People kept arguing that the DNC wasn't playing favorites and that no one had any proof of anything. Wikileaks (although one-sided) played myth buster and completely destroyed that argument. But then the narrative here went from "that never happened" to "it didn't matter." No one should have to explain why it mattered that the DNC was tipping the scales for one candidate over the other. No one should have to explain why that makes voters disillusioned. It's obvious.
But maybe my views on what is obvious aren't the same as what is obvious here. It mattered enough to play a fundamental role in the election, as seen by the results.
Another specific example: when it was revealed that Donna Brazile provided the Hillary campaign with town hall question, guess which thread was the first to report on it? Not this one. In fact, not a single person in PoliGAF even mentioned it. And I checked. Despite having its finger on the pulse of politics, that one little item went by without a single mention. Every little tweet about a poll in Nowhereville that had Hillary up by 10 points is prominently displayed, but this? Not a peep. As if it never happened. I thought that was hilarious. But I wasn't surprised. It's demonstrative of the type of the type of discussion that drives this thread.
A week went by before it was even brought up.....by me (I was banned at the time and couldn't talk about it then). I discussed it with one poster. We had a small exchange about it. And that was it.
That was no coincidence. Clearly one narrative is allowed to dominate while others are completely ignored or disallowed.
The Echo Chamber.
