9 added 53 characters in body
source | link

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism (as a psychological trait, not political philosophy). Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, there needs to be tangible proof that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won to make the assumption). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, there needs to be tangible proof that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won to make the assumption). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism (as a psychological trait, not political philosophy). Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, there needs to be tangible proof that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won to make the assumption). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

8 added 56 characters in body
source | link

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, there needs to be tangible proof that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won to make the assumption). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, there needs to be tangible proof that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won to make the assumption). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

    Mod Moved Comments To Chat
7 added 52 characters in body
source | link

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a Socialist as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

In short, because Democratic Party in USA is roughly split between two factions (I'll label them "progressive" and "establishment" just for the sake of labeling).

FiveThirtyEight covered this split in great detail in the last couple of months (as well as a split in Republican party); but for the purposes of this question, Sanders represented the "progressive" wing and Clinton "established" wing.

DNC leadership from what I understand is largely "established" wing and as such preferred Clinton to Sanders. Why? That could be for a variety of reasons:

  • pragmatic politics (they could have thought that an establishment candidate has a better chance in general election, which is more or less the mainstream theory in Political Science since (e.g. Median Voter Theorem) at the very least McGovern's drastic loss and a reason for DNC superdelegates).

  • ideology. They simply agree with Clinton's ideas more than Sanders

  • somewhat related, or correllated, tribalism - Sanders "isn't a real democrat!". As a reminder, he technically wasn't - he was a self-described Socialist (technically elected as Independent) as far as party membership in Congress.

    "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," (from DNC email dump)

  • conservatism. Sanders' brand of firebrand populism may not necessarily sit well with powerful establishment, who would prefer not to rock the boat too much as it could affect their own position.

  • identity politics. Clinton was the female candidate, in the minds of some people preferable to any male candidate regardless of other considerations (ironically, those people would probably more naturally belong to progressive wing of DNC, but them's the breaks - I vaguely recall 538 reporting that something like 90% of women of color voted for Clinton).

  • power politics. The Clintons represent a big power center; and people often support such power centers to benefit themselves. Or, people owed favors to Clintons, which is in the same general bucket.

  • "her turn". While I'm unsure of how popular the concept was, there definitely people who felt that running strong in 2008 primaries "entitled" Clinton to a turn at the wheel.

P.S. As an aside, the question's current phrasing makes an assumption that DNC prevented Sanders from getting the nomination. While this answer presents the plausible reasons for DNC to want to do so, I'm not actually aware of any ironclad proof that - despite some obvious efforts - DNC actually succeeded in that even assuming they uniformly wanted this (in other words, that without DNC efforts, Sanders would have won). 538 seems to have disagreed even early in the primaries. As well as much later.

6 added 329 characters in body
source | link
5 added 5 characters in body
source | link
4 added 180 characters in body
source | link
3 added 385 characters in body
source | link
2 added 385 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link