> Among candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them. Sanders’ initial low poll numbers marked him as less newsworthy than Clinton but, as he gained strength, the news tilted in his favor.
This is revisionist history. I think the issue I and many of my friends have is that he did have organization and did have a national following but lacked the appropriate media coverage still. I can't comment on money but I'll concede that Hillary had more money based on the fact that they have essentially been raising money for her campaign for the past 10 years. Maybe, just maybe, Clinton had better poll numbers because she had more media coverage?
Anecdotally, I remember the morning commute that I decided to never give a dime of my money to NPR when Sanders' landslide win in NH was covered, but the panel all agreed that his campaign was a no go due to Hillary having the super delegates locked up...