• @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    710 months ago

    Which means you got actual evidence right? And this isn’t some sort of assumption based on the stats not choosing the candidate of your choice, right?

    Unless you mean gerrymandering, but everyone knows that is rigged.

    • @beteljuice@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      Did you not watch the Iowa primary? It was all out in the opem. They didn’t expect Sanders to make a strong showing so they dragged the vote count out for days. There were videos of districts choosing candidates with a coin flip, and visibly turning the coin over if Sanders was chosen. Their cronies at MSNBC and CNN were announcing a landslide against Sanders to sway public opinion even though it hadn’t happened. They set up the districts so that even though Sanders had the overall vote count, Buttigieg still won the delegate count.

      And this isn’t even getting into the super rigged element of superdelegates.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OI1ubnuB_Y

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqbf1J3CDw

        • @beteljuice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          510 months ago

          I’m not really a fan of Sanders, so I watched it objectively, and he was clearly shafted.

          But go on with the attitude of treating important elections like highschool insult contests.

          • @Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            He clearly wasn’t. The Buttigieg campaign focuses on turnout in areas the Sanders campaign ignored and won the contest because of the rules of the Iowa caucus, which allocate delegates to each individual precinct not based on their turnout but on their overall population. Sanders did well in highly attended precincts, Buttigieg beat him by outperforming him in less well attended precincts.

            It’s the way the rules were. Bernie could have employed the same strategy, but he didn’t.