The lawsuit against the DNC...

I agree on that point.

I view their actions as more of a Keystone Cops-esque comedy of errors than something deeply nefarious. It's bad enough if a person/organization is duplicitous. It's even worse when they're absolutely incompetent at being duplicitous.

I understand. My reply was just meant to object to the idea that it really matters all that much whether the DNC really cost Sanders the primary. Take the example of Donna Brazile giving Clinton the debate questions. Personally, I think Clinton can more or less hold her own in a debate w/ a guy like Sanders. So such an action is not only unfair, it's also dopey, IMO, insofar as it creates risk without any significant benefit. Clinton supporters will often try to argue that because such an action had no effect on the outcome, it therefore wasn't a big deal, wasn't a problem. I see that that's not quite what you're arguing, but I think my response was colored by hearing that so often in defenses of the DNC. Because to me, DNC actions can still be wrong regardless of what their impact may have been in the big picture. 





Yeah, it could very well be a case of sour grapes. I do think some of the complaints about the DNC's actions were/are valid, but I can't really speak to the motivations behind the lawsuit, specifically. 

Well, I think it's an interesting thing, because I don't think it reflects well on such Clinton backers regardless of whether the claim is true. If the claim is not true, then they are in denial about what really happened. If it is true, then I think the dems should think more about why Sanders supporters felt so alienated. And when such backers try to defend the DNC (not putting you in this camp, as I saw your clarification on that point), and say that they were innocent, to me it makes them look a bit clueless. They don't see how the DNC unnecessarily contributed to a perception of unfairness. 







I think you misunderstood me (but I'll take the blame for being unclear). I was taking the anecdote itself as a given; I wasn't suggesting that as a hypothetical to be entertained. The idea to be entertained was whether the claim was really true, that Sanders supporters really did ruin Clinton's chances. Remember, you had questioned the idea that the DNC had truly alienated a significant number of people. You wrote:

"So, what do you mean that the DNC "made a lot of people unhappy." What constitutes "a lot" when we're talking about a voting bloc of roughly 65 million people?"

As I said, I'm willing to concede the real number might not be "a lot" in absolute terms. When I said the number was significant almost by definition, I meant that the number of people (hypothetically) alienated by the DNC would be significant by definition, if it were enough people that it cost Clinton the election. 


Yes, and I may have given off the impression that I'm taking a hard position on that question. I don't really intend to. I think it's plausible that Sanders supporters were a factor to some degree, but I'd be skeptical that they were the real engine here. 


Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth to that.