“It didn’t prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but only because that’s virtually impossible to do in the real world. Regardless, only a blindly loyal Clinton apologist could look at all the circumstantial evidence and conclude, “nope, nothing amiss here.”
So people like you look at that circumstancial evidence and insist there was something there, yet when you look at the HUGE mountain of circumstancial evidence pointing to Russia fiddling with our election and you just shrug?
You can’t have it both ways.
“The strongest opponent to run against Hillary Clinton in the primary was a septuagenarian Jew who was only nominally a Democrat. For some strange reason, not a single rising star or traditional party stalwart (other than HRC) entered the race.” Do you not remember 2008? You could easily apply the SAME complaints that “Barely any single rising star or traditional party stalwart” beyond the two main competitors entered the race.
“Democrat super-delegates were organized behind Clinton and going to the press with their support as early of August of 2015.” Clinton was the expected favorite, and she was an actual Democrat, and Bernie wasn’t.
“Mainstream media outlets dutifully wrote article after article about the primary emphasizing Clinton’s super-delegate advantage and dismissing Sanders as a pie-eyed, ineffective dreamer.” Because for one, most people would sooner vote for an atheist than a socialist.
Americans say they are more likely to support an atheist than a socialist for president next year, according to the…www.politico.com
Story Highlights Americans' negative image of socialism is little changed since 2010 Small business has an almost…www.gallup.com
The DNC DIDN’T schedule fewer debates. The claim you make that it sponsored less with “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders? For one, Repubs had more debates/town hall forums cuz they had SEVEN CANDIDATES. We had less than half that. Two, the DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. JUST. LIKE. IN 2008 AND 2004. How is that ANY DIFFERENT? And by the way, in in 2008, only five took place cuz guess what? Obama very clearly was the favorite to win and they decided to do away with the last one. Also, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012!
“The DNC changed fundraising rules in midstream to open the tap wider on big-money donations despite one candidate having exponentially more support from big-money donors.” You’re making the argument that them allowing more money donations was bad?
Say, remind me again which party always outspends the other? Ohhh. Riiiight. Republicans. And remind me again who’s controlled Congress for years now? Ohhhh! RIIIIGHT. REPUBLICANS. That, combined with gerrymandering, has allowed them to CLOBBER Dems in down-ticket elections which are OVERWHELMINGLY won with money. And lest you think you can win on ideas and issues alone…Russ Feingold and Zephyr Teachout, both Bernie-style progressives, lost hard. So no. On the Senate/House side, money overwhelmingly wins elections and even Obama had to spend a billion dollars to have a good chance to win.
“So Wikileaks happened. It showed senior DNC officials discussing ways to undermine Sanders’ campaign and Team Clinton discussing ways to use favorable media contacts to bolster Clinton’s campaign. It showed at least one example of an unconscionable level of collusion between the campaign staff, the DNC and the MSM.” They discussed ways. They never actually went through with any negative ads or the like. It’s mostly just bitching about Bernie.
In fact, almost ALL emails that you’re talking about come from either late April, or May 2016. And NO CHANCE IN HELL could Sanders have won by May 3. Remember his UTTER decimation on Super Tuesday? At that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19. Why? Cuz he’d need to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe.
I looked at the dates of the most controversial emails — May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21. ALL after it was IMPOSSIBLE for Sanders to win. Of course Wikileaks didn’t acknowledge this. Sanders people didn’t. All to sell a “primaries were rigged” narrative. Yeah, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So what? They didn’t do shit about it. And the two other emails — one from April 24 and May 1 — were statements of fact. In the FIRST, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, and I am quoting here…
“So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding! Who was Sanders thinking he was fooling?
And the SECOND? Stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was — which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run! How is that proving it was “rigged”?
I DO argue it was was appropriate for the DNC to favor Clinton, who worked for the DNC for decades, had happily contributed to the party far more, was actually REGISTERED a Dem and Sanders had spent years BASHING the DNC, being an independent, and only working with the DNC at the last minute to gain attention as a presidential candidate. Oh, and his supporters sent death threats to DNC officials and delegates, made up a “superdelegate hit list”, constantly harassed Clinton supporters online and basically were peeing on the dinner table and demanding THEY be the ones to run the next dinner party.
No. Once only one candidate can win the nomination. So NO. KIDDING…that the DNC would work for Hillary on her behalf when it was clear she was going to win the nominee by April! Of COURSE there are emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect Democrats, no EFFING KIDDING DNC officials were pissed off that Sanders WOULDN’T tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee and that any outcome they didn’t like like in Nevada was illegitimate and rigged.
And BTW, Nevada? They claimed that was filled with fraud. Guess what Politifact found?
Of course, Sanders supporters and Sanders himself NEVER apologized for blatantly lying about this. To this DAY they haven’t. Not Secular Talk, not the Young Turks, not ANY Bernie Bro I talked to online with, not Bernie Sanders himself. Not. A. One.
Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. Minorities overwhelmingly chose HRC over her.
Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary in large part because he failed to win the hearts of black progressives. It…fusion.net
All Sanders had was the Youth vote, which has an ABYSMAL turnout rate of LESS THAN TWENTY PERCENT…
who among the electorate voted. For a demographic profile of the electorate, we must turn to surveys. Among the most…www.electproject.org
And the independent vote. There are about 28 million registered independents in the USA. There’s over TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN MILLION registered voters in the USA. 28 million out of 218 million is THIRTEEN PERCENT. You can’t win the election with an electorate like that. Especially when half of Trump voters sure as s — t wouldn’t vote for you, despite what Kyle Kylinski of Secular Talk claims several times. Cuz most Americans are very split on free college and when it comes to single payer, when you explain what it is…they recoil in horror.
And when they find out, they don't like it. The AP recently asked 1,033 adults what they thought of "Medicare for All,…www.theatlantic.com
As Sanders found out himself. vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/13/13933116/bernie-sanders-chris-hayes
So I’m sorry, but…I’m afraid you’re provably wrong about this.