Did I argue this? Yes, of course she serves the party more favorably, so yes, they clearly sided with her. This doesn't elude me.
Notice you used "rigged", which is that word a lot of people are mocking "Bernie Bros" for. I didn't use it.
My problem isn't that they voted for the person that obviously serves their party best. Given their choices, of course that's who they opted for. My problem was that before anybody else got to cast their vote, they put out a clear, defined arrow pointing at a specific candidate. If they came out at the end of the primaries and said "We ultimately choose Clinton," yes, there may be some fussing and moaning that they decided the primary, that in itself could be bad, but at least the initial voting and caucusing could have happened without that handicap making a dent into voters. It's hard to say how much of a dent, but there's no question it had to have discouraged some voters. Not to mention people like to side with a winner, so if you paint someone a presumptive winner early on, and they can run with that (unlike Jeb), that does give them a leg up. I just don't think it's ok that before any state had voted, Clinton was already 1/6th of the way to guaranteed nomination.
