We've seriously drifted into fantasy land, here. "The question is: why is this nomination process so rigged?" How is winning the majority of elected delegates "rigged"? It is not "rigged" just because you don't like the outcome. Clinton has won more delegates. Ignore the SUPER DELEGATES. They truly don't matter, except for talking points. Bernie Sanders is behind by 300 elected delegates, and he cannot make up that deficit. Sanders has actually gotten more benefit from "rigging" the system than Clinton - The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders.
Quote
Sanders fans have claimed that because caucuses have lower turnout the current national caucus and primary vote underrates how well Sanders is doing. In fact, the opposite is true. When we switch all caucuses over to primaries, Sanders actually does worse. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote would grow from 2.9 to 3.3 million votes. Moreover, her edge in elected delegates would expand significantly.7 Instead of her current lead of 272 elected delegates, Clinton would be ahead by 424.8 Some states that were won by Sanders in caucuses, including Colorado and Minnesota, would be won by Clinton in primaries, according to our calculations.

"Pop" goes that argument.

"She is not progressive." Again, this has no basis in reality, but is just a partisan talking point. Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
Quote
We’ve gotten this raft of “Clinton is liberal” exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party....Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members.

When I take a position, I base it upon facts, not wishful thinking. According to, On The Issues.Org, "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders."

From FiveThirtyEight: "Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War." But in voting for the resolution, she was in the majority of the Democratic party: 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. In the context of the time, this is not actually surprising. People conveniently forget that the resolution authorized the President the discretion to use force. At the time, many believed it was necessary to do so to strengthen the President's hand in ongoing negotiations with the Hussein regime. A vote against the resolution (which was bipartisan and co-sponsored) would have undermined his negotiating position. While I didn't trust Bush to behave responsibly, he was the President, and needed that authority in the interest of national security. That he misused that authority once he got it cannot be blamed on the Democrats, even those that voted for it.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich