Yeah, head to head it would have been interesting to see Bernie vs Trump.
In my opinion, the DNC definitely tipped the scales to Hillary. Had it been a fair and square contest from the beginning, I think Hillary wins but by a smaller margin. That still is a problem. I believe the DNC felt Hillary was going to win, but they had to tip the scales to try and control how much she would win.
.Way before the first contest, which was Iowa, the mindset that Hillary was already way ahead in delegates(super delegates). Most of the media played along.
After Iowa, we'd see delegate totals of Hillary 400ish delegates to Bernie 20ish delegates even though the caucus result was extremely close.
Same after New Hampshire. That's when the headlines became something like "Bernie wins big in New Hampshire, but Hillary ties or wins because of delegates"
We'd hear things like" Iowa and New Hampshire aren't a true representation of the voters. The "real" primaries start with South Carolina."
Before the South Carolina primary was the Nevada caucus. The Clinton campaign before the Nevada contest tried to minimize the results by trying to lump Nevada into the same category as Iowa and New Hampshire. That the demographics played to Bernie's strengths and that South Carolina was a better makeup of democratic voters for Clinton.
Then, Hillary won Nevada and it was deemed pretty much an upset even though she had been leading in the polls the entire time there, just that the lead shrank.
After Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, Bernie lead in total votes, but you wouldn't have known because the numbers that were pushed still included combined super delegates and proportionate delegates.
Then Hillary destroyed Bernie in the South Carolina contest.
Then, all of a sudden the media decided to start separating the delegate total showing the total delegates with and without the super delegates.
The warning signals should have been going off in the Clinton campaign after she lost Michigan. They should have studied Bernie's strategy with the state. Should have mixed a little of his Michigan strategy with her own general election campaign strategy , but nothing was done. And of course she ended up losing Michigan to Trump.
She was going to win, but simply winning wasn't enough.
There was the Donna Brazille incident. Not that it was going to make or break Bernie winning the nomination, but the optics were horrible.
Even things like the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tulsi Gabbard spat after Tulsi endorced Bernie.
Madeline Albright saying there's a special place in hell for women that don't support other women (Clinton)
Gloria Steinem saying Bernie's getting female support because they want to date the bernie boys. (All the while Bernie was getting accused of sexism)
Every step of the way Bernie's supporters were wrote off, criticized, minimized, and wouldn't you know it, they didn't react well.
Bernie's not a Democrat.
Fine.
Say it's either going to be fair from day one or say there could be preferential treatment to actual Democrats over non Democrats. But don't try and have it both ways. Or just say we have the right to have it both ways because it's our organization and we can run it how ever we want.
Bernie still would have lost.
His campaign exploded in money and popularity faster than his campaign organization and ground game
