We do not have a national primary day, it is a process, bern wins NH if not for superdelegates, then the narrative and process changes, Delegates won in states like Indiana do not matter if the race is a forgone conclusion. Without stealing the NH and early races with superdelegates it would have been a completely different story…A threat to what, win? He was not going to win. Clinton won in every way she could. She won more pledged delegates. She won more unpledged(super), she won the popular vote handily.
View attachment 277598
So that's why I asked the question. If Sanders had no chance of winning, why did cankles and the dnc feel the need to pull out the election shenanigans? Wouldn't that be a waste of effort while risking credibility with leftist voters that they need. That doesn't make any sense to me.A threat to what, win? He was not going to win. Clinton won in every way she could. She won more pledged delegates. She won more unpledged(super), she won the popular vote handily.
View attachment 277598
First, he DID win NH. When the result was reported it would have been him winning and the votes cast for each. No one looked at the delegate count and thought it wasn't a Bernie win. The headlines the next day didn't say Bernie and Hillary tie in NH. Quit trying to make facts fit your narrative. Bernie was even expected to win big going into it.We do not have a national primary day, it is a process, bern wins NH if not for superdelegates, then the narrative and process changes, Delegates won in states like Indiana do not matter if the race is a forgone conclusion. Without stealing the NH and early races with superdelegates it would have been a completely different story…
EVERYONE, including NYT and CNN knew HRC would win with superdelegate, that was reality, so it never challenged the narrative of HRC inevitably…First, he DID win NH. When the result was reported it would have been him winning and the votes cast for each. No one looked at the delegate count and thought it wasn't a Bernie win. The headlines the next day didn't say Bernie and Hillary tie in NH. Quit trying to make facts fit your narrative. Bernie was even expected to win big going into it.
Here are a couple of examples for you
Bernie Sanders secures decisive win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire
Scale of defeat for Clinton will raise questions about her appeal among younger voters and women, especially after closer-than-expected Iowa result last weekwww.theguardian.comDonald Trump and Bernie Sanders Win in New Hampshire Primary (Published 2016)
Mr. Trump recovered from a humbling second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses; Mr. Sanders prevailed in a state where he has long held an advantage.www.nytimes.com
What does that have to do with your claim? They didn't "steal" any early races. Super delegates don't even have to announce who they are voting for until the vote at the convention. Bernie could have won without the super delegates, except he lost the regular delegates by 451. That means the super delegates had no bearing on the result. It isn't like Bernie won more pledged delegates and Hillary beat him because of the super delegates.EVERYONE, including NYT and CNN knew HRC would win with superdelegate, that was reality, so it never challenged the narrative of HRC inevitably…
Got it. You are looking for absolutes in politics that is ran by elaborate favoritism and money. HRC knew who most superdelegates were supporting her. So did the bern, so did the press, yep about everyone.What does that have to do with your claim? They didn't "steal" any early races. Super delegates don't even have to announce who they are voting for until the vote at the convention. Bernie could have won without the super delegates, except he lost the regular delegates by 451. That means the super delegates had no bearing on the result. It isn't like Bernie won more pledged delegates and Hillary beat him because of the super delegates.
Yet you claimed that she won because it looked like Bernie didn't really win NH. I showed you it was not like that at all. Now it was just fixed by super delegates, even though they didn't determine the winner either.Got it. You are looking for absolutes in politics that is ran by elaborate favoritism and money. HRC knew who most superdelegates were supporting her. So did the bern, so did the press, yep about everyone.
Bottom line with superdelegates it was already rigged…
And I’m saying the superdelegates wildcard affected the actual votes cast, since they were pretty much negotiated ahead of time. Glad repubs, for all their warts have not done that…Yet you claimed that she won because it looked like Bernie didn't really win NH. I showed you it was not like that at all. Now it was just fixed by super delegates, even though they didn't determine the winner either.
Yes, Clinton was the chosen one that year. The media was mostly behind her, just like with Biden last time. The D party was behind her, also like with Biden. She won because more people in more states voted for her than Bernie, just as they were told to by those they trusted to give them information.
Same could be said for the Republican party. That's how we get Holcombs and Youngs.The current Democrat party does not allow voters to choose a candidate. The party selects a candidate and then does its best to force it through.
"Democracy" my ***.
Absolutely!Same could be said for the Republican party. That's how we get Holcombs and Youngs.
RFK Jr. supports the Constitution, including the Second Amendment for gun rights. | Conservative News Daily™
confiscate guns if elected,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a presidential candidate. He stated that he supports the Second Amendment and the Constitution. When asked about his stance on gun rights, he replied, “I’m not going to confiscate guns.”www.conservativenewsdaily.net
View attachment 279913
Yep. Been watching him speak.The guy is sure saying a lot of the right things. For R's who are undecided, he may be worth a listen. I know I am listening.