Correcting Bill Maher – No, It’s Not Over and Hillary Didn’t Win Fair and Square
Bill Maher recently claimed the Democratic Primary race was over and Hillary won “fair and square.”
Neither Sanders nor Clinton won the nomination outright. Therefore, they are both going to the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia starting July 25th. Reiteration: It’s not over; Clinton is not yet the nominee.
Why do Clinton apologists never admit the system is rigged against Sanders? Isn’t it the most obvious thing in the world? After AP’s premature coronation, one cannot simply say Clinton won “fair and square.” Uhhhh… do you even politic, Bro?
Maher listed these as reasons she “won”:
1. She won a majority of the pledged delegates
2. She won the popular vote
3. She won a majority of the states
4. She won all the important swing-states
“It can’t be the case where it’s fair win you win and rigged when you lose.”
Your accusation that Bernie supporters are sore losers is deeply troubling.
Maher’s 1st and 2nd reasons that Clinton won “fair and square” are not mutually exclusive. Delegates are assigned based on the percentage of popular votes. Voter suppression, election fraud, voter purges, dismal media coverage, and even a Google algorithm designed to manipulate search outcomes about unfavorable Clinton facts worked simultaneously to suppress Bernie supporters’ votes. Therefore, Clinton won more votes and thus more delegates. The popular votes and delegates must be discussed together.
Next, whoever won the majority of states is not the deciding factor for who wins “fair and square.” If that were the case, then each state and territory would have the same number of delegates. However, the reality is that some states have more delegates than others. This system is old and flawed but it’s the one we’ve got. But the point is that the highest number of delegates wins the nomination, if it passes the threshold. Here, neither party passed that threshold. So, it’s going to the contested convention. The fact that Hillary won the majority of the states is a very weak argument as to why she won “fair and square.”
Maher’s last piece of evidence is also troubling. Swing states are states that are generally toss-ups in the general election. But let’s muse Maher, momentarily…
Clinton won these swing states & here’s how much she won them by:
Nevada – 5.3
Ohio – 13.8
Pennsylvania – 13
Virginia – 29.1
North Carolina – 13.8
Florida – 31.1
Iowa – .3
Iowa is a statistical tie. 6 Precincts decided the winner based on coin tosses and ALL of them went to Hillary. All 6 coin tosses. If this were a “fair” race, 3 would have gone to Hillary and 3 would have gone to Bernie. Here, they all went to Hillary. This is not a victory to use to claim Clinton won “fair and square.”
So, she won Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.
But the flaw in Maher’s argument is that these state victories do not inherently prove fairness. Sure, she won these states. Maher is not arguing why she should be the nominee; he already said it’s over and Clinton won! Therefore, this “evidence” doesn’t even buttress his argument.
In fact, Maher’s swing state argument is fatally flawed – not just because it’s irrelevant to the point he is making about Clinton winning fairly but also because of the circumstances. 2016 is the election of the outsiders. Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee and he’s the outsider to the Republican race. Sanders is giving the Democratic Establishment’s candidate a run for her money (and major headache). Sanders overcame a national 60-point deficit. He’s the outsider and he’s surging because the populous is weary of politics as usual.
More importantly, 43% of voters are Independents. Most of them didn’t participate in this primary season. Sanders is the more electable candidate because he does best with Independent voters. That could easily render every swing state but Virginia and Florida irrelevant in terms of predicting who’d win against Trump.
But let’s dive into the heart of Maher’s assertion: fairness.
1. Democratic Party Super delegates. This is an inherently unfair system used to ensure grassroots candidates don’t win. Is Sanders grassroots, anymore? It seems that he’s pretty mainstream at this juncture. Clinton entered the race with over 500 super delegates. How is that fair?
2. The head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, purposely scheduled debates during low viewership times. This prevented Clinton from discussing her numerous flaws and prevented the populous from hearing Sanders’ policy ideas. Even during the town halls there was a difference in the difficulty of questions that were asked by the moderators.
3. Mainstream Cable News largely ignored Sanders. For example, Democracy Now reported that “ABC World News Tonight” aired 81 minutes of reports on Donald Trump, compared with just 20 seconds for Sanders.
4. Google hid search results about Clinton’s corruption, Matt Leiberman from SourceFed reported. This minimized negative information about Clinton that could have helped voters determine who they wanted to vote for.
5. Voter Suppression. Examples include: Washington Post’s 24-hour span with 16 anti-Bernie articles. The AP came out, on a non-election day, and declared Hillary the nominee the day before the biggest primary, California. This was an effort to discourage and dissuade potential voters from casting ballots.
6. Hundreds of thousands of voters were purged in New York.
7. Polling volunteers were trained to give out provisional ballots, which are almost never counted.
8. Many Democratic voters were kicked off their party preference, making them ineligible on voting day.
9. Voter Fraud. Hundreds of dead people cast ballots in the CA primary. Many of them were in the Los Angeles area. Those votes didn’t go to Bernie.
10. Election Fraud.
11. Exit polls didn’t match the outcome of many state primaries. Exit polls are used to double check the veracity of the results. In California alone, the Exit polls varied by 16%.
12. California was called for Hillary Clinton even though, as of today, over 2.5 million ballots have yet to be counted. Hillary won by about 440,000 votes. Those 2.5 million matter and they could change the outcome of the California primary.
13. Poll Tallies differ from official reports.
14. Clinton has almost the entire Democratic Establishment behind her. This week she picked up endorsements from Obama, Reich, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Warren. Warren, the 2nd most progressive senator in Congress shocked everyone when she endorsed Clinton. The backlash has been brutal.
15. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz changed the election rules to allow lobbyists and corporate PACs to make donations to the annual nominating conventions. This hurt Bernie because he doesn’t have super PACs but Hillary sure does. There’s a lot of money being spent to ensure he’s not the president.
Maher got it exactly wrong when he claimed Clinton won “fair and square” because she hasn’t won yet and she didn’t win “fair and square.” If it were a fair victory, the race, by it’s very definition, would have been a fair contest. The evidence above proves it hasn’t been fair. A true statement would be that Clinton is set to win the race because the odds were in her favor.
Clinton participated in a one-sided race and she’s barely standing at the end of it –And the Democratic Party still claims she’s the best candidate to beat Trump. There’s not one general election matchup poll where Clinton beats Trump by a wider margin than Sanders. Facts are stubborn, stubborn things, aren’t they? See you at the convention.