I’ve just had a terrible thought: what if Sanders is actually a terrible candidate and is only propped up in his candidacy by two factors: (I) his vocal, but relatively small hardcore fans (II) his performance in 2016. I think his performance in 2016 can now be explained as a near fluke. The factor that the zeitgeist was decidedly antiestablishment made Sanders a contender in the primaries because he was the only really challenger to the ultimate establishment candidate, Hilary Clinton. He didn’t do well on account of his polices, per se, but rather that he was the only viable secondary to Clinton, I.e. not Clinton. What he stood for was relatively immaterial to some of his supporters who could never vote in good conscience for Clinton and for all which she stands. In the end, perhaps Bernie is at only 25% real support amongst the democratic electorate and his 46% showing in 2016 and be purely accounted for by Hilary’s utter shiftiness. This is troublesome, but Trump, the “Republican Bernie Sanders”, as some call him won by default because of Hilary’s awfulness. People couldn’t stand Hilary and felt compelled to vote for any viable alternative. Trump won by default. This is good news because we will be rid of the Clinton Stink in 2020, so Biden is going to win handily in a Clinton-less election.

TL;DR: Hilary Clinton’s horribleness acts like a black hole’s effect ok perceived time during time dilation events.