So far like her better than they like him.

1. It doesn't count caucus goers
2. What does it matter, we don't elect presidents by popular vote
3. What does it matter, she's not winning states at the moment
4. What does it matter, when Trump can claim more popular votes than she can?

1. Actually it does, as the pre non-important caucus state blitz number was 2.5
2. I'll remember that the next time Camp Sanders parrots the "Sanders leads Clinton 50-49 nationally gibberish.
3. See 2; non-important caucus states.
4. Speaking from white privilege, as most Sanders people do these days. Trump is motivating every person of color in the country at the moment to vote against him.

1. No. It doesn't. There are a number of caucus states who do not report their popular vote numbers. It is strange and I see no reason for it, but those are the facts.
2. I have no idea what you are talking about here
3. See 2; no idea what point you are making.
4. So the only reason you have for me to vote for a moderate republican (at best) is that she isn't trump and will absolve me of white privilege? Get out of here with that bs.

Those numbers are estimated by the analysts doing the math, so they are accounted for. You BSers are really math-challenged. Maybe it's time to break out your slogan ditty: Liar, liar, pants on fire. Feel the bern!

Also, did you put a lot of thought into that 'ditty"? Make it rhyme next time for maximum funny points.

As for proving you wrong, it is unimportant to prove you wrong, you are wrong. I suspect by now you realize it yourself.

If they like her so much better?

I suggest all do the same.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -- George Orwell.

30,000 of our roughest men and women lost life and limb on a venture that Clinton blindly voted for. Thirty. Fucking. Thousand. Anyone who can say they're alright with voting for Clinton, in my eyes, doesn't even have a hole left to fit a conscience into.

Most of which have caucuses and are demographically favorable to Sanders he's looking much better. Shocking. What happens now that the upcoming contests are primaries and have favorable demographics for Clinton?

I'm sure you will come up with a new way to discount Clinton's advantage so that if you parse it just so, Sanders isn't losing by a wide margin.

Also it's really silly to argue that Clinton can't win even though she's ahead, so instead the guy she's beating should be handed the nomination against the expressed will of the voters. For months Sanders supporters here screamed that the super delegates were going to steal the nomination from Sanders and now you're openly rooting for it because you realize that Sanders is highly unlikely to win the pledged delegates.

....the part where I said the nominee did not have to be Sanders, right?

What we never liked and no democrat should ever like or condone or accept is the idea that the supers had to be committed to one candidate or the other before the votes of the people were even cast.

There are many many votes yet to be cast. Then and only then should anyone claim a winner. Of course since day one some here have been claiming an H win. Shame on them for their anti-democratic shouting!

That's pretty overstated, actually. Since she has a substantial lead in pledged delegates and in the popular vote count for these primaries, it's clear that many actually do like Hillary Clinton and want her to be the nominee.

Your premise is faulty, I'm afraid.

The Democratic Party of FDR has been dead since at least 1994.