which are only modestly “revelations”, I thought it might be interesting to share a message I wrote to a member of the DNC who lives locally. He is often quoted in California papers as a party spokesperson. At this point in time, of course, nobody thought Trump would be nominated. I wrote this September 7, 2015:
just a thought I want to share with you for whatever it's worth. I'm
both pretty practical and somewhat idealistic in politics - I support
Sanders, but would be comfortable voting for Hillary. I think both would
make fine candidates. And I realize some of the Sanders supporters can get
over the top at times. But that campaign has brought a level of energy and
excitement that has been missing for a long time. I'm especially impressed
with the level of self-organization - people just taking the initiative to
do things on their own without waiting for a campaign staff person to tell
them what needs to be done. Whichever ends up being nominated can be OK -
with one exception: If Hillary wins the nomination and there is a broad
perception among Sanders supporters that the process was unfair, that would
be both a short and long term catastrophe for the party. The issue of
limiting the number of debates is an issue in that area, but what would be a
true disaster the party could not recover from is if Bernie were to eke out
a narrow win in elected delegates and have that essentially overturned by
the super delegates. if that were to happen, an overwhelming number of
Sanders supporters would stay home or make protest votes in the fall and the
party would not recover from it in our lifetime. I think it's important
that the people running things get that. If the process is seen as fair,
all else can be recovered - but not if it's seen as a rigged game.
David.
His response was dismissive of my concerns.