Some contrarian views

Belief: Money buys elections

Observation: At least on the Republican side there seems to be an inverse relationship between money and success. Bush has raised the most and Trump the least among leading candidates and it is not just Trump's wealth that puts him ahead. He is not spending. No TV and virtually no ground game. On the Democratic side, Clinton has the big money but Sanders certainly leads in the dollar per polling point gain. Again, an inverse relationship.

Tentative conclusion: A strong message is worth an awful lot of money.

Belief: The corporate media is backing Clinton

Observation: The corporate media have been handmaidens to the Republican efforts to paint Clinton as untrustworthy. In particular the bogus reporting on Bengazi and email issues has been very damaging to Clinton despite the lack of facts. It is certainly true that she gets more ink than Sanders but that is not necessarily good. A fair look at political coverage over the past six months would favor Sanders with a better ratio of positive to negative stories.

Tentative conclusion: Sanders is actually winning the earned media wars.

Belief: The DNC is stacking the deck for Clinton

Observation: The Democrats delegate selection process definitely stacks the deck against "cause candidates" and tries to ease the way for "mainstream" Democrats. This is not new and not Wasserman Schultz's doing. It goes back at least to the Winograd Commission in 1977-78. I know because I was a member of the Commission.

Conclusion: Sanders can make some political points by bashing the rules but he knew what they were going in.

Belief: Restricting the number and timing of debates was done to favor Clinton.

Observation: Judging from post-debate polls, Bernie is lucky that there weren't more and more visible debates. Clinton's numbers go up immediately following the debates and Bernie's do not rise. The decision to restrict the number of debates was made long ago. The major rationale (wrong in my estimation) was to insulate the eventual nominee from embarrassing debate statements such as the ones that every one of the Republican candidates has made. In this sense, regardless of whether the nominee is Sanders or Clinton, the decision may be seen as smart.

Tentative conclusion: Debates will not decide the Democratic race. They change little and generally favor Clinton.

Belief: Clinton's past acceptance of Wall Street dollars will be a political killer

Observation: There is almost no evidence that the voting public makes decisions at the polls about where campaign dollars come from. The public believes that nearly every contribution is tainted. They may not like Wall Street but they also don't like progressive groups such as unions or groups like Planned Parenthood Votes or Sierra Club.

Conclusion: This is a total non-issue for the average voter and unlikely to determine primary outcomes.