![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Do you not remember all the leaks showing extreme bias towards Clinton, derision of Sanders, and even deals between Clinton and the DNC?
The emails and documents showed that the Democratic Party’s national committee favored Clinton over … Bernie. … The leaks resulted in allegations of bias against Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign in apparent contradiction with the DNC leadership’s publicly stated neutrality, as several DNC operatives openly derided Sanders’s campaign and discussed ways to advance Hillary Clinton’s nomination. Later reveals included controversial DNC–Clinton agreements dated before the primary, regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions. source
Or that DNC leaders argued in court that they didn’t need to hold impartial primaries and could select whatever candidate they wanted?
… DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. source
For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle. source
At the end of the day, yes, Bernie got fewer votes. But that is a small part of the iceberg, ignoring all the things that led up to it and all the biases at play in the organization putting the vote on in what I would (and did) call a “rigged” primary.
That sounds a lot like advice I read in some book (maybe Atomic Habits?). What I remember of the point was that your habits will follow your identity. If you’re a “former smoker,” you’re a small step away from becoming a smoker again. If you’re “not a smoker,” you have to consciously defy your identity to pick up cigarettes again, and it is hard for people to change their foundational perceptions of their identity.
I thought it an interesting premise. It seems in some ways opposite to the guidance of Alcoholics Anonymous, which as I understand it is that everyone there identifies as an alcoholic, no matter how long it’s been since they imbibed. That’s supposed to keep them conscious of the choice to not drink (though it might also be intentional to drive the community mindset and participation that’s also foundational to AA…)