• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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
      0
      ·
      4 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.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 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.