You're viewing part of a thread.
Wow I’ve never heard that. Do you have a source where I can verify?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
...
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
Interesting read. I was hoping for evidence though instead of anecdote. Also, I don’t see how it supports this claim:
Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.
That would be every running primary candidate shifting their votes towards Hillary instead of distributing them evenly. In addition there was the Bloomberg run "out of nowhere" when Bernie was looking to be the headline candidate.
I don’t see how the decisions of each individual candidate would be considered a decision of the DNC.
Then you don't understand US politics.
The majority of voters in America are moderate, not far right or left. For all the candidates to support the person with the best chances of winning is called strategy. For you to claim that the DNC made that decision for each candidate is a conspiracy theory.
That is simply not true. Stop spreading misinformation. In addition I did not claim they made the decision for each candidate. What they did was run a first-past-the-post cacus that allowed candidates with conflicting interests to allocate their political weight against a clearly popular candidate. If they'd done ranked choice voting from the start, it would not be an issue, instead they allowed candidates (like Bloomberg) to spend millions, gather significant support, and then cast that support to a vastly unpopular candidate. You're literally trying to argue Hillary was a good candidate with the best chance of winning but both polls, exit polls, and the caucus itself showed that not to be the case. Without the collaborative actions against Bernie by the other candidates allowed by the DNC Hillary would've never headlined the 2016 ticket.
But they didn’t do ranked choice. So for most of the primary it was Clinton VS Sanders. So we don’t know who would’ve won in ranked choice if all the other candidates stayed in. We only know that Sanders didn’t get as many votes as Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries