(checked)
I'm projecting on you both here, but consider this for a second. I think you're both using the knowledge you have today to judge a situation that was many, many years in the making - a decision made long before the political landscape was as it stands now.
We know that there was massive collusion in the DNC to get Hillary elected. You have the fact she did decently well in 2008 but not good enough to top Obama, and essentially was handed the State Dept position as a consolation prize in exchange for her concession of the primary, and potential other future promises. That last part is not well established by hard evidence. She royally fucked that job up, but at the time nobody knew about it. Nobody knew about her server, nobody knew about the e-mails and mishandling of information, etc. If I recall correctly, Benghazi was the first time the Republicans had any real ammo against her, and even then, the whole investigation was a clusterfuck and basically went nowhere, other than starting people looking at the private server / e-mail situation. I'd even argue that because of the Benghazi hearing, most Democrats think she did nothing wrong and those Republican meanies were hurting poor poor Hillary. On top of that, you have the collusion between Hillary, DWS, and Tim Kaine with respect to the DNC, which is well established.
Further, I would maintain that the Democrats either did not anticipate that Bernie would run, or figured their contingency plans were good enough to stop any potential non-Hillary candidates from winning the primaries. Keep in mind they had a multi-pronged attack against Bernie, and in all honesty he did a remarkable job given how stacked the odds were against him, as we found out later. He also helped us, I think, because he revealed just how big and dangerous the socialist / marxist / communist contingent will be in the future. Consider it a small favor from a filthy kike.
In any case, the DNC was appropriating funds from their 50 state campaigns and effectively giving it all to Hillary's campaign. In other words, they took money from funds that are supposed to help Democrat candidates for the House and Senate in each of the 50 states, and basically pooled it up and "donated" it to Hillary's campaign. This is documented in the DNC leaks. They also had the massive imbalance of superdelegates as an extra buffer for Hillary against any other primary contender, which they used to good effect. It wouldn't be too surprising if most of those superdelegates were bought and paid for by the DNC, but that's just speculation on my part. It's likely, but as of yet unsubstantiated, that there were a few other plans in the works that forced Bernie to fold and concede the race to Hillary. It's also possible he was controlled opposition the entire time, and was simply in it to take people's money and convert a sizable block of non-voters into Hillary voters that she couldn't otherwise reach.
Now look at the Republican party by contrast. If Trump had not run, it would have been a complete clusterfuck. Jeb was clearly their candidate of choice, and it's very likely the RNC helped Jeb raise a large part of his massive funding pool. And I do agree to an extent the RNC figured he'd be a shoe in because of the last name, the fact he was governor of Florida, and people didn't really know how big of a fuckup he was. That said, I don't think any amount of money spent by Jeb's campaign would have made him less autistic. He was not a great speaker in any of the debates, he constantly fucked up in interviews and press conferences without any outside influence from Trump, and although he was leading the very very early polls in the buildup to the primary race, nobody knew how fucking retarded he was at the time. So until the media started really covering the Republican candidates and we started seeing them speak in public, Jeb was the obvious choice.
(moreā¦)