Comment on To all you outside of the US...
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 months agoPeople keep saying Bernie could have won, but he didn’t beat Clinton.
Comment on To all you outside of the US...
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 months agoPeople keep saying Bernie could have won, but he didn’t beat Clinton.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Sanders and Clinton didn’t play on a level field.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn’t fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 months ago
How can that be ignored it is the conclusion of the argument. Those advantages meant more people voted for her.
Listen dear, all politicians are independents running as Democrats/Republicans.
The whole point of a primary is to determine who the democratic party is more aligned with. It is unfair to determine that in advance.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m not sure you know how political affiliation or “people” work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called “connections”, and it’s how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn’t have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn’t matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”