I was hoping as more and more people got informed ahead of the coming election people would realise Clinton is a corporatist and basically a Democrat party version of Mitt Romney or an American Cameron and move their vote to the obvious choice in Bernie Sanders but it all appears to be going as expected with Hillary picking up big wins last night.

I can't help but feel like if Clinton was male she wouldn't have such a lead over Sanders. I know it's pretty appalling that the only people in with a chance of becoming President in the past have been white males. A great country like America shouldn't be ruled by one demographic. Eventhough it would be a great milestone to finally have a female in that position, Clinton is awful. Where she stands on any given issue depends far more on cynical political calculation than any principals she may have. She's a flip-flopping liar. Sanders is a gender egalitarian and would fight for women's rights more than Hillary, who appears to be getting the feminist vote just because she has the same body parts as them :/ Which is as shallow as the crap I heard from old workmates, who were girls who said they were voting for Cameron over Brown in 2010 because he was better looking...

I just feel on both sides of the atlantic, after years of recession that we just need a little bit more socialism. Just a little bit more help from our well paid, elected officals. The 40% higher tax threshold has just been raised in the UK from earning over 40k PA to 45k PA while sweetened drinks are now being taxed 20% more.

If that isn't a specific targeting of the lower class and an obvious middle class tax break, in such an awful economic time, when full time workers often don't earn enough to live then I don't know what to call that bullshit. Most of us 'libtards' are just advocating a bit more compassion and equality, it annoys the hell out of me when you try to say stuff like this and people accuse you of being a communist or wanting some kind of anarchist regime. Both countries have a great chance of a much needed slight shift to the left in Sanders and Corbyn and I just hate how we're wasting it!

he should have hit hillary hard from the beginning but he didn't. nice guys finish last.

Like I said, Hillary Cinton's going to win the presidency, go back to living your life or being concerned with your tax rate.....gay marriage's legal on Obama, national healthcare isn't working; republicans are backwards idiots.

Life is really really short, politics goes on forever.....

God bless.

I was thinking the same thing today. I doubt that a male version of Hillary without her name recognition would have done much better in this race than Martin O'Malley.

We can go for a walk where it's quiet and dry and talk about precious things, like love and law and poverty. These are the things that kill me.

Well Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee.......so there you go?

Sanders isn't winning this race because he's not a very good candidate for president. If he was a better candidate, then he'd be I don't know, another male that beat Clinton, Obama?

That fact can't be ignored. A left-leaning black man in a right leaning country, went from DNC obscurity to beating the most well recognized name in American political history of the last 25 years. Yet Sanders can't notch big wins?

Through the use of ample money, ample debates, time to become well-known and sell his message, it hasn't clicked with vast demographics of the American electorate. There's something wrong with that picture and it doesn't come down to gender. It comes down to the quality of the candidate and their ability to connect with larger demographics than white college students. With Sanders working with just as much money as Obama, debates, and time to become well-recognized (and having the advantage of his opponent being well-despised), there's really no excuse for him at this point.Most candidates don't get that many advantages. It just didn't happen for him.

Of course. despite agreeing with most of his policies I think he's a very low key, uninspiring guy. But tbh I did expect with just how awful Trump, Clinton and Cruz are that despite being an uninsiping choice he'd be leading those bunch of clowns in the polls. Btw Hillary isn't winning because she's a woman, I just said that I believed it's helped her cause, the small quote of my post above makes me look like I'm looking for excuses, which I'm not. I just believe there is a section of people supporting her purely because of her gender.

He hasn't clicked with vast demographics, but I believe that's through their own ignorance. I believe if every citizen researched every candidate and their policies instead of watching big network sponsored debates and bias news reports that not only would corporatists like Trump and Clinton never even be in the running and that right leaning parties and candidates would have a hard time ever getting in again. I think they play their entire campaigns on public fear, ignorance and false nostalgia.

You're saying that Romney is a male Hillary and he was the 2012 Republican nominee, so that disproves my point?

I don't think that's a fair comparison because for one, that was 2012 and this is 2016. In this race, we've seen two populist/pseudo-populist candidates in Sanders and Trump who you'd normally expect to be gone months ago having way more success than anyone expected them to. If Romney actually had the influence the RNC apparently still thinks he has, you would expect that the speech he gave trying to turn Republican voters away from Trump to at least make a little difference, and it doesn't seem that it did. This isn't a typical year.

And secondly, Romney was the Republican nominee. The old fashioned doublespeak tactics aren't as effective now as they've been in the past, but it's less so on the Republican side.

Oh, I never had any illusion that Sanders had a great chance of yanking a rigged nomination away from Hillary. I posted before Super Tuesday 1 that I liked his chances in the general election better than in winning the nomination of his own party, in part because of the perception that Hillary is more electable.

I don't know how much I can agree with Obama starting from DNC obscurity. I had a passing knowledge of him at least a couple years ahead of his presidential run and I don't consider myself a political junkie.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse with saying that being male didn't stop Obama from beating Hillary, when the obvious problem with that is progressives wanted a black president then just like they want a woman president now, even among primary voters. Sanders would be our first Jewish president, but I doubt that's quite as exciting to most people.

Ample debates that people didn't watch because they were deliberately scheduled at the worst possible times. You can't seriously expect me to think the Democratic establishment or the MSM has given him a fair shake?

Listen, before this turns into a fight, I don't think you're an idiot. I think your points in this thread have been sound and well argued. But as I understand, most of the remaining states are favorable for Bernie, and however you want to downplay it, Michigan was the biggest upset in primary history. I'm not holding my breath for him to get the nomination, but if he does stay in until all states have voted, I hope it inspires millennials to get more involved and vote in state and local elections.

Yes, DNC obscurity. Very people knew who Barack Obama was prior to the Democratic National Convention 2004. If you knew about him, then you were more clued in than most people.

And I don't think Obama's success came from progressives wanting him to be the first black president nor is Clinton's success coming from her becoming the first female president. If someone like Elizabeth Warren ran I'd be surprised if she carried the day. Mainly because, like Sanders, her policies are too progressive. In the end, Obama had to roll into a primary season that you say is already rigged. Which once again, if it's so rigged, than how did a black man with the middle name of Hussein beat the most formidable democrat of the pat 25 years? That doesn't come down to skin color. Sorry. It came down to him being a great candidate, well organized, an amazing public speaker, and having attainable policy positions, all things Sanders lack, then the added bonus was his skin color. In the end, in every exit poll, the main knock against Sanders is that he's a good man, but people either don't think he'll win or his policies are too progressive. The last time those two things came together, as Kalas points out, McGovern was the nominee (who was far superior candidate than Sanders as a war hero, a PHd holder, and an amazing debater). It's not a matter of being "obtuse." If Sanders was a better candidate, he'd be winning. Because in the end, if the system is so rigged, then how has he competed? Wouldn't it stand that he wouldn't be able to compete at all? Wouldn't it stand that Obama wouldn't have won? Great candidates rise above. Sanders isn't remotely as great of a candidate as Obama was. That's why Obama won, and Sanders is trying to hold his campaign together. Clinton isn't a great a candidate. She has obvious weaknesses, which Obama was able to expertly exploit, but she is a better candidate than Sanders (Much like Romney in 12'. Experienced, tons of blind spots, but better than his more radical counterparts. America isn't a "radical" country voting wise).

And Yes, many of the upcoming states are favorable to Sanders. However, many of those states are incredibly small. And Sanders won't win large enough shares in the larger states to come back. Clinton isn't losing New York by 16 point margins, nor California, nor New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and those are the largest contests left. In order for Sanders to catch Clinton in pledged delegates, which would be the only reason super delegates would switch to him, he'd have to beat Clinton by an average margin of 58-42 in the upcoming contests. That's just not going to happen, even in many of the states favorable to him. Lastly, Michigan was a big win at the time, but once again, it wasn't a "big" enough win. At the time Sanders was at a -200 pledged delegate deficit. Michigan only bit into that deficient by 3. In essence, Michigan only kept him in the race (if he loses Michigan and the five states this past Tuesday, he drops from this race), but it didn't put him in the race. Now he's at -317 deficit. So he would need other upsets like Michigan in New York, California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania but they'd have to be by 16 point margins instead (this is all assuming he wins all the states that are favorable to him, along with a couple extra by the same 58-42 margin). That's not going to happen. 538 offers an exceptional perspective on this very problem for Sanders:

fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-following-obamas-path-to-the-nomination/