And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?
Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.
It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.
Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?
Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?
I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing. 
Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".
F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.
How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?
Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.
I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.
It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.
OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.
I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.
Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.
Exit polls are reliable now?
Something is up when there's a 12 point discrepancy, whether it was people unable to vote because of NY's bullsh**t rule on having to register 6 months before, all the people whose registration were purged, or any possible problems with counting the vote.
Exit polling isn't nearly as reliable in primaries because of power turnout and because it's harder to tell who supports which candidate. In particular, exit polling seems to oversample young voters, skewing data towards their preferences, (in this case, Bernie) which is compounded by the aforementioned issues. So it's no surprise that exit polls overestimated Bernie Sanders' support
