Political Memes

You're addressing a non sequitur and glossing over how the DNC actually manipulated the 2016 and 2020 elections, and their actions after the campaign.

The DNC put their thumb on the scale in 2016 before the election even started. Yes, the super delegate votes didn't directly give Hillary tie breaking votes, but that was never the real impact. Do you remember 2016? I do. I remember every media outlet running with stories about how Hillary already had the nomination in the bag before the first vote was cast. The superdelegates all made big public endorsements for her, and the media showered her with hundreds of delegates in her column even before the Iowa caucus. This put her at a massive unfair advantage before the voting even began.

In 2020, they ratfucked Bernie again, again in a way that you completely ignored. There were several candidates running, both centrist and liberal. At a crucial moment, when Bernie looked like he actually could win the nomination, the DNC coordinated with all the centrist candidates. They arranged to have all the centrists except Biden drop out, while there were still several progressive candidates in the race dividing the progressive vote. The DNC arranged a unified centrist push behind Biden and thus handed the nomination to him.

You completely ignored the ways the DNC actually ratfucked Bernie and just focused on a non-sequitur.

And the court cases I'm referring to mostly came after the 2016 election. Bernie was leading a movement, and a movement of his delegates tried to gain influence in the party. They ran for party committee seats in many states. Repeatedly the DNC ignored their own rules to prevent these Bernie delegates from taking power within the party. They massively screwed over Bernie's movement, completely ignoring the will of the voters.

Yes, in theory, people can take over the Democratic party. But it has proven much, much more resilient to this kind of takeover than the Republican party. People have been trying for decades, but the DNC has been working to prevent just this kind of progressive takeover since the 1960s. Ultimately both parties are very pro-corporate. Insurgent candidates within the Republican party don't want to resist corporate power, so they're not really rocking the boat that much. Insurgent candidates in the Democratic party actually want to go directly against the core interests of the party leadership, thus they face much stiffer opposition.

History is the guide here. Abolitionist forces tried for many decades to take over the Whig party and to get it to adopt a firm Abolitionist stance. For years they tried everything, but it never worked, the existing powerful leaders were just too well entrenched. The Whigs always told the abolitionists the same things Democrats tell progressives today - focus on the current election, we're the lesser of two evils, at least we're not trying to expand slavery. In the end, change only happened when the Republican party was founded and drove the Whigs to extinction. We're going to have to do the same to the Democratic party. Some corruption just becomes too entrenched to be fixed. The abolitionists then accepted that they had to abandon the Whigs and let the party die - even if that meant losing an election cycle or two. We've so far refused to do this, and the Democrats know that they can abuse their base however they want, and they will never face any real consequences for it.