There was no sabotage, Bernie just got outvoted, plain and simple. She won against him by millions of votes. Almost FOUR MILLION. For comparison, she BARELY lost to Obama by around 40 thousand votes. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
And Obama was a young and charismatic black man. Bernie was just another old white guy. So of course minorities overwhelmingly voted for Hillary over him.
“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday…fivethirtyeight.com
In this post, we will undertake a thorough exploratory data analysis of the crosstabs of national Democratic primary…www.dailykos.com
She also won voters over the millennial generation overwhelmingly as well.
Bernie Sanders fought to a near draw with young people of color. Hillary Clinton held onto a solid lead with older…today.yougov.com
The fact is, young voters have a pisspoor turnout rate. It’s less than 20 percent! LESS. THAN TWENTY. PERCENT. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
The fact is, it is older folk who form the bulk of primary voters. In the Democratic primaries and caucuses overall, Mr Sanders won 70% of the under-30 vote, but this only makes up…17% of all total voters. He took less than a THIRD of the vote of those aged 45–64 and those older, and it is those two age cohorts that mattered most, they account for SIXTY PERCENT of the overall electorate (just an eighth of his voter base came from those aged 65 and over).
And I know you might say “Well what about independents”!? There’s 28 million independents in the US of A. https://ivn.us/2016/02/24/independent-voter-registration-by-state/
There’s over 235 million Americans who are registered voters. So suddenly that huge group of independents doesn’t sound so huge. So Sanders only had the youth vote, who have a horrible turnout, the independents, who are a small voting bloc to begin with, and noncollege-educated whites, who overwhelmingly preferred Trump over him anyway.
The fact is, the DNC is not this monolithic power. If it WAS, then Congress wouldn’t be controlled by the GOP. The DNC is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. That’s about it beyond some organizational activity. It tries to hold down expenditures during its primaries to spend more money on actual congressional and presidential elections but beyond that? It has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected.
I know you’ll also say “But! But the debates! The DNC said they’d sponsor only six!” Yes. Just as they only sponsored six in 2008 and 2004, with others being sponsored or hosted by others. Also, only five DNC-sponsored debates took place in 2008 and I never saw people complaining then. And allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election…which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012. And in 2016, as we saw with Trump. The more time Trump got to speak, the more he whistled that dog whistle and won over the field by just plowing through them.
Still, wanting to listen to Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine — more than have been held in almost 30 years. They canceled plans for a tenth when it was clear by May that Sanders couldn’t possibly win in any mathematically sane world. And, again, these are just DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 FORUMS, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates/forums, of which FOURTEEN were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Let us compare this to 2008, there were 17 debate/forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. Yeah. Sounds like TOTAL rigging.
And you bring up the impartiality clause, yes. But here’s the thing. The main idea is, you cannot endorse any candidates or make it seem to voters as if you were using your office to promote a candidate for the Democratic nomination or that the local county apparatus endorsed someone. DNC officials ARE absolutely permitted to volunteer for a campaign, work for a campaign and to have a strong personal preference for a candidate. The point is they can’t make a public endorsement. To prevent all local Democratic Party officials from working on campaigns removes the most active Democrats from helping candidates until very late in the process. That is not the intent of the rule.
So they’re allowed to prefer one candidate over the other. Especially if, for starters, Bernie’s supporters were sending death threats. And made up a superdelegate hit list. And Bernie was constantly pissing all over the DNC and he, not even a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, was trying to become the new leader of the Dem party. He says he’s better than them, he constantly belittled and criticized the DNC, and then after twenty five years of being a dickwad to the DNC, has the GALL to join them after saying doing so would be treason.
Do you think the DNC would have ANY preference for him after that? Or would they bitch and moan about him and say things like “So much for the Democratic Nominee” in an email in May after its clear that Bernie couldn’t possibly win? Of course they wouldn’t like him or show him any kind of preferential treatment. Hillary had spent decades fundraising for the DNC and other Democrats…even Bernie. Yes, Bernie took 10,000 dollars from a Hillary PAC in 2006.
Search our Political Action Committee (PAC) database to learn about the impact they have on our elections.www.opensecrets.org
And I know you brought up Donna Brazille. She sent a town hall question once. That’s about it. There was never any actual other evidence of wrongdoing, so this come across more like chumminess with someone in the media than actual rigging or collusion. Especially since, again, Hillary has a good relationship with the African American community and with many personal pundits like Donna and the like, and Bernie doesn’t.
So I’m sorry, but your entire article is based on a flawed foundation. What the DNC did wasn’t illegal or wrong. There’s nothing in the impartiality clause that says they can’t say Bernie is a dickwad and his supporters suck and they much like Hillary better cuz THEY weren’t sending death threats and the like. Especially when there’s no real evidence they did so much as a single negative ad campaign against Bernie. They chatted shit about him, but that’s it. And chatting shit ain’t illegal. Besides, he chatted shit about them for 25 years, snide comments from them is the LEAST he deserved.