I don’t care who the party insiders support, and it’s completely understandable that they supported Hillary. But that shouldn’t translate to her having an enormous lead before anyone votes. That’s not democratic. Considering the Democtratic party is named after democracy, you’d think they should be a shining example of it.

I don’t know why you keep explaining that Bernie lost by millions of votes. I understand that. You are trying to convince me of something I already believe. I am simply trying to even explain to you that my problem is with what happened before anyone voted.

Based on what you just said though, I think you don’t fully understand how delegates work in the party. The superdelegates do matter. Let’s say, based on voting, Bernie and Hillary had won the exact same number of delegates. Hillary would have won, because she had more delegates when you add the superdelegates. Now let’s say, again based solely on voting, Bernie had won 300 more delegates than Hillary. Hillary would still have won, because she had ~360 superdelegates. Therefore, Bernie would have needed to get well over 50% of the vote to actually win. That’s what we mean when we say the party screwed him.

The popular vote doesn’t really matter in the Democratic Party, because what determines who becomes the nominee is the delegate vote (similar to how Hillary won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, so didn’t win the election). Most delegates are required to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, but the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want. They absolutely can sway a primary to their preferred candidate. ~15% of delegates are superdelegates, which means that a candidate the party insiders don’t like may need to win 66% of the popular vote to win the candidacy. That’s bad.