Yesterday while campaigning in California, Sanders said it will be "factually incorrect" that Clinton will clinch the Dem nomination on June 7 because she won't have a majority of "real delegates," per the Washington Post's Dave Weigel. But as the New York Times' Nate Cohn points out, "Sanders needs superdelegates to exist to have a chance of vetoing voters, but he also needs their preferences not to count to survive."Hillary Clinton currently leads by 270 pledged delegates and 770 overall delegates. She is also leading by more than 3 million votes. By any metric, she is winning.
Bottom line: Sanders is moving the goal posts here. In 2008, Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination through a combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates. After all, a majority of ALL delegates is 2,383 (out of 4,765), while a majority of pledged delegates is 2,026 (out of 4,051).
To reach the magic number of 2,383 delegates, via a combination of pledged delegates and superdelegates, Clinton only needs to win 8% of the remaining delegates. Sanders, however, needs to wing 92% of the remaining delegates.
So he's making an absurd argument about how superdelegates don't count blah blah.
But even according to Bernie's New Rules, by which Clinton must get a majority in pledged delegates, she still only needs to win 33% of the remaining pledged delegates. He would have to win 67% of the remaining pledged delegates. That is not going to happen.
No matter which way you slice it, he's losing. And not because it's "rigged." But because he just isn't the most popular of the Democratic candidates.
I don't know how many more times I will need to say this, but: There is no conspiracy. It is simply the oldest story in politics. Someone wins, and someone loses. The end.