They are right. And the conspiracy goes back even farther than they think. The machinations to make Hillary Clinton President started in the early 1860s, and the mastermind was none other than Abraham Lincoln. He would have liked to make his own wife, Mary Todd, the first woman President, but then he realized that women could not even vote. Thus, his devious plan b.
How do I know for certainty that the 16th President was behind this conspiracy? Lincoln saved the Union and thus, was responsible for the Southern states remaining in this country. You may have thought that Lincoln did so to keep a nation intact. Not at all. He knew that seven score and thirteen years later, in 2016, those Southern states would be the weakest region for Senator Sanders. There was no way Lincoln would let the South secede when Hillary had the chance to build a huge delegate lead from the outset.
What? You think this theory is a stretch? Well, it gets more incriminating. Lincoln was a Republican. Sanders’s surrogate, Susan Sarandon, said Hillary Clinton is really a Republican. Mm-hmm. Explain that. It gets worse. Lincoln was part of the establishment. Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment. It is quite clear. “Honest” Abe enabled Hillary to steal this election.
It’s bad enough that the Union was saved and these Southern states have been allowed to remain part of the U.S. But then, some genius, in the name of democracy and fairness, decided that Southern Democrats should be allowed to vote. Well, to take a phrase from Sanders and many of his supporters, this is just not progressive. It is much more liberal to write off the people whose votes they don’t agree with, and it is up to the good tolerant people on the far left to override them and decide what’s in their best interest. We should thank these progressive heroes.
And now, this rotten conspiracy has moved beyond the South. Clinton has been stealing the election by getting more votes in places in the North. And here’s how she’s done it. (If I were you, I would get a trash can or something, because this is sickening.) In some states in the North and Mid-Atlantic, only registered Democrats can vote for the Democratic nominee in the Democratic primary. (I told you it’s nauseating.) It is the ideal scenario to favor, what many Sanders people call, “low-information” Hillary voters. Now, granted, these “low information” Hillary voters always seem to have enough information to register and vote successfully, but that points to another problem. Many of these Hillary supporters are too high information. What Bernie-ites really want is neither low or high information voters, but those who fall into the sweet spot of just enough information to make them more susceptible to badgering on social media.
The bottom line as that these Democratic-only primaries have been another means for Hillary Clinton to steal the nomination. How else do you explain her squeaking by in New York by 15 points, New York City by 26, and Maryland by 30 points? Not only is she stealing this race, but she’s stealing it by a lot. We’re looking at a tremendous amount of thievery.
Yes, closed primaries do give Hillary Clinton an advantage. At the same time, open primaries, especially those where someone can walk in the day of and say, “Oh yes, I affirm I’m a Democrat (fingers crossed),” and those kooky caucuses, are advantageous to Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, you haven’t heard Hillary whining about them. But Sanders won’t miss an opportunity to complain. “There are closed primaries!” “The confederacy could vote!” “The sun was in my voters’ eyes!” “The dog ate my votes.”
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate Bernie Sanders and the important issues he has highlighted, especially income inequality. I agree with many of his values. I respect many of his viewpoints. And I also thank him for showing me what I sound like when I blame everyone else. It was very annoying.
Finally, another striking piece of evidence points to Hillary robbing the race. And all credit is due to master sleuth and Sanders surrogate, actor Tim Robbins, for recognizing it. In many states, Bernie Sanders has done better in exit polls than he has in actual results. How do you make sense of that? Obviously, a conspiracy is at work. I mean, what would you believe? A small sampling of people telling you how they voted, or how people actually voted? I would go with the poll. There is no way the methodology could be off. It has to be that Clinton manipulated the voting mechanisms in every single state. What else could explain the incorrect exit data? Could it be that Sanders voters are more likely to talk to the exit polling people because they’re more vocal in general, and that Hillary voters are less vocal and slink away having been shamed into silence? There is certainly no evidence of that in our lives.
So all congratulations are due to Hillary Clinton for stealing the election by now over three million voters. There is no other rationale. It can’t be that more people are voting for her.