I noticed that the people who spent the least amount of time in the game voted for him to win. The ones who spent more time with him didn't. That wasn't lost on me. I believe Dom was flashier so it was much more noticeable to the people not in the game with him as much. However, the people around him more didn't care about that.
Secondly, I also noticed the ages of the people who voted for Dom compared to Wendell. Dom's votes skewed younger while Wendell's skewed older. I remember when Survivor first premiered, I was 24 years old. I used to get really worked up when the one I thought played the best game didn't win. Now, I have a greater appreciation for the social aspect of the game due to age and experience. I remember in my late 20's, I was in consideration for a promotion, and I was the best in terms of assistant producers. I was on time with all of my projects, and my work always had the least editorial changes. I didn't get the promotion and was confused. I later talked to my supervisor, and she stated that I was like a robot, producing, but not making the relationship that would inspire people to work for me. It was eye opening. I had always gotten along with everyone, had great work problem solving conversations, but I was also headstrong and didn't budge when I knew I was right. That was when I realized that relationships, not just working (game) relationships, were also important to succeed in my professional life.
This anology reminds me of survivor. If one goes back to season one, Mark Burnett always billed this show as a social experiment, even though we see less and less each season. What people value outside of the game will be what they value in the context of the game. While I am not blaming Dom's voters in any way, I just feel that if they had more life experiences, they would have appreciated Wendell's game a bit more. That is why I believe they were more bitter towards Wendell, than Wendell's voters being more bitter toward's Dom.
In my opinion, Wendell played a more well rounded game. Yes Dom appeared to be more strategic (Outwit), but Wendell Outplayed and obviously Outlasted better than Dom. I compare this to a teacher having to nominate a student for a scholarship based on no particular merits or qualifications. She has Dom, who excels academically (4.0 GPA), then she has Wendell (3.4 GPA), but is involved in The student welcoming committee, art club, newspaper, and is a student athlete. She decides to give the scholarship to Wendell, but everyone is complaining because Dom had the better GPA. In this scenario, they were both deserving. It just boils down to who places values on what aspect of the game they plan to reward.