- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,185
- Reaction score
- 8,768
- Location
- Houston
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means.
That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.
Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".
It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.
It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?
After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.
Internal memos, dated May 2015—long before the first state voted in the Democratic primary—referred to Hillary Clinton as though she was already the Democratic presidential nominee. The documents leaked by Guccifer 2.0 not only illuminate the DNC’s efforts to ensure Clinton’s coronation but also reveal the strategies used to shield her from criticism on ethics, transparency and campaign finance reform—all vulnerabilities for the corrupt Establishment darling.
That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.
Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".
It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.
It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?
After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.