Hacker News Reader

Comment by droptablemain | Hacker News Reader

I agree that it's bad to make a quick leap into conspiratorial thinking, but many Bernie supporters still have a bad taste in their mouths from 2016, when the DNC essentially conspired with the Clinton campaign to stop Bernie. That's the lens these moments are viewed with.

View on HN

There is 0 evidence for this and the fact that people still think this is evidence that Russian intervention was successful.

Bernie won 43% of the vote to 55%. There was no rigging. He got kid gloves.

>“The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote in the story under the headline “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.”

>Brazile added of the deal: “[Clinton’s] campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/d...

Yeah, irrelevant. The fact that this was spun as some sort of conspiracy is a massive indictment on how naive Bernie supporters are.

Meanwhile, there's an actual international conspiracy to hand-pick a president from our enemies and the Sanders folks don't make a peep. Instead, they boo John Lewis. Disgusting.

Ironically, the DNC did not conspiratorially help Clinton against Bernie, you just quoted another bit of weaponized disinformation used by the right to divide the left.

Let me be frank: Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 nomination fair and square and there was no rigging, no conspiracy and no cheating going on.

If you think otherwise, you've been lied to by propaganda and disinformation, and you should question every source that led you to that conclusion, because those sources will be working in 2020 to do worse.

- Brazile now says she found “no evidence” the primary was rigged.

- Warren now says that though there was “some bias” within the DNC, “the overall 2016 primary process was fair.”

- “I found nothing to say they were gaming the primary system,” Brazile told me.

In fact, smart insiders believe that the "invisible primary" of democratic insiders hurt everyone BUT Bernie, because they got rid of all of the moderate competition like Biden, and gave Bernie a clear path as an outsider to being the #2 in the race, something he would have struggled to attain without the insider winnowing.

You mean Brazile, the one who leaked town hall questions ahead of time to Clinton?

edit: I'm not a Bernie supporter so it doesn't really bother me, I just found it amusing that you're quoting Donna Brazile here. Who was responsible for one of the clear, actual offenses against Bernie in 2016 for which she was forced to resign from CNN only to be rewarded with being head of the DNC. Well if she says everything was fine, I guess I better reconsider my sources...

Yes, because it’s incredibly surprising that a town hall in Flint would have a question about Flint

Let me be frank: I don't give a shit if candidates got questions for a town hall (not a debate!) an hour before hand.

Personally, I prefer when questions go out beforehand so we get more thoughtful answers. "Gotcha" style questions require candidates to rote-practice certain political speeches and stock answers, and those rapid fire live questions devolve into stump speeches every time.

But getting questions to a town hall is not rigging a primary. It's not even close.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/17/donna-brazile...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com