Following the “controversy” over the DNC email hack, some Bernie Sanders supporters are infuriated again, claiming that these emails “prove” there was a conspiracy against the senator from Vermont that “rigged” the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton.
Look, if you’re someone who truly and honestly believes that these elections were literally rigged, with voter fraud and “irregularities,” just stop reading this right now because everything else I’m about to write is pointless. You’re a far-left conspiracy theorist who simply wants to believe in whatever it is you believe and I’m not even going to attempt to try to reason with you.
As for everyone else, thanks for continuing to read.
Yes, even as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I will admit that simply glancing at these emails without any sort of context to them, they appear to be a big deal. Then you realize the fact that only 6 or 7 emails out of around 20,000 released were deemed to be remotely “anti-Bernie.”
Does that really “prove” there was a giant conspiracy against him? I’ve read numerous articles from pro-Sanders people claiming these emails are the “smoking gun” that shows the process was rigged, based on these 6-7 emails — or around 0.035% of what Wikileaks released. If there were really some giant conspiracy against Sanders, I think we’d be discussing a lot more than 0.035% of 20k emails.
And even of those I’ve seen, only two could be considered “anti-Bernie.” The others were simply responses to other emails discussing comments Sanders or his campaign had made, often while bashing recently resigned DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC or both. Are party officials not supposed to discuss one of their candidates openly calling them unethical, corrupt and continuing to try to vilify them?
Also, keep in mind, all of these “controversial emails” I’ve seen pushed by pro-Sanders people were written in late April or May — when Hillary Clinton was all but unbeatable and everyone but Sanders, his campaign and his supporters knew this race was over. So, when Schultz wrote on May 21st that Bernie wasn’t going to be president (in response to someone asking her about comments he made during an interview), she wasn’t “bashing Bernie” — that was just the truth based on reality and basic math. At that point in the election, he needed to win around 70 percent of all remaining delegates to catch Clinton, which wasn’t going to happen.
However, as I wrote the other day, the person who suggested that they go after Bernie’s religion is disgusting and, like Schultz, should be removed from his position at the DNC. As I also wrote, his “suggestion” never actually happened. Even though this individual suggested it, the party never came close to taking his awful idea seriously.
The bottom line is this: The primary wasn’t rigged.
I know quite a few pro-Sanders folks want to believe that it was, but it wasn’t. Bernie Sanders lost the nomination because he couldn’t win the minority vote — end of story. This is not about some convoluted conspiracy, or some nefarious ploy by the DNC to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, it’s about basic, indisputable math and reality.
A few weeks ago I did a complete mathematical breakdown of the entire Democratic primary, which you can check out here.
But let me run down a few of the numbers that prove these conspiracies are ridiculous.
Of the 50 states, Clinton won 28 while Sanders won 22. So, she only won six more states than he did. One would think that if the DNC really wanted to “rig” the election, she would have won it much easier than she did — and Sanders certainly wouldn’t have won 22 states.
When it came to the primary elections (both open and closed), Clinton won 76 percent. Meanwhile, when it came to caucuses, Sanders won 86 percent. So, it’s clear that, based on the type of election, it was fairly easy to predict which candidate might win based on those numbers alone. Also keep in mind that caucuses would actually be easier to “rig” than a primary, so the fact that Sanders overwhelmingly won those contests is a big indicator that this “rigged conspiracy” is total nonsense.
But the real issue here (as I alluded to earlier) was how diverse the state was. Here’s the breakdown of the average racial demographics of the states each candidate won:
- White: 64%
- African American: 16%
- Latino: 14%
- White: 78%
- African American: 5%
- Latino: 8%
You don’t even need to really see anything else to understand that Clinton overwhelmingly won the minority vote — especially the African American vote.
But I went further, breaking down Clinton and Sanders’ five biggest wins. Here are the average racial demographics from those states:
Hillary Clinton (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina):
- White: 60%
- African American: 32%
- Latino: 5%
Bernie Sanders (Vermont, Alaska, Utah, Idaho and Washington):
- White: 78%
- African American: 2%
- Latino: 9%
I would also like to point out that all of Hillary’s biggest wins came in primary states, whereas 4 out of 5 of Bernie’s came in caucus states. This follows the same pattern of overall winning percentage I mentioned earlier with Clinton winning 76 percent of primaries, while Sanders won 86 percent of caucuses.
Furthermore, as I stated in the full breakdown:
There are 21 states in this country with an African American population of 10 percent or greater — Sanders won exactly 2 (9.5%). Of the 22 states that have Latino populations of 10 percent or greater, he won 11 (50%). However, in the 23 states with white populations of 70 percent or greater, Sanders won 16 (70%).
Think about those numbers. He lost 90.5 percent of states with an African American population over 10 percent and half the states with a Latino population of 10 percent or greater — but won 70 percent of the states with a white population over 70 percent.
What these numbers tell me is that I could find someone who knows nothing about politics or either candidate, show them a list of states listed “State A, B, C..,” and they would be able to most likely accurately predict around 90-95 percent of the time which candidate would win each non-identified state based on nothing more than knowing the racial demographics and whether or not the state used a primary or a caucus.
So, I’m sorry Sanders supporters, but this election wasn’t rigged — he just couldn’t win the minority vote.
Though if you continue to claim that it is, you’re actually suggesting a few things:
- That something the DNC did caused minority voters (especially African Americans) to overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. So, if that’s your stance, can you please point to exactly what the DNC did to sway only minority voters in her direction?
- Considering that Sanders overwhelming won the white vote, yet was soundly defeated when it came to African American voters (and even mostly lost the Latino vote, as well), are you suggesting that white voters were more informed and resistant to “DNC rigging” than African American and Latino voters? Because that’s basically what you’re claiming when you say the election was “rigged,” yet the math shows Sanders mainly lost because he couldn’t win the African American and Latino vote. So, why did he win so many mostly white states, yet lose so many more diverse ones? Again, keep in mind that if they only “rigged” certain states, what, specifically, did they do to “rig” the states with larger minority populations that caused those minority voters to support Clinton?
If you want to claim that the “primary was rigged,” then you have to be able to explain not only what the DNC specifically did to “rig” the election — but also explain why African American and Latino voters seemed to be the only two racial groups impacted by this supposed “rigging” of the election.
Otherwise, you are either claiming it was rigged simply because that’s what you want to believe, or you have to recognize the reality: Bernie Sanders ran a magnificent campaign which changed the Democratic party (and the country) forever, but it was his inability to sway African American and Latino voters which ultimately cost him the nomination.