You're viewing a single thread.
Cool, so next time we'll show up to support the Bernie-equivalent in the primaries unlike in 2016 and 2020, right?
Right...?
The constant refrain of "I don't understand why the Dem party is appealing to moderates when moderates win the primaries????" is immensely frustrating. And before the usual, predictable chorus of "RIGGED PRIMARIES" comes up, no, the DNC does not play fair, but that also doesn't mean they were stuffing the ballot boxes. They framed things in an anti-Bernie way, but that ultimately didn't matter because both times we lost by double digit percentage points against the fuckwad moderate candidate.
Our 'elites' are dogshit, but the essential problem is that the American electorate is neither educated on the issues nor particularly left. That is where change starts, so get educating instead of wishing for BAD elites to be replaced by GOOD elites.
And before the usual, predictable chorus of "RIGGED PRIMARIES" comes up, no, the DNC does not play fair, but that also doesn't mean they were stuffing the ballot boxes.
Rigged doesn't mean predetermined outcome, it means unfair odds. Claw machines are rigged. That doesn't mean you can't win a prize, but it does mean the odds that you'll win are very low.
They framed things in an anti-Bernie way...
That is a weird way to describe the Clinton campaign secretly taking over the party in 2015 and running the primary she was competing in. Here are excerpts from Donna Brazile's book, where she lays out exactly how Hillary took over the DNC. It's not the first time I've given you this information, but since you choose to ignore it, I'll keep sharing it.
When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party...When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
Rigged doesn’t mean predetermined outcome, it means unfair odds. Claw machines are rigged. That doesn’t mean you can’t win a prize, but it does mean the odds that you’ll win are very low.
Would you like to elaborate on the implications of 'rigged' in the context of a primary conducted by the votes of the electorate? Don't play dumb.
That is a weird way to describe the Clinton campaign secretly taking over the party in 2015 and running the primary she was competing in.
Again, none of that changes the core argument I'm making here. "The DNC was on Clinton's side", yes, we already knew that. "Here's evidence that the DNC was on Clinton's side!" Yes, we already knew that. That wasn't being denied. But hey, why take my word for it when your literal source sides with me!
Would you like to elaborate on the implications of 'rigged' in the context of a primary conducted by the votes of the electorate? Don't play dumb.
Actually, no, I think my analogy of a cold, calculating machine that gives the impression of a fair contest while stacking the odds heavily towards a preferred outcome is pretty spot on.
Again, none of that changes the core argument I'm making here. "The DNC was on Clinton's side", yes, we already knew that.
No, the DNC wasn't on Clinton's side. Clinton was the DNC. She was given final say over senior staffing decisions while she was running in the primary. She was acting as the nominee when she was supposed to be a candidate. Her nomination was a forgone conclusion.
But hey, why take my word for it when your literal source sides with me!
Brazile walked back her claims a bit, saying she never specifically used the word, "rigged," but she also described Clinton's control over the party as a, "cancer," so make of it what you will. Personally, I find the evidence she lays out in her book about how Clinton rigged the primary more interesting than the spin she puts on it later in the interest of party unity.
Actually, no, I think my analogy of a cold, calculating machine that gives the impression of a fair contest while stacking the odds heavily towards a preferred outcome is pretty spot on.
Oh, yes, heavily stacked by [checks notes] forcing millions to not vote for Bernie, I see.
No, the DNC wasn’t on Clinton’s side. Clinton was the DNC. She was given final say over senior staffing decisions while she was running in the primary. She was acting as the nominee when she was supposed to be a candidate. Her nomination was a forgone conclusion.
"The DNC was treating the whole situation as though Clinton already won. That means that the elections were rigged."
???
Brazile walked back her claims a bit, saying she never specifically used the word, “rigged,” but she also described Clinton’s control over the party as a, “cancer,” so make of it what you will.
I make of it what any sane person would - that Clinton's control over the party was deeply damaging, shady, unethical, and unwise to allow, at minimum.
That doesn't change the essential problem that we failed in 2016 because not enough voters were on our side, and the DNC playing dipshit games with their own funding and staffing does not fundamentally alter that.
I'm sorry that there's not a small cabal of villains for you to oppose and overthrow to fix everything. I'm sorry that the roots of our problems go much deeper, and that there's no easy solution that, if only we had control of the party apparatus, if only we got to set the party platform and ensure the party went along with it, we could fix and ride into power on a landslide electoral victory. But playing make-believe games about rigged primaries and party elites does nothing but set you shadow boxing - or against scummy wind vanes, at best - instead of addressing the actual problems.
Oh, yes, heavily stacked by [checks notes] forcing millions to not vote for Bernie, I see.
The DNC exerts tremendous control over their elections. They decide if there will be debates and who gets to participate. They decide what order states will vote in and who gets on the ballot. Hell, we're just coming off them getting a geriatric man that the majority of the party didn't want running elected as the candidate. To pretend that the DNC doesn't rig these contests towards their preferred outcome, you'd have to be either spectacularly ignorant or willfully obtuse.
"The DNC was treating the whole situation as though Clinton already won. That means that the elections were rigged."
???
Do you really need someone to explain to you how allowing Clinton to decide who gets to be the Executive Director, Communications Director, Finance Director, etc., would give her an advantage? You seriously don't understand how giving Clinton approval over the most senior leadership positions of the DNC would give her influence over the institution? Is that really what you're saying?
I make of it what any sane person would - that Clinton's control over the party was deeply damaging, shady, unethical, and unwise to allow, at minimum.
That doesn't change the essential problem that we failed in 2016 because not enough voters were on our side
It's funny how, whenever you talk about Bernie's loss, there just weren't enough voters, but whenever you talk about Harris' loss, you can't find enough people to blame. Three days ago you were calling Arab Americans, "fascist enablers," for not being supportive enough of Harris. Why do you believe that grassroots campaigns have influence over the electorate, but not that a massive political institution has influence over its own primaries? It sounds like, when it comes to Harris' campaign, you're playing make-believe games about a small cabal of villains instead of addressing the actual problems.
I don't think there's anything left to say here. It is very clear that the DNC rigged the election in Clinton's favor, and we even know what levers they pulled to do it. If you don't understand it, then you don't want to.
The DNC exerts tremendous control over their elections. They decide if there will be debates and who gets to participate. They decide what order states will vote in and who gets on the ballot.
Okay, so surely you can point to them excluding Bernie from the debates, or stacking the order of the states' primaries against him, or excluding him from the ballot?
No? You're just bringing these things up as red herrings of things that everyone would agree that would be rigging, had the DNC done it, and that the DNC has the power to do, but that the DNC didn't actually do?
Do you really need someone to explain to you how allowing Clinton to decide who gets to be the Executive Director, Communications Director, Finance Director, etc., would give her an advantage? You seriously don’t understand how giving Clinton approval over the most senior leadership positions of the DNC would give her influence over the institution? Is that really what you’re saying?
Again, please, inform me how Clinton and the DNC playing incestous nepotism games with each other was what caused Bernie to fail to snatch the nomination against Clinton by almost 4 million votes.
"Are you saying Clinton didn't have influence over the DNC????", they ask, for the seventh time, after I've repeatedly and explicitly said that the DNC was deeply influenced by the Clinton campaign.
Poor reading comprehension, or bad-faith?
It’s funny how, whenever you talk about Bernie’s loss, there just weren’t enough voters, but whenever you talk about Harris’ loss, you can’t find enough people to blame.
... what the ever-loving fuck do you think voters are, if not people.
Three days ago you were calling Arab Americans, “fascist enablers,” for not being supportive enough of Harris.
What I actually said:
If you saw a literal fascist openly declaring fascist things, and your response to the milquetoast opposition is “Well, you’re not seperated enough, stylistically”, you’re not much more than a fascist enabler.
Please tell me more about how letting fascists win is not being a fascist enabler, or how this is blaming Arab-Americans as a demographic.
Why do you believe that grassroots campaigns have influence over the electorate, but not that a massive political institution has influence over its own primaries?
It's funny how we jump between 'rigged' and 'influenced'. Classic motte-and-bailey.
It sounds like, when it comes to Harris’ campaign, you’re playing make-believe games about a small cabal of villains instead of addressing the actual problems.
The problem is that most Americans are either fascists or don't care if fascists get into power. Like, literally 2/3s of the vote, right there. That is the essential problem. The issue in both cases is the electorate, and pretending "Well, if the DNC had been more FAIR, then Bernie would've pulled another 4 million votes out of his ass" was the issue is dumb as shit.
I don’t think there’s anything left to say here. It is very clear that the DNC rigged the election in Clinton’s favor, and we even know what levers they pulled to do it. If you don’t understand it, then you don’t want to.
Ah yes, the classic "We all KNOW what they did" excuse, now that it's apparent that "They linked their campaign funding and coordination with the Clinton campaign", while scummy, is not actually the bloody hand on the scale you were hoping to imply it was.