Did Hillary Clinton have any Chance at Winning?

[Revoltingest]

LOL! The "news" you cited, includes this disclaimer:

"Update: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, just told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was "rigged." "

So we can dismiss anything she may or may not have had to say about it, as biased.

I also note that nobody seems to have any actual facts in support of this silly claim.

She'd know more about it than you would.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! The "news" you cited, includes this disclaimer:

"Update: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, just told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was "rigged." "

So we can dismiss anything she may or may not have had to say about it, as biased.

I also note that nobody seems to have any actual facts in support of this silly claim.

But from what I saw it was mostly based on the statements of Donna Brazile. I don't think that you can make the same claim about her. There were some dirty politics going on at the DNC and it appears that Hillary was bound and determined to win, no matter at what cost.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

She'd know more about it than you would.

"she believes ... " So? Belief is vastly different from proof.

If she had any? She'd have presented it. If old Slanders had any? He'd have presented it.

Heck-- if the GOP had had any? They'd have taken 6 weeks presenting it.

In the end, when the damage was too great, and old Slanders finally admitted he'd lost (even though he had lost way back in May) he agreed there was no stealing.

But that was too little, too late, and Slanders will always and forever be on my sh-- list for having been the GOP/Russian patsy that he was.

 

[Revoltingest]

"she believes ... " So? Belief is vastly different from proof.

If she had any? She'd have presented it. If old Slanders had any? He'd have presented it.

Heck-- if the GOP had had any? They'd have taken 6 weeks presenting it.

In the end, when the damage was too great, and old Slanders finally admitted he'd lost (even though he had lost way back in May) he agreed there was no stealing.

But that was too little, too late, and Slanders will always and forever be on my sh-- list for having been the GOP/Russian patsy that he was.

I don't think she can blame her loss on Bernie.
Her book poses, & then answers the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"she believes ... " So? Belief is vastly different from proof.

If she had any? She'd have presented it. If old Slanders had any? He'd have presented it.

Heck-- if the GOP had had any? They'd have taken 6 weeks presenting it.

In the end, when the damage was too great, and old Slanders finally admitted he'd lost (even though he had lost way back in May) he agreed there was no stealing.

But that was too little, too late, and Slanders will always and forever be on my sh-- list for having been the GOP/Russian patsy that he was.

Why would the Republicans have outed Clinton? She was the opponent they wanted to face. They knew that Trump did better in polls against Hillary than Bernie. This was a bit of a self destruct by Democrats and for once they did the smart thing. They kept their mouths shut.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But from what I saw it was mostly based on the statements of Donna Brazile. I don't think that you can make the same claim about her. There were some dirty politics going on at the DNC and it appears that Hillary was bound and determined to win, no matter at what cost.

Donna is about as credible as the GOP patsies. Yes, Clinton wanted to win. Yes they said ugly things about ole Slanders in some Emails. So what? No worse than the hideous things Slanders permitted his followers to repeat over and over, never even pretending to try to curb their lies.

But. None of the Primary Rules were changed to try to prevent Sanders from pretending to be a Good Democrat, stealing their money, gaming the system to no good end.

Sanders, if he'd been 1/3 the politician he pretends to be? Would have done his Homework, and had his independents go and re-register in plenty of time to vote in the Primaries, all Good And Proper.

But. Sanders is a hack, he is incapable of leading. He can't prepare for sh---, he's a reactionary, and does things Last Minute. Proof? Is his sudden and knee-jerk trip to Vatican City, in a desperate bid to get more votes.

I used to respect Sanders. That was back before May. I changed my mind, though, once he began giving ... speeches.... now? I have zero respect for the old commie. May he eventually rot in the hell he does not believe in.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why would the Republicans have outed Clinton? She was the opponent they wanted to face. They knew that Trump did better in polls against Hillary than Bernie. This was a bit of a self destruct by Democrats and for once they did the smart thing. They kept their mouths shut.

Slanders was their guy, or rather, the Russian's guy. He's a patsy, really.