Fascist. Autocratic. Tyrant. These are the words frequently used by Democrats to describe the erosion of American democracy under Donald Trump. Yet, as Bernie Sanders candidly acknowledged on a recent episode of the Flagrant podcast, the Democratic Party itself had long abandoned internal democratic norms. He admitted the party had “completely removed the democratic process from its constituents” and didn’t object when it was pointed out that the Democrats hadn’t conducted an honest primary since 2008 — the year Barack Obama won the nomination.The Democratic Party, it seems, ceased being fully democratic well before Donald Trump ever stepped behind a teleprompter. The internal erosion began in the Obama era and became painfully clear in the 2016 primaries, when Sanders ran an insurgent campaign powered by small-dollar donors and grassroots mobilisation. Despite winning multiple states, Sanders found himself outmanoeuvred by a party establishment aligned with Hillary Clinton, aided by unelected superdelegates and a Democratic National Committee (DNC) whose neutrality was seriously in question.
The Superdelegate System
The use of superdelegates was a central point of contention. These unelected party insiders were free to back any candidate, regardless of primary outcomes. By early 2016, before most voters had even cast a ballot, Clinton had secured hundreds of such endorsements. Media outlets like CNN included superdelegates in their official delegate tallies, giving the impression of an insurmountable lead.Sanders and his supporters described the system as inherently undemocratic. The party eventually reformed the rules in 2018 to prevent superdelegates from voting on the first ballot at the convention, but by then the damage had been done. Notably, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard resigned as DNC vice-chair during the primaries, citing bias and the lack of a fair contest.
DNC Emails and Internal Bias
In July 2016, WikiLeaks released internal DNC emails revealing active discussions among senior officials about undermining Sanders’ campaign. Some emails suggested exploiting Sanders’ perceived lack of religiosity to damage his appeal in Southern states. Others discussed framing his campaign as disorganised.DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down following the leaks. Yet, she was quickly appointed honorary chair of Clinton’s campaign efforts — fuelling allegations that the party’s leadership had compromised its neutrality.
Debate Access and Media Exposure
The DNC’s scheduling of debates also came under scrutiny. Only six debates were sanctioned, with some held at low-viewership times, such as Saturday nights. Sanders supporters argued this limited his exposure to the broader electorate. When Tulsi Gabbard called for additional debates, she was rebuffed by party leadership.Media coverage further skewed public perception. In 2015, network news programmes devoted significantly more airtime to Donald Trump than to Bernie Sanders. For example, ABC’s evening news reportedly gave Trump over 80 minutes of coverage while allocating just 20 seconds to Sanders.One notable breach of journalistic ethics occurred when CNN contributor Donna Brazile, who also served as interim DNC chair, shared debate questions in advance with Clinton’s campaign. Brazile was later forced to resign from CNN.
Fundraising Structures and Equity
Another area of concern was campaign financing. The Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising effort between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, was billed as a mechanism to support state parties. In practice, however, less than 1% of the money remained with state organisations. Most of it was funneled back to Clinton’s national campaign or DNC efforts supporting her nomination.This financial structure deepened perceptions of bias. Sanders campaign officials and supporters alleged that the arrangement circumvented individual donation limits and favoured a pre-selected candidate.
Shifting Political Identity
Beyond procedural concerns, 2016 revealed a broader identity shift in the Democratic Party. Once a champion of labour unions and working-class interests, the party increasingly appealed to affluent, college-educated professionals. Issues such as free trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), were widely supported by party elites, despite opposition from many working-class voters.Senator Chuck Schumer summed up this pivot in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia.” The election results later contradicted this assumption, with Democrats losing support among both constituencies.
Lasting Impact
Bernie Sanders’ campaign exposed fractures in the Democratic Party that had been forming for years. He challenged the prevailing party consensus on trade, healthcare, and campaign financing. Rather than engage with this critique, many party leaders and institutions responded with procedural barriers and quiet resistance.While Sanders ultimately endorsed Clinton for the sake of party unity, the underlying tensions persisted. Many voters, particularly younger and working-class ones, remained disillusioned. In hindsight, the internal conflicts of 2016 highlighted a party struggling to reconcile its democratic ideals with centralised control and elite decision-making.
Well before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant political figure, the Democratic Party had begun compromising its own democratic processes. From the use of superdelegates and internal bias at the DNC, to limited debates and questionable fundraising mechanisms, 2016 laid bare the institutional advantages wielded by the party establishment.Sanders’ campaign was not merely a political insurgency — it was a litmus test for whether the Democratic Party could accommodate dissent and grassroots mobilisation. The outcome suggested otherwise. As the party moves forward, the question remains whether it has learned from the past or merely adapted to maintain control under the guise of reform.
The Way Forward
Well before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant political figure, the Democratic Party had begun compromising its own democratic processes. From the use of superdelegates and internal bias at the DNC, to limited debates and questionable fundraising mechanisms, 2016 laid bare the institutional advantages wielded by the party establishment.Sanders’ campaign was not merely a political insurgency — it was a litmus test for whether the Democratic Party could accommodate dissent and grassroots mobilisation. The outcome suggested otherwise. As the party moves forward, the question remains whether it has learned from the past or merely adapted to maintain control under the guise of reform.The only way back for the Democratic Party is to start listening to its constituents instead of assuming it knows what’s best for them. And the strongest contender — not the most connected — should be allowed to win, the way Barack Obama once did.. From the use of superdelegates and internal bias at the DNC, to limited debates and questionable fundraising mechanisms, 2016 laid bare the institutional advantages wielded by the party establishment.
