There is no hard evidence of the DNC "rigging" anything in her favor because they did not have to do so. The entire set-up (super-delegates etc.) was in place well before Sanders declared with the precise intent of allowing the party leadership to implicitly designate a "leadership's preference" candidate and to thereby have a chilling effect on the open delegate selection process -- which was itself all set up proportionally so that a larger "establishment" candidate could garner 30-40% of the delegates in a state even when they lost -- and the establishment candidate could be presumed to have the greater funding and to be able to compete everywhere.
All of these factors were in place BEFORE Sanders even decided to run. It is, if anything, a testament to his ability to connect with the progressive wing of the Democrat party that he did as well as he did and actually posed a credible threat. Had he won a few more states and won them bigger he might have poached some super-delegates and changed the result.
DNC leadership is supposed to avoid the appearance of favoring one nomination candidate over another, but in practice that isn't really possible. At best you can hope that they do not actively attempt to trouble a candidate they dislike. These e-mails clearly reveal that the 'fig-leaf' of impartiality wasn't even being honored in the breach this time around. Fancy them not wanting to have a socialist heading the ticket with all of the fruitbat left wing of the party antagonizing middle America and the South.![]()
Bookmarks