You’re the one who’s making the claim, you’re the one that needs to point to real evidence of collusion. And bitching about Bernie and Donna Brazille sending a town hall question once isn’t real evidence. It’s circumstantial at best. And I already debunked your debate complaint too. There were just as many debates sponsored by the DNC this year as in previous years. The DNC said it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. AND you’re ignoring the 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations. Compare that to 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?
Your next argument that “The DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would watch”! Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday, one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. Now, again, compare to 2008. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Thursday. So how is that really any different from 2016? And Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount — 75 million viewers — as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And of course there were slightly more watchers in 2008, BARACK OBAMA was in the debates. He, a young, charismatic black man! Someone fresh and new! None in the 2016 field were new. All had been around for years, decades. And those Saturday debates, which people like you yelled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched).
In other words, your argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, complete garbage. The evidence does not support your claims. At all. And if you STILL wanna buy into a “rigged” primary… sorry, but the evidence you have to cite is circumstantial at BEST.