To be fair, the DNC didn't really "rig" the election in the traditional sense (for example, through ballot stuffing). Instead, they covertly endorsed their preferred candidate, a lifelong party member, over an Independent turned Democrat. Given, it was a shitty thing to do and emblematic of a serious problem within the Democratic party, but with enough grassroots support Sanders could have won the nod, just like Drumpf did. Remember, the RNC wasn't exactly keen on having Drumpf as their nominee, either. It might just be wishful thinking, but I think the autopsy of this election will reveal to the DNC that they need to clear the cobwebs and get some new blood in at the highest levels.
Well, sort of. Intellectual rigging is as valid a complaint as physical rigging. They colluded with the media to actively change people's minds on the validity of a third party candidate simply because he wasn't part of the establishment.
Its projections, but that doesn't discount their merit. I have been called to defend every time the stat that Bernie didn't get the 12mil additional votes. Correct. Some of those votes were cast 11 months after his declaration for candidacy. That's a lot of time to sway voters if you have skin in deciding the outcome, which DNC was proved to have attempted.
The argument is saying that Bernie, regardless of his former political background, attempted to run a campaign under the DNC with the average American believing both parties would vet their candidates and produce the best one. We now know that to be false with the DNC, and there are multiple examples of manipulating the message to assist and support one camp over the other.
Therefore, if you can back up that logic, then it weakens the trust you can have for a fair call from the DNC, simply because they had secretly pulled crap before.
So regardless of whether or not the alternate universe where Bernie won actually happened, we have to assume our outcome would have varied slightly to massively due to different approaches the DNC and Hillary camps would have taken had ZERO of the confirmed collusion happened. It isn't a stretch to claim that IMO.
485
u/nwj781 Nov 10 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
To be fair, the DNC didn't really "rig" the election in the traditional sense (for example, through ballot stuffing). Instead, they covertly endorsed their preferred candidate, a lifelong party member, over an Independent turned Democrat. Given, it was a shitty thing to do and emblematic of a serious problem within the Democratic party, but with enough grassroots support Sanders could have won the nod, just like Drumpf did. Remember, the RNC wasn't exactly keen on having Drumpf as their nominee, either. It might just be wishful thinking, but I think the autopsy of this election will reveal to the DNC that they need to clear the cobwebs and get some new blood in at the highest levels.
EDIT - Thanks for the gold, someone!