system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Donald Trump's victory in the Republican Primary shows that the system is not "rigged"

Following Sanders mathematical loss as the Democratic nominee, I've seen a lot of comments all over Reddit claiming that he never had a chance to begin with, the whole process is rigged, etc.

My argument is that Donald Trump's success clearly shows that a popular enough candidate can upset an establishment candidate if he or she is popular enough. If the system were truly rigged, there is no way that Trump would have won his party's nomination this year. Bernie lost because he flat out wasn't popular enough, not because there is some massive conspiracy to prevent him from winning.

I'm not saying that there aren't obvious obstacles if you aren't an establishment candidate, but that winning as a non-establishment candidate is certainly doable.
gpt
Its worth noting that, in this case, we are taking about two separate systems.  The DNC and the RNC have different nomination processes, with the DNC using "superdelegates" which are high-ranking officials in the party; there is no equivalent in the RNC process.

It is entirely possible for the RNC system to be fair while the DNC system is rigged.  They are not equivalent so you can't apply proof in one area to the other.