Sieg Heil Mein Fuhrer Trump

Not going to lie, the original title for this was going to be "Donald Trump is a cunt"....but that word might get my post pulled by facebook and I wouldnt show up in google results.  That and well LOTS of people find that word massively offensive, in fact many consider it the most offensive word in the English langauge......but thats also the reason I wanted to use it. No other  cruse word has that kind of bite to it.....and many of the more common ones like "Dumbass" "Fuckhead" "Satan" "Bitch" "Anticrist" "Bloviating sack of rancid semen" ect really dont seem to go far enough to fully cover Donald Trump anymore.

And yea, I mean there is always the Nazi comparisons (as I did have to go with for the title)....and for once unlike when people normally say shit is like the Nazi, these are apt and on point. But honestly even those are starting to lose their bite just a bit. Not to mention at some point the comparison between Trump and Nazis is going to get insulting......for the Nazis. So yea, I will not be comparing Donald Trump to Nazis in this blog, I had to do in in the headline because its more politically correct to make reference to Nazi and less likely to run me into censorship trouble than an accurate representation of the Republican Presidential Nominee

Now what earned him this title and distinction? Well unless you were living under a rock, you probably heard about the largest mass murder in american history this weekend when a gay night club in Orlando was shot up.

Now there are a couple of ways you can react to this. For example:
"Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act"

or this:
"The Queen: "Prince Philip & I have been shocked by the events in Orlando. Our thoughts & prayers are with all those who have been affected""

or this:
We pray for those brutally attacked in Orlando. While we must learn more about the attacker, the victims & families will not be forgotten.
or this:
My prayers are with the victims’ families & all those affected by the shooting in Orlando. We will devote every resource available to assist
or this
Our prayers are with those injured and killed early this morning in horrifying act of terror in Orlando.

Those are the reactions of Hillary Clinton, the Royal Family of England, Speaker Paul Ryan, FL Gov Rick Scott, and US senator from FL Marco Rubio. And while similar, those are all appropriate kinds of reactions.

And this is Donald Trump:

"Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!"

Now that was on twitter....but lest you think Trump mistyped....this is from facebook
"“Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen—and it is only going to get worse."

That's right, Donald Trump's initial reaction to 50 people dying and 50+ more hospitalized was "hey look at how great that is for me....I look like a genius". Not say sympathy, compassion or understanding.....or any emotion associated with anything human.

And he doesnt even have the "defense" of this being a reply to another tweet. This lunatic actually assumed the american public's first thoughts after hearing about the shooting was. "man, look how right Trump was"

This isnt helped when it turns out that as far as "being right" Trump was well off the mark.
For starters the prediction he was refering to was that "at some point their will be another terrorist attack" Which is about as impressive a prediction as "at some point the sun will rise"

Then of course their is the rather inconvenient part where this seems to have been motivated by homophobia more than religon....so yea not so much the radical Islam thing.

But dont worry....Trump has a solution

“The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we fully understand how to end these threats.”
Thats right, the Muslim immigration ban. Now how would that fix this problem? well back to Trump.

"The killer was born an Afghan, of Afghan parents who immigrated to the United States,"

Except for the part where the killer was born an American in Queens, New York....the same place as Donald Trump.

Trumps Birthplace (red) and the Orlando shooters (Blue)

But the thing you have to understand about Trump in this case, when the only tools you have are a white hood and a rope, every problem looks like a lynching.

Now maybe you think thats a bit of an unfair characterization. After all Trump isnt calling for violence.....well about that:

"“People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in. You can see and you report them to the local police. Most likely you’ll be wrong, but that’s OK. That’s the best way. Everybody’s their own cop in a way.”

Right see when black/brown people move into the neighborhood, you should call the cops on them for being brown....cause thats kinda suspicious.  Luckily the cops have a great track record of not having issues with unarmed black or brown people.....just ask Akai Gurley, Rumain Brisbon, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Kimani Gray,  Amadou Diallo, Ousmane Zongo, Kendrec McDade, Sean Bell, Orlando Barlow, Aaron M. Campbell, Alonzo Ashley, Wendell Allen, James Brissette,  Ronald Madison or Oscar Grant III....oh wait we cant....they are all dead....all shot (or killed) "accidentally" by cops.

And by the way.....its not JUST the killer Trump wants to go after. Again from his Facebook page:

"We need to know what the killer discussed with his relatives, parents, friends and associates.

We need to know if he was affiliated with any radical Mosques or radical activists and what, if any, is their immigration status.

We need to know if he travelled anywhere, and who he travelled with.

We need to make sure every single last person involved in this plan – including anyone who knew something but didn't tell us – is brought to justice.

If it can be proven that somebody had information about any attack, and did not give this information to authorities, they must serve prison time ."
See if you dont turn your neighbor over to the cops for being brown.....well you might have to go to prison if they told you anything about an attack.....anything....like maybe "hey I bought a new gun today"....which could be innocuous at the time....but then again, they are brown and guns are for the master race.

Also Trumps got a pretty good idea of which Brown people we should start with.

“[Obama] doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other, And either one is unacceptable.”

We’re led by a man who is a very – look, we’re led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind, And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot – they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.”

Yes that is Donald Trump implying the President of the United States may be working with ISIS and committing treason against the United States of America, by helping facilitate these attacks.


But believe it or not....Donald Trump is NOT the problem.

See everyone now knows Trump is a xenophobic sexist racist....and lots of republicans have decided they wont vote for him for president.

The problem is, those same republicans still plan on voting Republican on the rest of the ticket.

Which is a problem, because as a whole the Republican party doesnt actually seem to have a problem with Trump.

See heres what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had to say when confronted with the statements made by Trump above:

"Yeah, I'm not going to be commenting on presidential candidate today."
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, said much the same, saying:

"I am not going to spend my time commenting about the ups and downs and the in-betweens of comments"

And they werent the only ones:

Senator Dan Coats said: "I am not going to comment on that at this particular point in time partly because I have been traveling and rushing around, I haven't read all of his comments, heard all his comments. In fairness, I want to think that through and read it before I make a comment so you'll have to ask somebody else."

Sen. Johnny Isakson said: "I didn't hear the speech I hate to comment on something I didn't hear."

Sen. Pat Toomey: "I didn't follow it closely,"
Sen. Roger Wicker “I'm not gonna make a career out of responding to every comment and every tweet”
Representative Rep. Mike Conaway: “I’m not going to be drawn into a debate on whatever it is Mr. Trump says, I’ve got my personal views on immigration, what we should do. You’ll have to talk to Mr. Trump about his.”

Rep. Kristi Noem: “Aw, man. I’m not going to speak to that, I won’t give you an answer on that today.”

Rep Patrick McHenry: "I just left a conference dealing with a [Defense] appropriations bill. That's where I'm focused."
Senator Lamar Alexander decided to take a different tact, getting bent out of shape about word usage so as to deflect the question:
"We do not have a nominee until after the convention,"

But the best reply of all came from Senator Tim Scott said "You know...mmm" and then walked away.

Now I realize on the surface, these dont seem that bad, after all NONE of these people outright endorsed Trumps comments, unlike say Gov Christie who when asked for his reaction said he agreed and added "You've got to get over there and make them pay where they live, It is unacceptable to allow this type of stuff in our country and for us to not fight back, We've got to fight back." (Again,  worth pointing out "where they live" in this case was the United States.....) or Florida Gov Rick Scott who suggested the way to prevent the violence in Orlando was to force all immigrants to register with and check in with local police. (Again the the shoot was done by an American).

But heres the thing, Scott and Christie at least have the courage of their twisted convictions......if you vote for them you know exactly what your getting. All those other politicians though, they dont want you know their position....and the problem is, there is only 2 reasons for that.

1) They agree with Trump and dont want you to know....so voting for them would be as bad as voting for trump cause youd be trading an open bigot for a closeted one.

2) They dont agree with Trump at all.....but think you do and are willing to do what they think you want. So voting for them will be interpreted by them as supporting Trumps ideas if not the messenger.

So yea, you cant vote for them either. In fact if your a republican who doesnt agree with Trump, you definitely CAN NOT vote straight ticket.  Cause yea, Germany didnt elect Hitler...in fact he lost.....but the Nazi's did well enough to get him in power anyways a few years later.....cause people only turned on the messenger. Its the same issue here.

Now this does not mean you cant vote for ANY republican.....some of them have outright rejected Trump (notably Sens Graham and Murkowski, Rep Kinzinger, Govs Hogan and Kasich) so them you cant safely vote for. But yea, honestly if your a republican, you need to recognize the risk to your party....even defeating Trump now may not matter if you keep his Collaborators in office. One way or another you may wind up having to salute and say Sieg Heil Mein Fuhrer Trump

How the AP broke the Democratic Primary.

So in my last post, I did an analysis of a piece by Salon, basically saying that Bernie Sanders should drop out even though Hillary hasnt won yet (and at this point can not win until the convention) simply because shes a woman.

Well in fairness to Salon, at least they admitted at the time the election was still happening.

Which is more than I can say for the AP. See Early Monday evening, prior to any of the remaining 7 states voting the AP ran a story that started like this:

" Striding into history, Hillary Clinton will become the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party, capturing commitments Monday from the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination."

Which is a problematic sentence for 2 reasons. 1) There were no elections on monday.
2) Even now, following the 6 states that voted on Tuesday Clinton has 2,203 Delegates. Which sounds like a lot.....except you need 2383 to win the nomination.  And 2,203 is less than 2,383.

And at the time the article was published Clinton's number was even lower, she had only 1,844 delegates.

So how does the AP come up with this number?

Well:

"The former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday with a decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates"

Again, we have a couple of problems: First delegate wise, Clintons win in Puerto Rico was not that decisive,  she got 36, sanders got 24.  Which means out of the 60 delegates in PR, she got a around 60%....not bad, but at the same time, quantity wise not exactly overwhelming

And it gets worse, see in the next paragraph the AP tosses out this bit:

"Clinton has 1,812 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses"

Ok so lets do some basic math here. Before the 6 elections on Tuesday, Clinton had 1844 delegates. According to the AP when they wrote the article she had 1812, following her victory in Puerto Rico. 

1844-1812=32.

So there is a discrepancy of 32 votes. And its actually a pretty easy one to explain. Delegate awarding isnt instantaneous, sometimes it takes a day or so.  In this case what it means is that, of the 36 delegates clinton won in PR, 32 of them hadnt actually been awarded to her at the time the story was written.

Which is weird....since you know the story claims her "decisive victory" put her over the top....but from all appearances no one knew anything about her victory. (remember this is the same primary election in which its already happened that the person who won the popular vote got the smaller number of delegates) 

The second problem though is the bigger one. The Superdelegates HAVE NOT actually voted yet. As Hillary well knows (because this is what happened to her last time) Superdelegates are free to change their support at will until they vote in July (like every other voter ever). So just because she has some saying they would vote for her doesnt mean they actually would.

And saying they will would be like me calling the general election right now for Clinton because the most recent poll says that she would defeat Trump 42 to 39.

Thats likely NOT the outcome of the election, simply because people are always changing their minds. 

And oh yea, changing their minds isnt the only reason a superdelegate might not vote for Hillary. Like everyone else, a Superdelegate actually has to show up to vote. 

So even a delegate who meant to vote for Hillary, but happened to get sick that night and was in the hotel throwing up.....well thats a vote Hillary doesnt get.

Or on a larger scale, lets say that FBI probe into Clinton's emails actually finds something to indict her on between now and the election.

How fast and how many super delegates are going to change their support before they vote and get off that sinking ship?

Now given that, by the AP's count Hillary had EXACTLY the right number of super-delegates allegedly supporting her...literally all it would take is 1 of them.....say after the White House confirmed the investigation into Mrs. Clinton is criminal yesterday, changing their mind and suddenly shes not "Striding into History"

Now maybe you take issue or are just confused by the "allegedly" part of the above sentence. See heres the thing, the AP is using their own count of delegates to decide that Hillary just magically got over the threshold the night before 6 elections. There is no public record on who super-delegates support, and other news organizations and apparently even the Sanders and Clinton campaigns had different counts. And of course, they arnt releasing the names of the delegates either (nor should they given the whole point of anonymous voting we all have a right too)

Which means basically this was a story in which the AP cited itself as its own source based only on our trusting them and then declared victory for one of the campaigns.....without actually consulting that campaign as far as anyone can tell.

Which is going to be superawkward if the AP's count is wrong and someone elses was right.

Which is why even the Democratic National Committee had previously asked news organizations NOT to include the superdelegate counts.....because they feared a situation exactly like the one the AP handed them.

See, theres actually now evidence to suggest the AP's coronation of Hillary suppressed the voter turnout in the 6 states that still had to vote.

Now to be fair voter suppression would affect both sides, but given that Sanders voters might have an extra incentive to vote (prove the AP wrong/try to pressure superdelegates to switch ect) and Clinton voters wouldnt (I mean she won....why bother?) it seems safe to assume Clintons side was harder hit by suppression.

Which is awkward since Clinton DIDNT actually cross the threshold needed to be the nominee outright. In fact even if she gets all of DC's 20 delegates next week, she still cant make it, she now MUST have superdelegates to win.

But to be fair to Mrs. Clinton...she got pretty close. As it stands shes only 182 delegates short of the nomination. Course nearly 700 were available over those 6 elections....so its believable that with a sightly higher turnout in her favor, Clinton might have actually gotten 182 more of those.

Instead now, thanks to the AP reporting she'd already won, she failed to win, and we head into the convention without a nominee.....and with a MAJOR headache for the democratic party.

Now first off, alot of people are quick to point out the AP did this same thing at about the same time 8 years ago with Obama....which is true, but with one VERY important distinction.....8 years ago the primaries were earlier and all 50 states +DC had voted before they made that call. This time states still had to vote.....so we have a major problem

See the ENTIRE point of the super-delegate system is to help ensure the most electable candidate wins....even if they arnt the most popular. This has been the defense of the system by the DNC for over 30 years.

Which brings us to this newest wrinkle: According to Real Clear Politics, of the 8 major polls they follow (NBC,CBS, ABC, FOX, Rasmussen, Investors Business Daily, Reuters, and Qunnipac) Clinton has an average of a 3.8 point lead on Trump......with a margin of error of +/- 3.5.

In otherwords, its a tie.

However  Sanders vs Trump with those same 8 polls gives sanders a lead of 10.4  (again with same margin of error, as will all others numbers mentioned) points over Trump.

And it gets worse: over the last 6 months the largest lead Clinton has EVER had over Trump was 11.4. Over that same period of time for Sanders, it was a 17 point lead (both back in march as it happens).

And the smallest lead either one has had over Trump? Well back in December Sanders only beat Trump by 2 points (a statistical tie inside margin of error)...but since voting started in February has always beaten Trump by 8 points.

Clinton on the other hand, was LOSING to Trump at the end of May....you know 2 weeks ago. Now admittedly not by much 0.2 points, and clearly clearly clearly in the margin of error but still. (its also worth noting that their has been NO change in Clinton's numbers between end of may and now....its just Trumps that dropped, so Clinton isnt gaining support.

In other-words, according to the polls, the most electable candidate right now is Bernie Sanders.

Meaning, if the super-delegates do their job the way they are SUPPOSED to do they should vote for Bernie Sanders.....and overturn the will of the majority of their own party. Want to guess how thats going to go over? (and by the way, this is mathematically possible, Sanders is only 555 votes short and their are more than 700 superdelegates)

Or, the Super-delegates can follow the popular vote will, and vote for Clinton......helping fuel the criticisms that have dogged them for decades that they are undemocratic and exist as a way to let the establishment impose their decision on the electorate, by making it seem like a candidate had a much bigger lead then they did and that the establishment will use those delegates to elect their candidate even when they cant win outright. Which again is not a great place to be, with a candidate who isnt any more popular than her general election opponent and looks illegitimate.

now this MIGHT have happened anyways....who knows. Its possible the DNC was always going to be doomed to this situation no matter way. The AP's influence on the voter turnout is impossible to gauge.

However if the number of articles on the internet defending and attacking the AP's decision are any indication....one thing is undisputable, even if this was the inevitable headache for DNC this cycle....a HELL of a lot less people would have known or cared about it if the AP had actually managed to stick to real journalism, and not apparently decided to write a story based allegedly on information about the campaigns that even the campaigns didnt seem to have, but that they cant give you names for, but Trust them.

You know, just like you trusted them when they called Florida for Gore Bush Gore Bush Gore Bush in 2000. Or when they told you Obamacare was repealed by the supreme court a couple years ago. Or when they told you the Boston Marathon Bomber was arrested....a few days before they were. Or when they accused VA gov Terry McAuliffe of lying to federal investigators in a criminal investigation.....because he happened to share the same initials as the person who actually did. Or hell, when they once reported on the former members of the defunct musical group Backstreet Boys....who were all still with the still existent band.

But yea....dont worry, this time you can totally trust them. There is no possible way, they got this story wrong and potentially wrecked a primary election season just to generate hits on their website......



(Disclaimer: in case anyone gets the wrong idea, Im not saying Clinton isnt going to be the nominee....or that its remotely likely she'll be indicted, or that Sanders has anything other than a super long shot chance of winning....im only pointing how by the numerical facts the AP was totally wrong, and the damage that might do)

Let the woman win (even if she didnt earn it): Salon's demand for Bernie Sanders

So yesterday, before todays elections in 6 states, Salon ran the following headline:

Why can’t Sanders admit defeat? He’s looking more and more foolish as he denies Hillary’s victory

the subheadline was:

Sanders has lost the primary on every level, making his insistence that he should win anyway subtly sexist.

So there argument  is sanders is a sexist cause he cant admit he lost to a women....now how do they go about proving that?

Well they start off somewhat solid

"Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton won a couple more primary races — in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands — expanding her already substantial lead over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary contest. But Sanders refuses to give up the ghost, insinuating that he must, on some level, be the real winner and that this fight has to be taken to the convention so he can snatch the prize he clearly believes belongs to him, even as the voters continue disagreeing."

Now this IS true, Clinton DID win those races, and did expand her lead over sanders. In fact as of Tuesday morning shes leading him by 291 actual delegates. Keep in mind of the 6 states voting tonight 1 of them is worth 475 delegates.

So clearly Bernie is being unreasonable by not just handing Clinton the election..... and insisting its a close election...as the math shows it is.

“Mr. Sanders,” the New York Times reports, “insists that the convention will be contested because he is still lobbying superdelegates — party officials and state leaders who cast their final votes at the convention — to withdraw support from Mrs. Clinton and back him instead.

"It is extremely unlikely that Secretary Clinton will have the requisite number of pledged delegates to claim victory on Tuesday night,” Sanders said during a news conference Saturday. “Now, I have heard reports that Secretary Clinton has said it’s all going to be over on Tuesday night. I have reports that the media, after the New Jersey results come in, are going to declare that it is all over. That simply is not accurate.”

Too be fair, this is also true. And perfectly legal, because super delegates can change their support right up until they cast their votes at the convention....this is also exactly how Obama beat Clinton last time.

So again......this would all seem to suggest, mathematically Sanders is RIGHT.....but again remember Salon's premise here: By not giving the race to a woman he's being sexist.....even though they just started off by proving why he SHOULDNT just hand the race over to Clinton.

In fact the only thing wrong here is that the media didnt wait for the New Jersey results to come in, they randomly decided yesterday hours after this was written, on a day with no elections, that Hillary Clinton had become the official winner and the race was over...because reasons (none of which Im sure had anything to do with trying to trick people into not voting today or anything.....)

"It’s a frustrating argument, because Sanders spent most of the campaign portraying superdelegates as some kind of corrupt elites there to deprive the popular winner of the vote. But now that Clinton is the clear winner of the popular vote, suddenly the superdelegates are legitimate again.

Calvinball antics during elections are hardly anything new — remember “hanging chads”? — but even by those standards, this is headache-inducing pretzel logic. It’s clear the only principle being employed by the Sanders camp is that the only rules that are legitimate are the ones that lead to his win."

Now I'll grant them the hypocrisy argument.....at least until they brought up hanging chads. This isnt "pretzel logic". Super delegates can change their support up until they vote at the convention......that EXACTLY what the rules say. 

I realize this rule is problimatic for Ms. Clinton....once again its the same rule that cost her the race last time.....but that dosnt make it "pretzel logic". It makes it a valid action and claim to make under the rules as written.

"To make it worse, Sanders is using some fuzzy math with his pledged delegates argument. Even if the superdelegate system evaporated tomorrow, Clinton would still win. According to the New York Times primary calendar, there are 4,175 pledged delegates total in the Democratic primary. If we’re just counting pledged delegates and not superdelegates, the number Clinton needs to hit to win is 2,088. She only needs to win 281 delegates to hit that number and win the pledged delegate count. In contrast, Sanders needs to win 571 delegates in order to win the pledged delegates."

See how sexist Sanders is......the woman in the race hasnt actually won yet.....even when we changed the math to make her appear even closer to winning than she actually is by somehow pretending the threshold without super-delegates is 295 votes lower that it should be cause reasons."

again check the bolded section....you know the part that says "Contrary to what weve been claiming for the last few paragraphs....Clinton HASNT ACTUALLY WON YET.....she still needs 281 actual delegates".Granted yes, thats fewer than sanders needs but still. SHE HAS WON YET. 

"That is almost impossible for Sanders to pull off, even if he wins California."

Now California is 475 delegates......so if sanders won those he would only need 96 delegates to "win" the fake thresehold you made up.....and would be much closer than Hillary 281. Even under the real thereshold....hed still be leading with California's delegates added to him.

See the male privilege there. Even though in the totally fake situation we made up and changed numbers for, Sanders would be WINNING....he's being sexist by not just letting the woman have it because shes a woman and actually insisting she earn it on merit.

"Which is why he is hedging his bets by arguing that he should win even if he doesn’t win, by leaning on the very superdelegates he otherwise denounces as anti-democratic evidence of a supposed elitist conspiracy to deny him victory.

While it’s currently hip to sneer at every suggestion that sexism might be playing a role in the stubbornness of the Sanders camp, the contradictory, grasping nature of Sanders’ arguments sure makes it harder to pull off the “no sexism to see here” shenanigans."

Right see, by playing by the same rules as Hillary Clinton Sanders is being sexist....cause he should just do the chivalrous thing and let the woman win, even if he has to give her an unfair advantage in the rules to do it. (though again, I dont dispute the hypocrisy charge) 

"Not all sexism is overt, after all. Most sexism is subtle and subconscious, with people harboring prejudicial beliefs that women are inherently less deserving and less competent than men."

Such as the form being suffered by the author apparently.....shes the one arguing Clinton shouldnt actually be expected to win the election outright even when she creates a situation favoring sanders as she did with the California thing.

" Research shows, for instance, that when people are asked two applications that are identical, except one has a woman’s name and one has a man’s name, they rate the man as more competent and more deserving of a job and opportunities than the woman. Even though, and this cannot be stressed enough,everything else on the application was identical. Women get demerits just by being female."

So I guess in this case, the only fair not sexist thing to do is give the woman extra credit just by being female.....in fact asking her to meet on equal ground (as sanders is by claiming she actually win) is no sexist......

"Which is why Sanders’s behavior in recent weeks is so troubling. Clinton has won, fair and square. She has more votes. She has more pledged delegates. She has more superdelegates. She has more voters."

All true.....well except for the part where shes "won fair and square" because as your own article points out...shes still about 300 votes short of that ( which is actually 571 votes short under the actual thresehold of 2383). But hey, I guess Bernies a sexist for not giving her a handicap right?

"Even if you tweaked the rules, she is the winner. . Every “what if” scenario — what if we got rid of the superdelegates? what if the Democrats used Republican rules? what if there were more open primaries? —Clinton still wins."

Well....except for the way YOU tweeked the rules earlier in which you made Sanders the likely winner in that "What if" Scenario by giving him california. Though that was balanced out by the tweek you asked for in which super delegates cant change their support......under that tweek clinton won...but those arnt the actual rules.

"There is no rational reason for Sanders and his supporters to act like he is somehow more deserving of this than Clinton."

Except for the part where she hasnt won yet....but hey.

"And yet, Sanders is carrying on as if it’s obvious that he deserves to win, and just a little more pressure will cause everyone to finally see it and give him what he clearly believes is his due. Thus all the chatter about how the system is “rigged.”

Whatever is in his heart, Sanders is coasting on male privilege right now, namely the male privilege of being assumed to be more competent and more worthy than a female competitor, even if she has demonstrated her value by all objective measures."

See the sexism....just cause he hasnt actually lost yet, Sanders has the unmitigated gail to assume he might still have a chance. Even when faced with an opponent who hasnt actually won yet. I mean really he should know his place and just bow down to the superior gender here....

"This problem isn’t unique to Sanders. On the contrary, it’s common as dirt. When a woman or person of color has shown great success, people in the dominant group often argue that they can’t have done this on their own, but had to have gotten there by cheating. You see that every time conservatives gripe about “affirmative action,” assuming that people of color who get into college somehow are edging out more deserving white people by doing so. You see it with Donald Trump arguing that Clinton is only winning by playing the “woman card,” a blatant expression of the belief that women can only win by cheating.

Sanders is not being overtly sexist, to be clear. You’ll never hear him say Clinton is playing the “woman card.” Such overt sexism is easy to denounce.

Still, Sanders is leaning on a more subtle, ingrained form of sexism, by holding himself out as the clearly superior candidate, despite Clinton’s actual, real world victory."

Right.....except for the part where, again as your own article points out, the real world victory doesnt exist yet, cause Clinton hasnt won outright

In fact the victory only exists in the fantasy world you created in which Sanders should play by separate and different rules with the superdelegates that ensure he doesnt have the same chance to win as the superior gender.

And *he's* the sexist one....

If Clinton was a man, the notion that it’s self-evident that Sanders is somehow the “true” winner would be a much harder sell. It would make him a laughingstock, in fact. But the notion that a woman who does so well must be an imposter has a lot of emotional salience in our culture. Whether it’s enough to help boost Sanders to a convention fight even after Clinton gains a clean majority of pledged delegates, however, remains to be seen.

No. I'm pretty sure that if Clinton were a man and nothing else was different the math still would say Mr. Clinton was 571 votes short of what was needed to win, unless math has a Penis Multiplier I never learned about in school that somehow gives you 100 delegates for ever inch your packing or something.....

Now I will admit, in the likely situation Mrs. Clinton gets those 571 votes tonight, and sanders doesnt drop out, that will change things as far as the validity of his argument to stay in the race...but at least as of the time this went to press? Apparently its sexist not to let the woman win after she does only 90% of the work a man would need to do to win the same thing......

And people say irony is dead.