Which theory is the most plausible?

[Dr. MB]

Even if you don’t believe in any of these, which one is the most likely in your opinion to be true?

[Big Abraham]

The DNC sabotaging Bernie is an objective fact.

[PSOL]

Clinton’s victory was stolen by the electoral college, not Russian trolls or Trump.

[HillGoose]

The second one, although most strongly I believe in a 4th option - The 2016 Republican nom was stolen from Jeb! by the RNC :<

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

I believe in a 4th option - The 2016 Republican nom was stolen from Jeb! by the RNC :<

[nicholas.slaydon]

The DNC sabotaging Bernie is an objective fact.

[Mr. Smith]

Opt 4: The voted was rigged in Ohio in 2004 to help Bush get re-elected.

But I guess Opt. 2 comes close.

[fhtagn]

idk what number we are at with all the theories added in the replies, but option whatever: it's all rigged, and always has been rigged.

[Pericles]

None of these elections were stolen, the votes were validly cast and were a legitimate outcome under the rules. Hillary Clinton probably had the roughest luck of any of them though-losing despite winning the PV by 2% is really awful, she also arguably won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries, and she was hurt by undemocratic and stupid caucuses that continuously gave Bernie (just as they did Obama) an advantage. The other stuff is mostly just how campaigns go, candidates always have an advantage in some way and it doesn't have to be a level playing field, though maybe Hillary was more of a victim than Bernie because she got hurt by actual crimes committed with the hacking of her campaign emails. So I guess the 2016 general election, but really even if the leaks caused by the Russians did change enough minds to swing it, it was a legitimate win for Trump.

[Big Abraham]

she was hurt by undemocratic and stupid caucuses that continuously gave Bernie an advantage

Literally what.

[Pericles]

she was hurt by undemocratic and stupid caucuses that continuously gave Bernie an advantage

Literally what.

Caucuses are far more effective voter suppression than any Republican law, normal people don't want to spend hours just to vote (and it's often not even a secret ballot). That obviously benefits the candidates with the more enthusiastic base-which were Obama and Sanders. So it's pretty logical that Clinton would have done better if every state held a primary that was logically democratic, and her winning the non-binding Washington and Nebraska primaries suggests this too.

[Big Abraham]

Caucuses are far more effective voter suppression than any Republican law

Absolute LOL

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

she was hurt by undemocratic and stupid caucuses that continuously gave Bernie an advantage

Literally what.

Caucuses very obviously favored Sanders, there's nothing controversial about that assertion. They are also totally arcane and incredibly inaccessible.