“She also won voters over the millennial generation overwhelmingly as well…So that left Sanders with only the independent vote, the youth vote…”
I didn’t say she WON the millenial vote, she won those OVER the millenial vote. As in, those over 30, 40. They voted for her over Sanders. And as for your “but but they chose her before the first debate” argument? Yeah, that’s different from 2008 when Barack Obama beat her…howwwww? Oh. Right. It isn’t. And BTW, Sanders overwhelmingly got the most positive coverage in the race. And your “but she was sent illicit information” thing was ONE town Hall question sent once. That’s it. For God’s sake, Megyn Kelly leaked questions to Trump. Politicos have that done for them all the time. Journalists or people on networks do it to get in good with the candidate.
It was SANDERS who got the most positive coverage. Studies proved this. https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
According to the report, eight of America’s most influential news outlets wrote coverage “negative in tone” about Clinton 84 percent of the time — compared to just 43 percent for Donald Trump, and 17 percent for Bernie Sanders. And another report found similar results. http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders
And your argument of “fewer debates” is not true either. Your argument’s based on ignorance: The DNC first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. That’s not anything new. Compare the official debates with DNC sponsors in 2008 and 2004 to the number of official debates in 2016. In fact, I’ll give you the numbers.
The 2008 one includes all the debates and forums as one. The 2016 splits the debates and forums into two. When you add all them up, there’s more than enough forums and debates for two people. And back in 2008, there were even more candidates who lasted longer than those in 2016. Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, guess what happenes when the nominees tear each other down over and over? You get the Republican field in 2012…and the Republican field in 2016, in a way. The Repubs had even MORE candidates, they had 12 debates. And how well did that work for them? Oh, right. It led to Trump.
And BTW, about superdelegates. As an aside. If Repubs had superdelegates? We sure wouldn’t have Trump, would we? Cuz the Republican establishment hated him and thought he was bad for their base. Just saying.
You argue there wasn’t enough debates, ignoring the many town halls and forums as well. In fact, there were 22 debates and forums, 14 were for JUST two candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that back to the 2008 election! 17 debates and forums between six and eight candidates; only SIX with TWO candidates, less than half the number done in 2016. So Bernie got PLENTY of debates. And your “roll back lobbyist” money argument?
Money wins elections. Quist refused DNC help in Montana and got slaughtered. Ossof had MILLIONS of out of state dollars flooding in and it couldn’t beat the millions of out of state dollars for his opponent. Money wins down ticket, congressional and special elections overwhelmingly, thanks to Citizens United…which occurred BACK IN 2010, after Obama was elected in 2008. Why do you think Congress is controlled by the GOP? Because money pays for the positive coverage they need to get their name out. Unlike in a presidential election, where all you need is good ideas (that sound good to demographics) combined with good ATTENTION, you can’t get all that on the state level, the tinier levels. You need money to get that attention and that, combined with Republican gerrymandering, is why Congress has been majority red.
And finally, your argument that “but they showed favoritism”? That’s not “rigging the primary”. The RUSSIANS did more to do that. They hacked into people’s private personal computers, as both intelligence agencies, private security firms and Reality Winner’s leak showed. They spread fake news to tear down Hillary and Sanders and build up Trump. Nobody in the DNC ran so much as one fake ad against him. They WHINED about him, sure. But those emails that say things like “So much for the prospective nominee”? Guess what. They come from May for the most part, with one in Late April.
And Bernie had long since lost the nomination by May. There wasn’t any way he could win the pledged delegates needed, there were only 933 by that point and HE needed 984! And they weren’t gonna vote for him. Especially not when he’d been pissing on the Democrats for years with nasty insults and saying they were just as bad as the Republicans, when his SUPPORTERS had made a “superdelegate hit list”, had been sending death threats to DNC officials. Of COURSE the DNC would think “this guy’s an asshole, he’s not even REGISTERED as a Dem, he insults us all the time as not being good enough, his supporters are harassing and threatening us, and he has the gall to say HE should run our party? No, fuck him!” Of course they’d think that! Bernie supporters had been assholes offline and online to the DNC for months on end, some even breaking the law by outright sending death threats. So of course the DNC wouldn’t be interested in showing ANY favoratism to him. And unlike Barack Obama, HE wasn’t a young, hot, charismatic black guy that seemed to be getting far more popular votes than Hillary, necessitating superdelegates to switch like they did in 2008.
And finally, your “but there’s no evidence they’re accurate” claim? You haven’t any evidence they’re not. This is the same popular vote count that’s been going on for years, and “mass voter fraud” is, BTW, a MYTH. There’s no reason to doubt the numbers.
And the people making the poll predictions are not the same people who count the votes. The people who count the votes are the ones who collect the votes at the voting booths, who then relay the information to both the government and the media. It’s not the same as a pundit saying “win by a landslide”.