6 ms·

Didn't they clearly show bias from the DNC against Bernie? [0] This also resulted in the DNC apologizing to Bernie. [1] And did it not result in the DNC chair

Didn't they clearly show bias from the DNC against Bernie? [0] This also resulted in the DNC apologizing to Bernie. [1] And did it not result in the DNC chair CEO, CFO, and Communication Director resigning? [2] With actual email proof, public apology, and resignations it seems to me that there was more than just an aura of corruption. Or do you still disagree? [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/he... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dnc-statement-idUSKCN1052BN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dnc-statemen... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/dnc-ceo-resigns-in-wake-of-email-scandal/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/dnc-ceo-resigns-...

cafard 4y ago
You may recall that Sanders caucused with the Democrats but had not run previously as a Democrat.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  I'm not denying that, but if the DNC claims that it is unbiased in this race, yet by actions isn't, isn't that lying?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Is it policy to only leak debate questions ahead of time to candidates who have previously run as democrats? I must have missed it in the party platform.
shadowgovt 4y ago
There isn't anything corrupt about having bias against Bernie any more than it's "corrupt" that DNC leadership has a bias against Donald Trump. Party leadership is allowed to have preferences; the party isn't the public, it's a party. The primary election's purpose is to show the party who the public favors (because it is, ostensibly, politically-suicidal to run an unpopular candidate). And in the end, the actual votes favored Clinton over Sanders. These votes may have been influenced by the party leadership suggesting to the rank-and-file that Clinton was a better candidate, but as it's not a general election that's well within their purview to do. (Whether state machinery should be used to run elections for what is essentially a private political club is a great question that I think people should be asking about the way elections are structured in each state).
- DeWilde 4y ago
  If that bias leads to action, as shown in [0] of my earlier post, then isn't that corruption? EDIT: punctuation correction.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Corruption is something a government can have; what does it mean for a party to be corrupt? If people think it means the party doesn't reflect the will of the voters... Not exactly. That's always been the structure of the Democratic party. Popular will is tempered by party leadership. That's baked into the structure of the Democratic party itself. The party that lacks that kind of tempering is the GOP, and as a result it tends to run populists who may or may not actually have any government qualification (one won the Presidency in 2016; a couple have won state governorship over the years). The resulting apologies and resignations were an attempt to reconcile with voters who, fundamentally, did not understand how the party they support actually works. No shame in that; it's a big and complex machine. But it's never been a machine that just reflects the unmodified will of the people who toss ballots into the box with a 'D' next to their name in the primaries. That's one source of signal the party uses to decide who it will run. To give another example: in 2008, in response to the Florida party leadership running their primary earlier than the national committee authorized them to run it, the committee stripped all the Florida delegates of their vote in the national convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Democratic_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Democratic_presid...). Then, it compromised (at its discretion) by seating them but only counting half of each of their votes. That is the nature of the power the democratic party national leadership has to wield at its discretion, without oversight, as per its charter. People just don't know this because people don't know the parties.
    - DeWilde 4y ago
      I'm sorry, but this seems to me like you are advocating a point. of: "The peasants don't know what is good for them, the party will decide for them." This would have been fine the DNC came out and said that this is what they are doing. But the DNC has explicitly stated that is unbiased in action (in the [0] of my earlier post) and then they go and do the opposite. This is just plain corruption. If the contents of the food product you just bought are not the same as the label of the product then fines are levied against the company that sold it.
ianhawes 4y ago
It is common in political parties for the presidential candidate in a presidential election year to "install" their people within party leadership prior to the General Election. It is also not uncommon, as we've seen, for leadership to resign after large hacks occur. The infiltration and subsequent resignation of corporate leadership after data leaks does not indicate that there was any corruption. It may indicate some level of incompetence, but not corruption.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  I'm not saying this is anything new, just pointing out that this is called corruption. If the party claimed that they are in-fact biased against Bernie, as the evidence mostly shows, then this would have been fine. However, if the party claimed it was neutral but yet secretly worked against Bernie then this seems to me like it is corruption. Or do you disagree?
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    You're playing Humpty Dumpty here: A word — here, "corruption" — supposedly means what you say it means. This reminds me of a libertarian colleague who shouts "bigotry!" whenever someone disagrees with his views.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      I don't know what else to call having campaign insiders inside a media outlet feed debate questions to their affiliated campaign ahead of time so they can prepare.
      - ianhawes 4y ago
        A more apt term than corruption would be unethical.
gentle 4y ago
Bernie Sanders wasn't even a Democrat at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Party_affiliations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Party_affiliati...

cafard 4y ago

You may recall that Sanders caucused with the Democrats but had not run previously as a Democrat.

DeWilde 4y ago
I'm not denying that, but if the DNC claims that it is unbiased in this race, yet by actions isn't, isn't that lying?
whimsicalism 4y ago
Is it policy to only leak debate questions ahead of time to candidates who have previously run as democrats? I must have missed it in the party platform.

shadowgovt 4y ago

There isn't anything corrupt about having bias against Bernie any more than it's "corrupt" that DNC leadership has a bias against Donald Trump. Party leadership is allowed to have preferences; the party isn't the public, it's a party. The primary election's purpose is to show the party who the public favors (because it is, ostensibly, politically-suicidal to run an unpopular candidate). And in the end, the actual votes favored Clinton over Sanders. These votes may have been influenced by the party leadership suggesting to the rank-and-file that Clinton was a better candidate, but as it's not a general election that's well within their purview to do. (Whether state machinery should be used to run elections for what is essentially a private political club is a great question that I think people should be asking about the way elections are structured in each state).

DeWilde 4y ago
If that bias leads to action, as shown in [0] of my earlier post, then isn't that corruption? EDIT: punctuation correction.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Corruption is something a government can have; what does it mean for a party to be corrupt? If people think it means the party doesn't reflect the will of the voters... Not exactly. That's always been the structure of the Democratic party. Popular will is tempered by party leadership. That's baked into the structure of the Democratic party itself. The party that lacks that kind of tempering is the GOP, and as a result it tends to run populists who may or may not actually have any government qualification (one won the Presidency in 2016; a couple have won state governorship over the years). The resulting apologies and resignations were an attempt to reconcile with voters who, fundamentally, did not understand how the party they support actually works. No shame in that; it's a big and complex machine. But it's never been a machine that just reflects the unmodified will of the people who toss ballots into the box with a 'D' next to their name in the primaries. That's one source of signal the party uses to decide who it will run. To give another example: in 2008, in response to the Florida party leadership running their primary earlier than the national committee authorized them to run it, the committee stripped all the Florida delegates of their vote in the national convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Democratic_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Democratic_presid...). Then, it compromised (at its discretion) by seating them but only counting half of each of their votes. That is the nature of the power the democratic party national leadership has to wield at its discretion, without oversight, as per its charter. People just don't know this because people don't know the parties.
  - DeWilde 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but this seems to me like you are advocating a point. of: "The peasants don't know what is good for them, the party will decide for them." This would have been fine the DNC came out and said that this is what they are doing. But the DNC has explicitly stated that is unbiased in action (in the [0] of my earlier post) and then they go and do the opposite. This is just plain corruption. If the contents of the food product you just bought are not the same as the label of the product then fines are levied against the company that sold it.

ianhawes 4y ago

It is common in political parties for the presidential candidate in a presidential election year to "install" their people within party leadership prior to the General Election. It is also not uncommon, as we've seen, for leadership to resign after large hacks occur. The infiltration and subsequent resignation of corporate leadership after data leaks does not indicate that there was any corruption. It may indicate some level of incompetence, but not corruption.

DeWilde 4y ago
I'm not saying this is anything new, just pointing out that this is called corruption. If the party claimed that they are in-fact biased against Bernie, as the evidence mostly shows, then this would have been fine. However, if the party claimed it was neutral but yet secretly worked against Bernie then this seems to me like it is corruption. Or do you disagree?
- dctoedt 4y ago
  You're playing Humpty Dumpty here: A word — here, "corruption" — supposedly means what you say it means. This reminds me of a libertarian colleague who shouts "bigotry!" whenever someone disagrees with his views.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    I don't know what else to call having campaign insiders inside a media outlet feed debate questions to their affiliated campaign ahead of time so they can prepare.
    - ianhawes 4y ago
      A more apt term than corruption would be unethical.

gentle 4y ago

Bernie Sanders wasn't even a Democrat at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Party_affiliations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Party_affiliati...