1) You had near-unlimited funds
2) You had universal name recognition
3) You had a nationwide organizing network
4) You were the runner-up from the previous cycle

And you still failed spectacularly. Sorry if you find those (true) observations "dickish" https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1249730382800420865

5) You had a primary schedule that was extremely well-suited to Bernie, beginning with two low-turnout caucuses, as well as a primary in Bernie's neighboring state that he won in a landslide four years ago
6) You merely needed to not get blown out by 30% in South Carolina

7) You had a media environment that, while still hostile to Bernie in certain respects (did anyone ever expect anything different?) had recognized his formidability as a political force and couldn't "black him out" like in 2016. Online media in particular was extremely pro-Bernie

8) You had a DNC that was petrified of appearing to intervene too heavy-handedly in the nominating process, and which had implemented a number of significant reforms (superdelegates, etc.) demanded by Bernie supporters in the interim period between 2016 and 2020

9) How many corporate media TV town halls did Bernie have? (Answer: a lot.) How many was he offered? How many primetime interviews? If Bernie was such an "existential threat," why did they give such a major platform?

10) You had a fractured "establishment" that couldn't decide on a candidate for well over a year. If Biden 2020 was such a behemoth, like Hillary 2016, then why did Kamala/Pete/Amy/Booker/Bloomberg etc. even run to begin with? Answer: Biden was NOT a pre-coronated behemoth

I could keep going. But these fatalistic, self-absolving explanations for failure by people in the Bernie Orbit are just preposterous. It reminds me of Hillary dead-enders who argued for years that she and her campaign Did Nothing Wrong, Stop The Blame Game