There’s a Reason People Think the Democratic Primary Was Unfair and Undemocratic: It Was

Journalists have been cautioning Bernie Sanders against “suggesting the entire political process is unfair,” insisting that doing so could have “negative and destabilizing consequences.”  They contend that he must “argue to his supporters that the outcome of the [Democratic primary] process was legitimate” so that he can convince them to vote for Hillary Clinton.  According to several recent articles, this argument should be easy to make because “The Democratic Primary Wasn’t Rigged” and “Bernie Sanders lost this thing fair and square.”

The problem, however, is that the Democratic primary was anything but “fair and square.”  It may not have been “rigged” in the narrow sense in which some of these writers have interpreted that word (to mean that there were illegal efforts to mess with vote counts), but it certainly wasn’t democratic. That’s why only 31 percent of Democrats express “a great deal of confidence” that the Democratic primary process is fair and is likely why the election conspiracy theories these journalists decry have gained traction.

Defenders of the Democratic primary results make several legitimate points.  Clinton secured more votes and more pledged delegates than Sanders.  When voting rules were less restrictive, she still won a greater number of open primaries than he did.  Caucuses, which are very undemocratic, likely benefited Sanders.  There isn’t evidence that the Clinton campaign coordinated efforts to purge voters from the rolls, inaccurately tabulate votes, or mislead Sanders’ California supporters into registering for the American Independent Party.  While “the American election system is a disaster” and “should be reformed,” it’s not clear that the numerous and alarming voting rights issues that surfaced during the primary (from Arizona to New York to Puerto Rico) systematically disadvantaged Sanders.  And discrepancies between exit polls and final voting results can happen for a number of reasons; they aren’t necessarily indicative of foul play.

Yet at the same time, these points skirt the very real ways in which the primary process was “rigged;” as Matt Yglesias and Jeff Stein have acknowledged, “the media, the party, and other elected officials [were] virtually uniformly…loaded against” Sanders from the get-go.  The thumbs on the scale from these groups mattered a lot, more even than Yglesias and Stein surmise.

To quickly recap what those thumbs looked like, the Democratic party threw so much institutional support behind Clinton so long before she even declared her candidacy that political scientist David Karol asserted, in December of 2014, that “Hillary has basically almost been nominated.”  The Democratic National Committee’s debate schedule was “obviously intended” to insulate Clinton from challengers and scrutiny. The DNC, in response to inappropriate behavior from a Sanders staffer who DNC staff had recommended and the campaign had already fired, suspended Sanders’ access to important voter data in violation of its contract with his campaign.  While Clinton was dinging Sanders on his ostensible disregard for party fundraising, the “so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees” was exploiting loopholes in campaign finance laws to funnel the bulk of its resources to Clinton and Clinton alone.  Even into late May, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was leaning heavily into biased, anti-Sanders messaging, and leaked emails confirm that she and other DNC leaders actively sought to undermine the Sanders campaign.  In addition, leaders of numerous groups traditionally affiliated with the Democratic party – unions and organizations generally more aligned with Sanders than Clinton on campaign issues – endorsed Clinton without polling their members (the groups that did open the endorsement process up to members typically endorsed Sanders).

Mainstream pundits and analysts were hardly any better than the Democratic party.  From the moment Sanders entered the race, the media insisted – when they covered him at all, which was not very often – that he had “no chance of winning.”  They continued to write off the possibility of a Sanders victory even as his popularity skyrocketed and he took an early lead in the popular vote, inappropriately including superdelegates in their reporting to make it look like Clinton was winning big.  They asserted that the hundreds of policy wonks in support of Sanders’ ideas didn’t exist, subjecting Sanders’ proposals to far more scrutiny than Clinton’s, getting their analysis of some of Sanders’ plans flat-out wrong, and attempting to “boot anyone not preaching from the incrementalist gospel out of the serious club.”  They began to pressure Sanders to drop out well before even half of all primaries and caucuses had been completed.  They helped advance the false narrative that angry, sexist, illiberal White men fueled Sanders’ rise when his supporters were typically more power-balancing than Clinton’s and he was actually most popular among young women, young people of color, and poor Americans.  They also helped the Clinton campaign propagate numerous misleading and/or untrue attacks on Sanders.

In general, as often happens when political and media establishments are threatened, they progressed from “polite condescension” towards the Sanders campaign to “innuendos” to “right-wing attacks” to “grave and hysterical warnings” to something close to a “[f]ull-scale and unrestrained meltdown.”  It’s not clear exactly how much of that progression was coordinated, but it takes minimal effort to dismantle the claim that the Democratic party and mainstream media outlets were mostly neutral.  Whether Clinton surrogates were praising her on TV without disclosing their ties to her campaign or technically unaffiliated newspaper outlets were blasting Sanders in headlines and post-publication edits to their articles, media sources consistently parroted misleading Clinton campaign talking points.  Evidence indicates that the DNC was along for the ride.

It is true that Clinton faced a large amount of negative media coverage herself – much of it in the summer of 2015 and by some metrics the most out of any presidential candidate – and it is also true that the Sanders campaign had its issues, especially when it came to reaching out to and addressing the concerns of older Black voters.  But that doesn’t change the fact that Clinton got way more coverage at a critical juncture of the race, a huge asset because “[n]ame recognition is a key asset in the early going [and,] even as late as August of 2015, two in five registered Democrats nationally said they’d never heard of Sanders or had heard so little they didn’t have an opinion.”  It also doesn’t change the fact that Clinton was considered the de facto nominee even when media coverage was otherwise unfavorable, a dynamic that surely benefited her among Democrats who prioritize uniting the party in the general election above all else.  Though Sanders’ popularity increased as voters became more familiar with him, the initial lack of media coverage of his campaign, Democratic party opposition to his candidacy, and the idea that a Clinton win was inevitable all hamstrung him greatly.  If the media coverage he received had been more equitable and accurate, it is easy to show that he might have been the Democratic nominee.

That’s why, when writers argue that superdelegates did not “decide the nomination for Clinton,” they’re only half-right.  Clinton certainly won the popular vote under Democratic primary rules, but the superdelegates’ early allegiances and the media’s reporting on those allegiances also certainly influenced that popular vote.  Roadblocks from Democratic party elites and misleading or downright untrue attacks from the Clinton campaign, its many high-profile surrogates, and the mainstream media were ubiquitous throughout the primary process and certainly influenced the vote as well.

As Glenn Greenwald summarized, premature media reports that Clinton had won the election on June 6, besides depressing turnout in the next day’s primaries, constituted “the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination [was] consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors…[T]he party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee…constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won.”  Combine many Democrats’ staunch denial of these problems with undemocratic voting practices that have favored Clinton and that her supporters have too often downplayed, and it’s little wonder that some people believe the election was a sham.

Journalists who disagree should absolutely make their case.  They should also, however, more seriously consider where voters’ concerns come from and stop insisting the system isn’t “rigged.”  People think “the entire political process is unfair” because it is.  And many doubt that “the outcome of the [Democratic primary] process was legitimate” for good reason.

It’s not Sanders’ responsibility to convince people that the primary was something it wasn’t.  It’s our collective responsibility to fix our democracy in the months and years ahead.

Sanders has some ideas for how to go about doing that, and they’re a good start, but there’s still much more to offer in this area.  Stay tuned.

Update (7/23/16): The following sentence fragment was added to this piece after a Wikileaks release of DNC emails: “and leaked emails confirm that she and other DNC leaders actively sought to undermine the Sanders campaign.”  In addition, an earlier version of this piece contained a sentence that read “New evidence suggests that the DNC was along for the ride,” but that sentence was updated to read “Evidence indicates that the DNC was along for the ride” due to corroborating evidence in the Wikileaks release.

Update (10/8/16): Another email leak provides further confirmation that the DNC “anointed [Clinton] the presumed nominee even before the campaign formally began,” as Michael Tracey notes.

Update (10/16/16): Thomas Frank, in a qualitative analysis of Washington Post coverage of Sanders during the primary, finds that clearly negative stories about Sanders outnumbered clearly positive ones by a “roughly five to one” margin, whereas the ratio for Clinton coverage “came much closer to a fifty-fifty split.”

Update (11/2/17): Donna Brazile, who was Vice-Chair of the DNC during the primary, publishes a piece describing how the Clinton campaign “rigged the nomination process” in 2016.  Brazile wrote that the joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton camp and the DNC allowed the Clinton team to “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”


Filed under 2016 Election, Media, US Political System

39 responses to “There’s a Reason People Think the Democratic Primary Was Unfair and Undemocratic: It Was

  1. AvangionQ

    During this democratic primary, we have seen exit polls in multiple states with double digit deviations from the official vote tally, suggesting widespread election fraud. I think that the only reason Bernie Sanders himself hasn’t yet publicly questioned this outcome is that in doing so it may rightfully burn the democratic party down to the ground …

    • carlbradleyherman

      Yes, with likely source the ~25% “vote” count from electronic voting machines WITHOUT COUNTABLE RECEIPTS. Since the 2000 presidential election, the exit polling data has gone from less than 1% difference from hand-counted and verifiable counts to the results you point to.

      Without a countable vote, this fails to meet the definition of “election,” and is therefore election fraud.

      Bernie might be a player in this tragic-comedy, with choice to accept what Dem “leadership” want (as Al Gore did in 2000 to roll-over), or to risk his life with telling the truth.

  2. Sanity Please

    I respectfully disagree. What you’re essentially saying is that most active and elected Democrats supported her from day one. There’s nothing sinister or corrupt about that. It’s telling that then-Senator Obama was able to overcome similar disadvantages in 2008.

    You complain that she had a lot of surrogates and others who repeated campaign talking points. Well, that’s politics. They are party leaders. Are they supposed to stand on the sidelines as their Party selects its nominee? I agree that there were points in the campaign when they went over the line. But that didn’t always benefit her, as the Sanders campaign was skillful at painting itself as the anti-establishment cansidate. Besides the spin victory this gave him, it also helped him to raise needed money.

    In fact, he out raised her at many junctures of the campaign. He certainly had the chance to get his message out there in every primary and caucus state. But his hope that voters would come over to his campaign once he became a viable candidate never materialized. He lost nearly every large state at the beginning, middle, and end of the primary season.

    So, no. Nothing was rigged. In the end, her message prevailed over his. She and her supporters persuaded more people to vote for her. It doesn’t serve the cause of defeating Trump — or the cause of truth — for anyone to continue to rehash campaign grievances.

    And, yes. Sanders does have a responsibility to make nice, particularly because he has chosen not to concede in the interest of winning concessions at the Convention — something he has every right to do. He must not give comfort to the never-Hillary crowd, and it would be wrong to threaten to disrupt the Convention if he doesn’t get his way — a strategy that could well contribute to a Trump victory.

    Sanders has pledged to devote heart and sole to defeating Trump. Given that the voters have chosen her as their alternative, defeating Trump now means supporting Clinton.

    • carlbradleyherman

      And I respectfully disagree: please explain how electronic voting machines without countable votes that “account” for ~25% of the vote total meets the definition of an election (chief among ~12 areas of election fraud)?

      Also: please explain how you support Clinton, a Bush-Obama War Criminal, as an ethical choice.

      Election documentation:

    • Mass Independent

      “In the end, her message prevailed over his.”

      Her message being “vote for me, me, me, because I want it, I want it, I want it, as compared to Sanders’ messages of social justice, FDR type programs to lift the country out of its depression. I don’t think so.

      Due to the massive amount of vote fraud and the outright rigging of the primary, Sanders is no longer under any obligation to honor his pledge to help Clinton, the “selected” nominee. And we who voted, donated and worked for Sanders are not in the mood to support a corrupt pathological liar, war monger and oligarch such as Clinton is. For me to vote for her, much less donate or work for her election, is TOTALLY UNTHINKABLE. The Dems are in for a rude awakening, and will have no one to blame but themselves. But, as it goes, due to their cowardliness and spinelessness, they’ll blame Bernie, no matter what his effort or non-effort.
      As for me, a 65-year old Progressive senior, I will not be voting for a Democrat again, in the up or down vote. That means I will not vote for Sen Warren again, or Sen Markey again, or Rep Neal again, in Massachusetts. Voter disenfranchisement and vote fraud and suppression are the ultimate political crime, and I will personally make the Dems pay, even if it means electing Trump. In fact, if it is very close, I might vote for Trump, to punish the rotten bastard Dems.

    • mcarson5

      You are gliding over facts here. There is a difference between Ed Rendell endorsing Clinton and DWS helping HRC use misleading fundraising tactics to raise money in violation of established practices through the HVF. HRC did something no candidate had ever done before, Obama started his joint fundraising campaign in September of 2008, HRC started hers in 2015. If you cannot see the difference between fans rooting for a team and the ref rooting for a team there is no point talking about this. Corruption and lying and money laundering are not always deal breakers, but they are always facts.
      In politics, as in personal life, rifts are mended when both sides feel heard and both sides agree on what is the correct procedure to follow in the future so these conflicts can be avoided. The Clinton camp is not taking responsibility for acknowledging their mistakes and being willing to cooperatively reform problematic areas in the DNC.

    • I think two major things are off in your comment, though your position isn’t completely unreasonable:

      1) You say “It’s telling that then-Senator Obama was able to overcome similar disadvantages in 2008.” But that’s not really accurate. Obama had far more Establishment support than Sanders in 2008 and was far more similar to Clinton policy-wise. His campaign was certainly aspirational, but his record was not nearly as worrisome to the Establishment (and his donors reflected that).

      2) You say “It doesn’t serve the cause of defeating Trump — or the cause of truth — for anyone to continue to rehash campaign grievances.” This statement is pretty absurd; while it may not “serve the cause of defeating Trump…to rehash campaign grievances,” the whole point of my article is to elevate “the cause of truth” (and the cause of good policy) over partisan desires. I can understand the view that defeating Trump should trump other considerations, but I disagree with it: I think we undercut our ability to elect politicians that fight for important principles and disadvantaged populations in the long run if we embrace lesser-of-evils voting and fail to critique Democrats when they’re wrong (see

  3. Kerry Baron

    The machinations of the Democratic Party are not reflective of America nor democracy. The party is nothing more than a club. As in any club, it’s rules can be as original as it chooses to be, such as super delegates.
    As to Sanders, he was not a Democrat, his policy posture not withstanding. In fact, he took pains to state,during the debates, that he defeated the Democratic candidate for Congress (albeit he lost as well) costing the party a seat. Finally, had he been one he might have successfully prevented the existence of super delegates.
    Lastly, one must recognize that Sanders was a flawed candidate.Twenty thousand people at a campaign event does not equate with twenty thousand supporters, nor twenty thousand primary voters. It is not that his domestic policies were not sometimes innovative, but his foreign policy consisted of voting against the Iraq War (again, albeit he voted for the Afghan War). His policy on Israel is out of step with mainstream America (while a two state solution is correct it is too nuanced as a policy for a presidential election; how does one consider Gaza?). Having listened to every debate, and many of his speeches, I still can’t articulate his ISIS policy (I can repeat, however, his free college, tax on Wall Street, the inequality of income growth, raising the minimum wage statements). Moreover his cost of program was weak
    While I know that this column equates HRC with some demonic creature (of course I disagree) but her policy postitions are clear (you can disagree with the policies and even argue that they changed because of Bernie, but it is hard to claim that they were not clearly stated).
    In brief, Sanders lost not because he was not dynamic, creative and interesting, but simply because he was not the best candidate.

    • You imply that Clinton is the “best” candidate. Please explain how you can equate “best” with a lying Bush-Obama War Criminal.

      You ask how one considers Gaza: as another Bush-Obama-Sec.State Clinton lying War of Aggression, obviously. Sanders is certainly “flawed” or lying to support War Crimes, yes, but are you, Kerry Baron, similarly flawed? You know these are obvious Wars of Aggression, yes?

      Documentation on illegal US wars:

      Documentation on illegal Israel war on Gaza:

    • M. Vance Hill

      It’s a fairly Libertarian type of belief to say that an entity that has seized control of the political structure is entitled to use that monopoly in any way it sees fit.

    • Many of your characterizations here are wrong, but the piece I want to follow up on is your point about the Democratic party being a “club.” Do you think that club’s primaries should be funded with taxpayer dollars, and do you think that club should be absolved of responsibility for claiming to be neutral when it clearly wasn’t?

    • jberland

      How do you know why Sanders lost, and more to the point, how do you know THAT he lost? If you know the real tally of American voters in the Democratic primaries, before the lawsuits are addressed and before the judicial findings, you know something that remains unknown to the rest of the known universe.

    • RootieKazootie

      You’re reaching pretty far in this comment. Bernie’s policy positions – both foreign and domestic – were and are still in line with 60%+ of what Americans want in every national poll, and that includes his position of not favoring Israel to the exclusion of the rights of Palestinians. Sanders has caucused with Dems since being elected to Congress and when he ran for the Senate in 2006, he was publicly endorsed by Chuck Schumer (then head of the DSCC), Harry Reid (Sen Majority Leader) and DNC Chair Howard Dean. This meant that if another Dem wanted to run against him, they WOULD NOT receive financial support of the DNC. So him “not being a Democrat” is weak tea, in light of the fact that the actual Democrats in charge of such things seemed to think he was worth it. His foreign policy is a little more nuanced than “voting against War with Iraq.” He voted for the first intervention Iraq 1 and just doesn’t like getting involved in regime change or simply flexing nuts before he’s pretty certain that we’ll wind up doing more harm than good – both for American and the country we’re about to give a very bad day. I personally don’t believe HRC is demonic. But because of the way she repeatedly obfuscates and intentionally parses her answers to the point of not telling the truth, I do question her judgement and her character. Being a policy wonk is nice, but since you literally have armies of policy experts at your disposal 24/7/365 – all people who will forget more than you can ever know about any one topic you care to mention, the two most important qualities as President are… wait for it… character and judgement.

  4. Notexactly

    This entire article is basically a complaint that Bernie didn’t get a level playing field. Of course he didn’t for all sorts of reasons. But that’s just the way the world actually works. Nobody is guaranteed such, nor are any of the cited entities obligated to furnish one. All of them were acting in accordance with their own perceived interests–there wasn’t any conspiracy to thwart Bernie. He’s scarcely the first candidate to face an uphill battle and fail to overcome it. And he won’t be the last.

    • Election fraud is a crime, Notexactly. Please explain to us how you can call what happened an “election” when ~25% of the votes have no countable evidence. I’d really like to read your attempt to defend election fraud as an “election.”

      Election documentation:

      And “just the way the world actually works” would be true to a citizen who surrenders rule of law to vicious dictators, but not to those of us who stand for just laws, fair elections, and representative government.

      • Notexactly

        There is no proof that election fraud has occurred. I’ve seen enough blogs on that topic to last a lifetime, and I’m no young thing. And that includes the exit poll argument. When the people who develop and administer those polls say that view isn’t valid, that’s good enough for me.

        I don’t pay attention to stuff that starts off with terms like “bozo.” That’s like giving credence to the ancient astronaut “theories” that start with speculation and then immediately jump to conclusions.

        • Notexactly: you respond with denial to the documentation I provided, which includes leading work from Stanford and Princeton. Denial is instantly rejected in professional and academic consideration of factual reality because it offers zero facts and refutes none of the facts already offered.

          You then respond with ad hominem to attack the messenger rather than the message. If you refuse to address the evidence presented by Ben in the article, and any other evidence in support of the thesis of election fraud, although we might be polite enough not to tell you, we will dismiss your comments as clownish and alien to the topic we are seriously addressing in good-faith professional work to get to the objective data.

          Your call, citizen. Care to address the facts already provided and/or provide documentation of your own?

          • Notexactly

            I merely stated that I routinely ignore articles that are titled like the link you provided. If you choose to take that personally, that’s your problem. I have more than enough sources of my own to be sufficiently informed and I’m not interested in conspiracy theories which almost always turn out to be based on speculation and innuendo. You can dismiss whoever you please; I can do the

            • Yes, ignore whatever you wish. The article you provide documents testimony by an executive of the polling company claiming that exit polls match official results. This government contract-winner, and the article, do not address the history of independent exit polls finding game-changing differences, especially between “voting” where there exists a paper-trail and where there doesn’t.

              Go ahead and be comforted by the testimony of someone protecting a government contract, and without addressing the data I point to. In addition, please believe that Clinton, a War Criminal for ongoing lie-started Wars of Aggression, would never participate in election fraud.

              This type of election fraud began in 1996 when a voting machine company owner, Chuck Hagel, won a Nebraska Senate seat against the state’s most popular governor in history. This swing of 20 points from polling before and after the election compared with Hagel’s paperless machines doing the “counting” was practice for the 2000 race, including for president.

              There are statistical cases of the likelihood of chance between exit polls and “official” non-verifiable results in the one-in-trillions with these unaccountable machines, in all kinds of elections, from voting precinct to state levels. All you have to do is look, if you want to see.

              But don’t look, Notexactly, if the article or book title offends you.

              I’ll try; last time:

              • Notexactly

                Well, that would require a hell of a lot of random changes, not to mention specific primary changes where the GOP exit polls are ok in the same state where the Dem exit polls supposedly aren’t, yet the very same people are in charge of both primaries. Contract or no, I’ll take the testimony of the ones who set the poll up in the first place. If you want to assume they’re crooked just because they have a contract, that’s your take.

                I’m done here.

                • Not exactly, Notexactly: you won’t read the documentation, so you’re guessing what is required, and are wrong. With no paper-trail, all that’s required is to program the machines for whatever outcome you want. You finish with a straw man argument.

                  Ben presented a strong argument that you declined any response of its factual content. You failed to address any of the factual content I provided.

                  Be done, if that is what “done” is for you.

                  • Agree Carl. Our system is not set up for good post election audits. That I believe is by design. Notexactly fails to mention why Edison Research refuses to release their raw data on the exit polling. Many good analyses of the D Primay including Richard Charnin. Don’t forget the documentation of voter registration changes and voter roll purges. Plenty of evidence out there. When all election irregularities overwhelmingly favor one candidate it brings the process into doubt. When there is a system of elections in place that lacks a chain of custody, paper ballots, verifiablility, and accountability to the public it reeks of corruption. When there is evidence of the DNC and the media colluding with establishment candidates it makes the process a joke. Why don’t we have a robust ballot accounting and secure chain of custody procedure for elections to ensure accurate post election audits? The election integrity project has the U.S. ranked dead last in western democracies. I believe there is an obvious reason for this.

            • jberland

              Why is it that people who prefer not to address the matters at hand always write in such elevated language? The evidence for election fraud is not a theory. It’s evidence, and by its nature needs to be addressed as such. You will not that Notexactly uses “routinely” and “personally” and “sufficiently” (but not “exactly”) and “almost always” but at no point addresses the evidence or the fact that the evidence itself takes various forms. Perhaps it is the various forms of the evidence that invokes the idea of a “theory?” In any case, Notexactly needs to find some better mode of reconciliation between the lofty language and the insufficiency of deductive discourse.

    • I have never found the “life isn’t fair, so stop pointing out unfairness” argument to be very compelling. It’s the same argument frequently made to enshrine unfair economic, social, and political systems into law. Yes, life is unfair, but that doesn’t mean it should be! Let’s change it.

    • youngcynic

      ah yes “feeling outraged at anything is a sign of childishness” that was said about young Black men who were “boys” and also the Haitians who are too young to know how to be democratic, and also Arabs who are “youths” in need of a stern dictator.

      Am I recounting this right?

  5. Evelyn Gibbs

    I think you should read the docs Guccifer2 posted and check into all the lawsuits being filed against DNC and MSM for voter suppression and election fraud, along with the voter fraud investigation at trustvotedotorg and then rewrite this article. Clinton colluded with DNC from day one to rig this election so she could win. Furthermore, she is not the nominee yet, she did not reach the required delegate count.

    • I have read lots of that stuff. I agree with you that she hasn’t actually “clinched” the nomination by party rules yet and I linked a piece about the Guccifer document above!

  6. Timothy Dannenhoffer

    It absolutely was rigged in many ways, perhaps within their set rules and perhaps not. Regardless, it was rigged, and the Democratic primary voting masses made the WRONG choice. I’m not voting for her. I’m so resentful of how rigged it was and how DUMB people were for choosing Hillary over Bernie I may even vote FOR Trump – as a f*** it and f*** you statement.

  7. Is there even one valid, non-joke example of how other variables not called voting machines can affect exit polls that have a scientific margin of error?

    Ari Berman’s CorporateBookTour response:
    “The reluctant Bush Voter! The enthusiastic Bernie Bro! By my book and listen to my pedantic, fraud-predicated lecture!”

  8. 8-minute video on lawsuit of election fraud, along with report that exit polls were CANCELLED when challenged to release the data to the public:

  9. Evelyn Gibbs

    You are wrong about her winning. Bernie won. The election was rigged for her every way possible and we have proof. You might want to look into the lawsuits that have been filed against the DNC and DWS!


    Politico, part of the Clinonista broadband party, is owned by a family that made money off of the Chilean coup in the 1970’s while Team Hillary found an obscure essay her opponent wrote about sex from the time period and called him a rapist enabler.

    This is the great woman leader of the State Department of the free world, a country club Democrat who occasionally lets slip she distrusts Chinese people to pick up street credibility from elites.

  11. Reblogged this on Once Upon a Paradigm and commented:
    Very good information here about the election fraud.

  12. Michael Henchman

    >>>”It may not have been “rigged” in the narrow sense in which some of these writers have interpreted that word (to mean that there were illegal efforts to mess with vote counts)…” <<<

    Your article should include an update that explains it is now known that the Democratic Party did alter or ignore primary results for some states in which Sanders won the primary, and those states' chairs publicly called the primary for Clinton at the nomination convention. Information suggests that Bernie still would not have won the nomination even with the correct vote tallies, but it points to further collusion in the organization as well as to the preordination of Clinton as the insider choice. In a real sense, the primary was indeed rigged.

    Looking ahead to the 2020 election cycle and the lack of reform within the DNC and party elite ranks, it is incomprehensible that Sanders would again subject himself to those potential machinations by running as a Democrat.

Leave a Reply to jberland Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s