6 ms·

The DNC has some serious soul-searching to do. If they didn't figure out that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, I doubt they will learn that the US voter didn'

The DNC has some serious soul-searching to do. If they didn't figure out that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, I doubt they will learn that the US voter didn't like getting lied to about Biden's mental fitness and then just inserting someone we never voted on.

autoexec 2y ago
I think they knew full well that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, and they just didn't care. They believed that they could shove Hilary down our throats and actively colluded with her campaign to undermine Sanders. When people objected they fought to defend the position that they aren't required to hold a fair primary election. I doubt they'll learn anything from this and that they'll never give up the ability to make backroom deals then force their chosen candidate regardless of how democrats feel about them.
- adamtaylor_13 2y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head here. The general "air" about the democratic party seems to be that they know what's best for you, so shut up and vote blue so that we can "save democracy" (by the people who inserted a candidate that no one voted for). Regardless of policy, which I won't get into here, we have to acknowledge that treating adults like children isn't a rock-solid battle strategy.
- daveguy 2y ago
  Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary. That's not some big bad Democrat party thing. That's literally how Democratic primary voters voted in 2016. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is completely opposite reality.
  - booleandilemma 2y ago
    The Democrats absolutely shafted Bernie. That's obvious, and it's a shame. Bernie is interesting in a way Kamala and Hillary are not.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      No one was shafted. He lost. He lost as bad as Hillary Clinton did to Obama in 2008. Literally the same margin of defeat. You just got manipulated into thinking it was something sinister. You can probably thank a foreign power for that.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        We have leaked emails proving that the DNC colluded directly with her campaign, Sanders had to file lawsuits against them to get access to information he was entitled to, and in a lawsuit following the leaks the DNC's own lawyers argued as their defense that they had zero legal obligation to run a fair primary. (see https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/WildingDNC.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Wi...) Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned following the scandal and as payment for her services she was gifted a cushy position working for Hillary Clinton's campaign. This isn't some conspiracy by "a foreign power" it's well documented history
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I get what you are saying, but let's be realistic here: even with an unfair vote you could still get people out to vote and get the majority. If we could have done that then MAYBE we'd have a point here. But reality: Bernie was really popular with the 18-36 demographic. But they don't turnout to vote in the general election, let alone a primary. So here we are. Old people get their way because they show up. And I'm not saying Bernie didn't energize voters: just that it's a really high bar to energize that to a point of participation.
        autoexec 2y ago
        I've seen it argued before that it couldn't have turned out differently (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-...) and maybe that's true. The sad fact is that we'll never really know what could have happened if the DNC had played fair. I agree that young voters don't generally turn out to vote. They also don't generally turn up to campaign rallies but for him they actually did. They showed up in numbers so large that they filled entire arenas past capacity. He often drew crowds much larger than Clinton did and she had the name and the money for paid attendees to boost her numbers. What I can say is that in that election the country was looking for something different from the government. They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them and that was the only thing Clinton was offering. I know that in the end that feeling was enough to drive at least some people who normally voted democrat to vote for trump (or third party). The fact that the DNC ignored the will of registered democrats and decided for themselves that Clinton was their Chosen One before the primary election was held also caused some democrats to vote for trump or to stay home entirely. I can't claim that the DNC was the cause of trump getting elected the first time, but they sure didn't help.
yieldcrv 2y ago
They completely ignored the crypto vote, while both RFK and Trump pandered heavily They never listen and are just encased in their chrysalis where everyone’s a joke to them if you arent automatically about the party lines

autoexec 2y ago

I think they knew full well that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, and they just didn't care. They believed that they could shove Hilary down our throats and actively colluded with her campaign to undermine Sanders. When people objected they fought to defend the position that they aren't required to hold a fair primary election. I doubt they'll learn anything from this and that they'll never give up the ability to make backroom deals then force their chosen candidate regardless of how democrats feel about them.

adamtaylor_13 2y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The general "air" about the democratic party seems to be that they know what's best for you, so shut up and vote blue so that we can "save democracy" (by the people who inserted a candidate that no one voted for). Regardless of policy, which I won't get into here, we have to acknowledge that treating adults like children isn't a rock-solid battle strategy.
daveguy 2y ago
Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary. That's not some big bad Democrat party thing. That's literally how Democratic primary voters voted in 2016. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is completely opposite reality.
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  The Democrats absolutely shafted Bernie. That's obvious, and it's a shame. Bernie is interesting in a way Kamala and Hillary are not.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    No one was shafted. He lost. He lost as bad as Hillary Clinton did to Obama in 2008. Literally the same margin of defeat. You just got manipulated into thinking it was something sinister. You can probably thank a foreign power for that.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      We have leaked emails proving that the DNC colluded directly with her campaign, Sanders had to file lawsuits against them to get access to information he was entitled to, and in a lawsuit following the leaks the DNC's own lawyers argued as their defense that they had zero legal obligation to run a fair primary. (see https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/WildingDNC.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Wi...) Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned following the scandal and as payment for her services she was gifted a cushy position working for Hillary Clinton's campaign. This isn't some conspiracy by "a foreign power" it's well documented history
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I get what you are saying, but let's be realistic here: even with an unfair vote you could still get people out to vote and get the majority. If we could have done that then MAYBE we'd have a point here. But reality: Bernie was really popular with the 18-36 demographic. But they don't turnout to vote in the general election, let alone a primary. So here we are. Old people get their way because they show up. And I'm not saying Bernie didn't energize voters: just that it's a really high bar to energize that to a point of participation.
        autoexec 2y ago
        I've seen it argued before that it couldn't have turned out differently (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-...) and maybe that's true. The sad fact is that we'll never really know what could have happened if the DNC had played fair. I agree that young voters don't generally turn out to vote. They also don't generally turn up to campaign rallies but for him they actually did. They showed up in numbers so large that they filled entire arenas past capacity. He often drew crowds much larger than Clinton did and she had the name and the money for paid attendees to boost her numbers. What I can say is that in that election the country was looking for something different from the government. They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them and that was the only thing Clinton was offering. I know that in the end that feeling was enough to drive at least some people who normally voted democrat to vote for trump (or third party). The fact that the DNC ignored the will of registered democrats and decided for themselves that Clinton was their Chosen One before the primary election was held also caused some democrats to vote for trump or to stay home entirely. I can't claim that the DNC was the cause of trump getting elected the first time, but they sure didn't help.

yieldcrv 2y ago

They completely ignored the crypto vote, while both RFK and Trump pandered heavily They never listen and are just encased in their chrysalis where everyone’s a joke to them if you arent automatically about the party lines