This kind of crap is why Bernie Sanders is so popular. It's why Trump won the 2016 election too. There is an overwhelming feeling on the part of voters that the "establishment" of the party is beholden to a small group of wealthy neoliberals (or neoconservatives on the GOP side, but there are few differences in policy between the two). Many on the left regard liberalism as a failed project, and Sanders is popular among them because he offers an alternative to neoliberalism.
The wealth inequality that accelerated after the 2007 crisis has added a class warfare aspect to national politics where one did not exist before. Trump has largely eviscerated the Republican party by playing on this, and I think we're seeing this dynamic on the Democrat side this election cycle.
I've been a liberal voter for decades, and Sanders pretty well represents what the democratic party used to be back in the day. There's genuine hunger for real change and that is the driver for Sanders, as well as the fact that he is no fair weather politician.
You can hate Hillary, but she was probably the smartest, most experienced, and best qualified for the job as a maintainer of the status quo. I think we need to go beyond the status quo, but politics is (or was) the art of compromise.
Unfortunately politics is at its core a popularity contest and people vote with their emotions rather than their brains, which is why we have the current administration.
> You can hate Hillary, but she was probably the smartest, most experienced, and best qualified for the job as a maintainer of the status quo.
No, she wasn't. She had very little of either electoral or executive experience for a Presidential candidate, but lots of experience as a less-accountable figure around politics and policy.
Whether as maintainer of the status quo or otherwise she was only modestly qualified.
Hillary Corrupt - you can search her emails and Podesta's online, which show that her foundation (from which her family drew salary and benefit) was a pay-to-play scheme demonstrated at the least by her explicitly considering donor status in her meeting calendar while Sec. (not to mention donations to her foundation falling off 95%+ the minute her influence tanked), and that the media were funneling debate questions to her ahead of the debates. That's what we know for certain during the last primary because we can read it directly in the record. Separately, when she knew her records were about to be subpoenaed she destroyed data (the 30k emails) claiming they were personal - she didn't make a claim that they were privileged or irrelevant to the matter, much less let a judge determine this - she preemptively destroyed the information. This is called spoliation of evidence and is a crime that you and I, were we stewards of a company's data, would be put on the rack for. Check your attempts at regaining cognitive consonance and consider how this speaks to her character for the average person participating in a primary against her. And BTW, at this point it's pretty disingenuous to be talking about Hillary as somebody who doesn't thrive on peddling conspiracy theories.
Yes, she was corrupt and I still voted for her because it was status quo corruption.
Her opponent has taken that to new levels and if we are to discuss this topic it requires openness to the flaws of all involved, including our preferred candidates. To not do so is to engage in partisan bickering which is not appropriate here.
> her foundation (from which her family drew salary and benefit) was a pay-to-play scheme
Citation needed about pay to play. Also, foundations pay their directors. Why is that surprising?
> the media were funneling debate questions to her
One person funneled one question to her. The Sanders campaign also said that same person helped their campaign, with one aide saying, "If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee of the party and the Russians hacked my emails instead of John [Podesta]’s, we'd be reading all these notes between Donna and I and they'd say Donna was cozying up to the Bernie campaign."
> Separately, when she knew her records were about to be subpoenaed she destroyed data (the 30k emails) claiming they were personal - she didn't make a claim that they were privileged or irrelevant to the matter, much less let a judge determine this - she preemptively destroyed the information
Again, citation needed that she did this on purpose. The person who actually did it says otherwise.
> This is called spoliation of evidence and is a crime
It would be a crime if it happened as you said, but the investigation came to the opposite conclusion.
> at this point it's pretty disingenuous to be talking about Hillary as somebody who doesn't thrive on peddling conspiracy theories.
I never said Clinton doesn't, but now that you mention it, she clearly doesn't anywhere near as much as Sanders and Trump supporters.
Please don't lump those two together. Yes, there are Sanders supporters that are "fringe", but the man himself has been clear and consistent on economics and policy his entire career.
After he lost the primaries to Clinton (a process I personally think was gamed by the DNC), he publicly supported her and encouraged his supporters to do the same.
We're discussing politics on HN and I don't want to incur dang's admonishment again. We are in very uncertain times these days so I think it's important to discuss key issues in a cogent and concise manner.
> Yes, there are Sanders supporters that are "fringe", but the man himself has been clear and consistent on economics and policy his entire career.
The key difference between Sanders and other politicians like McCain, Obama, etc. is that Sanders doesn't push against the fringe elements of his supporters, which encouraged them to grow into a large portion of his supporters.
And in particular, their emotions lead them to believe conspiracy theories when something doesn't go their way. It's not that the DNC is some cabal hindering progress, like they believe, but that progress requires careful policy consideration that those who advocate large immediate changes haven't thought through.
Look at Sanders's early education policy for example. It's just a single line. Getting early education and childcare right will benefit far more people and in a far more egalitarian way than getting postsecondary education right, but if you even suggest it, some "emotional" Sanders supporters will say you must be part of a banking conspiracy.
Conspiracies come in different flavors as it were. The DNC has not hidden its fear of Sanders, and I believe that they are "conspiring" to get a mainstream candidate that their patrons want, e.g. Biden or Buttigieg.
Platforms are not policies, they're goals. There's nothing wrong with having ambitious goals and then adjusting to reality whilst trying to implement them.
The Sanders camp clearly attracts a lot of emotional people as well, but at least they're emotional for a perceived good rather than perceived grievances -- to put a charitable spin on it :-)
Telling Sanders and Trump voters that their support is based on conspiracy theories is not a good way to win their support away from their current candidates. Not sure when it happened but at some point it became part of the collective wisdom of political wonks that the best way to win someone to your point of view is to call them stupid. Pretty sure the works/fails ratio on that is at least 1:10 and probably more like 1:100.
> Telling Sanders and Trump voters that their support is based on conspiracy theories is not a good way to win their support away from their current candidates
Nor is telling flat earthers that their beliefs are based in conspiracy theory a good way to win their support. I am not trying to win their support by that comment, as this is not the proper forum for that conversation. I am simply stating a fact.
Are you saying that people who have a problem with this conflict of interest are the equivalent of flat earthers? That's not a viable position to take.
What conflict of interest are you talking about? I'm saying that I am not trying to convert Flat Earthers or fervent Sanders/Trump supporters but merely explaining what makes them exist.
The conflict of interest is what you're calling a "conspiracy theory". It's a known fact that there is conflict of interest between the Buttigieg campaign and Acronym/Shadow. That's not a "theory", it is indeed a fact.
> It's a known fact that there is conflict of interest between the Buttigieg campaign and Acronym/Shadow. That's not a "theory", it is indeed a fact.
Citation needed. It is a known fact that Shadow is one of the few software contractors that works for cheap for Democratic candidates. The fact that Buttigieg also used them for cheap projects does not mean there is a conflict of interest, and immediately jumping to that conclusion indicates conspiracy-minded thinking.
You definitely can. AWS does it. NGP VAN does it. Every contractor that the DNC uses does it. To believe that they don't is the kind of ignorance that leads to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and your own conspiracy theory.
There's a difference between AWS and a tiny startup, the CEO of which is married to one of the top advisors of a the Buttigeig campaign. At this point, this conversation doesn't really matter as it's been widely accepted as a conflict of interested and condemned.
The wealth inequality that accelerated after the 2007 crisis has added a class warfare aspect to national politics where one did not exist before. Trump has largely eviscerated the Republican party by playing on this, and I think we're seeing this dynamic on the Democrat side this election cycle.