’t be such a darling.
The comitmemt to choose for ourselves based on a myriad of factors without lazily or ignorantly abdicating that choice to a particular cult’s elite. But that is just what being independent is to me, I speak for nobody else.
You are still allowed to vote for whoever you want in general elections, even if you’re registered to a party. But you also get to vote in primaries (unless they are open in your state, they are not in MD) which is the single biggest lever we have (as voters) to steer parties in particular directions. Why someone would completely abdicate that ability because they don’t want to have “Democrat” as a database value in a system somewhere is really beyond me.
There’s a lot to complain about wrt the Dems and the DNC. If you do not even do the most minimal thing you can do to change it, other than wailing about it on the interwebs? Yeah, I just don’t have much respect for that approach, personally.
Isn’t that a bit of an odd question? It sounds to me a bit like, “Is using a knife in your kitchen foul play?” Well, I need to know whether you are using it to cut vegetables or stab your spouse.
If the Democratic party’s system for choosing a candidate is for five people to meet in a room and simply choose the person they want then that is their system and that’s not illegal. I wouldn’t even call it unfair. What I would call it is “probably very unpopular”.
If they advertise a democratic-seeming system to be popular and create a sense of legitimacy they make an implicit promise to the people who participate in that system that the system is fair. If the real system is smoke filled rooms they have a responsibility not to deceive people into thinking it isn’t. If they hold elections they have a responsibility to hold them impartially and to abide by the results.
When the Democrats ACTAULLY decide on their candidates this way, please let me know. I’m too busy watching the primaries, that process by which people vote for the Democrats who will run in the general…
I have no interest im steering the parties and focus much more on local elections than on national as these and not party primaries, have a larger impact on my community and life. Since most national politicians are grown locally, this aproach has a greater chance of netting me better vetted and conditioned national candidates than joining the hirarchy games of one particular cult or another.
