you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I've already outlined how the superdelegates could have given Hillary an advantage in winning regular primaries.

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

    She wouldn't have been ahead without the superdelegates demoralizing the Bernie supporters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I've shown that she had a significant unfair advantage. Proving that she'd have won if things were fair is on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The notion of "superdelegates" is inherently anathema to democracy. Every vote counts equal. Introducing a class of people whose votes are worth more than others inherently corrupts the process. Since the superdelegates overwhelmingly supported Hillary, they gave her an unfair advantage.

    Hillary won against Bernie because the deck was stacked in her favor. Of course, she didn't have any sort of unfair advantage in the presidential election, where she proceeded to lose against Trump, of all people. Because she couldn't rig that contest.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)