the entire point of a primary *is* to assess who can beat the opposing partys candidate...using the democratic will of party voters.

bringing out the most voters in elections *is* grassroots momentum. which hillary did by 4 million more votes.

grassroots isnt just about phonebanks and college rallies and colorful signs. the entire point is to motivate voters to actually vote.

hillary beat bernie by greater than a 10% margin lol. i mean...bernie did better than people initially thought he would...but thats not even a close election for a non-incumbent.

trump ran against his party establishment and won because the base chose him. bernie ran against his party establishment and lost because the base chose his opponent.

theres no way to spin that.

bernie constantly advocated for the democratic primary to be opened up to non-members of the party because that was his only path to victory lol.

bernie supporters always complain about 'rigged' elections...but they continue to ignore the democratic will of the large majority of party voters because it didnt benefit their favorite candidate.

like your entire premise is that the party should have chosen the candidate that the least people voted for lol.

you dont find that at all hypocritical?

if that isnt a prime example of pre-selecting a candidate over the objections of actual voters...then what is?

like you dont think its a bit hypocritical to rail against 'neoliberal' party barriers like superdelegates...but still support a candidate who stayed in the primary well past the point of being mathematically eliminated just so he could continue to bash the imminent nominee and then go to the convention and beg *those same* superdelegates to switch their votes (that lined up with actual democratic will of the majority of party voters)?