Bluesky

Bud, I don't know why you feel the need to be an obtuse, pedantic, confrontational butthead. To clarify as simply as possible, my memory of the early stages of the primary, while Sanders was doing really well, remembers the coverage of the election sided very strongly with Hillary due to the DNC's fascist superdelegates being in the party's pocket. As is their right, nothing illegal there, but pretty fucked up.

I use the term "fascist" within a context limited to the authoritarianism of the DNC and their superdelegates. Which they changed, because it was so bad.

You're asking for sources supporting my opinion. OK, here's a couple:

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have much to be elated about after the Vermont senator thundered to a 22-point victory over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire Tuesday night. But they may be bewildered when they look at the scoreboard. After the New Hampshire contest, NBC News allocated 15 delegates to Sanders. But NBC also allocated 14 delegates to Hillary Clinton, who lost the primary by an almost historic margin.

Why are those two numbers so close even though Sanders walloped her in the state? --source

The effect of Superdelegates on the Democratic nomination process has never been more apparent than in the 2016 election. --source

Who knows. Maybe you'll come back with sources saying,"No, the corrupt, biased process was completely fair!" and here we are. Now, weren't you trying to discredit my opinions, my experience, using ageism or something? Or are you going to point out my sources aren't great, and you'll want me to do another search for you? That won't happen.