Yes. You are.
SaintHeartwing
1

Very little of what you say is based in fact and a lot of it is straight up false, as evidenced by your own links and later comments.

We’ve already dealt with the popular vote margin. Could be 4 million, could be 6 million, could be 2 million. Fact is, nobody knows. Which is the only point I’ve ever made.

“She also won voters over the millennial generation overwhelmingly as well…So that left Sanders with only the independent vote, the youth vote…”

The millennial vote is the youth vote so those two statements can’t be true and the idea that HRC won the millennial vote is further contradicted by your own link, which points out Sanders was able to draw even with black voters aged 18–44:

“It shows how Sanders fought Clinton to a near draw with people of color between the ages of 18 and 44, narrowing steadily from a 33-point deficit in mid-October 2015, after Joe Biden said he would not run, to around 5 points today.”

Got that? Sanders turned a 33-point deficit into a 5-point deficit in a large, important segment of Hillary’s strongest demographic in just 8 months. Eight months during which the DNC powers-that-be and their MSM fluffers were doing everything in their power to limit exposure to anyone not named Clinton.

“Name recognition went a long way.”

Yes, yes it did. And by design:

  1. All the Democratic heavy hitters and rising stars refused to join the race.
  2. A large percentage of Democratic superdelegates pledged support to Hillary Clinton months before the first debate and/or primary, many of them repeatedly turned up in the media to make their support public. The liberal wing of the mainstream media then used the superdelegate tally as a bludgeon in virtually every piece detailing the primary race to emphasize Sanders had no chance. The liberal wing of the MSM was colluding with the Clinton campaign, either indirectly by bringing Clinton surrogates on air to analyze the primaries without identifying them as Clinton surrogates or directly by ferrying illicit information back and forth between the two.
  3. The DNC, chaired by a Clinton operative, scheduled fewer debates and started them much later in the calendar year, then agreed to add 4 more after the Clinton campaign requested an additional NH debate (a State in which it was trailing badly). This approach clearly favored the candidate with name recognition.
  4. The DNC, which was chaired by a Clinton operative, rolled back the prohibition on federal lobbyist and PAC campaign donations.

All of the above is 100 percent fact and all of it clearly, clearly worked to Hillary Clinton’s advantage. You look at all of it and say: “Bah, pure coincidence.” That is, in a word, laughable and anyone with a teeny-tiny iota of integrity agrees.

You’d be taken a lot more seriously if you conceded the DNC worked hard to nominate HRC, but the favoritism was justified. There’s a persuasive argument to be made there as opposed to the pure, unadulterated fantasy you’re currently peddling.

“ And BTW, you crow about caucuses?”

Nope, again not true. All I’ve ever said about caucuses is that you cannot compare vote totals in them against vote totals from open/closed primaries. That’s it. Caucuses are certainly less democratic than open primaries and reasonably held closed primaries. I’ve never disputed that.

Incidentally, you still didn’t address my last reply so I’ll just repost it b/c I’m sure that was an oversight on your part and not further proof of your bone-deep intellectual dishonesty:

You haven’t provided a shred of evidence that these estimated vote counts are accurate or even how they’re conjured up. Simply pointing to the fact that they’re estimated doesn’t establish they’re accurate.

And how do you think these experts arrive at their vote-count estimations? As your own link said, there aren’t actual vote counts for many of the contests. Here is the only example* I’ve seen of anyone actually trying to explain the methodology behind estimating actual vote counts and it uses complete nonsense like the beauty-contest primaries hosted after delegates had been awarded via caucus i.e. after the point in participating in the primary has been rendered moot.

Next, explain away the differences in the way actual primaries are hosted and why we should ignore those distortions.

Your argument amounts to an assumption that the same people who routinely blew their projections — y’know, the things on which they’ve built their expert reputations, which was my point — nailed the vote-count estimations reliably despite no evidence and no methodology to scrutinize.

*That is the same 538 link you directed me to in your last post. Probably not the most compelling argument to use a link I’ve already debunked as some sort of authority.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.