Budowsky: Bernie Sanders is right about the DNC

[portlander23]

Bernie Sanders is right about the DNC
Brent Budowsky
The Hill

The Sanders vision of the DNC is that it should be a popular-based center of organization and small-donor fundraising that supports Democrats at all levels of national and state politics and government, and promotes an agenda that offers a powerful alternative to the crony capitalism, insiderism, elitism and phony populism of President-elect Donald Trump.

The old-politics vision of the DNC was defined by the tenure of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.) as DNC chair, when it functioned largely as a service organization for Obama and Washington-based consultants.
The mistakes of the old politics vision of the DNC were starkly revealed by the DNC role organizing the 2016 primary debates, which were designed to minimize the national audience for the debates to give an advantage to the Clinton campaign and minimize the insurgent clout of the Sanders campaign.

The DNC debate practices in 2016 not only limited the audience for Sanders, which was unfair, but also hurt Clinton, who would have been far more attuned to the change desire of voters had she participated in more debates before larger audiences.

Democrats must reject a DNC model that services a system of a Washington-based consultant industrial complex composed of individuals who often work for big banks and Big Pharma when they aren't working for Democrats, make far too much money even when they lose elections, and overemphasize large-scale television ads paid for by big donor fundraising.

[TonyPDX]

1. So true. When a Democratic President fights for the TPP like ours did,

they're not fighting for us-- they're fighting for the system we should be standing against.

[mike_c]

2. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should be given a plum post in the Trump administration.

She earned it.

[MineralMan]

3. We're going to need every Democrat who holds office

to fight to protect us over the next four years. You're not helping, I think.

You don't like DWS? OK, but she will be voting with the Democratic Caucus, as always. We're going to need her and every other Democrat on our side.

Please don't attack Democrats. Thanks.

[mike_c]

4. irony much...?

I mean, we likely would not be having a conversation about needing Wasserman-Shultz's vote if Wasserman-Schultz hadn't manipulated the primaries to undermine Senator Sander's campaign. She herself shares much of the blame for democrats being in this position in the first place.

[MineralMan]

5. Sanders lost in the primaries.

That's history. I'm not going to even discuss arguing the primaries again. The new session of Congress is about to start. It's time to look forward, not backward.

We are going to need every Democrat in office to fight for us. If you're going to attack elected Democrats, you may be in the wrong place. If you want to re-fight the primaries, you're in the wrong forum on DU, too.

[frazzled]

6. So all those emails I was getting every day for the past year and a half

asking me for $10 or $15 dollars for the DNC, and mentioning close races all over the country, were not attempts at small-donor fundraising? Who knew? If small donors weren't giving, perhaps it was because Bernie Sanders convinced them that the DNC is an organization run by the devil's spawn.

And about those "limited debates," which were the same as originally announced in previous years, and indeed turned out to be twice as many as ever before between just two candidates:

The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus, while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012.

Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.

Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Shut up, Bernie. You're not even a Democrat, and you promulgate lies about the Democrats.