I think the Randal-Rebecca mismatch was greater.

My position has to do with editing manipulation by producers and the completely unbelievable tall tale that had Randal punting and giving Rebecca the chance to get a win as PM, instead of stepping up to the plate himself. I think this was coached/coerced by the producers, just as I think that Marshawn's decision NOT to give a presentation was also coached/coerced. In the first instance, the situation helped Rebecca look better than she actually was. In the second situation, the scenario helped The Donald get rid of a competitor who also could have done very well in the finals against anyone--including Rebecca.

The bottom line for me is that Rebecca did not deserve to be in the finals, and no amount of editing can convince me that she had the gravitas to go head-to-head against a Rhodes Scholar with a stellar academic and business record. She had plenty of help from The Donald and from the producers in getting to the finals and in the images that they created to make viewers think that she was a true winner--in spite of Randal's mistakes in the final task.

Rebecca was also more arrogant and rude about her loss than poor Lee, stating that she was better as a businessperson at 23 or 24 than Randal, who already owned a multi-million dollar business, and that she would be even better than him 10 years going-forward. This idiotic point is salient, because it goes to the fact of Rebecca's poor breeding and lack of grace and lack of ability when it comes to analysing the variables that create successful business outcomes. It also highlights Randal's excellence, especially since he was already a business owner when he won the Apprentice. Sean was not.

--Singer