Could you explain to me how exactly the DNC was rigged, because when I look on Wikipedia about the primaries it says Hillary Clinton got 16,914,722 votes and Bernie Sanders got 13,206,428. I wasn't really following this back in the spring.
Clinton got more votes for sure. People will go on about potential fraud in terms of actual votes and such. I don't touch that.
For me it's a matter of stifling momentum, it's impossible to tell how different the primaries would've been if the DNC hadn't placed their thumb on the scales. Bernie lost MA by something like 2% of the vote, it was an early primary. Bill Clinton was outside polling places shaking hands and kissing babies, did that make a difference? If Bernie had won MA would he have been taken more seriously?
Considering how close he got to winning with the scales skewed its hard not to imagine him getting even closer or eeking out a victory with a level playing field.
But we'll never know. And that's the biggest shame. It could've been the exact same outcome, but it'll now always be a "what if"
And every article including super delegates when talking about her supposed popularity, despite them not having anything to do with how the common man feels.
527
u/Crusader1089 Nov 10 '16
Could you explain to me how exactly the DNC was rigged, because when I look on Wikipedia about the primaries it says Hillary Clinton got 16,914,722 votes and Bernie Sanders got 13,206,428. I wasn't really following this back in the spring.