Alex, bias and advantage are normal features of any debate format one might care to design. You rightly point out that such biases are normally mediated by each party acting as advocate for their candidate, thus ensuring fairness.

Parties have such strong incentives to back their own horses that when they fail to do so, in a manner unprecedented in modern politics, the better question is – why?

The answer is simple; it’s a telling illustration of Trump’s deep personal flaws as a candidate. A President needs to build consensus, to earn the respect of his peers, to empathize, to reconcile, and to foster strong interpersonal and working relationships. His abject failure to do so speaks volumes to his inadequacy for the role; it is the predictable consequence of his own shortcomings.

Compare this with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders supporters also claimed the system was “rigged” against their candidate. They too are correct, but in reality this was a reflection of the decades his opponent had spent building trust and strong relationships. The broad support she enjoyed from day one amongst party grandees and superdelegates was no accident. When the time came they gladly used their power to help her win the nomination.

Trump may well feel that he is now being hung out to dry, and he’s right. The noose, however, will be entirely of his own making.