Hat tip Frontpage Magazine
I am no expert on how political races, specifically how campaigns run, but I am left with the feeling that the answer to the above question is zero.
If my recollection serves me correctly, Hillary Clinton won Iowa by two tenths of a percentage point, 48.8% to Sanders' 48.6%. Then she gets shellacked in New Hampshire 60% to 39%. In the latter, Bernie won the youth vote by about 80%-20% and the woman vote 55%-45%.
Now we all know that she has a huge advantage in future primaries because-as her campaign points out- places like South Carolina have more minority voters (not like those lilly white states that failed to turn out for her).
Yet, it would be nice to think just for a fleeting moment that Sanders now has more delegates than Clinton, right? Wrong. The present count is something like Clinton 395 to Sanders 42. She even took more delegates out of New Hampshire than Sanders believe it or not.
That's because of what they call super delegates. Those are designated elected officials at the state and federal level and party leaders, most of whom who are committed to Clinton. (Super delegates can change their votes.) Here is how NBC News has it figured out.
So forgive me if I conclude that with the Dems, the game is rigged.
But Sanders plugs on. While Hillary is getting Wall Street bucks in New York, Sanders went up to Harlem to court none other than the great man himself, Al Sharpton. That's because Bernie needs black votes.
In Sanders' defense, he has a long history of support for African-Americans, and in his youth, protested for civil rights-even getting himself arrested at a civil rights protest during his college days at the University of Chicago. One would think that his bona fides are more impressive than those of Hillary.
What chance does Sanders have with black voters against that?
So I am convinced that only the FBI can save us from the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.