An otherwise responsible liberal journalist said yesterday that the 2016 election had been “rigged” against Bernie. I was a Bernie supporter that year, but I continue to be amazed at how this shibboleth stubbornly continues its long life, despite it being a wild distortion of reality.
After intelligence reports, we now know that this idea was ginned up constantly in 2015-2016 by the GRU (Russian military intelligence).
If anything, a much stronger argument could be made that the system was “rigged” against Hillary, because of the caucus system, which disproportionately helped Bernie and is much less democratic than primary elections, because only a small number of the most fervent activists participate. And because only those people who have the financial means and the time to take an entire day show up to this kind of event, it stunts input from the poor and the working class.
Today, in 2019, you rarely hear anybody mention the comparatively undemocratic nature of the caucus system, and certainly not the role it played in ‘rigging’ the race against Hillary.
The only response from those who continue to insist that the system was “rigged” against Bernie tends to be, ‘Well, those were the rules and Bernie played by the rules.’ Yet the response from Hillary is that she also played by the rules. Both sides are correct.
Did Hillary have the entire establishment on her side? Yes. So what? Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers spoke loud and clear that they wanted a more progressive policy vision for the Democratic Party; ideologically, Bernie won.
Bernie didn’t quite make it for the nomination. But let’s get history straight. Within the Democratic Party, both sides largely played by the rules.
For 2020, I’m completely undecided. More importantly to me though, I am determined to play my part to minimize personal and delegitimizing sniping within the Democratic race. I refuse to be silent this time when I see advocates for given candidates playing into the divides about rigging and legitimacy within the Democratic Party that will inevitably be ginned up once again by Russian military intelligence.
Debating real policy differences is healthy. Tearing down our democratic system with cynical attacks is not.
Failing to be newly aware that we are being watched, analyzed, and manipulated this time is the only way we can lose. I don’t think it is too much to ask of one another to keep this reality foremost in our minds when we are facing such an existential threat to the continuing existence of our liberal democratic system. I am open to each and every candidate, including Bernie, because we must win in 2020. Any candidate who questions the legitimacy of another candidate will lose my vote immediately.
Not only would I vote for a turnip over the incumbent corruptizoid, I also pledge not to make cynical personal and delegitimizing attacks on that turnip. Do you?
As a Hillary supporter I agree that we should just move on, heal our wounds, and win.
I pledge not to make “cynical personal and delegitimizing attacks” on OUR turnip — whoever she/he is — in order to defeat “the incumbent corruptizoid” in 2020.
Do you?
I’m really disgusted by the entry of Mr. Sanders into the race.
I see no evidence that he’s learned a darned thing. He was a much worse candidate than his competitors in 2016, and that’s why he lost. I see no evidence that he and his campaign is any different now.
I’m disappointed, though less so, by Ms. Warren’s entry. I love her proposed wealth tax. I love her child-care proposal. I love her positions on virtually every economic issue. I hope that her candidacy keeps those proposals front and center. I think that she is far more able to make those policy proposals actually happen as the senior Senator from Massachusetts than as a Democratic candidate, a Democratic nominee (if she gets that far) or even as a President (though I think that’s unlikely).
One reason why I’m so disgusted by Mr. Sander’s decision is that the same toxic, stupid and sexist exchanges that we saw in the 2016 campaign (including here) are already happening for the 2020 campaign. Nobody cares about cards that Elizabeth Warren filed decades ago. The substance of the Green New Deal is far more important than the “likeability” of any candidate. The substance of the wealth tax proposal is far more important than what kind of beer a candidate drinks in a photo-op.
In my view, there is compelling evidence that Donald Trump, his campaign organization (specifically including Mr. Pence) and at least some of the GOP (specifically including Mr. Graham) are at least compromised by Russian operatives. I think Mr. Trump is a knowing and intentional Russian operative.
I think that if our political and judicial system is able to properly function, both Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence will be removed from office because they are being controlled by our most formidable foreign adversary.
My hope is that Nancy Pelosi will therefore be the incumbent president in 2020, and that she will be our nominee as the incumbent.
I was a supporter of Bernie Sanders and my opinion of the Clinton’s is well known. I still campaigned, donated to and voted for Hillary in the end.
I was disappointed to see Bernie enter the race for 2020 and would be even more so if Hillary were to toss her hat into the ring. These two individuals created a split in the party and it’s not in the interest of anyone to open old wounds. I see no positives here but know that some do. I simply do not agree with them.
As I stated in other postings on BMG, I am in full support of Senator Elizabeth Warren.
I enthusiastically agree with your second paragraph.
Mr. Sanders didn’t even come close. He did none of the things a successful candidate does in order to prepare for the campaign. His first debate performance hurt, rather than helped, his candidacy. He lost most primaries he competed in, several of them badly. He objected to “super delegates” and caucuses, yet those were ultimately his strongest sources of strength. He stayed in the campaign long after the outcome was obvious to all.
The most positive thing that can be accurately said about his 2016 campaign is that he did not lose as badly as it initially appeared he would. I am sympathetic to the observations of some that the strength and duration of the Sanders campaign was another symptom of media sexism and resulting hostility to Ms. Clinton. Those observers suggest that the media would have crushed the Sanders campaign much earlier if the front-runner had been male.
We know that the 2016 election was manipulated by Russian operatives. We know that the media perpetuated a sexist agenda that hurt Ms. Clinton. We know that Mr. Trump explicitly pandered to the most deplorable elements of America, and won because of the success of that choice. Millions of Americans voted for Mr. Trump because of, not in spite of, his explicit misogyny and racism. We are all now paying the price.
I will not knowingly make “cynical personal and delegitimizing attacks” against any candidate from any party. I note that truth is a valid defense against claims of slander and libel. I think that extends to “cynical, personal, and delegitimizing”.
I therefore invite you edit that phrase as follows:
Agreed, Tom. I pledge not to make FALSE, cynical, personal and delegitimizing attacks on our Democratic candidates in order to smoke HUMPTY TRUMPTY aka ‘corruptizoid.”
But, to be clear, I take no such pledge vis-à-vis the incumbent corruptizoid.
Cadet Bone Spurs goes to Vietnam 50 years after dodging the draft to kiss North Korea’s ass. What a LOSER!