+Big Money Seven emails from a small number of people (the information therein NEVER ACTED UPON, by the way) did not affect Sanders' chance of winning.Really. Seven? I'm pretty certain there are more emails from the DNC leaks then just seven. Seven important individuals, maybe but more than just seven emails. Stop trying to downplay it.
Sanders' inability to fund raise early and on par with Clinton, lock up endorsements from fellow Democrats most of whom make up the down tickets and super delegates, and most of all, a failure on his part to invest heavily and early in minority communities lost him the nomination.And where is the evidence to prove this? Care to share some.
Clinton built up such a massive lead early due to her strong performance across the South (large Black populations) that Sanders was never really able to catch up.That, I will not deny.
That’s not the DNC’s fault. That is Bernie's team fault.That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the issues surrounding some of the primary like what happened in Nevada for example.
The DNC did not convince almost 4 million more people to vote for Hillary over Bernie.My point wasn't in reference to the voters, it was in reference to the way Sanders and his supporters were treated.
The only thing that pushed Hillary over the top was copying Obama’s 2008 playbook of delegate-hunting rather than “momentum-building” to get the nomination.Ok. Enlighten me then. Let's see such an example.
Sanders' team tried Hillary’s 2008 playbook and it got him exactly where it got Hillary in 2008, not the nominee. That’s not the DNC’s fault._Again, what evidence?
