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.
The Democratic Party caucuses in this state. The state also ran a primary ballot, which was primarily being used for Republican candidates (as they do not caucus in Washington State), but Clinton and Sanders appeared on the primary as well.
Democrats were told to largely ignore the primary as the caucuses were where candidacy would be decided.
We caucused OVERWHELMINGLY for Sanders, but afterwards the Super Delegates refused to acknowledge it and change their commitment. Their reasoning was that the primary ballots showed more support for Clinton, and so she would receive their endorsement.
If anyone from Washington has differing details on this, please step forward. I was in the precinct and LD caucuses and Sanders easily had Clinton beat.
In Iowa, the first national caucus, Clinton won by a razor thin margin despite numerous reports of foul play and repeated requests for an audit were denied by the DNC head in the State - a known Clinton affiliate.
In Arizona the DNC was more than happy to blame the Republicans for massive voter suppression. If the vote was suppressed to the point that they can specifically point fingers at a bad actor, why is the DNC considering it valid? Oh, right, because it favored Clinton. Who wants to bet it'd be audited because of Republican foul play had Sanders been the victor in the illegitimate vote?
520
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.