Both of these links are about the same email chain that I already explained above in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915266. Which email shows the DNC helping Clinton win the primary? They would have every reason to favor the candidate from their own party, but the emails show that they played it fairly.

Moreover, none of the emails show the Clinton campaign influencing the DNC to rig the election, which is what was originally claimed (that she somehow stole the primaries to the tune of a 4 million vote victory).

Yes, they were favoring the candidate from their own party. I already don't trust that they would have been 100% fair.

Also, yes, Clinton did win most of the votes. And as of now it looks like she won the popular vote too. I don't doubt that she's more popular.

But take a look at the states where Sanders did well vs where Clinton did well...

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map

Then take a look at which states she lost to Trump...

Just to be clear, you agree that Clinton didn't cheat when she won the popular vote by a landslide (more than 25% more votes than Sanders)? https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-was...

You may believe that the DNC wasn't 100% fair in the primaries, but nothing in their emails suggests they applied their own biases to changing the rules in favor of Clinton, so that belief is not supported by evidence.

There is a secondary issue that maybe Sanders would have performed better in the general election than Clinton did. It's hard to do this kind of counterfactual analysis, but I disagree. Despite the media's horse race story, Clinton was so far ahead in votes and polling that she was never in danger of losing the primaries and so didn't throw the kitchen sink of "scandals" at Sanders. Had the race been closer, you would have seen these "scandals," and you certainly would have seen them had Sanders run against Trump (https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...). More than that though, if progressive icon Russ Feingold couldn't win in Wisconsin, Sanders didn't stand a chance either.

I should clarify, I meant more popular than trump.

Clinton did win most of the votes in the primary but I'm not going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't use her connections to help her campaign. That article by the way came out in June, before the DNC leaks in July.

Yes, I think it is hard to play "what if" history. It's been a few days and I've basically accepted President Trump. It'll help a lot of folks in this country, even if those folks aren't me.