Bernie Sanders is getting destroyed by Clinton despite the recent results.

Panama Papers will destroy Clinton.

Clinton should already be in prison

That or something like that is the only hope Sanders has of beating Clinton, he can only win by profiting from Clinton's self destruction.

Why?

:lol:

Another Bernie victory. He's also received an invitation to speak at the Vatican.

Number of victories is irrelevant.

This is a game of delegates. Clinton gets large margins of victories in big states, Sanders gets marginal victories in decent sized states, and only large victories in small states.

With proportional allocation of delegates in Dem primaries (as opposed to winner-take-all) Sanders needs to be getting 60-ish % votes for the rest of the primaries to win. The math just isn't there for him.

Wonder when the FBI investigation into Clinton is going to wrap up?

-PB

Depends who gets the presidency. If it's a republican then she'll most likely end up in jail.

No chance she goes to jail, regardless of who wins.

There is an unspoken solidarity amongst the establishment that protects each others back from things like jail time.

Have a look at all the presidential pardons that occur to protect elites from jail time.

The republicans are bleating for political reasons. But once the election is over, realpolitik will kick in.

Plus, it actually needs to be proven that she committed a crime. If we know anything about the Clintons, its that they know how to operate in a way that makes it impossible to prove criminal behaviour!

I do agree with most of what you said, but it seems like they actually hate Hillary with a passion. It could just be grandstanding for the election.

Trump / Bernie ticket? :-k

both Trump and Bernie are gone, , now move along, nothing to see here , it all over

I don't agree with Trumps policies but if the overwhelming majority of Repiblicans voted for him then it'd be a travesty not to nominate him for the candidacy.

Establishment politics is exactly what the American people are sick of. Same old rhetoric and lack of substance. A Cruz and Hillary election would be terrible.

Well that's the problem. There is no overwhelming majority of Republicans that voted for him. He is currently running on about 35-37% of the vote.

So he has a plurality of votes, but not an overwhelming majority. But this is a game of delegates, not votes.

If only they used preferential voting like we do - then people could choose who their 2nd choice is, rather than having the delegates trade votes at a convention after the first round.

I think there is a percentage of americans sick of "establishment politics", even a large minority. But not a majority. Most democrats are voting for Hillary. Most Bernie supporters would be happy with Hillary as a candidate if she wins the primary.

What is happening is a fracturing and re-alignment of the republican voter base. The party has been captured by fundamentalists, and small govt pro-business extremists for many years.

A lot of the republican voting base is just as angry with Wall Street and big business as democrats are. They just don't want more govt intervention to fix it. And many voters are nowhere near religious as many of the fundamentalists of the party are.

Trump speaks to them. This whole thing has played out before in Italy - Trump is an American Berlusconi. Honestly, read up on Berlusconi's political career in Italy, and there are so many correlations to what is happening now in the US.

The difference is that in a parliamentary system, like Italy has, Berlusconi could win a share of seats, and build up from there. Whereas in the US it really is a "winner take all" system for the presidential election.

When Trump doesn't win, will his support dissipate? Will a 3rd party emerge? Will the republicans re-structure to reflect the new voter bloc? We shall see.

Azza you keep talking it's a game of delegates, yet the process is clearly not in line with what the American people want.

A plurality is not a majority Prosecutor. You should stop talking out of your arse.

Big words for you JP.

Why do you say that? Only 35% of Republicans are voting for Trump.

The Democratic Primary is actually largely in line with what the votes are - they allocate delegates proportionately.

So I am not sure what you are getting at. What specifically is happening with the delegate total that is "not in line with what the American people want"?

My reference to the "game of delegates" is that you have to get a majority of delegates to win. The system isn't really designed for someone to get to the convention with a plurality, but not a majority, of votes.

The other reference to the "game of delegates" is perfectly illustrated by what is currently happening with the Dems - Bernie has won a lot of primaries recently, but all in small states, with a small number of delegates. Hillary (if polls are correct) as a double-digit lead in the NY primary. The margin of victory will hand her a huge number of delegates.

None of this is unfair - it is based on the population sizes.

You really should invest in a dictionary.

If you watched the video, you would have seen Sanders win Wyoming by 13 points, yet still come out with less delegates than Hillary.

Why even hold a primary process is the question they argue in the video.

Certainly the same is happening with the Republicans. They didn't even bother to hold a primary in Colorado and decide to give all delegates to Cruz.

I dislike Bernie's platform intensely but even I can see he's being dicked by the Dems.

But yeah they're a private party so it's 100% ok! :lol:

Countdown to the official death of the World Police Force.

It's all gonna get very messy from here on

Wyoming is a Caucus, not a Primary.

You do realise that even on raw votes, Sanders is losing about 42% to 58%.

Your criticism is valid in terms of how unnecessarily convoluted, and unclear, the Caucus process is. But it is not rigged to "ignore the will of the people".

Even if you just had a head to head nationwide contest between Sanders and Clinton, based on raw votes so far, she is beating him by about 15%!

You do know that Hillary had more 'raw votes' than Obama had in 08? The raw votes are counted from Primaries and does not take into consideration the Caucus's that Bernie has won overwhelmingly.

If you want some data to describe what is happening in the Democratic primary race, this is a good article:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

And it is the source of where I got the raw vote % from.

What you leave out is that caucus states are overwhelmingly small. I feel like you trying to imply that Bernie is more preferred by voters than Hillary. Apologies if this isn't the case.

But my point is that Hillary is by far the more popular candidate on the Democrat side. And the primaries to come will be even more in her favour.

That article I listed above, says the following:

Sanders’s reliance on extremely low-turnout caucus states has meant the pledged delegate count overstates his share of votes. To date, Sanders has captured 46 percent of Democrats’ pledged delegates but just 42 percent of raw votes. So even if Sanders were to draw even in pledged delegates by June — which is extremely unlikely — Clinton could be able to persuade superdelegates to stick with her by pointing to her popular vote lead.

Another good article about Sanders performance in Caucuses, and how that isn't necessarily indicative of how he does overall:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/

The other relevant point is that Hillary won the popular votes against Obama by 272,809 votes out of a total of 35,442,193 votes cast (48.04% to 47.31%. 0.73% difference).

An extremely tight margin, and Obama won 33 contests to 23.

Compare this to 2016 so far:

Hillary is winning the popular vote against Sanders by 2,377,429 votes out of a total of 16,447,423 votes cast so far (56.25% to 42.04%. 14.21% difference).

Despite this whopping margin, Hillary has won 20 contests to 17. This should indicate that Bernie is winning in small, sparsely populated states. Most of these have had their votes now.

The primaries with huge population (and huge delegate numbers) are NY and California. These will fall heavily to Hillary. This will boost the raw count even further, and the delegate count as well.

Really? I think you know better, but I'll spell it out for you if you like:

The Democrat race is a 2 person race.

The Republican race is currently a 3 person race, and has been up to 12 people at one point.

Hillary is winning the Democratic Primary in absolute terms - both in delegates and raw votes. On a raw vote count, Hillary is winning about 56%.

Trump is only winning a plurality of Republican votes - about 35% of raw votes. The "winner take all" nature of most republican primaries is leveraging his vote count into larger delegate numbers.

Even so, he may not get an absolute majority of delegates by the time the Primaries are over. Whereas Clinton will win it easily.

56% of votes vs 35% of votes. That is a significant difference in terms of popularity.