There is a huge difference between the DNC favoring a particular candidate and rigging elections.
Tony, I agree that there should have been more debates. It’s also obvious that the media did not help Sanders — it focused all its coverage on Trump.
But the rest of that Salon article link in your article was just partisan sour grapes: the primary voting rules were in place for these states long before Sanders became a candidate, as was the super delegate system. People may not like these rules, but they were not designed with Bernie Sanders in mind. Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 under the same sets of rules.
The issue of election fraud is the one we really need to examine closely.
Because if it is true that the Democrats can rig an election, trust me, the Republicans will be able to rig and win the general election. Just trace the 2004 election results to who owns the voting machines:
Vote Fraud 2004: How Ohio was "Delivered" to Bush
Vote Fraud 2004: How Ohiowas "Delivered" to Bush IN mid-August , Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of , sat…
Diebold Indicted: Its spectre still haunts Ohio elections
Diebold: the controversial manufacturer of voting and ATM machines, whose name conjures up the demons of Ohio's 2004…
Let’s assume that the main points made by the conspiracy theorists are true, and look at the election results. Here’s an article screaming “Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton.”
The article claims that there were large discrepancies in Clinton’s favor compared to exit polling. (refer to charts in the linked article). But look at the facts:
- In the Southern states, Clinton beat Sanders by 20–44% in the exit polls. In the elections, these margins swelled to 30–72%. If you subtract the discrepancy between the vote count and the exit polls and add them to Sanders totals, he still loses every state by 15–30%.
- In the key states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, Clinton won the elections and the exit polls showed her winning the elections. (Note, in Ohio, there was a large discrepancy in Clinton’s favor that increased the margin of victory from 3.8% to 13.8%.)
- California has a paper trail in its voting system and was not accused of election fraud like the states with electronic systems. Yes, there were issues with the massive number of absentee and provisional ballots. However, when all the votes are finally counted, it will confirm that Clinton won the state, even if it is only by 6%, instead of the 12% reported on election night.
What does that tell us? It tells us that even if you believe the most extreme cases of election tampering, Clinton won all the states she won. Clinton won by over 3.7 million votes. Even if you ignore the exit polls in all the above states, subtract 10% (average discrepancy in charted votes was 6.23%) the total of the total votes from Clinton’s totals and add them to Sanders, she still would win by 1,000,000 votes.
On the flip side, every time there was a larger turnout in a primary, Clinton did much better than she did in the caucuses. According to 538: “if all the caucuses were primaries, Clinton would be winning the Democratic nomination by an even wider margin than she is now.”
The System Isn't 'Rigged' Against Sanders
A week ago, New York Daily News columnist and Bernie Sanders supporter Shaun King tweeted the following about the…
I wish Sanders had won. I voted for him. But that doesn’t mean I will fall victim to the kind of delusional thinking expressed in your article.
There are many good reasons Sanders waited until the last minute to endorse Clinton: to influence the party platform, push Clinton to the left on key issues and show respect for his supporters. But once we see him speak at the DNC to unite the party against the threat of Trump, it’s time to wake up: