anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
Or, maybe, it wasn't rigged and they are just honestly assessing it. Nah. Obviously this was some rigged paper!
Hey, any excuse to ignore the facts when they contradict your beliefs. lol
i sincerely hope anyone woh thinks you are right reads that paper
I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.
from what i understood, they concluded that we shouldn't tell people the 2016 nomination was rigged because it would undermine faith in the system. did i misunderstand that?
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2 Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the
2016 election.
Yeah, clearly your "understanding" of their conclusion is based in reality. Why so dishonest? I don't get it.
your accusation of dishonesty is bad faith. i'm engaging entirely with the facts here.
this paper doesn't even acknowledge the role the party finances and other resources played in the nomination process, tilting the results at the polls before many voters even had a chance to voice their preference.
Oh look at all that good hard evidence you are providing. Very convincing. It's not just "forget your hard evidence. Look at my vague accusations that make me suspicious!"
Do you realize that I've had "debates" with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern? It's funny how much my fellow Sanders supporters can sound like Trump supporters.
>Do you realize that I’ve had “debates” with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern?
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
my claims aren't bs.
And yet you don't have the faith to back them up. Lol oh wait, not enough time to back them up...but plenty of time to post over and over again
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn't really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn't as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
For example, if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2
Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the
2016 election.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn't, at all, as you say, conclude that it "might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged."
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
Or, maybe, it wasn't rigged and they are just honestly assessing it. Nah. Obviously this was some rigged paper!
Hey, any excuse to ignore the facts when they contradict your beliefs. lol
i sincerely hope anyone woh thinks you are right reads that paper
I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.
from what i understood, they concluded that we shouldn't tell people the 2016 nomination was rigged because it would undermine faith in the system. did i misunderstand that?
Yeah, clearly your "understanding" of their conclusion is based in reality. Why so dishonest? I don't get it.
your accusation of dishonesty is bad faith. i'm engaging entirely with the facts here.
this paper doesn't even acknowledge the role the party finances and other resources played in the nomination process, tilting the results at the polls before many voters even had a chance to voice their preference.
Oh look at all that good hard evidence you are providing. Very convincing. It's not just "forget your hard evidence. Look at my vague accusations that make me suspicious!"
Do you realize that I've had "debates" with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern? It's funny how much my fellow Sanders supporters can sound like Trump supporters.
>Do you realize that I’ve had “debates” with Trump supporters that follow virtually the same exact pattern?
i'm not interested in a debate at all.
i'm not a sanders supporter. i'm an anarchist.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
my claims aren't bs.
And yet you don't have the faith to back them up. Lol oh wait, not enough time to back them up...but plenty of time to post over and over again
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn't really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn't as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn't, at all, as you say, conclude that it "might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged."
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.