People said the same thing about Wikileaks “proving” the primary was rigged.
SaintHeartwing
11

Wikileaks did show the primary was rigged.

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.” Consider:

  1. 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.
  2. Democrat super-delegates were organized behind Clinton and going to the press with their support as early of August of 2015.
  3. 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.
  4. Mainstream media outlets dutifully employed Clinton surrogates to “analyze” the primary race without identifying them as Clinton surrogates.
  5. The DNC scheduled far fewer debates than in previous years despite one candidate having exponentially more brand awareness than the others.
  6. 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.

We could go on, but let’s stop there. Those six bullet points should be enough to convince any reasonable person that the left-wing establishment had its finger on the scale in favor of Clinton from the jump, that it wasn’t just coincidence things kept happening that clearly favored Hillary.

However, not everyone is reasonable.

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.

It defies common sense to look at all of that and pretend (a) the full extent of the problematic behavior has been revealed; and (b) the primary was a fair fight with both candidates enjoying a level playing field.

You can certainly argue it was appropriate for the DNC to tilt things so heavily towards Hillary Clinton considering her decades of work for the party and Sanders’ background as an Independent.

But pretending the primary was not rigged to give Clinton every advantage is to deny water is wet or the sky blue.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

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