Roughly a dozen HUGE closed primaries in quick succession with Hillary leading.

Having a sad? Yeah, this kind of sad:

You're praying for a miracle.

He needed a 13 point win and he got a 13.5 win. He hit his delegate target of 48 perfectly.

The hill just got steeper. If he loses NY, get a fork.

Barring something crazy happening (FBI or some such) it's going to be an open convention. Hillary can't hit the magic number to win (2387?) with pledged delegates and neither can Bernie.

Bernie has a path to get more delegates than Hillary before it's done, and Hillary has a good chance of having a few more than he does when it's over. The game is still on, in other words.

Here is a new wrinkle though - Bernie's national numbers are still trending up, and Hillary's are still slipping. He now leads her in national polls and in polling against all Republicans.

What happens if he is say, 10 pledged delegates shy of her, but not only has been sweeping almost all the states, but also has a 20 point lead in the national polls and gets even stronger against the Rs?

In other words, what metric do you think the supers would be most inclined to judge most important?

And hells bells! An open convention filled with nothing but Democrats (no independents, no meddling Republicans) would be instant "Game Over" for Sanders.

This isn't fucking rocket science.

I am careful about the company I keep. Unify with those people? If I must, but ....

So, were you a brain dead person calling Obama's supporters "Obama's boys" in 2008? Same exact talking point and strategy.

If you support Clinton you are supporting someone most responsible, along with her husband, for pulling your party to the right in recent decades, with a center-right record (which she is sometimes proud of, depends on the crowd), whose largest donors are banks and other corporate interests over the course of her career. She also has a very hawkish record. I don't know you, I know the record of the candidate you support.

Pathetic.

it reminded how pathetic your propaganda is. Berniebros is a horrible propaganda trick, with no basis in reality (read people like Glenn Greenwald that have actually looked into it). You people don't stop and think about what you are accusing others of, or what impact that may have. I was also reminded of the actual point you were trying to make. Do you know how discussion forums generally work?

I have news for you, the days when you could mock the left and there'd be no consequences are over. Thinking that you can win elections moving forward by always appealing to "moderates" is also coming to a close. There has been a sharp turn to the left in the last decade or so and independents take positions on a wide range of issues that are generally associated with the left, the actual left. Same with the general public. You are very close to having the left break away from your party. Given that your candidate is the likely nominee, you might want to think about the consequences of how you communicate with the "Berniebros". If you want to brush it off, fine, but I don't like Clinton and would be happy to see people like yourself undermine her campaign.

You are arguing with someone whose best retort is putting anyone to the left of HRC on ignore

Our party has crossed over to right of center. In any other country, our Party would be considered Conservative.

He is keeping hope alive that we can actually stay to the left of center. I'll get behind that

thinking they can win by attacking Clinton,

Long string of blow outs. And you say you're a dem? How is anything you just said democratic?

He is running as an Independent on the DNC's voter lists and money and structure.

Maybe it's time for the DNC to wake the hell up...if it's not already too late(which I fear unfortunately). There's just too much corporate money backing the status quo.

Funny you left those ones off and focused on the smaller ones...

He's a selfish egotistical cheat. We get the meme.

Keep telling yourself that while the rest of us and all who give him the time of day see and hear nothing but honest integrity.

The Democratic Party is either going to grow from Bernie's campaign, or be badly damaged. It's pretty much in the DNC's, Hillary's and her supporters' hands. We shall see.

If he did, she'd be toast, and I wish he would by the way. I think there were benefits in running within your corrupt party, but there were obvious drawbacks. How they've acted since he entered the race, how corrupt Clinton and DWS are, and the steady move to the right of your party in recent decades, points to those limitations. Your party is not an agent of progressive change. It might have been decades ago, those days are gone, thanks largely to people like the Clintons.

You guys always miss the point don't you. His goal isn't to unify the Party. It's to get corruption out of our political system, including the Democratic Party. Absent that, unifying the Party would mean condoning the current corruption wouldn't it?

He ain't gonna do that. He's working to change the Party (by getting the corruption out). If you can't get behind that, then there's nothing to discuss.

... is that Bernie sees everything as corruption.

Our President: Corrupt.

The biggest step towards universal health care in a century: Corrupt

The very Wall Street regulatory bill he would use to break up the banks: Corrupt

Not everything is corruption. Bernie is so single-minded in his focus that he misses the bigger picture. Yes, corruption does exist in the system, but purity is impossible. Purity would likely result in less progress, too. For instance, what's really the difference between a corporation donating money to a candidate, and a labor union doing the same thing? By Bernie's logic, union money is corruption too, since they're going to expect a politician to vote on legislation to support them. Is that corruption ok?

When he continues to assail everything as being corrupt, it implicates everyone who supports any of those things. If I support things done by an entire party and system that is corrupt, it implies that I too am corrupt.

Which negatively affects about 90% of all Americans. So what, are you condoning that as a compromise?

can you actually define corruption? What is it? Explain what corruption is exactly, how it may impact the decisions governing bodies take, what impacts those decisions will have, etc. To claim he is a one issue candidate is ridiculous, he focuses on corruption and inequality more than other issues because he cares about those issues. Clinton could give a damn. She wants more power and will take whatever position she needs to take to gain more power. Regardless, even if that was his one issue, does corruption not impact almost everything that government does? Does corruption not impact which trade policies we support, or our education and foreign policies? What about energy and what we need to do to avoid ecological collapse? I would think that corruption could doom that. Argue otherwise and explain why Clinton and her followers are "progressive" when they minimize corruption like you are.

Who is going to take any of you seriously when you talk about Citizens United?

First of all, I did not call Bernie a "one issue candidate". I said he is single-mindedly focused, which means that on whatever issue is at hand, he sees what he considers the point and misses out on the surrounding details. There's a definite difference between the two positions, so let's be clear about what I actually said.

The corruption conversation is hard, because Bernie hasn't defined what he means either. He throws the word around as though everything he doesn't like is corruption, and they're all equal sins. The fact of the matter is that corruption is only corruption when it actually involves influence pushing someone in a certain direction. When Bernie takes money from people who work in the oil industry, that doesn't make him corrupt. He talks about other people as though it does, but it's simplistic talk that ignores the fact that politics is complicated.

The way he talks, everything is simple.... unless it was a vote he took that's unpopular, in which case he remembers how you have to sometimes accept things you don't like in order to get a better outcome.

Stop bringing up him getting money from people that work in the oil industry. My uncle is an engineer at an oil company and support Sanders. Him giving money to his campaign as a private citizen is not the same thing as what Clinton has done (even in recent weeks) in regards to getting money directly, through her campaign (and all affiliated organizations), or her foundation. The two aren't the same or on the same level. Seen the fund raising gigs she, her family and her campaign have had recently with those groups? If that isn't corruption, bordering on bribery, don't know what is.

"The fact of the matter is that corruption is only corruption when it actually involves influence pushing someone in a certain direction."

So, you have to have seen the video of Warren explaining her flip flop on the bankruptcy bill. Or how about the massive amount of money she and her husband got from financial interests and their support for deregulation during and after his presidency? How about her strong support for the WTO (which has destroyed financial regulation), the bi-lateral trade agreements and NAFTA (the same), or the bailout in 2008? How about her and her husband being almost entirely surrounded by Wall Street insiders, hedge fund managers and financial titans? My god, her entire career is doing just that. Her top donors over the course of her career are giant banks and other corporate interests and she has supported policy after policy that have benefited those groups. It takes real talent to not see this.

"you have to sometimes accept things you don't like in order to get a better outcome."

Wages haven't grown (adjusted for inflation) for decades, de-industrialization has deepened and spread, our infrastructure is crumbling, inequality and private debt have exploded and we are heading towards ecological collapse. On a few issues, like marriage equality (which she came around on about three years ago and had no role in), we've seen progress. Economically, environmentally, we have been regressing for decades now and she, the person you support, is one of the people most responsible for pulling your party to the right.

Stop bringing up him getting money from people that work in the oil industry. My uncle is an engineer at an oil company and support Sanders. Him giving money to his campaign as a private citizen is not the same thing as what Clinton has done (even in recent weeks) in regards to getting money directly, through her campaign (and all affiliated organizations), or her foundation. The two aren't the same or on the same level.

He doesn't have to make a distinction in her case, since she, her family, groups affiliated with her campaign, and her foundation have been given such massive amounts of money from those interests since she entered politics and since she announced she was running. For you to compare that to him getting peanuts from people like my uncle is nonsense. No one, outside of people that already agree with you, think that is a logical or convincing argument. It is something that Clinton campaign said and all of her followers just repeat it. It is clear that her campaign got together, had a discussion on how to respond to those critiques and came up with that argument.

If you want to back her, fine, but stop providing cover for her corruption. Sanders, if anything, should have shown the value in challenging her from the left and on those issues. You making these arguments helps to perpetuate her obvious corruption. Who does that benefit? If the answer, in part, is you, then this discussion would make more sense.

As I pointed out, getting direct contributions from the industry is against the law. Tying her to anything donated to a SuperPAC is dishonest, since her having anything to do with it would be against the law.

Your position, the one that Bernie tiptoes close to, is accusing her of a crime without having the guts to actually say it.

I didn't say she broke a crime (the FBI might soon, we'll see). Corruption has been legalized. In fact, she defends her corruption by pointing out that others in her position have done the same, as if that excuses it.

Please, read this article (or look up which lobbyists she, her campaign, her family have been meeting with lately. Want a list?), and tell me this isn't corruption, with an aid by the DNC:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Oh, and give me a break on the PACs. The people in those PACs have a long history with her, her husband and of course Wall Street and corporate interests. Let's not pretend that there isn't a web of powerful interests, with a common interest in a set of policies, that they all work to further. How utterly pathetic, this is why I want nothing to do with your party. Your mindset is representative of everything wrong with your party.

42% of the electorate are now independents. YMMV

but now the Berniebots only cite "7 of the last 8" or "6 of the last 7?"

Here's a newsflash. Hillary has won 18 out of the last 27 primaries. Meanwhile, Sanders has lost 18 out of the last 27 primaries.

Looks a lot different when put into the proper context, no?

It's funny how Bernie is dominating now that everyone is starting to do their own research vetting the candidates. Folks are waking up to the MSM agenda when it comes to Bernie's campaign.

those are the only votes that matter.

And the interesting thing is, in that stretch there was exactly one state that held a closed primary: Arizona.

the Democratic Party which imposes them in some States very recently. It's their choice. It's democracy which means it's not your choice nor mine. It's theirs. And of course you don't count States that are mostly white because the US at 76% or so white is not mainly white. How idiotic are your ploys and it is all about discounting the votes of States and groups of voters. It's almost as disgusting as Hillary claiming the Reagans were AIDS heroes. Not quite. Almost.

people to vote. The Democratic Party also imposes the superdelegates, which are also undemocratic. But, yeah, that's the primary system we have.

If we look at all the states that voted so far, of course, Hillary is ahead by a large margin. The only idiotic thing here is that Bernie fans are trying to claim that because he won a string of mostly white, mostly caucus states, that he's the candidate that the "people" want.

I want to make sure this never happens again. They need to change the rules. Trump could have just as easily have been a 'Democrat come lately.'

1) "Spending years bashing Democrats..."
Sanders has been in Congress for 26 years. Sanders has caucused with Democrats he entire time in Congress. He has a better voting record on Democratic Party planks than many Democrats. He was assigned chairperson seats to committees by Democratic Party leadership throughout his career so they must have like him. He co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus and lead it for 8 years.

2) "shows how much he dislikes the Party by not raising money..."
As both a House and Senate member he has done DSCC and DCCC events during his career. This is a contested primary fight and he is under no obligation to give anybody anything in a contested primary.

The rest is melodramatic fluff that doesn't deserve a response.

...when your candidate invites both this man and his ideas to the party.

It's coming soon............One more scandal in the lives of the Clinton's. And this is a BIG one.