i can totally see that point, but at the same time two important things stick out to me:Isn't this a bit like saying we shouldn't care about murders because people are going to die anyway?
The issue here isn't who coulda shoulda woulda won or what coulda shoulda woulda happened in the general election, it's that one player had taken control over the referee in what was supposed to be a fair contest.
1. griping that an entrenched political body, that has been given about 50% of the power in the country in a gift-wrapped box, is spending more time on its own influence than it is on representing the will of the people is kind of like going "hey what the hell!? all i did was jump into this pit of angry scorpions, and i got stung all over!"
2. technically speaking an argument could be made that what the DNC pulled is exactly what a lot of people have either suggested the RNC should have done or wish the RNC had done: stepped in and vetoed the will of the people when they thought the candidate they picked was problematic.
i'm sure a LOT of folks would have no problem with the idea of the RNC having stepped in during the primaries and just going "yeah... no" and finding some way, any way, to nix trump from the process.
so either campaign bodies exist in order to temper the impetuousness of the voting public, or else they only exist for the purposes of organization and facilitate the election process and can never and should never get involved to wrangle the unruly masses.
seems a bit hypocritical to complain of the one aspect while encouraging the other.
They didn't nobly pick a candidate for the betterment of the party, they sold control of the party apparatus to a candidate for cash.