What if I told you it was also about manipulating voter opinions.
Like how the superdelegates were all pledging their votes to Hillary way ahead of the first primaries.
Or how the DNC pushed Hillary over Bernie, as was clear in the Debbie W.S. leaked DNC emails.
Also, the widespread pressure from party darlings on Bernie to drop out.
Messaging from the media was to blame as well. This was reflected in:
Lack of coverage of the polling that showed the better margin of success in a Bernie v. Trump matchup against a Hillary v. Trump matchup.
This one is especially egregious, in my opinion, since a lot of the Hillary supporters I personally knew voted for her in the primaries because they assumed she had a better chance of winning.
Lack of coverage about Bernie’s higher popularity with independent voters in polls.
Widespread reporting when Hillary decided to label Bernie supporters as basement dwellers.
Hillary accused Bernie of being sexist and the media did terrible due diligence.
Why not just tell me those things instead of making it a hypothetical?
I think those are all valid points to raise and consider. I voted for Bernie in my primary and Hillary in the general.
Like how the superdelegates were all pledging their votes to Hillary way ahead of the first primaries.
Was there a single state, where the popular vote was for Bernie but the super delegates swept in and gave it Hillary instead?
Or how the DNC pushed Hillary over Bernie
This is not me shrugging it off as a totally cool and reasonable thing, but is that any different than any other election year, from either party, where the established power structure of the party has a preferred candidate? What I’m saying is I don’t think this is anything specifically anti-Bernie as much as a very well established pattern of nepotism that goes back centuries.
as was clear in the Debbie W.S. leaked DNC emails.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did not the DNC emails show that proposed rat-fuckery was ultimately rejected?
Also, the widespread pressure from party darlings on Bernie to drop out.
Just par for the course, and not special opposition because Bernie is Bernie.
Messaging from the media was to blame as well
I agree with you that the media wasn’t fair in their coverage. Maybe just have been my own echo chamber but I do recall seeing polling data showing Bernie did better against Trump being brought up all over the place.
However, I’m only pursuing discussion of the claims/sentiment that the DNC denied Bernie the nomination. I see that sentiment popping up a lot, and it always completely ignores the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in the primary. Just like Trump just won the popular vote in the general. The only way the parties will change is by enough people showing up in their primaries to nominate better candidates. They aren’t going to change because we’re mad about the results of the election. They don’t care what non-voters think because non-voters don’t win elections, voters do.
Was there a single state, where the popular vote was for Bernie but the super delegates swept in and gave it Hillary instead?
Mine. West Virginia. Hillary got 35% of the primary vote while Bernie only got 51% and therefore she got one more delegate than Bernie. She literally only ever needed 30% of the primary vote in any state because of superdelegates.
We had a local candidate who only ran in WV, whose whole purpose for running was to try to draw national attention to economically gutted regions of the state caused by the so-called war on coal who got 9% of the vote, and even he managed to outperform Hillary in one county (taking second, because Bernie won every county in WV) - when you’re behind a protest candidate anywhere, you done fucked up.
What if I told you it was also about manipulating voter opinions.
Like how the superdelegates were all pledging their votes to Hillary way ahead of the first primaries. Or how the DNC pushed Hillary over Bernie, as was clear in the Debbie W.S. leaked DNC emails. Also, the widespread pressure from party darlings on Bernie to drop out.
Messaging from the media was to blame as well. This was reflected in:
Lack of coverage of the polling that showed the better margin of success in a Bernie v. Trump matchup against a Hillary v. Trump matchup. This one is especially egregious, in my opinion, since a lot of the Hillary supporters I personally knew voted for her in the primaries because they assumed she had a better chance of winning.
Lack of coverage about Bernie’s higher popularity with independent voters in polls.
Widespread reporting when Hillary decided to label Bernie supporters as basement dwellers.
Hillary accused Bernie of being sexist and the media did terrible due diligence.
Why not just tell me those things instead of making it a hypothetical?
I think those are all valid points to raise and consider. I voted for Bernie in my primary and Hillary in the general.
Was there a single state, where the popular vote was for Bernie but the super delegates swept in and gave it Hillary instead?
This is not me shrugging it off as a totally cool and reasonable thing, but is that any different than any other election year, from either party, where the established power structure of the party has a preferred candidate? What I’m saying is I don’t think this is anything specifically anti-Bernie as much as a very well established pattern of nepotism that goes back centuries.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did not the DNC emails show that proposed rat-fuckery was ultimately rejected?
Just par for the course, and not special opposition because Bernie is Bernie.
I agree with you that the media wasn’t fair in their coverage. Maybe just have been my own echo chamber but I do recall seeing polling data showing Bernie did better against Trump being brought up all over the place.
However, I’m only pursuing discussion of the claims/sentiment that the DNC denied Bernie the nomination. I see that sentiment popping up a lot, and it always completely ignores the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in the primary. Just like Trump just won the popular vote in the general. The only way the parties will change is by enough people showing up in their primaries to nominate better candidates. They aren’t going to change because we’re mad about the results of the election. They don’t care what non-voters think because non-voters don’t win elections, voters do.
Mine. West Virginia. Hillary got 35% of the primary vote while Bernie only got 51% and therefore she got one more delegate than Bernie. She literally only ever needed 30% of the primary vote in any state because of superdelegates.
We had a local candidate who only ran in WV, whose whole purpose for running was to try to draw national attention to economically gutted regions of the state caused by the so-called war on coal who got 9% of the vote, and even he managed to outperform Hillary in one county (taking second, because Bernie won every county in WV) - when you’re behind a protest candidate anywhere, you done fucked up.
Thank you! I’ve been asking that question for years and you’re the first to provide an example. Point conceded.