I'm not understanding why the Democratic Party leadership should remain neutral in its primaries

[Axulus]

I'm not understanding why the Democratic Party should remain neutral/unbiased on which candidate gets its nomination for president? Shouldn't the long-term contributions of a member running be rewarded with additional party support vs. other candidates?

When it comes to Hillary vs. Bernie:

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

-She has been a loyal and active party member for over 30 years - her influence and involvement has helped the campaigns of many other Democrats, undoubtedly allowing some of them to win over Rs. Bernie, on the other hand, has been a long-time independent. He has done relatively little for the Democratic Party over the years. Hillary's contribution to the party as a whole dwarfs that of Bernie's.

-She has worked hard to establish strong relationships with the leadership of the party. Bernie much less so.

Given all that, why shouldn't the leadership favor Hillary and reward her with additional support for the nomination during the primary season?

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the first forced socializations a young human experiences is this strange process known as "playing fair." The grownups of the world pretend to be impartial observers who step in to make everyone play fair. This lesson is so deeply ingrained, that many people never let go of the idea that the authorities in charge are always there to insure fair play.

The DNC is not a pre-school teacher. Bernie is a great guy and might make a good President, but that's not really relevant at this point in time. He declared himself an Independent(major case I), which took him out of the DNC's purview. When he wanted to come back, he had to face a lot of people who remember when he said, "I don't want to be part of what you have worked so hard to achieve."

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the DNC was favoring Hillary. She was there when the DNC needed her.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The RNC played fair. They got Trump.

Nuff said.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm not understanding why the Democratic Party should remain neutral/unbiased on which candidate gets its nomination for president? Shouldn't the long-term contributions of a member running be rewarded with additional party support vs. other candidates?

When it comes to Hillary vs. Bernie:

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

-She has been a loyal and active party member for over 30 years - her influence and involvement has helped the campaigns of many other Democrats, undoubtedly allowing some of them to win over Rs. Bernie, on the other hand, has been a long-time independent. He has done relatively little for the Democratic Party over the years. Hillary's contribution to the party as a whole dwarfs that of Bernie's.

-She has worked hard to establish strong relationships with the leadership of the party. Bernie much less so.

Given all that, why shouldn't the leadership favor Hillary and reward her with additional support for the nomination during the primary season?

In this case, it's probably because Hillary is not really a Democrat. She's a Republican-light in Dem clothing. Only recently is she really fighting for liberal causes as opposed to shushing liberals because what they want is "too hard" or outright supporting conservative values while playing the Democrat. That might have something to do with it. She could have been fighting for liberal issues all this time. Imagine her intelligence, drive, strength, and resilience applied to issues of peace and equality consistently over those 30 years. The US might already be Canada had she done that. We wouldn't have needed Bernie!

I get your point, but in this particular election, the issue was not that some liked one better than the other so much as one represented liberal values and the other one represented conservative values, and conservative values have their own damn party already.

 

[Mumbles]

Honestly, I don't get it either. I'd love to see what the DNC was saying about Obama back in 2007-2008, I'm sure they were working hard for Hillary.

In my view, that's just the task Sanders took on, and he did well as far as making the DNC more progressive goes. He did *not* do well when it comes to reaching out to the dem base voters, and that's his own fault.

 

[Toni]

I'm not understanding why the Democratic Party should remain neutral/unbiased on which candidate gets its nomination for president? Shouldn't the long-term contributions of a member running be rewarded with additional party support vs. other candidates?

When it comes to Hillary vs. Bernie:

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

-She has been a loyal and active party member for over 30 years - her influence and involvement has helped the campaigns of many other Democrats, undoubtedly allowing some of them to win over Rs. Bernie, on the other hand, has been a long-time independent. He has done relatively little for the Democratic Party over the years. Hillary's contribution to the party as a whole dwarfs that of Bernie's.

-She has worked hard to establish strong relationships with the leadership of the party. Bernie much less so.

Given all that, why shouldn't the leadership favor Hillary and reward her with additional support for the nomination during the primary season?

In this case, it's probably because Hillary is not really a Democrat. She's a Republican-light in Dem clothing. Only recently is she really fighting for liberal causes as opposed to shushing liberals because what they want is "too hard" or outright supporting conservative values while playing the Democrat. That might have something to do with it. She could have been fighting for liberal issues all this time. Imagine her intelligence, drive, strength, and resilience applied to issues of peace and equality consistently over those 30 years. The US might already be Canada had she done that. We wouldn't have needed Bernie!

I get your point, but in this particular election, the issue was not that some liked one better than the other so much as one represented liberal values and the other one represented conservative values, and conservative values have their own damn party already.

I agree with this but it would require Hillary to be a different person than who she is. She's not progressive. I think she's much more driven than she is intelligent. I think she's more calculating than she is intelligent. I'm not a Hillary enthusiast by any means.

Still,she's head, shoulders, knees and toes above Trump or anyone else the party even considered putting forth in this presidential race.

I've voted 3rd party before and would do it again but this time: that leads to Trump. And that's just not acceptable.

But yes, it defies all logic and all common sense of how politics works to not believe that all parties heavily favor some candidate(s) within their party ranks over others, also within their party ranks. And Bernie supporters would have some reason to complain if he had actually been a Democrat prior to 2015 or 2016. But he wasn't. The party doesn't owe him anything, except some gratitude for moving the party towards a more progressive platform. That gratitude will not likely be forthcoming.

 

[J842P]

Bernie supporters weren't the ones claiming that the DNC was neutral - that was the Hillary supporters. Of course, anyone with a brain and a basic familiarity with American party politics knows this. That is why it was so ridiculous when the Hillary supporters claimed otherwise.

As to the RNC "playing fair" - that is laughable. Although the majority of the RNC accepted Trump when it was clear he was going to win, there were high profile cohorts of the RNC that were trying to do everything possible to make sure "Never Trump." Of course, that was hopeless. Remember, Trump got over 13 million votes, more than any Republican primary candidate in history, and that was with probably the most primary candidates ever.

 

[J842P]

Given all that, why shouldn't the leadership favor Hillary and reward her with additional support for the nomination during the primary season?

What you say, of course, makes sense. Above these considerations the party needs to consider the chances of the nominee. It was clear that Trump was going to get the nomination for a while. It is clear that there has been a swelling of populist fervor. We now have a situation where the Democratic party has nominated a ticked of two free-trade, "Third way" Democrats against a populist nativist who is going to hammer the trade issue. Hillary is the worst possible candidate to go against Trump. She is going to do poorly with working class whites, and that may cost her the election. I'm not sure what the chances are, Trumps negatives with women and minorities might be insurmountable, but maybe not. In a system where only about %50 percent of the eligible voters actually come out, anything can happen with a candidate like Trump.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not understanding why the Democratic Party should remain neutral/unbiased on which candidate gets its nomination for president? Shouldn't the long-term contributions of a member running be rewarded with additional party support vs. other candidates?

Of course not! These aren't cheerleading squads. The DNC should exist because it believes in a particular political philosophy. Their loyalty should be to that philosophy, not to any individual until THE PEOPLE have chosen the individual they wish to represent that philosophy.

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

So should the committee support whomever brings in the most donations? Could a candidate buy its support?

-She has been a loyal and active party member for over 30 years - her influence and involvement has helped the campaigns of many other Democrats, undoubtedly allowing some of them to win over Rs. Bernie, on the other hand, has been a long-time independent. He has done relatively little for the Democratic Party over the years. Hillary's contribution to the party as a whole dwarfs that of Bernie's.

-She has worked hard to establish strong relationships with the leadership of the party. Bernie much less so.

Given all that, why shouldn't the leadership favor Hillary and reward her with additional support for the nomination during the primary season?

You're advocating a patronage or spoils system, as opposed to a merit system. This kind of partisan cronyism should have died with Boss Tweed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

 

[untermensche]

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

So, money = what?

The duty of ANY party in a DEMOCRATIC election is to create the conditions for a fair fight and to create the conditions for all candidates to be heard.

And to let the VOTERS decide.

Not party hacks.

When party hacks work to create an unfair fight they are attacking democracy itself.

It is despicable.

 

[Harry Bosch]

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

So, money = what?

The duty of ANY party in a DEMOCRATIC election is to create the conditions for a fair fight and to create the conditions for all candidates to be heard.

And to let the VOTERS decide.

Not party hacks.

When party hacks work to create an unfair fight they are attacking democracy itself.

It is despicable.

Money = effort. HRC has raised money for democrats for many years. I like Bernie, but he's been a democrat for about 6 months. Of course there are some democrats who are suspicous of him and favor the long term candiate.

 

[untermensche]

So, money = what?

The duty of ANY party in a DEMOCRATIC election is to create the conditions for a fair fight and to create the conditions for all candidates to be heard.

And to let the VOTERS decide.

Not party hacks.

When party hacks work to create an unfair fight they are attacking democracy itself.

It is despicable.

Money = effort. HRC has raised money for democrats for many years. I like Bernie, but he's been a democrat for about 6 months. Of course there are some democrats who are suspicous of him and favor the long term candiate.

So screw democracy in favor of what a tiny few party insiders decide?

Why have voting at all?

Why don't we just let a handful of "elites" who know best decide for us?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Money = effort. HRC has raised money for democrats for many years. I like Bernie, but he's been a democrat for about 6 months. Of course there are some democrats who are suspicous of him and favor the long term candiate.

So screw democracy in favor of what a tiny few party insiders decide?

Why have voting at all?

Why don't we just let a handful of "elites" who know best decide for us?

No, Bernie was quite free to run for President as an independent or for a smaller party like the Libertarians or the Greens. If he'd run as a libertarian and gotten a bunch of non-libertarians to vote in their open primaries, should the Libertarian Party feel obligated to abandon every principle their party was built upon and become the Bernie Sanders Party instead because he managed to hijack their system?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Money = effort. HRC has raised money for democrats for many years. I like Bernie, but he's been a democrat for about 6 months. Of course there are some democrats who are suspicous of him and favor the long term candiate.

So screw democracy in favor of what a tiny few party insiders decide?

Why have voting at all?

Why don't we just let a handful of "elites" who know best decide for us?

What in the world do you mean by "decide"? How does a couple of insiders talking about possibly disclosing the fact that he's an atheist (which they never did disclose) after June "decide the election"? If Bernister couldn't overcome that, he dosn't deserve the nomination. You think that DWS was a meanie? Trump will be 10 times worse.

 

[Rhea]

-Hillary has brought in a lot more money into the coffers of the DP than Bernie over the years - helping to fund-raise for many other political races and fund-raise for the party in general.

So, money = what?

The duty of ANY party in a DEMOCRATIC election is to create the conditions for a fair fight and to create the conditions for all candidates to be heard.

And to let the VOTERS decide.

Not party hacks.

When party hacks work to create an unfair fight they are attacking democracy itself.

It is despicable.

"democracy" is the thing that happens in November. All candidates can do whatever they want to make themselves heard.
The party nomination, on the other hand, is a party decision based on party principles.
Bernie was given a very fair shake on that.
Given his insults to the party for 40 years, he had made some people question his adherence to his new party. He's been saying for decades that he doesn't like the values of the Dem party.

But he got a fair shake. Even got voter-supporessing caucuses to help him out.
But he did not win enough votes, in the end.

 

[Deepak]

Given his insults to the party for 40 years, he had made some people question his adherence to his new party. He's been saying for decades that he doesn't like the values of the Dem party.

Where are people picking up these memes? Sanders has been critical where it seems many D voters have been critical.

To wit:

http://www.playboy.com/articles/bernie-sanders-playboy-interview

Beyond Citizens United, has the Supreme Court become too partisan?
The Supreme Court has always been political, but it’s much more so now. The Republicans are tougher than the Democrats. They nominate right-wing judges who act very boldly. Democrats nominate moderates. Citizens United will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court. Does anyone really think Bush v. Gore was decided on the legal merits? I saw a study that said when the Chamber of Commerce weighs in on a case, the justices decide in the business lobby’s favor almost 70 percent of the time.

...
Do you think the term class warfare is a hard thing to explain to or use with most Americans?
People understand it. Sometimes people come up to me and say I’m courageous for saying all these things. I say, “I’m not courageous. Go look at these guys who want to give more tax breaks to billionaires and cut programs for working families. That is incredibly courageous, because the vast majority of the American people think that’s crazy.” The polling says: Don’t cut Social Security, don’t cut Medicare, don’t cut Medicaid. Ask the wealthy and large corporations to pay more taxes. The political question is, why have the Republicans not been reduced to a 15 percent marginal third party?

And the answer is?
Most people do not perceive a heck of a lot of difference between either party. The Democrats are too diffuse, and their message is so unclear the American people don’t see the real difference.

...

Yet people go out every two or four years and vote for those two parties. Incumbents keep doing those things, and they keep getting reelected.
I think a lot of that has to do with people voting for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils. A couple of years ago, not long after President Obama was elected, I had the opportunity to be in the Oval Office with him. What I said to him—I won’t tell you what he said to me—was “Now is the time not for another Bill Clinton but for an FDR. People want to know why their standard of living is going down, why they’re getting battered. They want to know who is responsible, and they want to know what we are going to do about that.” That’s what the American people want to hear. Why is the standard of living for the average American going down? Why is the gap between the rich and the poor getting wider? Why is Wall Street able to get away with murder? People want to know why.

How would you describe the differences between FDR and Bill Clinton?
Well, Clinton was and is a very smart guy, but he is the guy who signed NAFTA. I like Bill Clinton, I like Hillary Clinton, but they live in a world surrounded by a lot of money. It’s not an accident that Clinton is doing a fantastic job with his foundation. Where do you think that money is coming from? The point being that Clinton was a moderate Democrat who was heavily influenced by Wall Street and big-money interests, and Obama is governing in that same way.

Or this zinger from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/bernie-sanders-hillary_n_5527418.html

“In terms of Hillary, I respect her. I’ve known her. I like her. So I’m not running to attack Hillary Clinton. I’m running to talk about the issues that impact the working class of this country and the middle class.”

I asked Sanders if he saw Hillary a symbol of an establishment gone awry.

“No question in my mind that if there was a national Democratic primary today, Hillary would win it, and win it handsomely,” he said. “She would win it because she is widely respected, she is popular.”

But that is “today,” before a campaign begins in earnest, and amid a crisis.

“What people are dissatisfied with is not Hillary Clinton,” Sanders replied. “People are dissatisfied with the fact that 95 percent of all new incomes go to the top 1 percent. That’s what people are dissatisfied with. And people are dissatisfied that we have billionaires pay a lower tax rate than working families. And those are the issues.

I can see why the party faithful are pulling out the fainting couches - he's a regular Jewey Rush Limbaugh.

As for the question in the OP - the answer is simple. Because they said they would be. There's no legal requirement, as such, that they do remain neutral but people were committing time and money with a certain expectation of behaviour. If they came out from the beginning and represented what they planned to do accurately and the constituents made an informed decision then there would be no problem.

It's like asking what the problem with a bait & switch is - surely one can see that the illegality is based on the unethical nature of the act. And in areas where there is no legal protection for customers it still remains an unethical thing to do.

 

[untermensche]

So screw democracy in favor of what a tiny few party insiders decide?

Why have voting at all?

Why don't we just let a handful of "elites" who know best decide for us?

No, Bernie was quite free to run for President as an independent or for a smaller party like the Libertarians or the Greens. If he'd run as a libertarian and gotten a bunch of non-libertarians to vote in their open primaries, should the Libertarian Party feel obligated to abandon every principle their party was built upon and become the Bernie Sanders Party instead because he managed to hijack their system?

This is a non sequitur.

You are defending the subversion of democracy with some personal problem you have with Bernie.

Why have voting if a few party elites will work to subvert the process?

Why does anyone defend a thoroughly polluted system?

Why is there nobody that actually believes in a fair democratic process?

What has this system done to people?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not understanding why the Democratic Party should remain neutral/unbiased on which candidate gets its nomination for president?...

Clam Chowdah!