Indeed. Conversely, if the GOP had had superdelegates, Trump may never have won the nomination. Superdelegates are inherently anti-populist, which cuts both ways.

I think where a lot of this comes from is that HRC had locked in the vast majority of the superdelegates right from the start. The media consistently represented Bernie as having no chance to win, due to all the superdelegates being in the bag for Clinton, regardless of how people voted. This depressed progressive turnout, as a Clinton victory was apparently a foregone conclusion. Absent the superdelegate system, and the lopsided media coverage it engendered, many would argue the result would have been different. Obviously, there’s no way of knowing at this point, but it’s not as if these claims have no basis in reality.

Just shuffle through a few vpn servers until it works. Always does the trick for me ¯\(ツ)/¯

Edit: same goes for commenting with a lemmy.world account

They aren’t. That’s an easy scapegoat. Influenced by Russian propaganda, sure, but we’re all influenced by propaganda. The vast majority are ordinary citizens, who are as convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs as anyone. Dismissing them, en masse, as bots and trolls isn’t helpful.

The fact is, many of them have very valid points. Where they need to be fought is, very specifically, when they encourage non-voting. There’s no good argument for non-voting, and it’s easy to defeat them there.

Every time you vote, you are granting the rich permission to continue to fuck you regardless of who you voted for.

And do you think that, by refraining from voting, you would somehow deny the rich that permission? That’s probably why all the openly corrupt, unapologetically authoritarian politicians go out of their way to ensure everyone is able to cast a ballot, right? Because they know that, the more people vote, the more permission the rich will have to fuck everyone. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your enlightened contribution here.