> Face it, most of the American public, except maybe the Millenials and Gen-Z, love the idea of having the government spy on them all the time "for their safety".
citation needed
citation needed
And yes, I know how democratic candidates are selected. The people are going to have plenty to do with it (that's what all those primary elections are about).
I agree that Hillary is the establishment candidate. That's pretty hard to argue with. But if she doesn't win, it will be because people didn't vote for her.
You can't sit here and say "The public doesn't care. Look at Hillary" when Sanders is actually the popular candidate and he is a proponent of stronger privacy laws.
While Sanders has swung to near parity (slightly ahead in some) in national polls, he's finished just behind Hillary in both Iowa and Nevada caucuses (but well ahead in the NH primary). He's won slightly fewer votes overall, and the two candidates have about the same number of pledged delegates (I've seen different sources claiming 52/51 Hillary and an even 51/51 current split.) This is based on actual votes of actual voters, not skewed to establishment figures. Neither candidate is, either on the actual votes or the national polls, substantially more popular.
Hillary is far ahead in terms of informal commitments by unpledged delegates (superdelegates) who are mostly incumbent party officeholders, but those aren't votes, and while some media outlets report them as if they were the same as pledged delegates, they aren't. Superdelegates can and do switch allegiance over the course of the campaign, the same way as other public endorsements do.
Most of the exit polling breakouts I've seen have shown that (among Democratic primary/caucus participants) he does better among the young, among white voters, among people who have not participated in Democratic primaries/caucuses before, and among people who do not describe themselves as liberal, with Hillary doing better among the opposite groups.