• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    But that shouldn’t translate to her having an enormous lead before anyone votes. That’s not democratic.

    Look at the post you’re under. The claim that Bernie was cheated is rampant and you’re down in the comments arguing with people who have hard irrefutable numbers showing he lost by such a large margin that superdelegates could never have played any part in it. Your intentions are clear.

    • hperrin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Have you read any of my comments? This entire time, I’ve made it incredibly clear that I’m talking about delegates. You’re either not very good at reading or you’re purposefully misunderstanding me.

      Let me lay it out again, nice and slow. Delegates are the only votes that actually count toward deciding the nominee. It is indisputable that Hillary had a huge lead over Sanders in delegates before anyone voted in the primaries. Look it up.

      California is roughly 10% of the electoral college. Imagine, if you will, if California just went to whoever the elite liked in the general election, regardless of any votes. That would be unfair, yes? That’s not even as bad as the 15% share of superdelegates in the DNC.

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Did California go to whoever the elites like? No, it went to the most popular candidate in that state: Hillary Clinton, so stop spreading your bullshit.

        • hperrin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The superdelegates went to who the elite liked, yes. That would be Hillary.