So now the Sanders campaign is saying that the Superdelegates should vote... [View all]

[George II]

....for the candidate who won any state with a "landslide" victory. I presume that they're okay with the Superdelegates voting on their own in other states?

Okay, let's now look at it FIVE different ways:

- Voting as currently committed so far (something that the Sanders campaign is upset with)

- Voting for the winner of each state

- Voting for the winner in "landslide" states, presumably letting them vote as committed in non-landslide states (what constitutes " landslide"? Let's look at both >60% and >65%

- Voting proportionally the way the state primary/caucus went.

Here we go (for only states that have voted so far*):

Current: Clinton 389, Sanders 33, Clinton +356
Winner take all: Clinton 374, Sanders 156, Clinton +218
Landslide >60%: Clinton 386, Sanders 95, Clinton +291
Landslide >65%: Clinton 387, Sanders 73, Clinton +314
Proportional: Clinton 279, Sanders 244, Clinton +35

*totals differ because not all SDs have committed yet in these states

The bottom line is that using each of the evolving schemes of the Sanders campaign, she still winds up with more Superdelegates than Sanders. The only scenario not looked at here is strong-arming and harassing Superdelegates, but I suspect that would backfire miserably.

So, with a current lead of 290 pledged delegates AND with each of these scenarios showing Clinton ahead in Superdelegates, the "path to victory" has reached a: