you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (6 children)

I have never made that claim. Are you just arguing with some imaginary person here? I can leave you to it, if you want to continue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (5 children)

    But that shouldn’t translate to her having an enormous lead before anyone votes. That’s not democratic.

    Look at the post you're under. The claim that Bernie was cheated is rampant and you're down in the comments arguing with people who have hard irrefutable numbers showing he lost by such a large margin that superdelegates could never have played any part in it. Your intentions are clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    Have you read any of my comments? This entire time, I’ve made it incredibly clear that I’m talking about delegates. You’re either not very good at reading or you’re purposefully misunderstanding me.

    Let me lay it out again, nice and slow. Delegates are the only votes that actually count toward deciding the nominee. It is indisputable that Hillary had a huge lead over Sanders in delegates before anyone voted in the primaries. Look it up.

    California is roughly 10% of the electoral college. Imagine, if you will, if California just went to whoever the elite liked in the general election, regardless of any votes. That would be unfair, yes? That’s not even as bad as the 15% share of superdelegates in the DNC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (3 children)

    Did California go to whoever the elites like? No, it went to the most popular candidate in that state: Hillary Clinton, so stop spreading your bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    The superdelegates went to who the elite liked, yes. That would be Hillary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments