+Ophelia De Beaufort
The failure in your argument is the assumption that all candidates are widgets and thus comparable in their trajectories relative to each other. When you look at Sander's trajectory in Iowa relative to Hillary's you see conclusive evidence of a grassroots movement that is impervious to Hillary's bit, because we've seen it all before (2008).
Your declaration that Hillary has received "far more negative and sceptical focus from the media" is entirely incorrect and smacks of creating your own narrative which bears no relation to the demonstrable facts. Hillary is the statist candidate who is being carried by all the major corporations and super pacs which they fund, which include those which own the MSM outlets, in case you haven't noticed. That includes MSNBC (Maddow), and NPR in it's entirety. Neither have covered Bernie a fraction of the amount that they've been pushing Hillary. Yet she continues to sag. BTW, why do you support her? Does being a part of the destruction of the labor movement, or voting for invading Iraq mean nothing to you? Or what about her shifting her stance of gay marriage in order to capture the LGBT community support (in a cynical ploy to appear progressive)?