Newsweek: Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, Accordi

There are many problems with the excerpt's account, however.One big one is that Sanders signed the exact same agreement that Clinton did with regard to financing the DNC.He just didn't do anything about it.Of course, there is a huge memory hole going on here: Obama. Obama left the DNC in shambles. It was broke. Thus, the DNC went to the candidates to come up with a plan that would allow the DNC to continue to function which meant funding from the candidates.We talked about this before: Clinton actually engaged with the DNC and provided support for down-ticket candidates. Part of her campaign was fund-raising for the DNC and for local candidates.Sanders didn't. He only joined the Democratic Party because he knew that he would never be able to be a viable candidate running as an Independent. He never assisted the DNC. For all his bluster, he was never really a Democrat...so is anybody really surprised that the Democratic Party overwhelmingly chose the Democrat? Remember, Clinton beat Sanders by more raw votes than she beat Trump.Now, we can debate some of the finer details of how the DNC treated him, but to claim that it was somehow "rigged" is to deny reality (sorry, Ms. Warren). Bernie had the exact same opportunity to have influence in the DNC as Clinton did.He didn't take advantage of it.To complain about it after the fact is the definition of "sour grapes."

LamarkNewAge responds to me:

quote:

---

Look at the 2016 timeline.

---

Yes, look at it.Exactly how did the DNC "rig" 57 elections in 50+ states and territories? Because as I've demonstrated before, it didn't matter if the election was open or closed, caucus or primary, Clinton beat Sanders.What "plausible deniability"? Even Brazile has come out to say that Warren's claim that the election was "rigged" is going too far (Donna Brazile: I found no evidence Democratic primary was rigged | CNN Politics).As Joy Reid mentions (https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/926329971588714496), Sanders raised more money than Clinton did (but not for the DNC). Despite the fact that the "establishment" Democrats favored Clinton over Obama, he still beat her, so what happened with Sanders? Oh, that's right...Clinton won the base of the Democratic Party. But even then, making the superdelegates proportional or even doing away with them altogether wouldn't have changed the outcome. And all that money that people are complaining so loudly about? It was for the *general* election. So if Sanders had won, he would have had Clinton to thank for the funding the DNC had to help him in the general election.Indeed, the truth is out there: But too many people who are incapable of accepting that their actions have consequences are trying to find any other scapegoat to blame.Once again, I have the same question that still hasn't been answered: Would we be having this conversation if Clinton had won? If just a few thousand people in quite literally three cities had voted for Clinton, would we be having this conversation? And if not, how can you claim this argument holds any water?We lost because we didn't vote to win.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

One big one is that Sanders signed the exact same agreement that Clinton did with regard to financing the DNC.

---

Really? The one that gave the Clinton campaign the right to vet all communications, fund raising and disbursements, etc?

---

Logical error: Facts not in evidence.The Clinton campaign didn't "vet all communications." That's a Republican talking point and you should know better.But yes, Sanders signed the same FRA (fund raising agreement) as Clinton did. Sanders never did anything with it, but Clinton did, thus the other memo regarding the specifics of what that relationship meant. And on top of that, the extended agreement Clinton made specifically states:"...nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process" and that "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary."And once again, this agreement was for the *general* election. Nobody has yet to explain how this agreement caused four million more people to vote for Clinton in the primaries.And once again, nobody seems to remember that the DNC was broke. Obama left it in a shambles. Regardless of whoever won the primary, it was not in a position to be very effective during the general election. Thus, the DNC was looking for ways to get money together to function and one of those ways was to get assistance from the candidates. Thus, the FRAs given to both Clinton *AND* Sanders.That Sanders blew the DNC off is his own decision. But let's suppose that he had had this alternative universe: No FRA. The DNC is still broke. And somehow, this lack of FRA results in four million people voting for him instead of Clinton (how? Exactly how does funding the DNC make you vote for her?) So now what happens in the general when Sanders needs the DNC's help and they don't have any to give? We're still stuck with Trump becoming president and we have a head of the party who doesn't work with the support structure that exists for him...assuming that he would still be pretending to be a Democrat.And then where would we be looking ahead?Sanders bought his own hype.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

Perhaps that is why you didn't find any substantiation for that claim ...

---

Except I did. See above. They both signed the same agreement (save for Treasurer) and then Clinton engaged with the DNC to come up with more specifics whereas Sanders let it die. And now he's whining about it. That's the epitome of "sour grapes." For crying out loud, he's been at this political game longer than she has. His inability to run a campaign is not her fault.You've got the Republican talking points down, RAZD.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

Gosh I didn't know Donna Brazil was a republican and not just a DINO ...

---

Since Brazile didn't say the election was rigged and has actively denied any such characterization, you're going to have to do better than that.Hint: Just because there are some foolish Democrats out there (*ahem,* Ms. Warren), that doesn't mean the big drive is coming from the Republicans.PS: Check Brazile's actual statements.You seem to be shocked that Clinton, a politician, engaged in politics. What is more shocking is that Sanders, a man who has been in politics for thirty years, didn't seem to understand that when he joined the Democrats, he needed to engage with them and their institutions.You know...engage in politics. Since part of Clinton's campaign was to assist in down-ballot elections, exactly what is the "rigging" involved in letting her know about "communications sent out about other primary candidates"? Isn't that precisely what you *want* to happen as a national committee seeking to get Democrats elected? Don't you *want* your top-of-the-ticket candidates to be talking up the rest of the field? It would seem the problem isn't that the DNC gave such information to Clinton but rather that they somehow had to be talked into it by Clinton in the first place and that they didn't immediately try to get Sanders in on it, too.But then again, Sanders wasn't interested in playing ball with the Democrats. He didn't do much down-ballot campaigning. He wasn't invested in getting Democrats elected. He seemed to not understand that if he was going to be a member of the Democratic Party, that meant it was going to be about more than just him.To whine about it now is pathetic.

LamarkNewAge:

quote:

---

Kentucky would have been a Sanders win had the primaries not been closed.

---

And Trump would have won the popular vote if not for all of those "illegal" voters, right?Question: Who decides how a state's determination of candidate is carried out?Hint: It isn't the DNC.
Hint: It wasn't Clinton, either.

quote:

---

The super-delegates were all the discussion about "responsible people who will help Democrats select a winning candidate", when the real discussion should have been centered around the need to open the primaries so the Democratic primary didn't get so distorted with crazy partisan voters that were clueless.

---

And as mentioned previously (please try to keep up), if you make the super-delegates proportional or even remove them from the equation completely, Clinton still beat Sanders.

quote:

---

Hillary won South Dakota because the party elites brainwashed the voters into thinking that she had already won.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!OK....and you just showed there's no point in continuing.(*snigger*) "Brainwashed"That's so precious.Well, just one thing: You don't get to have it both ways. You can't say that "Sanders won Michigan because of his great debate performance" right after insisting that "the debate schedule clearly helped Clinton."See, this is why there's no point in continuing: You're stuck in the throes of a conspiracy theory.