You're talking about national elections, and even then the people will vote for whichever candidate that gets the most votes by the delegates (as Bernie and Trump showed with Trump winning the nomination 3x times, while Bernie got good numbers despite having been seen as an relatively unknown person).
Even in your articles there was never any clear evidence of DNC top officials actively going about directing CNN/NBC to attack Bernie, having email leaks showing the DNC not liking Bernie and thinking of ways they could potentially push against his campaign is not the same as actively doing it.
This of course is fair if you believe we should have the low bar of seeing an offhand comment as incriminating evidence (i.e. if you and I talk about someone we hope could just fall off and die and it turns out they fall off and die - we would be accused for causing said death).
> Sanders ran strong and beat Clinton in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, parts of the Democratic wall she would go on to lose in November.
>He trounced her among young Democratic voters, who did not show up for her the same way they did for Obama.
>None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn’t have treated the process differently, but it doesn’t change the fact Clinton dominated the process from start to end. Or that Sanders, surprised by his own success, didn’t have the infrastructure to win a long campaign.
>There’s also the simple fact that Sanders ran in the primary of a party to which he was proudly not technically a member.
>Sanders ran a strong race, to be sure, and surprised every Democrat in the country. That’s beyond doubt. But so is the fact that, despite her flaws, Clinton didn’t need the DNC to win the nomination.
You can critic the superdelegate system 100%, you can critic the DNC's not being neutral, but your claim is that they actively worked against him, despite your links not providing this crucial evidence for such an accusation & the CNN conclusion seems to highlight more that it's likely due to Sanders just not having the infrastructure and long-term cred that Clinton had.
>I wonder why she resigned right before the convention.
When there's a scandal you tend to try and ensure at the very least to distance yourself from those who caused the scandal, hence why she left "right before the convention", I just do not understand why you want to die on this hill that there's a grand conspiracy to keep bernie from winning the 2016 DNC nomination.
These are corporate donations, which btw Democrats gets more and yet have been pushing for more anti-trust cases and been the most pro-union government in almost 20 years and this is the smoking gun of "corporate shills in the Democrats!"?
And again I bet you didn't read my link did you? When you look at rich partisan donors which has way more direct influence than corporate donors, it does sync up with what the democrats have been pushing for (ultra progressive social issues).
>I just do not understand why you want to die on this hill that there's a grand conspiracy to keep bernie from winning the 2016 DNC
I'm not dying on any hill, especially for the farce that is modern politics. They are all corrupt, both parties. I typically support whomever is in office because I want to country to succeed, and they've all disappointed me.
I'm sorry you can't see it, just keep that in the back of your head when you consume political news. Try to watch both sides, it might become clearer. Keep in mind, each news source has a favorite and they typically won't report on the bad things their favorite does, you have to find that elsewhere. It's like having a defendant with no prosecutor and vice versa.
>These are corporate donations, which btw Democrats gets more and yet have been pushing for more anti-trust cases and
Their remedy for Google is to have them divest Chrome? That's not meaningful at all. How many mergers have they allowed in the last 20 years? Mergers are by nature anti-competitive. They just allowed Activision-Blizzard merger that cost 1900 jobs so far. This is what donations from Google buys, a slap on the wrist by still allowing the Democrats to look like they actually did something; spoiler, they didn't. This also pretty much ensures Google won't face any other anti-trust legislation, at least from the Democrats, probably in my lifetime. Pat on the back, job well done.
Thinking about it, this is the exact same remedy they wanted for Microsoft in the late 90s. That is just for show and no real anti-monopoly remedy. We need real breakups like AT&T in the mid 80s. Something that restores competition and jobs. You won't find any of that from today's Democrats.
Remember when the Obama administration bailed out the banks but let everyone else in trouble lose their house and a deep discount? I sure do.
>been the most pro-union government in almost 20 years and this is the smoking gun of "corporate shills in the Democrats!"?
They have done almost nothing legislatively to reverse the damage the GOP has done to unions. They also support neoliberal economic theory and globalization, just like the GOP. Talk about killing jobs. NAFTA was pitched to the public supported by Clinton/Gore. Ross Perot, of all people was the lone objector in the 1992 race, stating "We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south."
Today's Democrats are all talk and no action because the public buys that and they don't risk their donor's affection. We used to call this "lip service." Keep believing they are actually doing something; and that's what they will keep doing: nothing but lip service.
https://calgara.github.io/PolS5310_Spring2021/Broockman%20&%...
You're talking about national elections, and even then the people will vote for whichever candidate that gets the most votes by the delegates (as Bernie and Trump showed with Trump winning the nomination 3x times, while Bernie got good numbers despite having been seen as an relatively unknown person).
Even in your articles there was never any clear evidence of DNC top officials actively going about directing CNN/NBC to attack Bernie, having email leaks showing the DNC not liking Bernie and thinking of ways they could potentially push against his campaign is not the same as actively doing it.
This of course is fair if you believe we should have the low bar of seeing an offhand comment as incriminating evidence (i.e. if you and I talk about someone we hope could just fall off and die and it turns out they fall off and die - we would be accused for causing said death).
As an example from your second link (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2...):
> Sanders ran strong and beat Clinton in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, parts of the Democratic wall she would go on to lose in November.
>He trounced her among young Democratic voters, who did not show up for her the same way they did for Obama.
>None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn’t have treated the process differently, but it doesn’t change the fact Clinton dominated the process from start to end. Or that Sanders, surprised by his own success, didn’t have the infrastructure to win a long campaign.
>There’s also the simple fact that Sanders ran in the primary of a party to which he was proudly not technically a member.
>Sanders ran a strong race, to be sure, and surprised every Democrat in the country. That’s beyond doubt. But so is the fact that, despite her flaws, Clinton didn’t need the DNC to win the nomination.
You can critic the superdelegate system 100%, you can critic the DNC's not being neutral, but your claim is that they actively worked against him, despite your links not providing this crucial evidence for such an accusation & the CNN conclusion seems to highlight more that it's likely due to Sanders just not having the infrastructure and long-term cred that Clinton had.