• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The real problem wasn’t an unjust primary, it was imbalanced media coverage and support prior to the primary. Debbie Wasserman Schultz wanted Hillary to win the nomination, and skewed media coverage in her favor. She stepped down after accusations, but only after the damage was done.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

    Although there is a silver lining in getting 12+ years of Senator Bernie vs. the maximum 8 years of President Bernie.

    • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      It wasn’t just Debbie, she just took the fall, it was the democratic party doing what’s best for the democratic party. Bernie wanted to tear down Super PACs, better to lose than to let him win and ruin that money. I think we forget that even when one side is likely to be drastically better for us, that doesn’t mean that either side is always necessarily good.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh I’m certain there’s plenty of corruption in even the most altruistic facets of politics. You’re right that she took the fall, but I also read plenty of concerns from other members of the DNC that challenged her firm stance against Bernie. To your point though, she wasn’t likely acting alone.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think more democracy is better. Which post 2016 the Democrats did make the primary more democratic. Sanders still lost fair and square both times. Even in 2016 Sanders didn’t face anything substantially different than Obama did in 2008. By rights the Democrat party doesn’t have to let anyone run as a Democrat either. If they feared him they didn’t have to let him run. Hell, till the 1970s they didn’t even hold primaries as we recognize them. So your claims don’t really make sense.

    • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I don’t have any direct sources to link but I remember seeing some pretty appalling omissions of Bernie Sanders during the 2020 primary.

      They’d literally put up a little infographic on the screen that would say something like

      Democratic primary front runners:

      1 Joe Biden

      3 Pete Buttigieg

      4 Michael Bloomberg

      And it was like, WTF! Bernie Sanders, at #2 would just be completely omitted. I saw many news sources doing this kind of thing.

      With that, and seeing how they reacted to help the rich stop losing their asses when the hedge funds were getting raped via their illegal shorting of GameStop stock solidified for me that all media is controlled by the rich and they’re controlling all the narrative - to the detriment of the 99%.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      She didn’t even really fall. Clinton gave her a job on her campaign immediately after she stepped down as DNC chair. She couldn’t even wait until after the election to bail her out. She had to immediately give her a job she clearly made up for her (I think it was something like Honorary 50 State Outreach Chair), just to give Sanders voters a giant middle finger before the election.

    • SOB_Van_Owen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s what stripped away any vestige of credibility I wished to grant NPR at the time. Was aghast at the coverage tilted to kneecap Sanders.