She might win in a squeaker with Ohio. But, that's about it for Hillary.

...which is pretty cool.

Sanders scored a BIG win tonight, and has the momentum on his side, which I don't mind congratulating. Although, I still prefer HRC for the nomination and I'm not concerned that she'll lose any ground. She will still win the nomination in the end.

In the meantime - let's give Bernie and supporters their proper's for this win.

....she will actually net more pledged delegates today.

Bernie would have closed the gap considerably.

But because it's a system of proportional allocation, he needs large wins to start closing the gap.

He needs large wins in large states to close the gap.

Doing it in small states won't work because there aren't enough delegates.

...the math is changing. Don't live in the past.

Everybody plays by the same rules as far as that is concerned

because those caucus states don't disclose the raw vote.

Hillary won Iowa and Nevada while Bernie won Maine.

Oh, wait, you did suggest this number was a popular vote total when it was not -- in fact -- a popular vote total.

Moreover, there is no indication (and -- to the contrary -- there is contraindication) that Hillary got more votes in Iowa or Nevada or Maine. Sanders almost certainly had more supporters show up in Iowa and Maine and probably Nevada, too

Where's your evidence of that?

and Sanders in 2016) usually wins university caucuses by very large margins with lots of participants, but these caucuses count the same as caucuses with sparse participation.

There were lots of reports of overwhelming turnout for Sanders at Iowa universities. Given the narrow margin of her win in Iowa, Sanders likely had more supporters. In Nevada, there were similar anecdotal reports (but not as many as we saw in Iowa).

In any event, the number you are floating as a popular vote total is not in fact a popular vote total.

....how did he lose those caucuses?

precincts (e.g., like when a candidate is especially popular among college students), that support is under counted because if 7 people show up at that precinct to caucus the precinct may be allocated 100% to the candidate who has just 6 supporters but if 700 people show up and 600 caucus for the candidate, the precinct is allocated just the same.

It was a HRC distraction in 2008. I do not get why you float this in 2016 when she is ahead in pledged delegates that are proportional to the TOTAL votes in earlier Presidential races.

The fact is the south was front loaded this year. HRC is the most likely nominee, but it is also true that Bernie is likely to do better in the west where only Nevada has voted and the Midwest where only michigan. Iowa and Minnesota have voted.

... it must be a "media conspiracy"!

vote total available to us. Entire States lack raw voter totals. But it's an A for effort on a morning that has to be almost as hard on you as it must be on Nate.