Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: The Ad That Moved People the Most: Bernie Sanders America [View all]Gothmog
(155,158 posts)37. In the real world, the DNC did not fix the nomination process
The DNC did not fix the nomination process That claim was false http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of the people. This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.
Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It 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. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the partys nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldnt figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....
According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And thats what happenedjust a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandistsworking through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emailsMay 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the primaries were rigged narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didnt change the outcome.) Two other emailsone from April 24 and May 1were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, So much for a traditional presumptive nominee. Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didnt know what the DNCs job actually waswhich he didnt, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
Bottom line: The scandalous DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clintons, fed into the misinformation.
In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.
Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It 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. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the partys nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldnt figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....
According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And thats what happenedjust a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandistsworking through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emailsMay 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the primaries were rigged narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didnt change the outcome.) Two other emailsone from April 24 and May 1were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, So much for a traditional presumptive nominee. Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didnt know what the DNCs job actually waswhich he didnt, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.
Bottom line: The scandalous DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clintons, fed into the misinformation.
In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.
I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I am very concerned that his so very big movement with so many millions of followers with so much
boston bean
Dec 2016
#1
If you call minimal media coverage of Bernie's campaign, as compared to Hillary's coverage, a "pass," oookkaayyyyy... don't see it myself.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Dec 2016
#54
I can understand critiquing his coverage, but calling it "minimal" is just insane.
SaschaHM
Dec 2016
#73
Paraphrasing the song: folks believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest.
Magoo48
Dec 2016
#47
The DNC had nothing to do with Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino
Gothmog
Dec 2016
#83
They helped her lose in fact...and if we are not careful...we will lose again in 2020.
Demsrule86
Dec 2016
#12
Nonsense - Many people who supported Bernie in the primary were excellent supporters of HRC in the
karynnj
Dec 2016
#48
Why would you say that? You ever thought that maybe without all of Bernie's able assistance and support, the election of asswipe tRump would not have been as close as it was?!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Dec 2016
#52
maybe if the DNC chair hadnt been on the wrong side of a law supported by over 70% of Florida voters
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2016
#77
If 2016 is remembered for no other reason, it will be the year that Bernie arrived
HoneyBadger
Dec 2016
#4
Not to mention Barack Obama didn't leave a portion of Dems hating him in 2004. nt.
SaschaHM
Dec 2016
#36
The DNC has served the party poorly as evidenced by major losses at the state level.
CentralMass
Dec 2016
#63
great, and lets have our public face be a Democrat like Gavin Newsom, who supports legal marijuana
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2016
#79
There is nothing happy or hopeful about an election that you lose in the general.
Demsrule86
Dec 2016
#10
Her heart and mind will remain brighter and more energetic than many of those who
Cal33
Dec 2016
#68
I loved that ad. It made me tear up because many of the scenes were from the Vermont
Vinca
Dec 2016
#16
That's weird. I found it to be sort of alienating as a city dweller that admires diversity and
bettyellen
Dec 2016
#20
The overwhelming majority of the test group thought it was the best. Sorry you didn't like it.
think
Dec 2016
#21
Your criticism of the ad reminds me of what David Brock said about Bernie when he seen it
NWCorona
Dec 2016
#22
Sure the land is, but not the population. It's a storybook life that hardly exists these days.
bettyellen
Dec 2016
#64
We're going to have to recapture this sense of hope and possibility as we fight Trump
portlander23
Dec 2016
#28