Jophiel wrote:
I don't see the remaining northern states (plus California) changing the ratio much. The issue is that, where Sanders won his blow outs, the voter count is literally an order of magnitude or more smaller than Clinton's primary victories. Sanders wins some caucus by a total of 6,050 to 1,140 and then Clinton wins a primary 770,000 to 540,000.
The best states for Sanders moving forward are still the low population ones. A sweeping victory in Connecticut won't matter as much as a solid Clinton win in New York. What northern states do you think are going to make up a 2.55 million deficit in voters?
I'm counting on the party leadership and super delegates to understand the difference between an early voter engorged entrenched candidate with high negatives and a late-coming insurgent candidate who is able to shift the base to their cause.
Even if Bernie winds this down to less than 100 pledged delegates at the end of the primaries, the choice the super delegates will have to make is not an easy one. Siding with Clinton will not keep the party contiguous in the long-term and also put the GE in jeopardy. What would be the argument against Bernie in that scenario? That Clintonian Democrats will sit by and let Trump win? Any takers on that happening!?