Post by @protist@retrofed.com

2026-10-20 00:33 UTC

The DNC arguing in court that they don’t have to abide by primary elections isn’t the same thing as the DNC actually not abiding by the primary elections. The DNC absolutely abided by the primary elections in 2016, and there’s no evidence to the contrary. Sure, the superdelegate system was overwhelmingly for Clinton, but Bernie was already behind in the elected delegate total. Either way, in 2018, the DNC changed the rules so superdelegates can’t even vote in the first round anymore, so will only get a vote if a convention is contested.

Replies (1)

@Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2026-10-20 01:06

You are right, arguing in court that you can cheat all you want is not the same as cheating all you want, and nothing was proven because instead of airing it out in court, the judge said “well yes, you can cheat all you want” and it was over. For the rest of your statements, I’m not getting into the specifics of rule changes and time changes and all the bullshit that happened in 2016. The minutia of bureaucratic processes and small sub-rule changes would be lost on anyone trying to find truth. The court case though, that’s big and obvious and simple, and it’s very telling that your only argument against it is ‘arguing in court you can legally cheat, is not the same as cheating’, followed by ‘nobody proved anything because they could legally cheat and the case was thrown out’.

Open ##5265251