Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary. That's not some big bad Democrat party thing. That's literally how Democratic primary voters voted in 2016. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is completely opposite reality.
No one was shafted. He lost. He lost as bad as Hillary Clinton did to Obama in 2008. Literally the same margin of defeat. You just got manipulated into thinking it was something sinister. You can probably thank a foreign power for that.
We have leaked emails proving that the DNC colluded directly with her campaign, Sanders had to file lawsuits against them to get access to information he was entitled to, and in a lawsuit following the leaks the DNC's own lawyers argued as their defense that they had zero legal obligation to run a fair primary. (see https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Wi...) Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned following the scandal and as payment for her services she was gifted a cushy position working for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
This isn't some conspiracy by "a foreign power" it's well documented history
I get what you are saying, but let's be realistic here: even with an unfair vote you could still get people out to vote and get the majority. If we could have done that then MAYBE we'd have a point here.
But reality: Bernie was really popular with the 18-36 demographic. But they don't turnout to vote in the general election, let alone a primary. So here we are. Old people get their way because they show up.
And I'm not saying Bernie didn't energize voters: just that it's a really high bar to energize that to a point of participation.
I've seen it argued before that it couldn't have turned out differently (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-...) and maybe that's true. The sad fact is that we'll never really know what could have happened if the DNC had played fair. I agree that young voters don't generally turn out to vote. They also don't generally turn up to campaign rallies but for him they actually did. They showed up in numbers so large that they filled entire arenas past capacity. He often drew crowds much larger than Clinton did and she had the name and the money for paid attendees to boost her numbers.
What I can say is that in that election the country was looking for something different from the government. They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them and that was the only thing Clinton was offering. I know that in the end that feeling was enough to drive at least some people who normally voted democrat to vote for trump (or third party). The fact that the DNC ignored the will of registered democrats and decided for themselves that Clinton was their Chosen One before the primary election was held also caused some democrats to vote for trump or to stay home entirely. I can't claim that the DNC was the cause of trump getting elected the first time, but they sure didn't help.
In early 2020, Sanders flipped Biden, leading more than Trump lead his rivals for much of the primary, and likely would have gone on to win the nomination, with the momentum he was carrying into the bulk of state contests. Biden's centrist rivals colluded with him and the DNC, suddenly dropping out before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg, one of the dropouts, was awarded with a cabinet appointment that he was completely unqualified for, as exemplified by his gross mishandling of first a rail strike, and then a large accident (caused by conditions the strikers were organizing to rectify) which dumped toxic chemicals into a small town.
That was the one I paid close attention to. If 2016 was anything like it (and I'm sure it was, considering this year's convention tactics were used all the way back in the 1940s to force Truman on us), I have no doubt that this is the DNC's modus operandi. The true steal of the last 3 elections were establishment Democrats' theft of the liberal and leftist vote. And in 2 out of 3 of those cases, they paid in the general.
One person recognizing they can't win and getting out to support their preferred remaining candidate is a big conspiracy? This kind of conspiracy peddling is why fascism won on Tuesday.
I already mentioned one instance of his failure as Secretary (a major accident that occurred shortly after helping to quash a strike that sought to address the issues that eventually lead to the accident). We are also only just this year seeing significant action taken against Boeing. Baltimore also lost a major bridge and access to a regionally-important port under his leadership. He's not good at his job. He should never have gotten it.
>You're saying we chose the corruption free candidate instead of the big bad Democrats?
I did not. You clearly did not read my posts and are only willing to engage in bad faith.
It seems you've confused postponing a strike with quashing a strike. Don't worry, all strikes in every industry will be quashed by Trump and Musk over the next 4 years.
Also, do you seriously consider a single neglectful shipping company ramming into the bridge to be the fault of the transportation secretary?
Everything I am saying is straightforward and in good faith.
>Don't worry, all strikes in every industry will be quashed by Trump and Musk over the next 4 years.
That's how strikes work under the rule of law and the faith that all parties will operate fairly within it, which we can agree is going away under Trump to some extent.
>Also, do you seriously consider a single neglectful shipping company ramming into the bridge to be the fault of the transportation secretary?
Yes. As with the train incident, it speaks to a culture of ineffectiveness under his direction. (Admittedly rando) guy at this link makes a good point:
>I can't think of a single mode of transportation that has gotten better under Buttigieg, can you?
In his examples, he mentions air travel headaches, which combine with my Boeing criticism from earlier. I also hadn't considered personal vehicles: to add to his talk about EVs, there are also the many controversies involving self-driving cars and the companies his department have allowed to operate recklessly, per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0.
In all, Buttigieg's tenure has been marked by a lack of sufficient oversight of industry; his lax supervision has lead to a disturbing number of incidents across all modes of transit. He's supposed to be keeping them honest, and they ran roughshod over him for the majority of his time in office. He was not ready for the position and it was a mistake to give it to him. He only got it through a corrupt transaction that lead to Biden's improbable nomination over Sanders in 2020, which has ultimately lead to the electoral trouncing we saw last week.
For what it's worth, we don't need "luck"; we need people like you to stop carrying water for pompous losers who put their pocketbook before people (and to maybe stop being them, too).
