I've met lots of young women who adore Hillary and would beg to differ. The woman is a feminist icon.
I'm not sticking up for either. But to believe one side is less ignorant than the other is fairly naive.
The proles are the proles. Just because you side with one subset (because they match your beliefs) doesn't make them any less prole-y.
I agree, such statements are underappreciated. But I'm not running for office so popularity isn't really my concern. It also doesn't help to be silent when faced with the current status quo. Change is painful; saying what needs to be said even more so.
C'est la vie.
2) In the debates, they gave the questions to Hillary before the debates. The DNC controlled debates gave them to a CNN person who would give them to Hillary
3) The DNC owns the decision about Super delegates. Super delegates == ignoring one-citizen-one-vote
4) Arizona greatly reduced polling stations. With 3+ hour waits, people gave up. The DNC knew that Hillary voters voted at a higher ratio on mail-in-ballots, so it skewed to Hillary.
5) The California level had Bernie votes made in a way that they were all not counted:
In California 2016 election, "NPP" (Non-party voters) the election committee training pole workers to give them "provisional ballots". All of those NPP votes ("provisional ballots") were thrown away. The only NPP voters that could be counted were "Democratic cross-over ballots", but they they poll voters weren't trained that way. Bernie Sanders votes where thrown away. In California Bernie had 61% in polls against Clinton, but then lost. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoGeDGHmwJU
Later, it turned out the Clinton campaign had essentially taken over the DNC far in advance of the primary results which is highly unusual, to the say the least. [1]
[1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...
The only way Bernie would have won is if he convinced superdelegates from states that came out for Clinton to go against the popular vote in their state and erroneously vote for him. He still would have lost with no superdelegates, or if their votes were awarded to their state's primary winner.
Fantasy land.
You are the epitomy of what happened during the election - bullying and deciding on how the election should go for others.
All the media and political establishment took Hillary's side. If they treated them equally he would have won.
Their reasoning: "Why delay the inevitable? How else to wake up the country but to elect a disaster? As things get worse we're ready as we'll ever be."
(FYI: I'm in Michigan where enough of us held back our Clinton vote to send a message that we need a progressive non-corporatist. Margin of victory for Trump was smaller than empty presidential sections. It's over in Michigan for the DNC.)
Yes. I believe the phrase used to describe Trump was something along the lines of "a brick through the window of the establishment."
That would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.
No, "the masses" have never believed that. Not even Trump's most rabid opponents believe that he invented racism, for instance, merely that he is more openly racist than his predecessors, and that he is more openly supported by racists than his predecessors.
The point is, the (white) "liberal" left has been sitting on it's hands, head in the sand, believing there has been sufficient progress. They did well to sell that (lie).
Now Trump shows up and suddening all hell is breaking lose? Nah. It's been there all along; swept under the rug. So rather than admit "yeah we underestimated the lack of progress" Trump & Co get the blame. This is fake history and it conpletely ignores real history.
Note: I'm not a Trump supporter. He's not my type of leadership. But we can't solve the right problems the right way if we are in complete denial about the root of those problems. The left's just-blame-Trump strategy is a great distraction. It's also, ultimately, a another step in the wrong direction.