You actually touched on something here that I think is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how the delegate math stacks up today; if Sanders wins every single primary today, will be have more pledged delegates than Hillary?
According to RealClearPolitics
this morning, the breakdown is:
Total Delegates: 4,763
Total Superdelegates: 712
Total Pledged Delegates: 4,051
Clinton has 1,812 Pledged Delegates.
Sanders has 1,521 Pledged Delegates.
There are 694 Pledged Delegates up for grabs today.
For Sanders to exceed Clinton's total Pledged Delegate count, he will need to win 493
of the Pledged Delegates available today. In other words, just "winning" all six states is not enough. He will need to win 71%
to her 29% in those states. That probably won't happen and if it doesn't, then Sanders will not have a lead in Pledged Delegates today (there's still 20 left for DC in a week, so maybe that can change things).
Also, if you remove all of the Superdelegates, a candidate only needs 2,026
Pledged Delegates to win a majority (half of 4,051 rounded up)--not 2,382. Clinton has 1,812 Pledged Delegates, so she only needs to win 214
more to secure a majority. That means she only needs to win 31%
of the Pledged Delegates available today. Sanders can win the other 69% and he'd still end up with fewer Pledged Delegates and whatever happens in a week in DC won't matter.
But the argument that we shouldn't count Superdelegates until the convention is over isn't consistent with how things have been done historically. Indeed, in 2008, Sanders himself said Obama became the presumptive nominee
once Obama's total Pledged and Superdelegates
count to hit the magic number--Sanders did not
contend that Superdelegates had to wait until the Convention to matter.
If he does, then what you said becomes null and void - he wins the popular vote, superdelegates will be acting against the people if they put Hillary over.
And if she has the lead in popular votes and Pledged Delegates, what then? Sanders will be one acting against the people to put him over, which of course, shouldn't happen. Even Sanders' campaign agrees with this. Source
What that implies, by any political yardstick, is that the Democratic Party is a right-wing party by default. And that's fine - a right-wing party should certainly have a right-wing candidate.
I don't believe this statement is correct. Clinton and Sanders are closer on the issues than Clinton and Trump. There are lots of sources to confirm this. For example
. Yes, Clinton is more conservative than Sanders on defense but she still falls on the blue side compared to Trump. In terms of social issues and support for the middle class, she's much closer to Sanders than Trump: e.g., woman's right to choose, equal pay, minimum wage, taxes on the rich, supporting social programs, climate change, and medical insurance coverage.