"If the system is rigged, it's the worst rigging in the history of rigging."

[BeyondGeography]

Dear Bernie Supporters:

Enough with the “rigged system” claims. Please. The system is not rigged. Or corrupt. Or disenfranchising any of you. Last time I checked, you guys are all over the place 24/7. On TV, at rallies, in the voting booth. You’ve made Bernie Sanders what he is today: a major contender. But make no mistake: there’s simply not enough of you. That’s it. No vast left wing conspiracies. No back-room shenanigans. No covert mission by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to keep your guy from winning. Bernie’s losing for one reason and one reason alone: he hasn’t convinced enough of you to vote for him. And it’s because his message hasn’t resonated as well as Hillary Clinton’s. Period.

Bernie is losing because America’s democracy works. It’s a process he signed up for (as an independent running as a Democrat), and one which has allowed him to go from being a relatively obscure Vermont socialist (yes, socialist) a year ago — 60 percent behind in the polls — to running an unprecedented “outsider” campaign as a very close runner up. Think about that: he’s gone from being a political nobody to giving the powerful Clinton machine the most nagging yet effective opposition it’s ever experienced. That in mid May Sanders continues to nip at Hillary’s heels is not just a testament to his grass roots appeal and tenaciousness, but to the very election process that’s got him there.

Sanders’ success has become not just a national phenomenon but one that’s garnered him worldwide praise and respect. Sounds like “the system” has worked pretty well for him. That he now is turning on that very system for politically expedient, populist purposes speaks to character.This narrative he’s reinforcing of a rigged system is irresponsible and disingenuous. He’s telling you that he’s not winning because of cronyism and corruption, not because he can’t gain more traction with voters. He’s riling you up with trumped up (pun intended) baseless charges that he and you are being robbed, rather than simply outvoted. The awesome legacy he could have is dangerously close to being destroyed by his ego and selfishness.

How about answering one simple, obvious question: If the system was/is so rigged for Hillary, how come she’s having to have this close a fight right down to the wire? To be sure, the campaign has certainly been no cakewalk for her. She’s had to fight way longer, way harder and way more expensively than she ever hoped and expected. If the system is rigged, it’s the worst rigging in the history of rigging.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/an-open-letter-to-bernie-sanders-supporters_b_10021974.html

[boston bean]

1. He is peddling in conspiracies. Bernie is no better than Alex Jones at this point, imho.

[Armstead]

4. Can you say that for certain?

Do you know with absolute certainty, for example, that people are being picked for convention and platform committees based solely on proportion of votes -- which would give Sanders at least a 40 percent share -- and not internal preferences for Clinton?

There may be noithing there. there mat be something.

But it used to be that democrats wanted to know shuch things -- rather than automatically dismiss them as "Alex Jones conspiracy theories."

Was it an Alex Jones theory to think that Florida vote system and the process were unfairly rigged in 2000?

Are you gong to suggest it is a tin hat conspiracy theory if a key state has irregularities that affect the outcome and swings the election to the GOP in November?

[boston bean]

5. It is on those who think this primary season is rigged to provide proof.

I can provide proof Bernie's campaign staff stole campaign data from Clinton.

I can prove Bernie has accepted hundreds/possibly thousands of donations above the limit for individual donors.

I can prove that Bernie mails flyers that imply he's been endorsed by an organization when in fact he hasn't been.

What can Bernie supporters prove?

[Armstead]

11. I don't argue with brick walls anymore

My point was that I don't think you should automatically dismis something out of hand, simply because you do not want to be open to other possibilities that do not reflect the interests of your candidate.

If you stick to that attitude, then you will be guilty of hypocrisy if in November you instantly get worked up if there are indications of possible irregularities that give the GOP the election.

[boston bean]

12. No, cause I have a thinking brain where I weigh evidence, not conspiracy theories.

So, I won't feel the least hypocritical, but thanks for worrying about me.

[Armstead]

16. You contradict your own statement

But I don't worry about you. I don't even know you otehr than as some pixels on a screen.

[boston bean]

22. I don't think so. I happen to think of you as more than pixels on a screen. But whatevs.

[Armstead]

27. My point was simply this.....

It is possible the system was tampered with to rig it. It's possible it wasn't. It's possible that there was some specific rigging but not systemically.

To automatically dismiss all questions or everyone raising the possibility out of hand as empty conspiracy theories is not helpful in terms of learning the truth. It is as unhelpful as those automatically assuming there are conspiracies without any proof.

[boston bean]

28. I'm a democrat. I don't happen to think of myself or the party I belong to as rigging elections. OK

[Skwmom]

6. I know from my own district convention that they wanted ESTABLISHMENT Bernie Supporters that they

know will be rah, rah, Clinton. And I use the term Bernie Supporter very loosely. And I was FAR from the only one to figure that out. It gave the young voters a really bad impression of the Democratic Party.

[BeyondGeography]

8. You can believe the absolute worst about NV and it costs you all of four delegates

And if you got your way, you'd still be left with the fact that Clinton won 52.6 percent of the vote when 84,000 people showed up. If you're talking "rigged," wouldn't that be the case where Sanders walks away with more delegates than Clinton when more people caucused for her to begin with?

Bernie is basically angry that HRC's voters weren't disenfranchised. A perfect example of this whole shambolic establishment rigfest that he is pushing.

[Armstead]

15. I don't know shit about Nevada

I have no clue who is right or wrong -- otehr than the fact that it seems way too complex and baroque as a system.A situation got out of hand, and emotions overtook good behavior.

beyond that .......I wasn't there, and I don't know whether Sanders supporters were obnoxious and disruptive from the start, or how much they were provoked by high-handed misconduct from the organizers.

The problem is that it has become a propaganda tool -- and whatever happened has been buried under the crap spewing from the Democratic establishment and the media. "Bernie is bad and his supporters are bad and were awful bullies, and he needs to Shut it down now and just walk away from the democratic process and hand everything over to the Clintons."

[bloom]

18. This has a good description

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

"The fight over rules had been going on since April, according to an email chain posted by Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston, between Sanders superdelegate Erin Bilbray and party chairwoman Roberta Lange.

Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates.

The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present.

Sanders backers say the continuing nature of the presidential primary necessitated more rule changes...

However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns.

The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.

Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room.

And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange."

[Octafish]

41. Like the time Jackson Stephens helped BCCI get into US banking?

THAT conspiracy?

Or is it another conspiracy?

[betsuni]

2. K&R

[Ed Suspicious]

3. If we stole the election, we would have taken it a lot more quickly.

Right.

[Skwmom]

7. You could also argue that is why she has gotten as far as she has.

[Sancho]

9. The system is not rigged; Bernie is inexperienced and made mistakes...

regardless of the appeal of Bernie's tired and out-of-date message, he made serious mistakes.

He didn't realize he needed to register as a Democrat to get on all the ballots.
He didn't follow FEC rules.
He let his out-of-control staff steal DNC data.
He sued the DNC over a losing case where his staff was wrong.
He didn't raise money for Democrats.
He didn't realize that MANY campaigns have proven that crowds don't predict votes.
He was unprepared for debates, both on substance and appearance.
He never had a good minority and immigrant strategy.
He chose an adversarial manager (Weaver) who hurt him as much as help him.
He counted on a demographic (young people) who notoriously don't vote.
He didn't engage with unions or listen to their goals.
He didn't engage with other Democrats - and simply attacked them.

Overall, Bernie would not win on his qualifications and experience, but he ran a campaign that shot itself in the foot. At this time, he might have a place in the future if he plays nice, even though that's doubtful. If not, his best bet is an appointment as ambassador to Denmark to get him out of the way!!

[bloom]

19. I don't think he expected to win as much as he has

He might have prepared differently if he had.

[randr]

10. It could be very well argued that Hillary would not be ahead

if the tables were not tipped in her favor.
Just the media coverage, or lack thereof, for Bernie has altered the results.
It is perfectly clear that Trump would not be were he is without the overwhelming coverage he has freely received.

[BeyondGeography]

13. That's hilarious...Bernie is the most coddled, unvetted candidate I've ever seen

His policies don't add up, his tax returns are still missing, HRC has left him alone because she wants his support, the media has left him alone because it is far more interested in negative Clinton coverage, he gets on every Sunday morning talk show, his surrogates (rightly) are invited to every political show on cable and anyone who follows politics knows his stump speech by heart, because it has been shown ad infinitum on the airwaves.

[Ed Suspicious]

24. Still they are going after him on supporters behavior rather than policy?

[nc4bo]

14. Who said "they" are good at it? They can't hide it all, some

Of it is hidden in plain sight, more of it can probably be found in voting audits performed by neutral parties and some can be camouflaged by hiring a million bucks worth of trolls in the hopes of changing public perception on who's the sleazier candidate.

No, the rigging process is not perfect but messy and effects of the shenanigans are mostly left right out in the open.

Too bad both parties are are complacent with our current corrurted electoral process. Both parties benefit from the flawed system. DU has its roots founded in the same flawed electoral process.

How "American" is all that?

[bemildred]

17. +1. nt

[Hortensis]

39. Actually both parties are wide open to outsiders,

EXTREMELY "democratic," as we are seeing, and the Democratic Party race has been almost entirely free of the sort of stuff Bernie and some of his supporters here have been claiming.

Bernie isn't losing because he didn't have a fair shot, he's losing because not enough people are voting for him. Hardly a surprise.

Did you ever wonder for a moment how many votes looking so elderly would cost him? He would be in his 80s in his second term if elected. There are other things that could have cost him the election, such as being Jewish, such as being a socialist democrat, such as not being as good on the debate stage as Hillary, coming across to some as a cranky ideologue and a one-trick pony, and so on.

But I think age alone is probably a very significant problem. We already had a president suffering from early senility in office, and he was younger than Bernie when elected. Bernie's been planning to run for a long time. He comes across as very vigorous, but there's that rather frail, arthritic-looking carriage, and perhaps he should have started dying that cute ruff of silvery hair over time. I'm sure Hillary does. She's no kid herself, she's turning 69 this fall and he 75, but at that age every year tends to reveal some decline for all to see, plus what doesn't show.

As for all the broad-painted malcontent, I keep wondering why so many people who maintain very indifferent standards for their own political behavior are so constantly criticizing others for what are actually far higher standards. For instance, has it ever occurred to you personally to wonder if you deserve better? Sure our democracy deserves the best, and our leaders absolutely owe everyone their best just by assuming their responsibilities, but how about you? If you got your own right back, what would it look like? Just think about it.

[nc4bo]

45. Democracy only if approved by the wealthiest & for the wealthiest

Money is influencing how this country is governed. Politicians suck up to the money guaranteeing the wealthiest needs are met either by laws benefiting them or laws that suck the life out of us.

Age does not matter. What matters is shifting the power out from the hands of the 1% and back into the hands of the 99%, the true majority.

Hillary represents the wealthy, the corporate panhandlers, the real welfare queens, the problem that money buys influence in how we govern and in creating legislation that benefits the few over the many proves the government is no longer By, For or Of The People.

As it stands now, we have a Congress that ignores the will of The People. We have far too many politicians, including the POTUS guilty of the same behavior.

That must change. That's my line in the sand. That is my standard from which I judge any person that wishes to run as a public servant.

[Hortensis]

46. Always preaching to the choir and never knowing it.

That you are part of an elite group of people with special virtue and insight -- and of course the rest of us are not -- is a very silly conceit you really should move beyond.

You will either join with all the others who are voting for what you say you want or you won't. As for all your "we're the special ones, and you're not one of us" noise here, none of it matters: just what you do with that one little ballot.

[nc4bo]

47. LOL! Go play that record to someone naive enough to buy

It.

She IS what she is. Whatever that happens to be today.

[bloom]

20. yep. n/t

[aikoaiko]

21. US politics is rigged against change.

The OP talks about the praise and respect Bernie has been shown, but that's only I the context of assuming he won't win.

The closer he came to challenging the status quo, the more punitive the press, mainstream Democrats, and HRC supporters became.

Not following Roberts Rules of Order in NV is a good example of a rigged system.

[BeyondGeography]

32. I think that's called life

When you're a threat to win power, all hell does break loose. Just ask Barack Obama, who faced myriad shitstorms (Rezko, his citizenship, religion, the Rev. Wright-fest, etc.) on his road to the nomination, none of which Bernie Sanders has had to deal with. Why? Because Bernie really never had an actual path to victory. His current problems have more to do with pushing bullshit and helping Trump in the short-term than being an actual contender for the nomination.

[aikoaiko]

33. None of those issues leveled at Obama are as damaging as being dismissed as unelectable by the party

Or in the GE. Plus I would say that Bernie has had a lot of crap dredged up, exaggerated, and used against him as he gained momentum.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Are you kidding? Electability was a nonstop issue for Obama (Barack Hussein)

and Hillary's favorable GE polls were being pushed through June, just as the runner-up is doing right now.

Bernie has had it very easy, which makes his whining and that of his supporters extra annoying. You do have the lack of American attention spans working for you, though. Few remember 2008, or any other historical precedent that shows how ridiculous the Sanders persecution complex is, anymore.

[aikoaiko]

35. It's actually your memory that is faulty.

There was a question about the electability of an African American not the dismissal of the candidate himself.

There is a difference. Imo

[BeyondGeography]

36. This is too easy to debunk...from almost exactly eight years ago

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2008/05/05/obama-takes-on-clintons-electability-argument/

This was nonstop. You are wrong.

[aikoaiko]

37. That was in May.

I'm talking about from the very beginning Bernie was dismissed as not electable in the primary or the GE.

[bobbobbins01]

23. All rigging is null and void because Bernie is popular now!!

At exactly what point in the polls does rigging get dismissed? Was it when he hit 5%, 20%?

Using Bernie's success to show the system isn't rigged is akin to saying slot machines are fair because someone hit the jackpot once.

[bklyncowgirl]

25. It has to be close enough to steal.

It's in those close contests that the shenanigans occurred--many Bernie states were not close at all and all the help from her friends Hillary got was not going to get her a win.

[Merryland]

26. Just wondering how low Her numbers have to go (below Trump)

before ANY powers-that-be see that her candidacy would be a disaster?
10 points? 20 points? 30?

[NCTraveler]

29. Some were on record early claiming Sanders would win every state.

They make PUMA's look like good sports. Truly unethical what they are doing. Now that a light is shining on it people are leaving Sanders.

[ViseGrip]

30. It's been going on, perfecting the electronics per county, since 2002.

TOTALLY RIGGED!

[intheflow]

31. Just because you're incompetent doing something doesn't mean you're not doing it.

Also, there are reasons to make it close enough to question the rigging concept. Namely, if you look look like you're not succeeding or struggling to succeed, when you're actually succeeding, it makes it look close enough to question rigging

In a nutshell: the DNC could either be totally incompetent at rigging, or incredibly Machiavellian at rigging, and still be rigging the system.

[mooseprime]

38. it's like the mystery of the pyramids!

What, if anything, would disqualify Clinton in her supporters' eyes? Cluster bombs in civilian areas, invasion and destruction, pay to play arms sales, lying under oath, USB bank shenanigans, sneaking around with her own "off the reservation" mail server, none of those things puts a dent in their faith-based support.

What, if any, policies or past acts may be criticized or discussed on their merits? I'm not aware of any Clinton supporters will even acknowledge, let alone justify. Challenging any aspect of the candidate's behavior and judgment is sexist, racist, elitest, and privileged so we can't even discuss it.

To which we now we add: What, if anything, would make election manipulation worthy of discussion? Using state party organizations to backchannel millions to her campaign, undisguised support of the entire corporate media, repeated occurences of exit poll variances at a rate 5x greater than our own State Department would accept in any other country except our own? To that we now add wall-to-wall repetition of the chair-throwing delusion by party and government leaders while ignoring video and other evidence of a manipulated process.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Clinton's sin in Nevada was winning 52.6 percent of the 84,000 people who caucused

She beat Sanders fair and square. Nice, for those who care about democracy and not disenfranchising voters, that the final delegate count reflected that reality.

What, if anything, would get the Sanders crowd to acknowledge that?

[mooseprime]

43. Picture perfect proof of my point!

ANYTHING but talk about the reality of Hillary Clinton and her devastating policies and bad judgment.

I ask about a huge series of monstrous exit poll discrepancies, and the response is "I know you are but what am I"?

Buh-bye

[BeyondGeography]

44. Hey, I know what it's like to root against her

Unfortunately, it takes more than one superficial stump speech endlessly repeated to win.

Later.

[azurnoir]

40. The problem for some folks is that these days everything is documented

everyone has a phone with a camera and video capabilities-makes it much harder to do things under cover, I'm sure there are some who long for the good ole dayz, when such things could be viewed through a lens made of milk glass, though

[DemocraticSocialist8]

48. How quickly people have become apologists for the establishment and crony capitalism

during this election season when the person who looks to get the nomination is representative of those things.