the proper scorecard is:
hillary: 6
bernie: 4
& one tie
but, it's the delegate count that matters. and he kept her under 600 pledged delegates (the superdelegate talk is establishment scare mongering - they are free to change their vote at any time, and would be committing suicide if they voted against the primary process). she's less than 200 ahead. he can catch her on that, if he can beat her in pennsylvania and washington and ... by the same margins that he beat her in minnesota and colorado - and if he can split, or win, michigan and florida. and, he can do this. the democratic nominee should not be determined by the bible belt! and, you can't blame liberals for bailing, if it is.
but, the race is pivoting this week. clearly. there are less red states coming up. logic and abstraction needs to yield to concrete results.
it's just better than the media would like you to believe, that's all i'm saying.
i'm more interested, right now, in trying to understand this map. maybe it's evidence that a canadian should be taken skeptically - and i've warned you repeatedly. but, i think it's a little more sinister.
this map makes absolutely no sense. clinton's ability to disproportionately swing blacks makes no sense. and, when things consistently fail to make sense, it's reasonable to question their legitimacy.
i don't claim to have an understanding of data on the urban/rural split in america, and the fact that the parties have been so interchangeable for so long throws some wrenches into everything. but, in canada, this map would be equivalent to suggesting that the ndp swept the rural farming communities and suburbs, while the liberals swept the downtown cores - which had a certain level of coherence 100 years ago, but is impossible to understand, today.
the wealthier people live outside the urban cores. they own property. they have good jobs. they're less interested in "socialism". the less wealthy people live inside the urban cores. they work minimum wage jobs. they rent. they're more interested in "socialism".
so, how does sanders sweep the rural areas and clinton sweep the urban areas? it's the same incoherent proposal as clinton sweeping urban, southern blacks. but, at least you can jump through some hoops on that. i don't see any hoops to jump through on hillary sweeping boston and sanders sweeping the countryside.
i'm only able to come up with two explanations, and they both reduce to an unfair election:
1) turnout is remarkably low. now, why this is is maybe complex. apathy. voter suppression techniques, perhaps? you don't think the democrats are above that, do you?
2) it's just rigged from the start.
no, i can't prove anything. apathy is the least complex hypothesis, but i'm not entirely convinced it's the right one.
we'll have to see, as time goes on, if any of this starts to make any sense or not. but, i can't explain my inability to make sense of that map in purely cultural terms. this is a class analysis, and that ought not be corrupted by inconsistencies in canadian v american culture.
that map is simply impossible to understand as an accurate reflection of popular will. and, it's not just that sanders lost in boston - it's that he won outside boston, too. it's completely the opposite of what anybody ought to expect.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/massachusetts
--
just to add to this: you can see the "boston upper crust" on the map by looking at the republican map. they voted for kasich. one would expect to be able to reasonably super-impose those two maps around the boston area - albeit not outside of it. so, yes - one would expect that upper crust that swung to kasich to also swing to hillary. but, one would equally expect the famous boston working class (that clearly swung to trump) to swing to bernie, as well. the map suggests otherwise.
that's the part of it that i can't make sense of. and, yes, the urban/rural split ought to be inverted. but, i can't understand how the urban poor in massachusetts of all places is voting against it's class interests like this...
--
the only other answer here - and, i'm sorry, but it is - is that lower class americans (across racial and geographic divides) are simply so unaware of what their class interests actually are that they're unable to make a decision that is in their proper self-interest. and, that throws the whole basis of democracy out the window. it reduces the entire thing to a pointless charade.