There doesn’t seem to be any indication this was anything but a regular screwup. Throwing around suggestions of a vague conspiracy looks unwarranted.
You’re suggesting that to avoid suspicion companies providing services to political campaigns must be apolitical and to have never previously provided services to a candidate in the race or any previous opponent of a candidate in the race. How could that even be possible?
The idea that the Democratic nominating process would be rigged is not ipso facto crazy given that it is publicly acknowledged to have actually happened last election cycle.
Maybe you can provide more details of your hypothesis, but what you have so far doesn’t make sense.
The count has been frozen at "62%" for six hours now. That just happens to be the first/only level at which "Mayor Pete" had a delegate lead over Bernie, even though Bernie still leads the popular vote. Several days from now, when the count ticks up to 100%, Bernie will lead both measures by large margins. Still, in the meantime, the corporate media can pretend like the Mayor is ahead. They know he's going to bomb in SC worse than Biden bombed in Iowa, but they're hoping that somehow they can get him to "Super Tuesday" when the other Mayor can take over for him due to his 9-figure ad spend.
Of course, the idea that the perfect candidate to beat a vain old NY rich guy is another vain old NY rich guy who also banned soft drinks the last time he held elected office is risible, but they don't care about that. The point is to ratfuck any candidate who might plausibly do fewer stupid wars.
Is it really so difficult to keep your public persona neutral and vanilla if you're a damn CEO? Wasn't this standard practice until recently? What, because Trump vomits on Twitter 24/7 everyone else needs to as well?
I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so here’s your chance: any particular reason we shouldn’t dismiss you as not being serious?
