The Economist is way off base, as usual.
I see several questions regarding Sanders:
How much credibility did he lose by betraying his base to endorse HRC and parrot the “Russia” nonsense?
How can the DNC be forced, persuaded, cajoled, or ridiculed into allowing a small-d democratic choice of big-D candidate? The DNC has given ground twice, reducing the number and strength of superdelegates. But they have clearly not simply given way to allowing a legitimate election process. They have also produced other new rules to prevent a popular candidate like Sanders who has had ties outside the party from entering the fray.
I’d welcome a Sanders nomination as an improvement, given the field. But the point is moot. The DNC is working against him, and he is willing to bend to their disapproval, as he showed in 2016. He’s doing good work in Vermont, but it would be more practical to start working for an authentic challenge or 3rd party candidate from the start.