Short, Direct, and Candid.

Nate Silver says, “The System Isn’t Rigged Against Sanders”. Wrong Again Nate.

Nate Silver, the polling star that has been consistently and even embarrassingly wrong this election cycle is sure about one thing: “The System Isn’t Rigged Against Sanders”. Sorry Nate. Wrong … again.

Don’t get me wrong, Nate makes an awesome argument full of numbers and facts that I’m sure he took his time assembling. Unfortunately, it’s to a point that no one is actually making.  It’s as if he’s using numbers to hide reality. You and I are having a conversation. You exclaim, “That sky is blue, and here is all of my mathematical models proving such. Bam!” I say, “Calm down. I agree that the sky is blue. But we were actually discussing the forest – which is in fact, green.”

Nate, people saying the “system is rigged” has nothing to do with the volume of people voting for Hillary. Many, many many misanthropes (the ones knowing nothing of policy and voting out of popularity against their self interest) voted for Hillary. They got up that morning, stood in line for a period of time, and pulled a lever or pushed a button for Hillary Clinton. I’ve spoken to many of them, and none could explain any of her policies or even give a cogent reason of why they’re voting for her outside of brand loyalty, but you are absolutely right, Nate. Those are her votes.

The point that I, and many of my ilk make, has to do with the systemic advantages that tilted the primary from the very beginning and created that disparity in delegate totals. It’s the difference between the end results, versus the things that went into arriving at this end result.

The money laundering to and from the state democratic party allowing her to get past campaign finance laws.

The near purchasing of super delegates before even one vote was cast. To be clear, the super delegate system started as a way to ensure an unsavory candidate didn’t get to the finish line without democratic elites having their say. Choosing  a candidate before the race even started is shady at best. Add in the financial motive – it might not be illegal, but does it meet the definition of rigged? Oh yeah!

The curtailing of voting by people on team Hillary in democratic held states when a clear advantage was shown to Sanders. This happened in multiple states, Rhode Island being the last one. The governor, an unabashed Hillary supporter, dropped the number of polling stations by 66%.

The garbage that went on in Nevada, followed by Clinton supporters’ spin that Sanders supporters were akin to Trump supporters for getting angry about being being screwed out of their delegates.  Watch the video for yourself.  It was cheating, plain and simple. Even in “representative democracies”, there is a rule set the people use to govern their behavior to prevent cheating. If you watch the actual video and think it was all above board, I got to question what you consider “above board”.

Media companies, the same companies that are supposed to give unbiased coverage of the election, have donated hundreds of thousands dollars to the Clinton campaign. This was done without ever exposing it, and at the very least leads one to question whether a financial interest would translate into political commentary unfavorable to her opponent.  It may be cynical to assume so, but to the same degree grossly naive to assume it wouldn’t.

I get the political reason to white wash history on this issue. Hillary, her supporters, and the people that reflexively vote Democrat, need Sanders supporters to believe she won in a fair and impartial election. It’s difficult to make an argument to people that feel screwed over that you should vote for the establishment you believe screwed you over. Sorry Nate. If there is an argument to be made on this front, you failed to make it.