3 ms·
Huh? The Sanders followers blame the DNC for supporting Hillary over him, during the primaries. I'm pretty sure that was proven by the DNC email leak, it's no
by midoridensha 3y ago
Huh? The Sanders followers blame the DNC for supporting Hillary over him, during the primaries. I'm pretty sure that was proven by the DNC email leak, it's not a "conspiracy theory": the DNC really was working for Hillary.
I'm not aware of any Sanders followers thinking the actual votes were altered. The voters (in places that had primaries and not caucuses) really did vote for Hillary. The controversy was that the DNC wasn't properly neutral and that this affected the results. Whether the DNC being neutral would have actually resulted in Sanders winning, I don't think anyone can know, though it's probably doubtful. He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!", and lacked all the baggage that Hillary came with, and had far more charisma (which the DNC infamously doesn't understand the value of), but considering the Republican voters were happy to vote for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, I don't think we can assume the best about the voters of any party.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago> the DNC really was working for Hillary. After she won the nomination. What you think was proven is not substantially different from what the My Pillow CEO thinks was proven. > that this affected the results. How? https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... > He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!" As did every single candidate. The only people I saw use that justification were the Sanders supporting conspiracy-theorists.