Grisham on Trump’s meeting with Orbán: ‘He wants to be a dictator’

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.