As a Democrat, I feel this election is rigged.

[kashifsakhan]

I'm not a Trump supporter, in fact I've supported every Democrat that's run for president since 1988, but I do think there is a little bit of merit to Trump's accusations of this election being rigged.

Now, I don't think the electoral commission is actively trying to sabotage the Republican party or any other candidates, but let me try to explain how I think the election is rigged.

Lets talk about the primaries first.I feel that the Democrat party's electoral process was stacked to make sure Clinton got the nomination instead of Sanders. I think in a straight first past the post electoral system without SuperPACs Sanders would have had a much better chance of clinching the nomination.

When it comes to the general election, I feel the majority of media sources have decided that they want Clinton to win and will bend over backwards to make Trump look ridiculous even when he says something that does make sense (which admittedly is rare, but it does happen). Some weeks ago Donald Trump Jr. made the statement about how the media "would be warming up the gas chamber" if the GOP would have carried out some of the tactics the Democrats had carried out. The outrage on CNN and other Democrat leaning channels almost made me think like they have vindicated Trump Jr's statement.

Every debate is covered as a maniac bullying a poor defenseless woman. Now, Trump's actions are unacceptable, and I don't think he's done a good job at all in the debates, but a few of his answers do carry merit. However those are ignored in favor of covering how many times Trump interrupted the moderator, or how much he sniffed. They also tend to gloss over some of the, frankly, stupid answers Clinton gives during the debates.

So, in conclusion, I don't think there's a political conspiracy involving the parties directly but there might be some merit in looking into how the media has portrayed Trump as a ridiculous option and an un-electable candidate since the day he announced his nomination.

Once again, I would like to point out, I am a Democrat.

[Person Man]

What if the media is just doing it's job? Maybe Trump is just a really bad candidate.

[rafta_rafta]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he is a ridiculous option

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The media presents him this way because it gets them the best ratings

[kashifsakhan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he is a ridiculous option

So was  Boris Johnson, but he was treated with respect because he was part of the Conservative party.

[SWE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he is a ridiculous option

So was  Boris Johnson, but he was treated with respect because he was part of the Conservative party.

The asinine things Brits do is none of our concern.

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he is a ridiculous option

So was  Boris Johnson, but he was treated with respect because he was part of the Conservative party.

The asinine things Brits do is none of our concern.

Yeah. He is a tosser but he isn't really our concern...yet.

[kashifsakhan]

Let me try putting it this way. I don't think Ted Cruz is all that different from Donald Trump, but if Cruz had gotten the nomination he would have been taken more seriously by the media, and his racist, xenophobic, policies would have been discussed like they were serious policy positions.

[rafta_rafta]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he is a ridiculous option

So was  Boris Johnson, but he was treated with respect because he was part of the Conservative party.

um, Boris Johnson is constantly lampooned in the media here.

[Person Man]

Let me try putting it this way. I don't think Ted Cruz is all that different from Donald Trump, but if Cruz had gotten the nomination he would have been taken more seriously by the media, and his racist, xenophobic, policies would have been discussed like they were serious policy positions.

Because he is an actual public policy professional.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Let me try putting it this way. I don't think Ted Cruz is all that different from Donald Trump, but if Cruz had gotten the nomination he would have been taken more seriously by the media, and his racist, xenophobic, policies would have been discussed like they were serious policy positions.

Because Cruz never got this unhinged, even if his policies were. Policy doesn't sell- actions do.

[JA]

The essential problem is that the media has placed the same expectations on Trump as they would any seasoned politician running for the Presidency - as they should. It's Trump's amateurishness and refusal to learn even the most basic rules of civil political engagement that have drawn the media's ire. But it's also these very political deficits Trump has that endeared him to millions of Americans as a "fresh voice." Unfortunately for Trump and his core supporters, he came with a ton of personal baggage and a penchant for saying things that transgress not only political decorum, but the values of most Americans.

Basically, Trump had a real opportunity here, regardless of what the media said, to be a populist figure who could change Washington and bring some plain speak to politics. Regardless of what the media nitpicked about him he would've been far ahead by now if he didn't keep getting in his own way. So no, this election isn't rigged by the media or by anyone. Trump was not only an amateur, but a morally corrupt demagogue who was unwilling to learn even the basics of political discourse. That he loses will be 100% his own fault as he had all the perfect conditions for a landslide win and he sabotaged his own campaign by being so narcissistic and egotistical.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I suppose being an unelectable, unstable joke is being rigged, but that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Trump has been given a free ride, and billions of dollars of free advertising.

I don't care if you are a Democrat, Republican or Martian, doesn't make silly pointless concern posts any less asinine.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

"Only" 20% of Dems thinks the media is biased against Trump. And if media really is biased, then the election is rigged by default.

https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us10192016_U29frgv.pdf

Note, that among those who are most capable to use Google to see media's lies (18-34 years) there is 60% vs 39% that media is biased.

[afleitch]

History demonstrates that democracies die when you give people who openly seek to undermine it a 'fair hearing' in the name of balance. It's the job of a democracy to call out demagoguery when it presents itself.

[Young Conservative]

What if the media is just doing it's job? Maybe Trump is just a really bad candidate.

They are certainly biased for Sec. Clinton and against Trump.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

History demonstrates that democracies die when you give people who openly seek to undermine it a 'fair hearing' in the name of balance. It's the job of a democracy to call out demagoguery when it presents itself.

Yes, but they should not be biased

[136or142]

Lets talk about the primaries first.I feel that the Democrat party's electoral process was stacked to make sure Clinton got the nomination instead of Sanders. I think in a straight first past the post electoral system without SuperPACs Sanders would have had a much better chance of clinching the nomination.

SuperPACs spend money on advertising on behalf of candidates and issues.  I don't see how they relate to the first past the post electoral system here.  Did you mean Super Delegates?

Hillary Clinton won nearly 57% of the primary vote and around 55% of the pledged delegates.  The difference between the two results is Sanders won nearly all of the much lower turnout caucus states.  

There may be a slight bit of truth that the Democratic Primary Presidential debates being scheduled to minimize viewers may have had an impact, but the last of these debates had, if I recall correctly, something like just six million total viewers.  So tricky scheduling or not, a viewership that low suggests to me most Democrats had already made up their minds.

If you meant, super delegates, and not SuperPACs, as you can see by the numbers, counting only the pledged delegates Hillary Clinton would have won.  In no scenario would Bernie Sanders have won the Democratic Primary.  

The problem, which is a deliberate distortion of the Democratic Convention results, which some innumerate (math illiterate) people have fallen for, is that the Hillary Haters take Hillary Clinton's pledged delegate total, and then they take the total number of delegates, both the pledged delegates and the Super Delegates, and they say "see without the Superdelegates, Hillary Clinton won a minority of (total) delegates.

The old British television program "Yes, Minister" mocked something similar to this when Minister James Hacker found out about a fully staffed 500 bed hospital with no patients.  Unfortunately I can't find the transcript of the episode, but Hacker's Permanent Secretary (Deputy, i.e the real boss) at one point says something like "It doesn't matter that there are no patients there, the work of the hospital has to go on."  Hacker replies "But why? If they weren't there, they wouldn't have to be there."

So, it's the same idea.  If the Superdelegates weren't there, then the total number of delegates would be just the number of pledged delegates and Hillary Clinton won a majority of them.  Or, the total number of pledged delegates could have been increased to encompass the number of Superdelegates so as to have the same total number of delegates as were at the convention, and Hillary Clinton would still have won the majority of those delegates.

Under no scenario would Hillary Clinton not have won the nominating convention.

Of course, if you aren't referring to the Superdelegates but were referring to SuperPACs,  I apologize for going on, but I don't know what you mean then.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What if the media is just doing it's job? Maybe Trump is just a really bad candidate.

They are certainly biased for Sec. Clinton and against Trump.

Again, despite pumping him up and belting Clinton with far more negative coverage... as usual, the right is happy to have the media when it helps them, but they're the first scream about any issue when they're getting a hard time. I really wish they had some new material, but the point remains, Trump is a garbage fire of a candidate.

Trump is objectively a far worse candidate than Clinton, whatever you might think of her. It's not the media's job to report in a balanced way for the sake of it, if anything, the only reason Trump got where he is, is because of an unwritten deal - he delivered the unhinged, backward and dangerous, they got ratings by covering it and the cycle continues. If the GOP actually nominated someone electable ... then we might have something to discuss. Facts don't have a partisan bias, and the media is not obliged to make Republicans feel better about their massive unforced error.

[SPQR]

The media has started highlighting Trump's clear problems and faults way too late, if anything.

[136or142]

On whining about media coverage.  This is from MacLean's Magazine comedic writer Scott Feschuk as he imagines a Trump concession speech:

"The media—totally in on it. Disgusting. Folks, I don’t know what our country is coming to when commentators can just give their opinion of me based on my behaviour, demeanour, words, gestures, policies, beliefs and actions. Biased!"

[America Needs R'hllor]

History demonstrates that democracies die when you give people who openly seek to undermine it a 'fair hearing' in the name of balance. It's the job of a democracy to call out demagoguery when it presents itself.

[BoAtlantis]

Even if it was rigged, it's his fault for running. He has the responsibility to know what to expect.

What Trump is doing right now is voluntarily having gone into a lion cage and crying it's unfair that he's getting eaten alive. Just more proof that he's a child.

[paulB4480]

The Republicans post mortem after Romney's defeat laid out what they needed to do to win in 2016. Namely appeal to Hispanics, women, blacks and young people.

Instead their constituents chose to do the exact opposite.

That's the problem with the Primary process - not unlike the problems British parties have had with members electing leaders - to win the nomination, a Republican candidate makes themself unelectable to the wider country.

[Zarn]

I don't think the issue is the poor treatment of Trump so much as it is the bend over backwards approach with Clinton. Trump sucks, and that will show through. Of course, they feel a need to push out stupid things that are not a real issue as well. However, there is zero accountability with Clinton, just like there was zero accountability of either Clinton or Trump, during the primaries.