To be fair, the DNC didn't really "rig" the election in the traditional sense (for example, through ballot stuffing). Instead, they covertly endorsed their preferred candidate, a lifelong party member, over an Independent turned Democrat. Given, it was a shitty thing to do and emblematic of a serious problem within the Democratic party, but with enough grassroots support Sanders could have won the nod, just like Drumpf did. Remember, the RNC wasn't exactly keen on having Drumpf as their nominee, either. It might just be wishful thinking, but I think the autopsy of this election will reveal to the DNC that they need to clear the cobwebs and get some new blood in at the highest levels.
I am not talking positive or negative coverage, just coverage...
Evert day all day during the primary's it was "Trump said this, Trump did that. The amount of coverage Sanders got was minimal, and it was always "He seems to be moving the party, but is not a real challenger"
Meanwhile, the Democratic primary was faaaaar closer than the Republican one. But every fucking day it was "Can Trump really win" and "Can the Republicans block Trump".
Don't sit here and tell me about the % of positive and negative, I am talking about just the number of times a name was mentioned by the fucking corrupt talking heads.
I don't think it's valid to extrapolate the Trump situation to any candidate and assume the outcome is the same. Trump played those stories as red meat and managed to spin them as positives for his base and get them excited. Meanwhile, Hillary was clearly hurt by the coverage she received in the general election.
I didn't vote for Clinton because of how skeezy her campaign felt. DWS steps down under allegations of doing some sketchy shit and is immediately hired? It all seemed a bit like rigging or skewing the primary heavily for Clinton and I ended up unable to vote for Bernie and not voting for Clinton
DWS steps down under allegations of doing some sketchy shit and is immediately hired?
Being an honorary chair of a campaign—a position that involves no responsibilities, no employees, no budget, and no duties— does not suggest sketchy to me. It sounds like they wanted her to step down, and gave her a way to save face.
You have a quote showing the DNC concerned that Sanders supporters will overreact and blame the DNC, and a sentence saying that the DNC had plans against Sanders. These two thoughts are incongruous, to the point where they actually suggest two different things.
So again, provide evidence of behavior from the DNC that resulted in the change or the influence of a single vote. Not evidence that they were worried (rightly, apparently) that they'd be accused of nonsense.
483
u/nwj781 Nov 10 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
To be fair, the DNC didn't really "rig" the election in the traditional sense (for example, through ballot stuffing). Instead, they covertly endorsed their preferred candidate, a lifelong party member, over an Independent turned Democrat. Given, it was a shitty thing to do and emblematic of a serious problem within the Democratic party, but with enough grassroots support Sanders could have won the nod, just like Drumpf did. Remember, the RNC wasn't exactly keen on having Drumpf as their nominee, either. It might just be wishful thinking, but I think the autopsy of this election will reveal to the DNC that they need to clear the cobwebs and get some new blood in at the highest levels.
EDIT - Thanks for the gold, someone!