Thank you so much for providing the evidence that proves you wrong! Look at the graph in the source YOU cited, the graph marked “AP graphics”. Don’t worry, I’ll explain it for you. Each candidate has a bar graph with three portions. First, the darkest blue bar, shows the number of delegates they have earned from votes. The second shows the number of superdelegates they have won. The third shows the remaining unassigned delegates.
If you look closely, you’ll see that Ms. Clinton won 1,279 delegates and 469 superdelegates. Mr. Sanders won only 1,027 delegates and 31 superdelegates. Now, you’ll need a lot of fingers for this part: is 1,279 delegates greater than 1,027 delegates? When you get finished counting with your fingers, you should come up with the answer that Ms. Clinton had more delegates, even without the superdelegates. She got more votes than Mr. Sanders got, too. The superdelegates didn’t change anything; Ms. Clinton won by straight democratic means. It is YOU who are attacking a democratic process, YOU who are attempting to justify an undemocratic outcome.
You whine that all those superdelegates discouraged Sanders voters from showing up. Yet we are also told that many voters didn’t bother to show up to vote for Ms. Clinton in the general election because the polls said she was certain to win. So which is it: if the polls say that somebody is winning, does that discourage or encourage supporters from showing up? I suspect that your answer will be a dishonest attempt to weasel-word your way out of that dilemma.
The fact that most of your comments have consisted of mudslinging proves that you have no case — and the ONE time you attempted to provide evidence to support your claims, you ended up disproving yourself. Way to go! 😆