NYT editorial says Clinton needs to convince Sanders voters "she won fairly." Is that true? | The Tylt
After her sweep in the California primary last night, Hillary Clinton is now the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party (she also won in New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota). She beat Bernie Sanders in California by 13 points and in New Jersey, a whopping 27 points. But even with these decisive wins, questions linger around the legitimacy of her victory.
Did Clinton win fairly?
Sanders supporters argue that the media did not cover their candidate and his achievements; that the Democratic National Committee favored Clinton; that she benefited unfairly from being an establishment insider; that she was "coronated" while the candidate of their choice was pushed aside. Even a NYT editorial says Clinton needs to convince Sanders voters "she won fairly."
Clinton supporters contend that, contrary to being coronated, she overcame enormous odds to become the first female nominee in US history; that although she has had a lot of media coverage, much of it has been extremely negative; that in fact, the caucuses held by 13 different states favored Sanders, as did a primary calendar that began in two small, rural, white states. They also point to Clinton's estimated three million more votes than Sanders as evidence that she won, fair and square.
What do you think?
NYT editorial says Clinton needs to convince Sanders voters "she won fairly." Is that true?
Hillary Clinton won Barbara Lee’s 13th district, covering Berkeley — the most liberal seat in the country. 51.1% Hillary, 48.5% Sanders.— daveweigel (@daveweigel) June 8, 2016
Coronavirus: Coverage and Care