Sorry if it makes your head hurt.
I'm seriously thinking of referring to this guy henceforth as You Know Who/He Who Must Not Be Named, but that seems a little silly even for me.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Oh yes. Unfortunately.
He took Arizona last night. Cruz took Utah easily.
Never did hear the results from Idaho on the Imbecile side of the isle.
That's because the Idaho Republican primary was held weeks ago. Cruz won a substantial plurality of the votes there. And yes, Sanders cut into Clinton's delegate lead by about 11 delegates ... which means he only needs to win 68% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination (ignoring superdelegates. The numbers don't change appreciably if you throw in his superdelegates, because he has so few of them.)
Last night, he won substantially less than 68% of the available delegates.
On the bright side, if you ignore superdelegates, Clinton needs to take 54% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination (remember, kids, the magic number is 2383 delegates.) However, as Clinton's campaign doesn't look like it's going to implode badly enough that it's going to start losing by twenty point margins (if anything, she continues to demonstrate that where the electorate is older and more diverse
, she wins big ... Utah
were smaller caucus states where the voting demographic is ... predominantly white), ignoring the superdelegates is being far too generous to Sanders. Throw in the superdelegates, and Clinton only needs 33% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.
So, the story on the Democratic side remains unchanged. Sanders makes lots of noise and picks off smaller enclaves here and there, while Clinton continues her inevitable march toward the nomination.
If Clinton needs 54% henceforth to claim the nomination without super delegates (who can conceivably switch sides), their are about twenty states left to vote, and Clinton's strongest region (the South) has finished voting, its too early to use the word "inevitable". She is the most plausible nominee, yes. The frontrunner, yes. But not inevitable.
Wasn't Michigan "inevitable" too?
My position on elections in general is "they're not over until they're over." And this one in particular has been unpredictable. I rather wish it was over, one way or the other, so the party could united against the Republicans and Drumpf, but it isn't, weather we like it or not.
Also, its not just "small enclaves" where Sanders does well. Michigan isn't exactly small, is it? Neither is the upcoming Washington State (which Sanders will likely win).
How do you define "small"?