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.
i'm not a sanders supporter. i'm an anarchist.
I apologize. I thought you had said something earlier about supporting Sanders, and when I've had this debate before it's almost always been with another Sanders supporter.
But good on you on not having a horse in the race and still demonstrating confirmation bias.
>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 interested in a debate at all.
Pretty standard response after a failed argument.
more posturing and rhetoric
lol. I provided you are scientific paper studying the election. And it's just posturing and rhetoric. I'm beginning to think this might just be trolling. If so, well done.
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.
i'm not a sanders supporter. i'm an anarchist.
I apologize. I thought you had said something earlier about supporting Sanders, and when I've had this debate before it's almost always been with another Sanders supporter.
But good on you on not having a horse in the race and still demonstrating confirmation bias.
>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.
Pretty standard response after a failed argument.
more posturing and rhetoric
lol. I provided you are scientific paper studying the election. And it's just posturing and rhetoric. I'm beginning to think this might just be trolling. If so, well done.
>lol
appeal to ridicule