I posted this in another thread. But it's relevant here too. Hillary is actually dominating this race by a much bigger spread than she is given credit for.
Bernie mostly wins low voter turnout caucuses. I have turned to the point where I think caucuses are very undemocratic and do not reflect the will of the voters. A state that holds a caucus disenfranchises voters the same way voter suppression, regististration issues, etc., etc., do.
The majority of Sanders wins are in these non-democratic voting states. True, in some of those states, had they held a primary, Sanders popular vote total would be higher. But he also would have very likely lost more states too.
When you compare Sanders and Clinton in just the states that held primaries (a more apples to apples comparison) Clinton's dominance is actually greater.
In realty, while we hold a 50 state contest, Sanders has only won 3 states of serious political influence legitimately.
Wisconsin (Good win)
Michigan (Good win)
New Hampshire (Battle ground state)
Meanwhile Hilary has won:
Pennsylvania (Good win)
Ohio (Battle ground state)
Florida (Battle ground state)
Virginia (Battle ground state)
Arizona (Battle ground state)
North Carolina (Battle ground state)
Illinois
Massachusetts
New York
Texas
Illinois
Missouri
Georgia (Possible battle ground state)
You will notice in the above example I left out most of the southern (majority black vote) states, even though they held primaries and are far more legitimate victories than the ridiculous, voter suppression, low voter turn out caucus states that Sanders usually wins. It is a true test to what really matters to get elected President.
And even under this important example in examining each candidates strength, Hillary DOMINATES.
Bernie Sanders has run a great campaign. But folks, this is not a close race.
= new reply since forum marked as read
