I see that delegate math is not your strong suit.
If not for Clinton's vastly superior delegate totals, she would be losing.
Drop the super-delegate BS. It's stupid. We already know Clinton has the party apparatus behind her. We also know if Bernie wins with pledged delegates, the super-delegates will follow suit. There would be chaos if Bernie beats her soundly enough in the remaining primaries to pull ahead in pledged delegates and the DNC robs him of the nomination.
Do you support stripping Sanders of a victory if he's ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates? If no, then the super-delegates are meaningless. If yes, then you support an undemocratic process, and people shouldn't want anything to do with your party or the sleazy candidate who would agree to be substituted in Bernie's place.
There's one sure way for Democrats to blow this thing, and that is for superdelegates to finagle a Clinton victory. For a party that puts so much emphasis on winning the popular vote, for them to strip their own popularly elected nominee of the nomination would ruin the party, and hand the GOP the Whitehouse.
Clinton has a 10% lead in pledged delegates, and those are the only ones that count.
What an interesting position. Pretending that Ohio is in the deep south is silly. The fact of the matter is that Clinton also won big in swing states like Florida and Ohio, who will be key in the general.
I'm not pretending Ohio is in the Deep South. I'm saying Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates because of victories in states the Dems cannot win, like Texas. If you took the GOP red states out of Hillary's column, she would be losing. That she's only ahead of Bernie because of the Deep South does not bode well for the general. A good candidate wouldn't have to depend on unwinnable general election states for their lead.
I'm not very impressed by Sanders polling better when he hasn't had any negative campaigning against him. Despite what the Sanders supporters believe, politicians go negative because it is usually effective, and I don't think Sanders would be immune to it.
At last, a fair point. No, Sanders is not immune to it. But would he take a tumble to where Hillary is at with her horrible favorability and trustworthiness numbers? I don't believe he would. He's authentic, and at heart, a nice guy. Clinton is a sleazy politician who will do/say anything to win. She exists in a cloud of mendacity, like the dirt that swirls around the Peanuts character Pigpen. And the GOP have not trained their guns on Hillary yet. They're in their own civil war, so her numbers could (and will) nosedive even further.
I mean every likely candidate, which includes Sanders, Trump, and Cruz. It is mathematically impossible for Kasich to win the nominations with delegates, so I don't consider him a likely candidate.
Math doesn't mean anything in a contested convention. Nobody will have a majority of delegates, so anyone can win. I can see a path for Kasich. He's electable, and the only one who beats Bernie and Hillary in match-ups. The GOP may be so determined to win the Whitehouse, they'll pick Kasich.
Which still leaves us with your claim that Clinton is a terrible candidate, yet she is a better candidate than the rest that are running.
Yeah, she's top-notch. Who are the rest again? Trump, Cruz, and an old socialist? That's some competition there.
I don't think claims of who she was named after, or that her grandparents were immigrants matter.
I'm sure you don't, but people who aren't slavishly devoted to her actually DO pay attention to Hillary's frequent lies and exaggerations. Why do you think Brian Williams lost his spot as NBC's news anchor? Why do you think Clinton's honesty and likeability numbers are so bad? When she's not dodging sniper fire, or responding to questions about the FBI investigating her, she's making **** up about herself. It plays into the narrative she will do/say anything to get elected. Which she will.
If? He is down by over 700 delegates! That is losing badly! Whoopdy doo, he won 13 delegates in Alaska, is that supposed to be impressive?
Again, stop with the superdelegates. They can (and would) change their vote if Bernie gets a majority of pledged delegates. Hillary is 10% ahead in the delegates that matter, and Bernie will chip at that in the next two states. He only needs to win New York by 4 points to stay on the path to nomination, and Clinton's lead there is falling.
If you had any understanding of the numbers, here, you would realize that a 10 point Clinton win in NY would virtually end Sanders' slim hopes.
No, because he could beat her in California by 25 points. He's beat her by bigger margins before. This won't be over until California, and even then it probably won't be over.
You forget that the backdrop to all this is the ongoing FBI investigation. Clinton will not have this sewn up until after the convention or the FBI concludes it's investigations and doesn't recommend charges (or issues a "slap on the wrist" statement).
The FBI is not investigating her for a lark, or part of some "vast right wing" conspiracy. We don't know what the FBI has uncovered. There is a real chance the FBI will recommend charges. The DoJ knows if it doesn't indict, there will likely be a series of high-level resignations, like when Nixon fired Archibald Cox, so there is a real chance Clinton could be indicted. If she does, do you think the Democrats are going to pick someone who's currently being indicted by the DoJ, especially by a Democratic administration's DoJ. Or will they take their chances on someone who isn't on trial?
At this point, she has a lead of over 700 delegates. That black freshman senator has shown himself to be a pretty capable politician, despite his middle name.
Actually, Obama is one of the luckiest politicians ever. He won his Senate seat when the GOP helicoptered in Alan Keyes after Obama's opponent got involved in a sex scandal 86 days before the election. Then Obama got to beat up on Hillary, with her pro-Iraq vote hanging off her like an Albatross. Then the GOP went nuts and picked an absolutely certifiable moron for McCain's VP. THEN, after the GOP's 2012 KlownKar show, they picked sneering plutocrat Romney, who ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history.
Obama has never really faced a tough opponent. He's been an OK president, but to say he's been very very lucky is an understatement.
