So, is "the system is rigged" nothing more than something that is in Bernie supporters' heads?

[AZ Progressive]

It seems that that is what Hillary supporters seem to suggest.

[Ohioblue22]

1. No, the system wasn’t rigged against him The system was rigged, for sure, but in his favor. The fi

No, the system wasn’t rigged against him

The system was rigged, for sure, but in his favor. The first two states? Two of the most unrepresentative states in the union, states that glossed over his failures in reaching communities of color. It’s a calendar that benefits white candidates and silences the issues that matter to the communities that drive the modern Democratic Party.

And how about them caucuses? Sanders won nine of 11, getting a significant percentage of his delegate haul from these undemocratic, exclusionary contests. In fact, those nine states are exactly half of his victory total. Take caucuses out, and Sanders is barely in the frame.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with winning caucuses as long as they exist! In fact, Barack Obama owes his presidency to them. But designing a system that prevents people from participating and eliminates the secret ballot is exactly what rigging the system looks like, and it wasn’t Clinton that benefited from that.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23/1529938/-11-reasons-why-Bernie-Sanders-lost-this-thing-fair-and-square

[Armstead]

2. The entire system is rigged against everyone not in the top 25 percent

[geek tragedy]

3. He benefited from vote-suppressing caucuses and from having two of the least diverse

states in the country going first.

Had the first two states been Ohio and Virginia, he'd have been out of the race by the end of February.

[Dem2]

4. It is (system is unfair in many ways), but ...

...using is as the universal cudgel or "trump card" if you will (lol) is exceedingly tiresome.

People should try a little harder to come up with some original language and theories that sound plausible and are expressed modestly (for god's sake, arrogance is such a massive turn-off!)

[randome]

5. Life is unfair. Is that a message that exists only in my head?

Sanders failed just like OWS failed -by not having a coherent, specific message.

It's funny in a way. OWS had the numbers but not a leader. Sanders is the leader but he couldn't convince enough people to gather around him other than Internet Warriors whose most cogent responses were something like, "Ditto!" "+5000" and "Yup!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[AZ Progressive]

6. Exactly the comforting message that Americans want to hear nowadays

How thoughtful...

[randome]

7. I'm not trying to comfort anyone. You asked a question, I answered.

Sanders gives great speeches and has great ideas. But he failed to build coalitions. When your own co-workers won't endorse you, you're not going to have much luck with the electorate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[AZ Progressive]

8. Does a Revolution happen with permission?

Does the new police chief ask the corrupt police office department permission to lead and reform the department?

[randome]

10. It happens with consensus. With bridge-building. With convincing people to reach for a common goal.

Actually, no, what I just described is not a revolution but a recipe for change. There is no 'revolution'. There aren't people in the street demanding change. This 'romance' with the word 'revolution' is ill-advised. We are not in a time of revolution. Not that I can see. But we do need change.

Sanders always came across as a bit 'preachy' to me. He says great stuff but it's all non-specific. I mean who can argue with "Break up the banks!" ? But what does that mean? No specifics waters down the message. Apparently the voters didn't go for that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[AZ Progressive]

11. How can you do all of that with a system where politicians care more about their wealth than...

the American people? Don't be naive, politicians nowadays are mostly there for self aggrandizement, not to serve this country. If you remain naive it is a threat to your own future.

[AZ Progressive]

12. And BTW, when we talk about revolution, we are talking about something where...

the American people basically force politicians to do their own jobs and serve them or be kicked out and replaced with people that will do the job. The American people need to send a clear message that being a politician should not be a fast track toward wealth or further self aggrandizement.

[randome]

16. The Republicans in Congress sit around and do as little as possible to earn their pay.

Yet the electorate keeps putting them back in office. It has to be more than gerrymandering at the root of this. Maybe we need to focus more on making inroads in those gerrymandered districts.

Whatever one things of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the impression is that she hasn't done a good job and that doesn't seem capable of being erased. So I have no problem ousting her and getting someone who might do a better job.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

9. No, the "system" is rigged in a fundamental and systematically oppressive manner.

[uponit7771]

13. ABSOLUTELY!! Seeing the long shot black guy won with the same system in 08. But go ahead and tell...

... black folk how being black and being new to the national DNC and not having the infrastructure Clinton had in 08 etc didn't mean shit.

Marginalized folk are used to the "establishment" types minimizing our accomplishments k?

thx

[Maedhros]

14. It's no accident that we keep getting conservative candidates from the Democrats.[n/t]

[wildeyed]

15. The system IS rigged,

just not the way he is telling you.

[boston bean]

17. Pretty much. nt