THEPROPHETthey were just there to not vote for trump? Try harder dude...
people waited 3 hours to caucus here in Utah and as you can see, a large majority were for Bernie.
The problem I have with your drone like sheep mentality is that whenever Hillary wins, it's over, but whenever Sanders wins, it's not enough.
Are you working for CNN?
Do do you have any idea what Gerrymandering is?
If you thought that the Sanders campaign was going to be anything but lagging behind the entire race, you have a shallow understanding of the political process.
Wait until the actual polls numbers are out before saying they were all there for Sanders. People were there to make sure Trump did not win Utah as well, hence his loss. There is a reason the GOP had Mitt come out telling people to not vote for him.
Well Hillary has won some massive victories that net her a lot of delegates while Sanders hasn't. That isn't hard to understand.
You're trying to take the "feel good" approach by saying he won and that is all that matters. It isn't. He needs delegate numbers more than state wins. Yes, they go hand-in-hand, but if he is winning 51% to 49%, then the delegate numbers are not really that different, it may only be 1 or 2.
1 or 2 is not going to decrease that monumental gap fast enough. He needs 10, 15, 20, delegate increases.
I do know what gerrymandering is, and frankly it is a problem. But it has been for decades.
I have been the one saying they were going to lag the entire time...you have been the one saying they are not that far behind.