Comment on To all you outside of the US...

• ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.

    How can that be ignored it is the conclusion of the argument. Those advantages meant more people voted for her.

    He was an independent running as a Democrat,

    Listen dear, all politicians are independents running as Democrats/Republicans.

    claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.

    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.

    source

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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?”

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        So what were the advantages?

        Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders “would not be president”

        There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent

        The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner,

        superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.

        or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.

        Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.

        Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?

        I’m saying she doesn’t align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.

        The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.

        “The party” is the people who vote in the primary.

        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.

        Party leadership is not the party.

        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.

        Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.

        We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.

        Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.

        The Obama campaign is a good example.

        Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).

        So what rules did they break for Clinton?

        • Campaign finance
        • Debate questions
        • Impartiality

        What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?

        I haven’t researched how unfair Obama had it so I can’t compare.

        Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”

        Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.

        source

        • -> View More Comments