Do you actually read anything I write? I don't know how many times I've said that I still think Clinton will be the nominee, yet you keep ignoring it. I'm well aware of the polling. I said this earlier today:

Keep being dismissive, it's fine. I'm just happy Sanders' message is getting a wider audience. So far it's been more popular than was expected.

My points to you have focused on how I would expect Sanders to perform in a general election (poorly) and the relevance of primaries in that context (not much.)

Perhaps if you weren't so absolutist (Clinton *will* be the nominee, Sanders *would* lose the general), it would be better.

While history can tell you something about the future it doesn't make the future a foregone conclusion. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Accept the fact Clinton could lose the nomination.
Accept the fact Sanders could be the next President.
The likelihood of either still remains small, but it still remains a possibility.

Better for what exactly? I don't expect Sanders to win the nomination, nor is there a good reason to expect Sanders to win the nomination.

See you're getting better already. "don't expect" looks less arrogant than "won't".

This is a discussion forum, where different ideas are actually discussed. To continue to be so dismissive is not endearing.

Carly Fiorina has just announced massive layoffs in her campaign. Everyone...

Well, you have Flavius on your side, which should concern you.

Sorry, but this topic is need of a reality check, and the Sanders fan club exhibits the sort of naivete that was evident with the Ralph Nader campaign and that continues with the Tea Party. Presidential elections are won with intraparty coalitions, not by those who have feverish support from a small group but can't win over the middle.

Ahh an ad hominem attack. Now who's using logical fallacies?

A reality check? Show me a single thing I've written that isn't based in reality?

If anything you're the one that doesn't deal with reality with your absolute certainty about that the result will be regardless of the facts.

If you want to demonstrate your "reality", then the onus is on you to show that Sanders only appeals a small group and cannot win over the middle. Because so far the results don't show that. BTW, McGovern, Nader and socialism are not acceptable answers.

Also what gives you the right to decide what can and cannot be entertained as possibilities? That just looks like we should all bow to your superior knowledge. Which is either a) arrogant and very sad or b) trolling, which makes me annoyed with myself for falling for it.

If there was one person who made money from abortions, it was her and her staff.

(Due to how much she went on about it, not from doing them)

So it seems Fiorina and Christie are gone. Surely Carson will be too.

Fiorina was presumably running as the "anti-abortion" VP candidate anyway.

Christie certainly took one for the team in his attack on Rubio. I wonder if Kasich or John Ellis Bush Bush have promised him something if they get the nod.

Any idea how many candidates are still officially in?
Is that Jim Gilmore still knocking about? Pataki?

That was Christie's last till of the dice to keep himself in, surely?

Would a Governor see the VP role as a step up?

Gilmore is still in it, but has less votes than Vermin Supreme (the real one, as well as Ted Cruz). Pataki went bye bye weeks ago.