07-24-2016, 04:21 PM
vision63 wrote:
[quote=Filliam H. Muffman]
With all the super delegates throwing in for Clinton before the primaries even started, it was rigged from the start. Bernie had a surprisingly good result. I think he got off to a late start because he didn't believe he had a chance. Things like the voter suppression in NY with a 6 month lead time to switch from Independent to Democrat made it even harder. The Clinton campaign and the DNC working together against him was just another thumb on the scale.
Liquors must have drunkened you. Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes than Sanders. Here's a primer on how she defeated him lest you should ever become confused again.
How Clinton Won
How Hillary Clinton overcame the challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/
The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders
Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-...t-sanders/
Nate Silver Explains Why Clinton Will Be Democratic Nominee – It’s Not A Rigged System
Hillary Clinton will be the nominee because more Democrats voted for her because she is a "hard core liberal" and not because of a rigged system.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/09/n...ystem.html
It's possible for someone to win the popular vote in a system rigged in her favor.
The two are not exclusive.
Sanders may well have lost anyway, but -- as the DNC emails demonstrate -- the organization was working against him from the start. He'd have had a better chance with a system that wasn't invested in promoting Clinton.
The DNC is assembling a commission to make a report with recommendations for fixing the delegate system. They should also hire outside council to investigate misconduct during the last election and remove every chair and vice-chair implicated in the scandal.