Riddle me this, libs

Hillary barely squeaked out a win in Iowa (and even that result has been called into question by some).  Sanders pwned her in New Hampshire by 20+ points.  How, then, do you explain this?

The Candidate of Wall Street Billionaires Has Rigged the Game: Despite One Tie and One Blowout Loss, Clinton Has 394 Delegates to Sanders’ 42

My understanding of it is that most of Hillary’s “lead” is in so-called “superdelegates” who aren’t chosen through the usual electoral processes (caucus or primary).  For people who call themselves “Democrats,” isn’t this a rather small-D undemocratic way to pick a candidate?  From the outside looking in, it looks like a way for the party bosses to pick the candidate they want, and to hell with what their rank-and-file want.  I understand they might have concerns with Bernie Sanders’ nonexistent electability (to say nothing of the fact that he actually wasn’t even one of them until fairly recently), but maybe they should’ve addressed those concerns early enough that they could’ve offered up a few more choices.  That, of course, would require that the fix is not already in.

This election should be the Republicans’ to lose.  The only fly in the ointment is that the Republicans have in recent years made a science out of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Whether the Democrats end up nominating the communist or the crook, GOP ineptitude could still give them more of a shot at winning than they deserve.

Yes, Virginia, there is such as thing as “vote fraud”

…and maybe the shenanigans in Iowa will finally convince rank-and-file Democrats of this fact:

Hillary Clinton & Iowa Caucus: a ‘Transparency’ Problem

What a difference a fortnight makes.

Two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was all about transparency. “We have to do a much better job of protecting Americans’ voting rights…”  Having since secured a hair’s-breadth victory in Monday’s Iowa caucus, Clinton is suddenly feeling less exercised about those principles.

On Thursday, the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest newspaper, took said caucuses to task in an editorial. “What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period,” the paper declared. “Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.”

The resounding response from Clinton’s team and Iowa’s Democratic party? “Shut your trap.”

[…]

Of course, even If Democrats did want to audit the results, they couldn’t. “People physically aligned in groups,” Sam Lau, the Iowa Democratic party’s communications director said in a statement on Thursday. “There are no paper ballots to recount.”

[…]

But for a party that claims Republicans are one Antonin Scalia opinion away from re-instituting a poll tax and is still crying foul over Bush v. Gore — a party whose presidential front-runner sanctimoniously quoted Al Smith on how “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy” just two weeks ago — this episode is particularly rich.