Whew! I too was wondering at the great pushback from the left-wingers. This analysis makes more sense than her supposed incompetence for the job.

I wrote a review for a book called "How Democracies Die." In 2017, the two authors more or less predicted things would get worse than better.

https://medium.com/tiered-democratic-governance/how-democracies-die-book-review-90d7b191703d

What didn't make to my review there authors' analysis of the evolution of the primaries of the two parties. Prior to 1968, the party establishment held most of the control over who can run in the primaries. Aspirants who didn't fit the ideals of the boys in the smoke-filled rooms were easily taken off ballots in internal party elections.

After the riots of 1968, both parties opened up their primary process to the rank-and-file members. THe Republicans went entirely with a populist approach. The Democrats went 80% populist, with 20% of delegates chosen by the party elite. The idea was to give the public reassurance that politics was done by the people and not by back-room deals.

According to the authors, these two slightly different paths led to the Trump vs. Clinton contest in 2016. The R establishment had no control over the rise of Mr. Trump. The 20% D superdelegates gave Ms Clinton the edge in the D primaries.

To me, all this discussion is a moot point. It's hard to prove what system works better than the other. And remember, the old primary system was becoming discredited--rightly or wrongly--in its time.

Maybe it's time to look for a new kind of democracy.