Time To Stop Wasting Everyone's Time, Bernie

[Tiberius]

Minimalist, please stop with this misleading data. You're still including superdelegates even after Tiberius and others have made this very clear to you. Sanders is only behind by a 200-300 points.

Right? For someone who seems intent on presenting themselves as being knowledgable or at least experienced with American politics, Min fails miserably when it comes to how the primary system actually works.

There's a word used for people who have clinched the nomination by numbers alone: presumptive nominee. Trump will probably get that status with the remaining primaries. Clinton may not even get that status before the convention, because if the number of remaining pledged delegates are split evenly, Clinton would have 2,267, which is less than needed.

If you count superdelegates, then sure, she would be the presumptive nominee, but the point of superdelegates is they can change their mind at any time. If Clinton is indicted by the FBI before the convention, how many superdelegates would switch to ensure that an accused criminal wasn't the nominee?

I have no delusions of grandeur, guys.

If Sanders won it would be a continuation of republicunt obstructionism just like the last 8 years.  Meanwhile, they will continue to make the red states redder with voter suppression and gerry-mandering and you'll all sit there and whine about how "unfair" it all is.

Politics is about power.  It looks as if you are going to have to learn that the hard way.

I don't think any of us have delusions of grandeur either, but I honestly don't see your logic with the obstructionism argument. If anything, Clinton is more hated than Obama by the Republicans. She's got a shady history, she's married to a President they all hate. If a Sanders win means obstructionism, I fail to see how a Clinton win would be different.

The advantage I see with Bernie is that he manages to excite the public about politics. His rallies are huge; he gets people (including independents) out to vote. The same doesn't happen with Clinton. As you yourself admit, the Democrats need to win back the House. How can that happen if Democratic voters don't turn out to vote? A President Bernie would actively encourage voters to vote in mid-terms.

I think the republicunts would have torn Sanders to shreds in the general election.

For a considerable portion of the electorate this is all they needed.

They tried that with Obama. In the end, nobody cared. It didn't sway any voters who weren't already voting Republican. If anything, this election cycle has demonstrated that there is a huge amount of support for an openly socialist candidate.

Otherwise, aside from the pie-in-the-sky nature of some of Sanders' proposals you're right.  There is no real difference between them...except Gun Control which I strongly favor.

As others have pointed out, none of Sanders' proposals are pie-in-the-sky; they work perfectly well in other countries. I ask you, what is the point of a President who talks about appeasing his opponents and only focusing on issues that he thinks the Republicans can compromise on? No thank you. I'd rather have a President who stands up and says "this is what the American people deserve, this is what we could have".