Not really, I’m not the one complaining, not into proving a negative. She won fair and square, if you don’t like prove it was manipulated and it altered the result. Burden of proof, and all that.
The notion of “superdelegates” is inherently anathema to democracy. Every vote counts equal. Introducing a class of people whose votes are worth more than others inherently corrupts the process. Since the superdelegates overwhelmingly supported Hillary, they gave her an unfair advantage.
Hillary won against Bernie because the deck was stacked in her favor. Of course, she didn’t have any sort of unfair advantage in the presidential election, where she proceeded to lose against Trump, of all people. Because she couldn’t rig that contest.
Yes, while admitting she was ahead anyway…
She wouldn’t have been ahead without the superdelegates demoralizing the Bernie supporters.
And of course you have proof of this, other than “trust me bro, the ref is to blame”?
I’ve shown that she had a significant unfair advantage. Proving that she’d have won if things were fair is on you.
Not really, I’m not the one complaining, not into proving a negative. She won fair and square, if you don’t like prove it was manipulated and it altered the result. Burden of proof, and all that.
The notion of “superdelegates” is inherently anathema to democracy. Every vote counts equal. Introducing a class of people whose votes are worth more than others inherently corrupts the process. Since the superdelegates overwhelmingly supported Hillary, they gave her an unfair advantage.
Hillary won against Bernie because the deck was stacked in her favor. Of course, she didn’t have any sort of unfair advantage in the presidential election, where she proceeded to lose against Trump, of all people. Because she couldn’t rig that contest.
Anything other than direct vote is then invalid, since delegates, representatives, senators, are all contrary to what you want…
PS: Hillary won against Bernie and the deck was stacked in her favor. Not because.