fascist. Authoritarian. tyrant. These are terms Democrats often use to describe the erosion of American democracy under Donald Trump. But, as Bernie Sanders candidly admitted in a recent episode of the Flagrant Podcast, the Democrats themselves have long abandoned internal democratic norms. He acknowledged that the party “democratic process completely removed from its members” and refused to object when it was pointed out that Democrats had not held honest primary since 2008, the year when Barack Obama won the nomination.Democrats seem to have stopped being completely democratic until Donald Trump stepped into the back of the teleprompter. Internal erosion began in the Obama era, and in the 2016 primary, it became painfully clear when Sanders ran a rebel campaign carrying small dollar donors and grassroots mobilization. Despite winning multiple states, Sanders realized that neutrality is seriously at a problem with the establishment of a party alongside Hillary Clinton, with the help of an unelected superdelegate and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
SuperDelegate System
The use of super delegates was a central point of competition. These unselected party insiders were free to support candidates regardless of key outcomes. By early 2016, Clinton had secured hundreds of such support before most voters cast their vote. Media outlets like CNN included super delegates in the official representative tally, giving the impression of an insurmountable lead.Sanders and his supporters described the system as inherently undemocratic. The party ultimately reformed the rules in 2018, preventing super delegates from voting for their first vote at the convention, but by then the damage had been done. In particular, Rep. Tarshi Gabbard resigned as DNC vice-chairman during the primary election, citing bias and lack of fair contests.
DNC Mail and Internal Bias
In July 2016, WikiLeaks released an internal DNC email revealing active debate among senior officials about undermining Sanders’ campaign. Some emails suggested exploiting Sanders’ recognition of his lack of religion to undermine his appeal in the southern states. Others argued that it disrupted his campaign.DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned following the leak. However, she was soon appointed honorary chairman of Clinton’s campaign efforts. It spurred allegations that party leaders had compromised their neutrality.
Discussion access and media exposure
DNC discussion scheduling was also scrutinized. Some were held at low beavership times, such as on Saturday nights, while only six discussions were approved. Sanders’ supporters argued that this limited his exposure to wider voters. When Tulsi Gabbard called for additional discussion, she was rejected by party leaders.Media coverage further distorted public perception. In 2015, the network news program dedicated significantly more airtime to Donald Trump than Bernie Sanders. For example, ABC’s Evening News reportedly reportedly reportedly reportedly reporting over 80 minutes, allocating Sanders just 20 seconds.One notable violation of journalistic ethics occurred when CNN contributor Donna Brazil served as interim DNC chair and shared discussion questions in advance with Clinton’s campaign. Brazil was later forced to resign from CNN.
Funding Structure and Equity
Another area of concern was campaign funding. The Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising effort between the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, was billed as a mechanism to support the nation. However, in reality, there was less than 1% of the money remaining in the state organization. Most of it has been returned to Clinton’s national campaign or the DNC’s efforts to support her nomination.This financial structure has made us more aware of bias. Sanders’ campaigners and supporters argued that the arrangement circumvented individual donation restrictions and supported pre-selected candidates.
Changing political identity
Beyond procedural concerns, 2016 unveiled a broader identity change in Democrats. The party, once a champion of trade unions and working class interests, was increasingly appealing to wealthy, university-educated professionals. Despite opposition from many working-class voters, issues such as free trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), were widely supported by party elites.Senator Chuck Schumer summed up the pivot in 2016. “For all the blue-collar Democrats we lose in western Pennsylvania, we’ll have two moderate Republicans outside of Philadelphia.” The election results later contradicted this assumption, and Democrats lost their support within both districts.
Lasting impact
Bernie Sanders’ campaign revealed a long-established Democrat fracture. He challenged the general party consensus on trade, healthcare and campaign funding. Rather than engaged in this critique, many party leaders and institutions responded with procedural barriers and quiet resistance.Sanders ultimately supported Clinton for party unity, but underlying tensions continued. Many voters, especially young and working-class voters, remained disillusioned. In hindsight, the 2016 internal conflict highlighted a party struggling to reconcile democratic ideals with centralized management and elite decision-making.
Before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant politician, Democrats had begun to compromise on their own democratic processes. From the use of superdelegates and internal biases in the DNC to limited debate and questionable funding mechanisms, 2016 exposed the institutional benefits made by the establishment of the party.Sanders’ campaign wasn’t just a political uprising, but a litmus test of whether Democrats could respond to objections and grassroots mobilization. The results suggested that this was not the case. As the party moves forward, the question remains whether it has learned from the past or simply adapted to maintain control under the ornament of reform.
Future path
Before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant politician, Democrats had begun to compromise on their own democratic processes. From the use of superdelegates and internal biases in the DNC to limited debate and questionable funding mechanisms, 2016 exposed the institutional benefits made by the establishment of the party.Sanders’ campaign wasn’t just a political uprising, but a litmus test of whether Democrats could respond to objections and grassroots mobilization. The results suggested that this was not the case. As the party moves forward, the question remains whether it has learned from the past or simply adapted to maintain control under the ornament of reform.The only way for Democrats is to listen to their constituents rather than assuming they know what’s best for them. And the most powerful competitor – the most unconnected candidates should be allowed to win the way that former Barack Obama once did.
