I mean, technically, that’s a conspiracy. It’s just not a conspiracy “theory” like the faked moon landing, Area 51 &aliens, etc etc. It’s just the regular, boring, type of conspiracy. And it was perfectly legal,very legal, the legalest, and legalsideboob (thanks autocomplete for this one. )
The worst thing to come out of the emails is that they gave Clinton some debate questions beforehand and that they called him some nasty names. It did not uncover any conspiracy against him. This is the same shit I hear from trump supporters who claim they know evidence came out that it was rigged.
Still, I think Democrats made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. I even think Clinton’s campaign made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. Coronation isn’t a good look for anyone, and voters don’t like the feeling that someone is trying to make their choice for them. My guess is Clinton would’ve still won in a larger field, but the win would have felt more earned, more legitimate. And if she lost — if, unlike Sanders, Biden had decided the American people had not yet heard enough about the damn emails, and had run hard on them, and had taken Clinton down — Democrats might have been saved a debacle.
The reason it’s unwise for the party to try to decide as firmly and as early as Democrats did in 2016 is the party doesn’t have very good information that far before a general election. Candidates who look strong prove weak. Voters who seem satisfied prove restive. Competitive primaries surface unexpected information. If we’ve learned nothing else, it’s that political elites shouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume they can predict future elections.
The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible. And the party is still managing the resentment that engendered in voters. “Once somebody doesn’t trust you,” sighs Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chair, “it’s very hard to get that trust back.”
The irony is that Sanders was a prime beneficiary of this bias, not a victim of it.
The original claim is that sanders got screwed by the DNC and Clinton conspiring against him, something the emails proved. The article here says he benefited from her and the DNC actions, the exact opposite of being screwed by her and the DNC.
If we are arguing that they’re problems with the nominating process and how the DNC runs things, what this article is actually addressing, then yes im 100% on board. We can start by getting rid of super delegates and implement something like star voting.
But to read that article and actually see it is as confirming the belief that sanders got screwed by Clinton and the DNC, is just mind boggling to me.
Literally, multiple times, the source explicitly contradicts the point…and are still you are trying to maintain that it supports your point?
I don’t know, mate. You can say that all the rules and such were followed, but just like any rigged system, playing by the rules doesn’t mean that things are appropriate. The idea of superdelegates is fucked up. The way we let certain states ‘spoil’ the results and create inertia by voting at different times is fucked up. First past the post voting is fucked up.
You remove all the super delegates, she still crushes him. I don’t like them, but pointing to them as a reason he lost makes zero sense.
And one of the early states to vote is NH and he did amazing there, which is where the whole “he had a chance” came from. If anything, the inertia thing you point to helped him.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at exactly, but keep in mind that these were private conversations that were made public. You’re talking about public comments.
But the funny thing is that the reason they were mad about sanders is that it was clear Clinton was going to win, and he was publicly attacking her.
When did he attack her after she want the primary? Was it before or after he was campaigning for her? and did more than she actually did to win herself votes
I didn’t ignore the point. You just reiterated the facts as I did, but pretended that they proved things that they do not. You probably think I know I’m full of shit, because you know you are and are projecting.
Were they perfectly fair to him? No, they said mean things about him and gave Clinton some debate questions.
Did they sabotage him? Absolutely not. This narrative is pretty equivalent to the stupid baseless “they stole the election from trump!”
There’s leaked DNC emails of the Democrats conspiring against Bernie… This isn’t a conspiracy it’s a straight fact.
I mean, technically, that’s a conspiracy. It’s just not a conspiracy “theory” like the faked moon landing, Area 51 &aliens, etc etc. It’s just the regular, boring, type of conspiracy. And it was perfectly legal,very legal, the legalest, and legalsideboob (thanks autocomplete for this one. )
The worst thing to come out of the emails is that they gave Clinton some debate questions beforehand and that they called him some nasty names. It did not uncover any conspiracy against him. This is the same shit I hear from trump supporters who claim they know evidence came out that it was rigged.
Yeah everything that’s fully backed up with evidence is just a giant conspiracy theory and if you do any research you’re a Trump supporter!
It was really obvious that the DNC had all finance and behind the scenes votes go to Hillary. And we now have the emails to boot. There’s no denying it unless you stick your head in the sand MAGA style
Amazing, from your link
Also from the link:
The original claim is that sanders got screwed by the DNC and Clinton conspiring against him, something the emails proved. The article here says he benefited from her and the DNC actions, the exact opposite of being screwed by her and the DNC.
If we are arguing that they’re problems with the nominating process and how the DNC runs things, what this article is actually addressing, then yes im 100% on board. We can start by getting rid of super delegates and implement something like star voting.
But to read that article and actually see it is as confirming the belief that sanders got screwed by Clinton and the DNC, is just mind boggling to me.
Literally, multiple times, the source explicitly contradicts the point…and are still you are trying to maintain that it supports your point?
I don’t know, mate. You can say that all the rules and such were followed, but just like any rigged system, playing by the rules doesn’t mean that things are appropriate. The idea of superdelegates is fucked up. The way we let certain states ‘spoil’ the results and create inertia by voting at different times is fucked up. First past the post voting is fucked up.
You remove all the super delegates, she still crushes him. I don’t like them, but pointing to them as a reason he lost makes zero sense.
And one of the early states to vote is NH and he did amazing there, which is where the whole “he had a chance” came from. If anything, the inertia thing you point to helped him.
deleted by creator
Describes sabotaging him in one paragraph. Denies it in the following. Ffs.
Thats not what sabotage is lmao
You think saying nasty things about him is sabotaging him? Wow.
Isn’t that what everyone keeps getting angry at users doing to Biden?
I’m not sure what you’re driving at exactly, but keep in mind that these were private conversations that were made public. You’re talking about public comments.
But the funny thing is that the reason they were mad about sanders is that it was clear Clinton was going to win, and he was publicly attacking her.
So you don’t see any similarities?
When did he attack her after she want the primary? Was it before or after he was campaigning for her? and did more than she actually did to win herself votes
Yes, I see similarities. But as I said, I’m not even sure what you’re driving at exactly.
More the feeding Hillary debate questions part. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, definite tip of iceberg situation.
So, other than the thing I pointed out, you have no evidence of anything.
Its really telling how you tried to ignore or misconstrue the point. You know fucking well you’re full of shit yet here we are.
I didn’t ignore the point. You just reiterated the facts as I did, but pretended that they proved things that they do not. You probably think I know I’m full of shit, because you know you are and are projecting.
Lying fuck.
Are you okay?