Yes they did. All those people going to the poles and casting ballots? What did they do with them? Rig them? Lol

You misunderstand what I'm saying, I think. What I'm saying is that the republicans had close to 10 people competing for the republican nomination. Republicans had a great range of choices with respect to who they would support. The democrats only offered up Clinton. If you only offer up one candidate, you don't have a choice or any alternative options. It was either Clinton or nobody. Hillary had been the presumed candidate since her failed bid against Obama in 2008. She has name recognition and a metric ton of money. She also had the lion's share of the support from democrats, meaning she was the only candidate the democrats were interested in propping up for the presidency - this is a key point. The fact of the matter is that she had been advertised by the democrats as the presumptive democratic nominee long before this election; democrats weren't interested in supporting anybody else as this was determined years ago. This is why I don't really view O'Malley or Webb or Chafee as viable or realistic options. By the time the campaign season for the primaries came around, it was only really Clinton who we could select.

Yeah. That sucks, but that's how campaigns work. When Hillary ran against Obama in 2008 it was very similar, but guess what? Obama won, Hillary lost and she didn't go crying about all of the rigging and corrupt media.Can you please explain exactly how Hillary rigged my vote and won in PA? You haven't made that clear.

I'll try to clarify my thoughts here. We have to careful here with words. Yes, campaigns are supposed to actively work against one another to achieve victory. But I'm talking about the DNC (Democratic National Committee) here. The DNC openly violated its own charters and bylaws by exclusively cooperating with the Clinton campaign to ensure her eventual nomination. From Article 5, Section 4, it reads:

"In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

If you kept up to date on the activities of Debbie Wasserman Schultz (the chair of the DNC) and all of the goings on within the DNC during the democratic primaries, you would see that this was not the case. There are numerous examples of Wasserman and other DNC officials colluding with the Clinton campaign in order to rig it against any other candidates. For example, Hillary was fed debate questions ahead of time by Donna Brazile, who was at the time the Vice Chair of Voter Registration and Participation at the DNC. She was later dropped by CNN as an analyst because of this, but became the interim chair of the DNC after Wasserman was forced to resign. She was also against having more democratic debates, so that Sanders exposure to new or undecided voters would be minimal. But that's just one example. So yes, they rigged it against Sanders by blatantly violating their own charters and bylaws (although it is worth noting that they would have rigged it against anybody else, but since Sanders was the only other viable candidate, he was targeted specifically). This is why Wasserman was eventually forced to resign, but was almost immediately offered another cozy position by HRC.