Jane Sanders on MSNBC this morning, saying that news media are NOT allowed to say

[BlueCaliDem]

33. "he's won a number of races by large margins. By 70,75,82,86%." You forgot to add: in smaller States

with very few delegates. Hillary Clinton wins in large, delegate-rich primary States. She even won Nebraska and Washington State when they held their primary just a week or so ago. However, I don't hear Sanders saying that caucuses are undemocratic and rigged and that because Hillary won both Nebraska and Washington State handily, she should get the pledged delegates of those States, do I?

Also, you can make the case that, if we don't tally the superdelegates now we shouldn't tally the pledged delegates now, either, since they, just like the superdelegates, don't cast their vote until the Democratic Convention, either. And seeing that Sanders won the delegates from Nebraska and Washington State via the undemocratic caucus system and Hillary Clinton won them per one-person-one-vote, shouldn't *she* get those States' delegates?

It's not only the 274+ pledged delegates that makes the climb for him steep. It's the fact that he's behind by 3 million plus popular vote with no chance of catching up - even in California. And after denigrating one of the best governors in CA history as being part of the "establishment", he's bernt his bridges here. Governor Moonbeam has been the most liberal governor I know, and the fact that he got over his deep dislike of the Clintons and publicly endorsed Hillary, tells you that the governor with a 77% approval rating is not the man Sanders should want to go toe to toe with. If he's smart. Because Governor Brown is known for hitting back hard when unfairly attacked.