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

Gothmog

(155,158 posts)
37. In the real world, the DNC did not fix the nomination process
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 02:01 PM
Dec 2016

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 party’s 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 couldn’t 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 that’s what happened—just 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 propagandists—working 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 emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were 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 didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were 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 didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, 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 Clinton’s, 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

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I am very concerned that his so very big movement with so many millions of followers with so much boston bean Dec 2016 #1
What a mean and sad post. Ron Green Dec 2016 #5
Some people will stay salty NWCorona Dec 2016 #7
Sorry to upset you, didn't mean to. boston bean Dec 2016 #8
Sad and mean... sfwriter Dec 2016 #13
How is that "mean and sad"? George II Dec 2016 #44
We all have lingering concerns... Magoo48 Dec 2016 #9
Funny Me. Dec 2016 #27
The GOP even ran ads designed to help Sanders Gothmog Dec 2016 #39
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #42
I don't think the word "facts" mean what you think it means. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #43
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
Minimal Coverage? Me. Dec 2016 #57
I can understand critiquing his coverage, but calling it "minimal" is just insane. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #73
Precisely Me. Dec 2016 #75
In the real world, the DNC did not fix the nomination process Gothmog Dec 2016 #37
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
+1000 LisaM Dec 2016 #26
They played one of her ads during his portion if I recall...n/t TCJ70 Dec 2016 #30
Did they? I actually do not recall that. LisaM Dec 2016 #31
I went searching as well! Here it is... TCJ70 Dec 2016 #38
Thanks! LisaM Dec 2016 #41
Yes, but the ad makes people feel so good! lapucelle Dec 2016 #29
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 you can ask those people that loved Hillary DonCoquixote Dec 2016 #58
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
I remember it California_Republic Dec 2016 #2
brilliant, just brilliant jodymarie aimee Dec 2016 #3
If 2016 is remembered for no other reason, it will be the year that Bernie arrived HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #4
Nor like Obama. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #11
So mad you didn't even read the post you replied to?? sfwriter Dec 2016 #14
Yeah, but two major differences. LisaM Dec 2016 #32
Not to mention Barack Obama didn't leave a portion of Dems hating him in 2004. nt. SaschaHM Dec 2016 #36
I am not mad first of all and I did read it. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #60
I agree with your analysis Gothmog Dec 2016 #40
Thank you. The DNC is constantly trashed here liquid diamond Dec 2016 #53
That is my feeling. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #59
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
Right..... lapucelle Dec 2016 #33
That was a good one NWCorona Dec 2016 #6
There is nothing happy or hopeful about an election that you lose in the general. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #10
Including Elizabeth Warren - I hope. Cal33 Dec 2016 #15
Yes, including Elizabeth Warren's. Cal33 Dec 2016 #17
I think we need someone younger...not of the baby boomer years. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #61
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
What a beautiful, positive ad Bayard Dec 2016 #18
I loved this ad. Easily the best one of the season. Tatiana Dec 2016 #19
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
Yes I read that. Just felt left out, as my America looks quite different. bettyellen Dec 2016 #23
Agreed. greatauntoftriplets Dec 2016 #81
Your criticism of the ad reminds me of what David Brock said about Bernie when he seen it NWCorona Dec 2016 #22
It's also being fed up with the country being real America crap.... bettyellen Dec 2016 #24
I appreciate the consistency NWCorona Dec 2016 #25
Some of the city scenes were from the city Bernie lives in karynnj Dec 2016 #49
I found the heavy emphasis on farm communities divisive and strange ... bettyellen Dec 2016 #50
What is divisive of farm theses? karynnj Dec 2016 #51
Sure the land is, but not the population. It's a storybook life that hardly exists these days. bettyellen Dec 2016 #64
Ok, but where was a comparable HRC ad showing the diverse people in cities karynnj Dec 2016 #66
I saw uplifting ads that I could relate to from HRC. bettyellen Dec 2016 #69
Same TNProfessor Dec 2016 #74
We're going to have to recapture this sense of hope and possibility as we fight Trump portlander23 Dec 2016 #28
Never saw it. And these are the people criticizing Clintons ad placement. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #34
There were various articles and numbers that quoted Hillary's CentralMass Dec 2016 #35
Did you turn it off when it came on? NWCorona Dec 2016 #55
Just seemed like Boomer nostalgia to me. Starry Messenger Dec 2016 #45
"we randomly assigned a representative sample of 1,000 people to see one of two campaign ads" George II Dec 2016 #46
Oh, what might have been... NeoConsSuck Dec 2016 #56
I agree... jalan48 Dec 2016 #65
Agree! SMC22307 Dec 2016 #67
I loved the ad, and I supported Bernie before Hillary, but I have to admit renate Dec 2016 #62
It made me feel very happy mvd Dec 2016 #70
I love this ad... Yurovsky Dec 2016 #71
It does make you happy and hopeful. azmom Dec 2016 #72
ah fuck..what might have been. PearliePoo2 Dec 2016 #76
it was a great ad. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #78
Definitely the best ad of the campaign Arazi Dec 2016 #80
Cripes! I never saw it before! Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #82
My favorite ad, too, but for the music, not the images. SharonClark Dec 2016 #84
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Ad That Moved People ...»Reply #37