Bernie Sanders Should Have Been Debating Donald Trump. The DNC Favored the Wrong Candidate

09/26/2016 04:09 am ET

Just hours before the first presidential debates, CNN writes “Clinton, Trump virtually tied headed into debate.” MSNBC states that “NBC/WSJ poll shows Trump deemed more trustworthy.” Yes, polls show Trump more trustworthy than Clinton. If that’s not bad enough, after all of Clinton’s years in government NBC News finds that “Trump Leads Clinton Among Military and Veteran Voters.”

From the FBI criminal investigation where James Comey testified Clinton was “extremely careless” and “negligent” to Reddit’s “Sonetear,” all the advantages Hillary Clinton once had over Trump have now evaporated. President Trump might become a reality and H. A. Goodman warned everyone for over one year. Sadly, my detractors couldn’t comprehend these warnings and focused solely on attacking the messenger.

Only Bernie Sanders could win for Democrats and powerful voices like Tim Black, in addition to brilliant writers like Walker Bragman warned people as well. Bernie Sanders should have been debating Trump; not a candidate who barely escaped criminal indictments.

Now Jill Stein has captured the hearts and minds of progressives and Tim Black’s interview with Dr. Stein shows why many Bernie voters have switched to the Green Party.

With Democrats now fearing a possible Trump presidency, it’s apparent that DNC officials favored the wrong candidate. WikiLeaks DNC emails show massive favoritism and a bias against Bernie Sanders. From fundraising to influencing the media (DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together…”), WikiLeaks DNC emails exposed a DNC that pushed for Hillary Clinton and mocked Bernie’s revolution.

Now America might have President Trump.

Again, don’t say H. A. Goodman or Bernie voters around the nation didn’t warn you.

In addition to my writing in The Huffington Post and Salon, I wrote a Hill piece titled Why Sanders defeats Trump, but Trump defeats Clinton. Several months after I wrote that article, Nate Silver crunched his numbers and stated “Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination.” It now looks like Clinton might lose the election.

NPR actually mentioned both Silver and me in a piece last year:

Every day smart folks make assertions — about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and issues of all sorts. "Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination," opined Nate Silver at in August. And Clinton "is unelectable due to negative favorability polls nationwide and within swing states," H.A. Goodman wrote on Huffington Post in October. Sometimes such sweeping pronouncements prove true; sometimes they are found to be folly.

True, I predicted Bernie Sanders would win the nomination and the FBI would indict Clinton, but extraordinary things took place for my crystal ball to stop working. Comey made the case for indictment (admitting “we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account”), but for some reason couldn’t find “intent.”

As for Bernie Sanders becoming nominee, just ask where Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now working. The once “neutral” DNC chair began campaigning for Clinton immediately after resigning from the DNC. This bizarre chain of events is explained in an Associated Press piece titled Wasserman Schultz to Have a New Role in Clinton Campaign:

Hillary describes her as a “longtime friend.”
Hillary Clinton is thanking her “longtime friend” Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the Florida congresswoman’s decision to step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee. Clinton says that Wasserman Schultz will serve as honorary chair of her campaign’s 50-state program to help elect Democrats around the country.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee says she looks forward to campaigning with Wasserman Schultz in Florida “and helping her re-election bid.” Clinton responded after Wasserman Schultz agreed to step down as chair at the end of this week’s Democratic National Convention.
The move came after the publication last week of some 19,000 hacked emails, some of which suggested the DNC was favoring Clinton during the primary season.

After practically campaigning for Clinton throughout the primary as DNC chair, and undermining Bernie Sanders in the process, Hillary Clinton made Wasserman Schultz “honorary chair of her campaign’s 50-state program.”

Welcome to American democracy.

After consistently claiming to be neutral and impartial, the DNC pushed for the only candidate capable of giving Trump the White House. Even with Bernie Sanders campaigning for Clinton, there’s little enthusiasm among the “Obama coalition” for Clinton and millennials won’t be motivated to vote in large numbers. Just look at the polls to see the consequences of the DNC tipping the scales in Clinton’s favor.

In addition to Wasserman Schultz, POLITICO explains that other DNC officials were forced to resign due to WikiLeaks revelations:

Heads roll at the DNC
Three top officials were ousted Tuesday, as the organization struggles to right itself.
With just three months until Election Day and the Democrats’ official party apparatus struggling to right itself from months of dysfunction and the scandal caused by the WikiLeaks email hack, interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile cleaned house Tuesday with the ouster of three top officials.
CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda and chief financial officer Brad Marshall are all leaving the organization, the DNC announced Tuesday afternoon, shortly after staffers were informed of the changes in a meeting. The announcement praised all three outgoing officials, but people familiar say the departures were heavily encouraged.

Where would American democracy be without “Russian hackers” and WikiLeaks exposing corruption?

Perhaps the most startling admission of the DNC’s guilt is highlighted in a recent article about Bernie voters suing the DNC:

The DNC attorneys also get a bit creative in their effort to get this lawsuit thrown out. They claim that all of the named plaintiffs already knew that the DNC was biased when they donated — so therefore how could they have been duped if they knew? We are not joking, that was one of their actual claims in the motion to dismiss.

Naturally, it was the fault of Bernie Sanders supporters who deliberately donated money to an organization they knew wasn’t playing fair! Blaming the victim has been a hallmark of Democratic politics this election season.

Finally, Bernie Sanders was able to accomplish something Clinton and her $100,000 per plate fundraisers couldn’t, and that’s generate widespread enthusiasm among voters. CNN describes the electricity, energy and the size of Bernie’s New York rally:

Bernie Sanders draws 'record' crowd in Prospect Park
Brooklyn, New York (CNN)Bernie Sanders drew a hometown hero's crowd Sunday in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, during a rally which his campaign billed as its biggest ever.
More than 28,000 turned out on the sunny spring day to see the Vermont senator who grew up in Flatbush, Brooklyn, according to Doug Lehman, who produced the event with 42 Inc.
"We do not represent the interests of Wall Street or the billionaires class or corporate America. We don't want their money. We're going to do it a different way," he told the crowd in the waning afternoon sunshine.
He was introduced by several high-profile surrogates, including Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and actor Danny DeVito.
"There were 28,300 people who came out to Brooklyn yesterday, not for a rock concert, but because they care about the future of this country, and they care about taking action to make things better, to be able to put some of these strong changes forward," Gabbard told CNN's Chris Cuomo Monday on "New Day."

In addition to record crowds, the more name recognition Bernie received throughout the primaries, the more people of all backgrounds chose Sanders over Clinton.

If Democrats were truly frightened of a future with Donald Trump as president, they wouldn’t have undermined the only candidate capable of defeating Trump. As of now, if Trump doesn’t bite the head off a live pigeon on the debate stage, he’ll win the debate in the eyes of millions of viewers. The bar has been set quite low for Trump because of Clinton’s never-ending scandals.

Bernie Sanders would have easily defeated Trump during the debate and also on November 8, 2016. Because media pundits and loyal Hillary voters couldn’t have possibly imagined a Trump presidency, we’re now stuck with a possible Trump presidency. Never say that H. A. Goodman and diehard Bernie or Bust people didn’t warn you and don’t use the usual guilt trip to force unity. Most of us are now voting for Jill Stein and told you from the beginning that only Bernie Sanders could defeat Donald Trump.

This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.