I had my ear chewed off at a ballgame by a white dude my age about how people dropping out and endorsing Biden and then James Clyburn endorsing him was somehow crooked because it “got black South Carolinians to vote for Biden!”. I asked him why he thought he knew what was best for those “black South Carolinians” better than they did or their actual black rep in congress. “No im
Not saying that I’m not saying that!”
I was like oh ok. Ur not saying THAT you’re just saying that when black people listen to a prominent black person who represents their community INSTEAD OF listening to white guys like you and their fave, Bernie, that it’s somehow corrupt?
Yes, the racial element is another irrationality stacked on top of the cynical mindset. I’m not even a big fan of endorsements but they have the right to do it and people have to right to listen to them. I’m glad you made him look extra foolish. Thanks for reading!
I was interested to read this piece because I’ve recently heard the Bernie was cheated by insiders and more importantly, this view colored their viewpoints of the Democratic Party such that they thought Trump might be better for poor and working people. They couldn’t remember for instance that ever Democratic voted against Trump’s 2017 cuts for the rich. They couldn’t remember that Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage and that almost all Democrats were for it.
I would though have written this so that someone who was sympathetic to the idea that Bernie was cheated would be convinced that he wasn’t. I don’t think you addressed the most reasonable reasons why Sanders supporters feel cheated. Like the DNC really did give up some control to the Clinton campaign. And quoting an Ezra Klein article over a year the primary isn’t really in good faith.
In my mind it’s important to bring these folks back in. Some of them vote for Trump. Some of them give cover to their friends and acquaintances to for Trump. In some ways they might be the easiest Trump voters to get. But that means picking facts, details, and sources that they would find compelling and trustworthy.
The DNC didn’t “give” control to the Clinton campaign. They made an agreement that the Clinton campaign would raise and invest money into the DNC for minor communications and hiring control during the general election.
What is the evidence the DNC or the Clinton campaign did anything nefarious or suppressed Sanders’ campaign? I’m not aware of any so I didn’t mention it. One could easily say the same thing for Sanders, in terms of establishment help, as I explained in the piece.
I think most of the people still spewing the Smaller Big Lie should probably be kicked from the party. If they’re willing to let Trump win and think the whole party is corrupt, as your allegation alludes, then why should Democrats work for/with them? MAGA can have them.
Has Brazile retracted these claims or have these claims been shown to be false? Because this is “some control” as I stated.
I do not think that this is why Clinton won the primary. She was popular in the party then. Maybe even now. Certainly last year when she spoke at the convention’s first day she received so much love from the crowd. As someone in the audience that evening, I’d judge only AOC to be more popular based on the emotional and enthusiasm generated by an elected official just walking to the podium.
More importantly, Clinton received 12% & 3.5M more votes than Sanders. It’s hard to imagine that came from DNC spending decisions.
“MAGA can have them.” Who is practicing purity politics now?
Winning races requires persuasion whether you are persuading someone who sat out an election or voted third party or voted for Republicans. Persuasion always involves listening to concerns and speaking to concerns. Doesn’t mean agreeing with someone’s concerns. Again, in this case Sanders wasn’t cheated out of the election.
Purity politics? My stance is so long as you have a tolerance view about liberal democratic institutions and more importantly, a shared optimism for improving those institutions, then they should be in. Doesn’t sound like someone still saying the Democratic party rigged the democratic process 10 years ago and not participating/hurting the party.
And yes, Brazile folded like 2 days after that story released. “Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Sunday she found “no evidence” that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged in favor of eventual nominee Hillary Clinton, seemingly walking back her recent stinging criticisms of the electoral process.
“I found no evidence, none whatsoever” that the primaries were rigged, Brazile said during an appearance on ABC‘s “This Week.”
Thank you for the quote from Brazile. Side note on the media. It’s insane to me that Politico didn’t add anything to that article given how much Brazile softened and/or refuted her own claims in the next week.
I always thought that was too much inside baseball to matter. Still don’t think it was relevant because it’s too small to matter. I wasn’t following it at the time so when I heard the accusation, I googled it this year and the politico article is the first hit. Her book was specifically mentioned as what I should read to know more about what happened.
Given that she wrote a book about it and it remains search result number one on politico, I suspect that there are many people who either don’t know how much she walked back her claim implying the primary was rigged. And it doesn’t seem that it was inaccurate that the DNC bartered some control for fundraising help (which doesn’t mean the primary was rigged) which was her specific claim.
Now I think most people who believe the primary process was rigged care about institutions being fair. They feel that their feel was unfairly sidelined. When Trump said the election was rigged his supporters lost scores of court cases, lost defamation cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and never produced any evidence. Those people can’t be convinced.
Sanders supporters who believe that the primary was rigged or more broadly think that Democratic elites won’t ever support a progressive candidate have real gripes about coziness between the DNC & Clinton campaigns and now about how donors, Jeffries, Schumer, and elected officials refuse to back Mamdani and are still supporting Cuomo. Cuomo, who just resigned in disgrace because of not one, but two scandals. Or that when Democrats had control they didn’t vote on and pass a bill to ban Congressional Stock Trading.
I certainly do not agree with all the Leftist or progressive complaints about Democratic leadership. But unless it’s from a bad faith actor, I’d engage with them from their best arguments and by looking at the facts and evidence in the as close as I would anticipate them looking at it. And from there say why I don’t think that’s right. But my goal is to persuade and widen our coalition.
Hillary Clinton was allowed to use the victory fund which was meant to go to the winner of the democratic primary to be used in the general election but Hillary was allowed to use it against Bernie in the primary.
Also there were states where Bernie Sanders received more votes from Democratic Party voters but because of the role super delegates played Hillary Clinton would leave the State with the same amount or more delegates than Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders was the rightful nominee but corrupt DNC politics blocked democracy in our own party nomination process.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
Bernie Sanders was extremely popular, enough so to have beaten Trump. He was going on Fox News town halls and getting standing ovations from Fox audience members for calling them out on their bullshit. He was more popular than Hillary among democrats and he was even extremely popular among Trump's base.
Hillary inspired very few with her centrist establishment politics. Bernie's 2016 campaign was as progressive as Obama's in 2008 and that would've beat Trump if the DNC hadn't stolen that primary from Bernie.
The Never-Bernie democrats are the cancer of the Democratic Party!
Yes. One would think the rarity of their preferred candidates' winning elections would be enough to suppress their urge for ultimate revolution, but alas.
I had my ear chewed off at a ballgame by a white dude my age about how people dropping out and endorsing Biden and then James Clyburn endorsing him was somehow crooked because it “got black South Carolinians to vote for Biden!”. I asked him why he thought he knew what was best for those “black South Carolinians” better than they did or their actual black rep in congress. “No im
Not saying that I’m not saying that!”
I was like oh ok. Ur not saying THAT you’re just saying that when black people listen to a prominent black person who represents their community INSTEAD OF listening to white guys like you and their fave, Bernie, that it’s somehow corrupt?
Yes, the racial element is another irrationality stacked on top of the cynical mindset. I’m not even a big fan of endorsements but they have the right to do it and people have to right to listen to them. I’m glad you made him look extra foolish. Thanks for reading!
I was interested to read this piece because I’ve recently heard the Bernie was cheated by insiders and more importantly, this view colored their viewpoints of the Democratic Party such that they thought Trump might be better for poor and working people. They couldn’t remember for instance that ever Democratic voted against Trump’s 2017 cuts for the rich. They couldn’t remember that Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage and that almost all Democrats were for it.
I would though have written this so that someone who was sympathetic to the idea that Bernie was cheated would be convinced that he wasn’t. I don’t think you addressed the most reasonable reasons why Sanders supporters feel cheated. Like the DNC really did give up some control to the Clinton campaign. And quoting an Ezra Klein article over a year the primary isn’t really in good faith.
In my mind it’s important to bring these folks back in. Some of them vote for Trump. Some of them give cover to their friends and acquaintances to for Trump. In some ways they might be the easiest Trump voters to get. But that means picking facts, details, and sources that they would find compelling and trustworthy.
The DNC didn’t “give” control to the Clinton campaign. They made an agreement that the Clinton campaign would raise and invest money into the DNC for minor communications and hiring control during the general election.
What is the evidence the DNC or the Clinton campaign did anything nefarious or suppressed Sanders’ campaign? I’m not aware of any so I didn’t mention it. One could easily say the same thing for Sanders, in terms of establishment help, as I explained in the piece.
I think most of the people still spewing the Smaller Big Lie should probably be kicked from the party. If they’re willing to let Trump win and think the whole party is corrupt, as your allegation alludes, then why should Democrats work for/with them? MAGA can have them.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
Has Brazile retracted these claims or have these claims been shown to be false? Because this is “some control” as I stated.
I do not think that this is why Clinton won the primary. She was popular in the party then. Maybe even now. Certainly last year when she spoke at the convention’s first day she received so much love from the crowd. As someone in the audience that evening, I’d judge only AOC to be more popular based on the emotional and enthusiasm generated by an elected official just walking to the podium.
More importantly, Clinton received 12% & 3.5M more votes than Sanders. It’s hard to imagine that came from DNC spending decisions.
“MAGA can have them.” Who is practicing purity politics now?
Winning races requires persuasion whether you are persuading someone who sat out an election or voted third party or voted for Republicans. Persuasion always involves listening to concerns and speaking to concerns. Doesn’t mean agreeing with someone’s concerns. Again, in this case Sanders wasn’t cheated out of the election.
Purity politics? My stance is so long as you have a tolerance view about liberal democratic institutions and more importantly, a shared optimism for improving those institutions, then they should be in. Doesn’t sound like someone still saying the Democratic party rigged the democratic process 10 years ago and not participating/hurting the party.
And yes, Brazile folded like 2 days after that story released. “Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Sunday she found “no evidence” that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged in favor of eventual nominee Hillary Clinton, seemingly walking back her recent stinging criticisms of the electoral process.
“I found no evidence, none whatsoever” that the primaries were rigged, Brazile said during an appearance on ABC‘s “This Week.”
Thank you for the quote from Brazile. Side note on the media. It’s insane to me that Politico didn’t add anything to that article given how much Brazile softened and/or refuted her own claims in the next week.
I always thought that was too much inside baseball to matter. Still don’t think it was relevant because it’s too small to matter. I wasn’t following it at the time so when I heard the accusation, I googled it this year and the politico article is the first hit. Her book was specifically mentioned as what I should read to know more about what happened.
Given that she wrote a book about it and it remains search result number one on politico, I suspect that there are many people who either don’t know how much she walked back her claim implying the primary was rigged. And it doesn’t seem that it was inaccurate that the DNC bartered some control for fundraising help (which doesn’t mean the primary was rigged) which was her specific claim.
Now I think most people who believe the primary process was rigged care about institutions being fair. They feel that their feel was unfairly sidelined. When Trump said the election was rigged his supporters lost scores of court cases, lost defamation cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and never produced any evidence. Those people can’t be convinced.
Sanders supporters who believe that the primary was rigged or more broadly think that Democratic elites won’t ever support a progressive candidate have real gripes about coziness between the DNC & Clinton campaigns and now about how donors, Jeffries, Schumer, and elected officials refuse to back Mamdani and are still supporting Cuomo. Cuomo, who just resigned in disgrace because of not one, but two scandals. Or that when Democrats had control they didn’t vote on and pass a bill to ban Congressional Stock Trading.
I certainly do not agree with all the Leftist or progressive complaints about Democratic leadership. But unless it’s from a bad faith actor, I’d engage with them from their best arguments and by looking at the facts and evidence in the as close as I would anticipate them looking at it. And from there say why I don’t think that’s right. But my goal is to persuade and widen our coalition.
You're absolutely right - Jordan clearly wrote this for people already inclined to believe its conclusions.
Hillary Clinton was allowed to use the victory fund which was meant to go to the winner of the democratic primary to be used in the general election but Hillary was allowed to use it against Bernie in the primary.
Also there were states where Bernie Sanders received more votes from Democratic Party voters but because of the role super delegates played Hillary Clinton would leave the State with the same amount or more delegates than Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders was the rightful nominee but corrupt DNC politics blocked democracy in our own party nomination process.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
Bernie Sanders was extremely popular, enough so to have beaten Trump. He was going on Fox News town halls and getting standing ovations from Fox audience members for calling them out on their bullshit. He was more popular than Hillary among democrats and he was even extremely popular among Trump's base.
Hillary inspired very few with her centrist establishment politics. Bernie's 2016 campaign was as progressive as Obama's in 2008 and that would've beat Trump if the DNC hadn't stolen that primary from Bernie.
The Never-Bernie democrats are the cancer of the Democratic Party!
https://open.substack.com/pub/philosophicalrebellion/p/the-death-of-the-democratic-party?r=211fuw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Yes. One would think the rarity of their preferred candidates' winning elections would be enough to suppress their urge for ultimate revolution, but alas.