sigh.
She vacuumed up red states and the most important states. I hate that that's the case, but it's what happened. The whole "Oh - she only did well in red states" really only worked before 3/15.
Do you want a 50 state strategy or not? Bernie says we need a 50 state strategy - and that means planting a flag in every state. I don't want the party to suddenly say "Oh well these states don't matter" and exclude different states for various BS reasons.
I don't care what hypothetical polls say. The rules are the candidate with a majority of pledged delegates wins. I don't care if Hillary were polling at 2% - if the primary electorate decides it - so be it.
Bernie got his allotment from caucus states. He also won more red states than blue/swing, in part because the caucus system favored him while the closed primary system favored Hillary.
If we only look at dependably blue or swing states, remove closed primary states, and remove caucus/non-binding primaries, this is what we have.
Hillary: NJ, CA, OH, VA, IL, MA
Bernie: WI, MI, NH, VT.
And if we remove the close states, say <=5, then Hillary still has the advantage. I loath that it's the case - but that's what it is.
I don't even know if there are enough votes left for a modicum of a chance for Bernie to inch out a win in CA. But it's not "flipping" - it's closing a landslide gap into what's currently a solid gap.
Bernie's chances right now hinge on an extraordinary circumstance. And no amount of mental gymnastics will help that. No one has to like it. And to win a presidential primary it means campaigning in the United States of America, not the United States of - "Well, TX isn't likely to turn blue in a general election". Because people in TX or AL have every right to vote and be heard in a democratic primary - and it's idiotic and narrow minded to exclude them from the process.