the candidate that they trusted and believed in? How about they voted for the candidate that actually really cares about them?

Guess that doesn't count as diversity to WAPO since they write this as a contrast?

"A lot of big, diverse states holding primaries."

And that HRC is still commanding on the delegates and popular votes.

Except when he does. Then those states don't count.

washington win. There is no low deep enough for them.l

out the vote for Trump .........

Pundits have been saying that phrase and moving the goalposts on what that means since last summer. Instead of crapping on the win and insulting people of color in those three states, why not give credit to the Sanders campaign and celebrate the fact that the Sanders campaign is forcing the Dem party to look left and hopefully move left, something they've not done in a long time.

Alaska and Hawaii are the two most diverse states in our country.

at least Hawaii and Washington have a long history of voting Democratic in the GE. Can't say that about states like South Carolina, Florida, Georgia and her firewallers. Ouch, that has to still sting.

United States of America. Each states have number of electors. Ohio and Florida, Iowa, Nevada (which HRC won) are part of that early format in winning.

in states like Washington versus Alabama. Would you, as a Clinton supporter, rather run against a Republican in the southern states or the pacific northwes states?

Plus Penn, WI, NC, Missouri, Indiana to name a few. The west most likely go with the Democratic Party's nominee, which will be HRC.

Her firewall ended three weeks ago, and Bernie did better than expected.

Now Bernie's on a roll, and he'll be the Democratic nominee at the end. Count on that.

New York and PA are not Clinton's firewall. They are, in fact, her downfall.

as he becomes better know outside the Northeast. But can he stay viable and is it too late?

no question about it.

Can he stay viable? Only with a lot of work and support from everyone who can possibly lend any.

rollercoaster.

All the teeth-gnashing about yesterday from Hillary's camp....I guess you have to spin those landslides however you can.

Sid

I think turnout number percentage will be closer to percentage of voters who turn out in the general election.

But only black people count in your narrative.

US census number. Native peoples and Asians and others are also minorities and PoC, denial of their existence is not helping Hillary one bit.

1. White people don't matter. People who live in flyover America don't matter. Etc.

2. Diversity means black people. Latinos, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, etc. do not contribute to diversity.

This is a new alternative phrasing replacing "overwhelmingly white" to describe states that Sanders won. Why the change from the standard pro-Hilary mantra of the last two months? Because Bernie is now wining enough significantly "diverse" states - like Colorado, Washington, and Alaska that describing them as"overwhelmingly white" starts to sound laughable. And then of course there is Hawaii, which is by far the least white state in the nation, where Sanders won over 70% of the vote. And then there was Michigan which had a primary with a significant black population that Sanders won also.

Somehow I don't think the phrase "non-black states" carries the same rhetoric punch as "overwhelmingly white states" for political spin purposes.

Something is wrong with people that turn everything into racism.

Hawaiians of all cultures, and liberals. That's pretty harsh IMO.

It's true that Sanders has done especially poorly with Black voters. However, only 6.7% of California's population is Black.

I think it's all going to come down to California. Anything is possible if Sanders has a big win there.

It's true that Sanders has done less well with Latino voters, and California has a lot of Latino voters. But there are states where he's gotten about 50% of the Latino vote, like Nevada and Illinois. In the latest California poll, he's losing the Latino vote by about 55% to 35%, which already is not that bad. He also has been doing very well with Asian American voters (as Hawaii showed last night), and there are a lot of those in California.

If he can improve his numbers with Latinos and win White and Asian Americans by big amounts, he could easily have a landslide win in California without improving his numbers with the relatively small percentage of Black voters in that state at all.

Surprisingly, Sanders isn't doing that well with White voters in California, only winning them by about 5% in the latest poll. Judging by other states, those numbers are likely to shift massively in his favor. He's won 90% of the White vote in some states.

and Washington are fairly diverse racially).

Regardless of race, Sanders does less well among conservative Democrats who look back on Bill Clinton's welfare "reform," enhanced criminal imprisonment rates, Wall Street deregulation, anti-domestic-labor "free" trade agreements, DOMA, and nation building foreign intervention as the "good old days."

Those who would rather move forward rather than accepting the status quo as the new normal prefer Sanders regardless of race.

What is your motive in dragging race into a contest that is about ideology?

And the demographic trends of the race have been fairly clear. The big problem for Sanders is that the caucuses are mostly over and there is a big block of closed primaries coming up.