[johnnyanmac]

I get what you are saying, but let's be realistic here: even with an unfair vote you could still get people out to vote and get the majority. If we could have done that then MAYBE we'd have a point here.

But reality: Bernie was really popular with the 18-36 demographic. But they don't turnout to vote in the general election, let alone a primary. So here we are. Old people get their way because they show up.

And I'm not saying Bernie didn't energize voters: just that it's a really high bar to energize that to a point of participation.

[autoexec]

I've seen it argued before that it couldn't have turned out differently (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-...) and maybe that's true. The sad fact is that we'll never really know what could have happened if the DNC had played fair. I agree that young voters don't generally turn out to vote. They also don't generally turn up to campaign rallies but for him they actually did. They showed up in numbers so large that they filled entire arenas past capacity. He often drew crowds much larger than Clinton did and she had the name and the money for paid attendees to boost her numbers.

What I can say is that in that election the country was looking for something different from the government. They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them and that was the only thing Clinton was offering. I know that in the end that feeling was enough to drive at least some people who normally voted democrat to vote for trump (or third party). The fact that the DNC ignored the will of registered democrats and decided for themselves that Clinton was their Chosen One before the primary election was held also caused some democrats to vote for trump or to stay home entirely. I can't claim that the DNC was the cause of trump getting elected the first time, but they sure didn't help.