(10-24-2016, 05:39 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Even looking at the final 3.5 million, it is only about 14% -- could the DNC lean on the scales by 14%? Yes, I think so. especially in the big closed state primaries (organized by the democratic party. e.g. NY, FL, TX, PA) where only registered democrats were able to vote.
Ergo, probably a good case for it being rigged.
You can believe what you like, but if Hillary Clinton had *that* much clout, how on earth did she lose to Obama?
The rules about open and closed Democratic primaries were set before the election season even started. This didn't just go one way; Hillary didn't get to overturn caucus states, where Sanders had a big edge because of the enthusiasm gap - he had fewer but more enthusiastic supporters, who would turn out to caucuses in the states that used them. Why would Sanders get to change the rules halfway through in the states that required you to be registered beforehand?
3.5 million is a gigantic number, and the results square with the rough predictions of the polls, which the DNC does not control. Indeed, Sanders usually *outperformed* the polls, sometimes by quite a lot, as in Michigan. This is a very odd result if there is widespread vote rigging! I'm sure Sanders diehards at Counterpunch and Election Justice USA disagree, and there are surely things to point to, considering how badly the DNC has behaved, but as I said before, it's just not enough. My conclusion? Lots of people voted for Sanders. But lots more voted for Hillary. (And more states. And more delegates. And more superdelegates. And more everything.)
-Jester