I loved Sanders' agenda, and voted for it, but that doesn't mean I'm sure he would have been a "better" candidate. We don't get to find out the answer to that question, and will probably never agree on measuring sticks.

Clinton, despite the alleged excitement gap, was terrifically popular with more people, and was decades networked into the Democratic machine. She was ready to run it and run it well, even if her ideas were more old-fashioned and less progressive. She was a great candidate, but one with some convenient carrying handles for the wingnut-wranglers in the media.

Modern Dems are always out-shouted. Sanders wasn't as charismatic, and looked like a Larry David impersonation. His quiet socialism had not, over decades, peeled away the support of people of color from the powerful Clinton branding. Yet he was Benghazi-free, and had not signed onto the AUMF. His message had a window of opportunity that we chose not to use in 2016, so whatever unique hope he offered for the next presidency is gone.

People will argue forever about who would have won if this or that hadn't happened, but they're all grinding favorite axes. None of us knows.