We've seriously drifted into fantasy land, here. "The question is: why is this nomination process so rigged?" How is winning the majority of elected delegates "rigged"? It is not "rigged" just because you don't like the outcome. Clinton has won more delegates.
You truly DID NOT understand the issue. It is not about this particular primary process - it is about the whole process. I have shown with fact that it is rigged. The existence of delegates that are not tied to the results of popular votes and who answer only to the party bosses is a FACT. Please read previous posts before responding.
Your partisanship is showing dear fellow.
What is being classified as liberal? Is that the same as progressive? To compare Hillary to Warren is to muddy the waters.
For example, in her book, “The Two Income Trap,” Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill’s provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage.
“As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs,” Warren wrote. “As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. … The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.”
When I take a position, I base it upon facts, not wishful thinking. According to, On The Issues.Org, "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders."
Not sure what you are calling fact but it does not pass the test of actual fact or even common sense.
From FiveThirtyEight: "Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War." But in voting for the resolution, she was in the majority of the Democratic party: 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. In the context of the time, this is not actually surprising. People conveniently forget that the resolution authorized the President the discretion to use force. At the time, many believed it was necessary to do so to strengthen the President's hand in ongoing negotiations with the Hussein regime. A vote against the resolution (which was bipartisan and co-sponsored) would have undermined his negotiating position. While I didn't trust Bush to behave responsibly, he was the President, and needed that authority in the interest of national security. That he misused that authority once he got it cannot be blamed on the Democrats, even those that voted for it.
This is a cop out. And it isn't true. She didn't lose on the left ONLY because of the Iraq war. She lost because she has no real positions on the issues that matter to the left. And she has been known to cater to opposing interests when it suits her ends. She is not a believable candidate, never was.
This is why:
On Thursday, Clinton herself vented about the Sanders campaign at a rally in New York, and when confronted by a Greenpeace activist about her financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, she replied testily: “I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”
Of course, no one is lying about Clinton, who employs a number of bundlers registered as lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry — as Greenpeace documents here — and in an issued response, Greenpeace Democracy Campaign Director Molly Dorozenski said the following:
“Secretary Clinton is conflating Greenpeace with the Sanders campaign, but we are an independent organization, and our research team has assessed the contributions to all Presidential candidates. We have not and will not endorse candidates. Earlier this year, we asked both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders to sign our pledge to #fixdemocracy, and while Sanders signed, Clinton did not. We intend to continue to challenge all candidates to listen to the people, not their biggest donors.”
I think you will find the partisan by looking in the mirror.
Now add to that her ties to Wall Street and to neo liberal economics and you've got a clear distinction between Sanders and Warren vs. Clinton.
