"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"
nan said:
So what? Do you think this is acceptable? They should get rid of superdelegates. This is massive corruption. She bought the nomination.
ridski said:
nan said:
She paid off the debt and kept them afloat working only for her, while lying to the American people about the Democratic system. She was the DNC. It was the HNC, and only H mattered. The primary was a sham, a total waste of time. Her book, "What Happened?" did not tell what really happened. More lies.
In what universe is the primary system democratic?
How much influence did your vote in NJ have on who was to be the Democratic Party candidate?
After your vote was cast, were you allowed to go to the convention and tell them who you wanted to be the candidate?
Are you a super-delegate?
What kind of system do you believe you actually have?
Santa Claus isn’t real, either. Spoiler alert.
nan said:
The primary was a sham, a total waste of time.
If people are going to run around saying the primary (where lots of people voted, and the person with the most votes got the nomination) was a sham, this story isn't the one that proves that allegation.
This.
ml1 said:
putting all of these arguments aside, it's a fair bet that Sanders would have beaten Trump. There isn't likely one single state that Clinton would have won and Sanders wouldn't. He had a better chance than Clinton in PA, WI, and MI. Overall, more voters under 35 likely would have come out to vote.
so liberals on MOL can insult each other all we want, there's pretty strong evidence that the DNC shot itself in the foot by tilting the field so severely toward Clinton. They misjudged the electorate in a time when insiders were distrusted on both the left and the right, and particularly among younger Democratic voters.
So anyone who thinks the main job of a party is to win elections should probably not be making excuses for the mammoth misjudgment of the DNC which was one of the biggest reasons we got stuck with Trump.
You'd think there might be some thought of how to change strategy for 2018 and 2020 within the DNC. Maybe craft a proactive message of what policies they want to bring forward to make Americans' lives better. But no, it looks like it's going to be more tepid, spinelessness and a message of "hey, we're not as crazy as the Republicans."
I think that's an argument, but not a fact or even a "fair bet" that Bernie would have beaten Trump.
It is fair to say that Trump relied on a lot of "phony arguments", and I'd put the emails and Benghazi into that category. I don't know what they'd go after Bernie with, but anyone can guess. Not to mention the fact that NO Democratic candidate could appeal to voters motivated by Trump issues like anti-immigration, anti-civil rights and anti-ACA.
And voter suppression shouldn't be discounted, because it IS a fair bet that people more inclined to vote for the Democrat were the targets of that.
ml1 said:
putting all of these arguments aside, it's a fair bet that Sanders would have beaten Trump. There isn't likely one single state that Clinton would have won and Sanders wouldn't. He had a better chance than Clinton in PA, WI, and MI. Overall, more voters under 35 likely would have come out to vote.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:
The primary was a sham, a total waste of time.
If people are going to run around saying the primary (where lots of people voted, and the person with the most votes got the nomination) was a sham, this story isn't the one that proves that allegation.
there was a degree of shammyness to the primary when the superdelegates pledged long before any votes were cast. it was mathematically possible for someone other than Clinton to get the nomination, but not very likely.
I'm a Democrat. I campaigned last year for Hillary. I voted for her.
But I have my eyes open about how the field was tilted in Clinton's favor from day 1 by the DNC. And leaving Sanders out of it for a moment, the field was tilted against the very idea of anyone in the party opposing her. Not a single prominent Democrat challenged her for the nomination. There's nothing wrong with that of course -- unless you want to win an election that is. The DNC has been sticking it to progressives for decades. And the 2016 process was more of the same. They froze out the left wing of the party, and ultimately it was to their own detriment. They nominated a candidate that didn't fire up the base. Centrists can blame progressives now for Trump. But it's not the voters' fault there wasn't a candidate that appealed to them -- it's the party's fault.
Admittedly, a lot of the Clinton hatred was based on misogyny and 25 years of phony scandals. But that wasn't the reason progressives didn't trust her. A candidate can't just come in at the end of 2015 and put forth a progressive platform and have that erase two decades of serious war mongering, occasionally subtle race baiting, and constant sucking up to corporate interests. Progressives knew she was late to the party, and weren't convinced she was really sincere about it.
Again, none of this is improper for a political party. They can favor one candidate if they wish. They can shut out one wing of the party if they like. But it can also cost them elections. And it has. Constantly. And if the Democrats don't win seats in '18, and don't win the White House in '20, it will be because they haven't come up with a credible progressive message. GOP Lite isn't cutting it any more, and probably never will again.
Bernie won the Democratic primaries in MI and WI. In PA he won nearly every county outside of Philly. In MI and WI, he won virtually every county except the big cities. Does anyone think voters in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh wouldn't have come out and voted for Sanders?
Does anyone think Sanders wouldn't have won CA, MA, NY, NJ, CT and virtually every state Hillary won? It's more than a fair bet that he would have beaten Trump.
South_Mountaineer said:
I think that's an argument, but not a fact or even a "fair bet" that Bernie would have beaten Trump.
It is fair to say that Trump relied on a lot of "phony arguments", and I'd put the emails and Benghazi into that category. I don't know what they'd go after Bernie with, but anyone can guess. Not to mention the fact that NO Democratic candidate could appeal to voters motivated by Trump issues like anti-immigration, anti-civil rights and anti-ACA.
And voter suppression shouldn't be discounted, because it IS a fair bet that people more inclined to vote for the Democrat were the targets of that.
ml1 said:
putting all of these arguments aside, it's a fair bet that Sanders would have beaten Trump. There isn't likely one single state that Clinton would have won and Sanders wouldn't. He had a better chance than Clinton in PA, WI, and MI. Overall, more voters under 35 likely would have come out to vote.
so inside politics is dirty...
Was RNC any different?
It's no wonder there's such disillusionment with the "establishment "
wishful thinking that Bernie was a fair bet to beat Trump. Don't forget that his support among blacks was pretty soft - turnout may have actually been lower if he was the candidate. And don't forget his "socialist" background. The R's would have been all over that crap, and socialist is still a scary enough word that it would have hurt him severely.
I voted for Bernie by the way.
Anyway, I really don't see how the DNC tilted things in Hillary's favor very much. Yeah, the debates were a bit shady, and the super-delegates are a sham, but the bottom line is that she beat Bernie in the primaries, even without the super-delegates.
drummerboy said:
wishful thinking that Bernie was a fair bet to beat Trump. Don't forget that his support among blacks was pretty soft - turnout may have actually been lower if he was the candidate. And don't forget his "socialist" background. The R's would have been all over that crap, and socialist is still a scary enough word that it would have hurt him severely.
I voted for Bernie by the way.
Anyway, I really don't see how the DNC tilted things in Hillary's favor very much. Yeah, the debates were a bit shady, and the super-delegates are a sham, but the bottom line is that she beat Bernie in the primaries, even without the super-delegates.
from day one, I was suspicious that her opponents were only Chafee, O'Malley and Sanders.
and not for nothing, but Clinton's support among African-Americans was pretty soft. And she won 3 million more votes than Trump.
I really don't get how with hindsight, centrist Democrats are refusing to see how the DNC royally screwed up the last election. In real time, I was concerned that Clinton wasn't appealing to the base, but I admit I didn't think that was fatal to her chances. In hindsight, if the party could have drafted Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren, I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a Democratic presidency right now.
I just don't see any specifics about what the DNC actually did to mess up. A lot of innuendo and empty charges - I think, frankly, that the power or effect of the DNC is being elevated beyond reason.
It doesn't matter if black support for Hillary was weak, in regards to arguing about the potential for Bernie to beat Trump. The point is that Bernie's support was even softer than hers.
Anyway, given the vagaries of the electoral college, and provable voter suppression in Wisconsin, it's hard for me to criticize the Dem effort. The election was lost by a rounding error within the confines of a bizarre and antiquated institution. What more could they have done?
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
wishful thinking that Bernie was a fair bet to beat Trump. Don't forget that his support among blacks was pretty soft - turnout may have actually been lower if he was the candidate. And don't forget his "socialist" background. The R's would have been all over that crap, and socialist is still a scary enough word that it would have hurt him severely.
I voted for Bernie by the way.
Anyway, I really don't see how the DNC tilted things in Hillary's favor very much. Yeah, the debates were a bit shady, and the super-delegates are a sham, but the bottom line is that she beat Bernie in the primaries, even without the super-delegates.
from day one, I was suspicious that her opponents were only Chafee, O'Malley and Sanders.
and not for nothing, but Clinton's support among African-Americans was pretty soft. And she won 3 million more votes than Trump.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
I really don't get how with hindsight, centrist Democrats are refusing to see how the DNC royally screwed up the last election. In real time, I was concerned that Clinton wasn't appealing to the base, but I admit I didn't think that was fatal to her chances. In hindsight, if the party could have drafted Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren, I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a Democratic presidency right now.
Don't miss the part about the 2-foot-thick folder of oppo research the GOP had ready. He would have been eviscerated by attack ads.
ml1 said:
In PA he won nearly every county outside of Philly. In MI and WI, he won virtually every county except the big cities. Does anyone think voters in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh wouldn't have come out and voted for Sanders?
Clinton won 38 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties in the primary. (But, notably, not Clinton County.) And while Sanders may have inherited Clinton’s votes in Philly proper, she routed him in the populous suburban counties, and I’m skeptical that he would have matched even her underwhelming performance there in the general election.
Does anyone think Sanders wouldn't have won CA, MA, NY, NJ, CT and virtually every state Hillary won? It's more than a fair bet that he would have beaten Trump.
Virginia, I think, would’ve been a big (and important) if.
Norman_Bates said:
LOST said:
I am shocked, shocked that when a person becomes the Presidential Nominee of a Political Party he or she takes over the National Committee of that Party.
I cannot ascertain if you are being facetious or not. However, the following excerpt from Brazile's book clearly explains that the HRC takeover of the DNC occurred well before she was the nominee:
OK. I stand corrected. Sorry.
(Not being a Trumpist, I apologize when I make a mistake.)
peteglider said:
so inside politics is dirty...
Was RNC any different?
It's no wonder there's such disillusionment with the "establishment "
Unfortunately the RNC was different. They allowed a hostile takeover by Trump.
I wish the RNC had "rigged" the Primaries in favor of Rubio or Bush.
I voted for Bernie in the Primary, although by the time of the NJ Primary it was a lost cause. I do not see how a 73 year old Jewish Socialist from a tiny State would have done better than Hillary. How many of the "Never Trump" Republicans like Kasich and Romney would have held their noses and said that whatever one thought of Trump anyone was better than a Socialist?
And the Anti-Semites would have come out of the sewers sooner than they eventually did.
a complete misread of the mood of the electorate on the left.
drummerboy said:
I just don't see any specifics about what the DNC actually did to mess up.
of course we can't know exactly what would have happened if Sanders was the nominee. But we know it wouldn't have been any worse for the DNC than Clinton losing the election to Trump.
as Branch Rickey once told Ralph Kiner when he turned him down for a raise -- "We could have finished last without you."
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
In PA he won nearly every county outside of Philly. In MI and WI, he won virtually every county except the big cities. Does anyone think voters in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh wouldn't have come out and voted for Sanders?
Clinton won 38 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties in the primary. (But, notably, not Clinton County.) And while Sanders may have inherited Clinton’s votes in Philly proper, she routed him in the populous suburban counties, and I’m skeptical that he would have matched even her underwhelming performance there in the general election.
Does anyone think Sanders wouldn't have won CA, MA, NY, NJ, CT and virtually every state Hillary won? It's more than a fair bet that he would have beaten Trump.
Virginia, I think, would’ve been a big (and important) if.
ml1 said:
of course we can't know exactly what would have happened if Sanders was the nominee.
Agreed. I leave the speculations to others. Just get Pennsylvania’s counties straight. 
ETA: Excepting Philadelphia County, which can get kind of crooked on its own.
peteglider said:
so inside politics is dirty...
Shocking, right? The only thing that's different is we see how the sausage is made.
I had looked at the map and saw that the urban areas in every part of the state went for Hillary. And then recalled it as just Philly
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
of course we can't know exactly what would have happened if Sanders was the nominee.
Agreed. I leave the speculations to others. Just get Pennsylvania’s counties straight.
ETA: Excepting Philadelphia County, which can get kind of crooked on its own.
ml1 said:
of course we can't know exactly what would have happened if Sanders was the nominee. But we know it wouldn't have been any worse for the DNC than Clinton losing the election to Trump.
Very true. But, as food for thought.....
At the time of the primaries, I read an article (sorry, can't recall where) contending that there was a marked similarity among supporters for Trump and Sanders who, otherwise, were very different candidates with very different agendas. The gist of the article was that there was a contingent of supporters for Trump and Sanders who shared an anti "business as usual in Washington" sentiment. Among the Trump voters with whom I've spoken, most cited this as their primary reason for voting for Trump, coupled with their dislike for Clinton whom they viewed as being the epitome of the Washington insider. However, most of the Trump voters with whom I've spoken said they respected Sanders because, unlike Clinton, they believed he truly wanted to change Washington...with the caveat that they felt his proposed ideas would bankrupt the nation. It does make me wonder if Sanders had been the Dem nominee, would enough of those who voted for Trump because he was perceived as an anti-Washington candidate, have gone for Sanders instead and changed the outcome? I know there is that "communists/socialist" image thing with Sanders but it's an interesting notion to ponder.
tom said:
https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-reasons-bernie-sanders-would-not-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93
Don't miss the part about the 2-foot-thick folder of oppo research the GOP had ready. He would have been eviscerated by attack ads.
we were in an election year in which one candidate admitted on video to sexually assaulting women. He'd declared bankruptcy multiple times. He appeared in a Playboy video. He'd been divorced twice. He was accused of stiffing multiple creditors, particularly working people.
I doubt there was much in a Sanders dossier that would have been worse than anything Trump had done. Were Democrats going to stay home or vote for Trump because of Sanders's '60s hippie life in Vermont?
ml1 said:
putting all of these arguments aside, it's a fair bet that Sanders would have beaten Trump. There isn't likely one single state that Clinton would have won and Sanders wouldn't. He had a better chance than Clinton in PA, WI, and MI. Overall, more voters under 35 likely would have come out to vote.
so liberals on MOL can insult each other all we want, there's pretty strong evidence that the DNC shot itself in the foot by tilting the field so severely toward Clinton. They misjudged the electorate in a time when insiders were distrusted on both the left and the right, and particularly among younger Democratic voters.
So anyone who thinks the main job of a party is to win elections should probably not be making excuses for the mammoth misjudgment of the DNC which was one of the biggest reasons we got stuck with Trump.
You'd think there might be some thought of how to change strategy for 2018 and 2020 within the DNC. Maybe craft a proactive message of what policies they want to bring forward to make Americans' lives better. But no, it looks like it's going to be more tepid, spinelessness and a message of "hey, we're not as crazy as the Republicans."
The elders of the GOP did not want Trump given the Party nomination. Enough of the rank and file did and he rolled over 15 other nominees. The Dems wanted HRC as if her nomination was hers for the taking.
Be careful what you wish for
Two great insights by Glenn Greenwald (paraphrased) of those downplaying the DNC story:
Before the story: Only crazy conspiracists believe this. After the story: Everyone knew this
Having DNC under the control of one candidate from the start had no impact on outcome, but Russian FaceBook ads caused Clinton to lose:
I'd be curious to see the signed agreement that says that Clinton would raise money for the DNC in exchange for complete control.
no, this is not a "misread". I know that parts of the left are crazy angry with the DNC, but they've yet to convince me that the DNC did anything seriously wrong. Mostly I hear crazy conspiracy theories.
Anyway, if not for the rounding error margin, we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.
ml1 said:
a complete misread of the mood of the electorate on the left.
drummerboy said:
I just don't see any specifics about what the DNC actually did to mess up.
and this is a complete misread of the Trump electorate.
ml1 said:
tom said:
https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-reasons-bernie-sanders-would-not-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93
Don't miss the part about the 2-foot-thick folder of oppo research the GOP had ready. He would have been eviscerated by attack ads.
we were in an election year in which one candidate admitted on video to sexually assaulting women. He'd declared bankruptcy multiple times. He appeared in a Playboy video. He'd been divorced twice. He was accused of stiffing multiple creditors, particularly working people.
I doubt there was much in a Sanders dossier that would have been worse than anything Trump had done. Were Democrats going to stay home or vote for Trump because of Sanders's '60s hippie life in Vermont?
It's obvious that the DNC is a center/right organization. The left wing base of the party knows this.
If Hillary Clinton was such a wonderful candidate, how could she have lost the nomination in '07 when she was also the presumptive nominee? It's hard to recall now, but Barack Obama was relatively unknown, and very inexperienced in government. But the Iraq war vote tainted Clinton with the liberal base, and that albatross is around her neck to this day.
She lost the nomination in '08 because the left wing of the party didn't trust her. The DNC willfully ignored this fact in '16, and just assumed the base would go along. But the liberal base isn't as gullibly manipulated as the right wing base is for the GOP.
and fwiw, "rounding error" should NEVER have been an issue running agains such an abysmal human being as Donald Trump. With any sort of enthusiasm from the base, turnout would have been 3-5% higher, and it would have been a Democratic landslide. Instead, it became a coin flip. And the whole country lost.
I don't know why you're so stubborn on this point. You're defending a losing centrist strategy. Was it Harry Truman who said if you give people the choice between a Republican who stands for something and a Democrat afraid to stand up for something, people will vote for the Republican. It's been true for decades and it's still true today. The winning strategy for the future is not to defend the DNC tactics of the recent past. It's to reclaim the principles of FDR and LBJ with regard to domestic and social policies.
drummerboy said:
no, this is not a "misread". I know that parts of the left are crazy angry with the DNC, but they've yet to convince me that the DNC did anything seriously wrong. Mostly I hear crazy conspiracy theories.
Anyway, if not for the rounding error margin, we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.
ml1 said:
a complete misread of the mood of the electorate on the left.
drummerboy said:
I just don't see any specifics about what the DNC actually did to mess up.
I'm not talking about flipping Trump voters. It's about reaching disaffected DEMOCRATIC voters for jeebus sake.
drummerboy said:
and this is a complete misread of the Trump electorate.
ml1 said:
tom said:
https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-reasons-bernie-sanders-would-not-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93
Don't miss the part about the 2-foot-thick folder of oppo research the GOP had ready. He would have been eviscerated by attack ads.
we were in an election year in which one candidate admitted on video to sexually assaulting women. He'd declared bankruptcy multiple times. He appeared in a Playboy video. He'd been divorced twice. He was accused of stiffing multiple creditors, particularly working people.
I doubt there was much in a Sanders dossier that would have been worse than anything Trump had done. Were Democrats going to stay home or vote for Trump because of Sanders's '60s hippie life in Vermont?
and I should probably add that the Democratic Party is doomed if even engaged and informed Democrats don't think the party needs a change in strategy.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
So as described here, the story is that Hillary and the DNC were colluding against Bernie even before he was running, or for that matter even in the Democratic Party.
Sounds more like this is an example of when to wait to hear other people's descriptions of the situation. It wouldn't hurt to do that, instead of arriving at instant conclusions based on one person's viewpoint or claim. For example (real question from me), what took place "BB" (before Bernie started running, or for that matter became a Democrat) and what "AB" (after Bernie did those)?