I wish Sanders could have won but after last night it's over for Bernie. Bernie was burned by the huge corporate conglomerate that owns Hillary Clinton.

It's Clinton vs Trump in November kiddies....deal with it.

Who the hell is Kimya Dawson? And is that a typo? I assume you meant Kim?

Why does Sawant always look so pissed?

@ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kimya+dawson

So is Sawant now a democrat, if not, why is she involved?

@1 Bernie got half the delegates. The media reporting it as "win/lose" and compounding the superdelegate estimates (not final until July) into Hillary's small lead is a game intended to make everyone believe she's inevitable. Bernie is less than 200 delegates behind, with thousands of delegates remaining. Practically the entire western half of the country has yet to vote. Obama was WORSE OFF than Bernie is at this time when he ran in 2008.

@3 And Sawant doesn't look pissed to me. She actually cracked a few awesome jokes. What you are seeing on her face is passion for the causes of the working-class people of this country. Listen to her speech from last night.

@5 Sawant is a socialist. Bernie is running as a democratic socialist on the democratic ticket as a strategic move because he wouldn't be able to run in a primary in most states -- the only way to get elected in this broken system is as a R or a D. They share many of the same views, and Sawant is a Bernie supporter, though her party has not formally endorsed him.

That being said, most "democrats" today are a huge range from quite conservative to quite liberal. The party is really 5+ smaller factions. Sawant and Bernie share more liberal / left, pro-labor, "socialist" views, standard in many labor or liberal governments, than say the more centrist/conservative pro-Wall Street views you see in "democratic" politicians like Hillary Clinton or President Obama.

@6 But Sawant and many Bernie supporters believe that the Democratic party is fundamentally corrupt. So why support the Democratic party if that is the beliefs they hold?
At least other former and current candidates such as Ralph Nader and Jill Stein are consistent enough to not pretend to be what they hate.

Also, your delegate analysis is pure and adulterated magical thinking. Hopefully when Bernie finally loses you will commit to support Hillary. But judging by the amount of delusion and accusations flying around, after Hillary won big yesterday, I would not count on it.

@7 because you can't win within the broken system without making calculated moves and fixing it from the inside. This is why we've never had a Green Party president.

And how is my delegate analysis magical thinking? "Superdelegates" who pledged to Hillary in 2008 dropped off and switched to Obama after he gained more and more of a lead after May 2008... the exact same thing will happen this time around. To count them and say Hillary has a "huge lead" is the magical thinking here. Thinking 49.6 to 49.8 is "winning big" is magical thinking. I hope Hillary supporters don't spite-vote for Trump after she loses the nomination again.

nrutas, I wil not try to persuade you about your magical numbers.
As a Hillary supporter I will vote for whomever ends up being the D candidate. Will you?
Do you think most of the Bernie Bros, who talk about 'Hillary Dogg' and who say she is the most corrupt politician 'evar', will support Hillary if she wins the nomination?

After McGinn shilled for Billionaire Chris Hansen and called trade unionists liars, he goes to a Sanders event? Like, wow.

Last time I checked (today), Clinton was neck & neck in elected delegates in states that were not Confederate States.

She is only ahead, delegate-wise, in the former Confederate States of America.

But that's just Reality.

Many more delegates to come.

The South will #Bern again.

@6...so many errors in your post. 1) Bernie didn't get "half" the delegates last night. It was approximately at 58-42% split of delegates; that gave Hillary more than 100 delegates than Bernie (probably closer to 120, the calculations are still being done). 2) She's now more than 300 elected delegates ahead of Bernie, 3) at a similar point in the Obama/Clinton race, Obama wasn't "worse off" than Bernie; he was ahead by about 100 delegates. In other words, Hillary is doing better against Bernie than Obama did against Hillary.

@11...I've corrected you on this point before; Hillary isn't only beating Bernie in Red States; she's done quite well in other states too. ;-)

To Wit: 2016 Projected Swing States (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Ohio)...Hillary has beat Bernie in 5 of 7, winning approximately 58% of the delegates in these States.

It's not impossible for Bernie to win, just unlikely, but I still have hope.

There's a total of 4,051 delegates but only 1878 have pledged for a candidate. Hillary has a lead of 1100 to Bernie's 778. Bernie is going to need like 65% of the remaining delegates.

I am assuming superdelegates pick majority voted candidate.

My math was all wrong, too sleepy. He needs more like 58%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/upshot…

@12 Obama was not ahead of Hillary until May 2008. Bernie took roughly half of the delegates in states that aren't red states which will vote Trump in the general. It's over for Hillary -- most of the states left to vote are liberal western states that vote blue in the general. Look at the numbers. Hillary supporters seem to disagree with reality. Bernie's 825 vs. Hillary's 1,139 with more than half of the delegates left is not a victory. But hey, feel free to stop while you're "ahead."