your guy did not win Iowa; you have to concede that he's the undisputed winner in
all of one state.
Except Sanders did get more votes. And lost by .1% of the estimated delegates.
As there will be no coin tosses in the general election to decide electors, Sanders actually comes out ahead of the guy who declared victor before any of the results were even known.
realistically, there's no front runner yet.
This is true. Not that that seemed to stop anyone from declaring Biden the front runner when his poll numbers were high. Regardless there is still evidence that Sanders is better situated than the rest. And unless you are suggesting the entirety fo the Democratic party won't support whoever gets the most delegates, I don't see the point of the rest of your argument there.
Even Nate Silver, who has given Sanders a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination,
has projected that as of now he'll fall short of the number of delegates needed to win the
nomination on the first ballot when all of the primary votings is finished.
Ok. Which means super delegates then come into play.
So hypothetically what would happen if Sanders got a majority of the delegates over the other candidates and then the super delegates took that away and gave the nomination to someone who technically lost?
I don't think they would do that. I guess it depends on how self-destructive the DNC leadership is.
Also, the other candidates are expected to get even less so why is this only a problem for Bernie Sanders?
Let's all be intellectually honest and consistent then, and at least wait until after South Carolina
and Nevada before anyone starts gloating.
I agree. It's ridiculous to act as if Buttigieg or Klobuchar are real contenders yet. His one win by less than a percent based on math errors is hardly something to be bragging about.
As for Bernie, I like my chances though ironically I will be honest and say my support is based on more than how likely I think him winning is. Sometimes you have to stand for something.