Bernie has done better then I expected him to do.

Not sure he can pull the nomination off, but who knows.

I wasnt expecting him to still be in the race come June for California but seems he still may.

Clinton last I checked still had a decent lead in polls there but if he wins more before then, maybe voters will switch and he can win California, although I expect Clinton to win there.

Bernie's big problem it seems will be that there are very few caucuses left. He only seems to do really well in those and does badly in most primaries.

It won't be easy. However, his big primary win in Michigan offers hope for the upcoming Wisconsin primary.

And his wins in 10 out of 11 caucuses, so far, augers well for Wyoming 4 days later.

After that he faces a pretty formidable challenge back East - with NY primary on 19 April, followed by a Super Eastern Tuesday the following week with 5 primaries.

chug, chug, chug.....the little engine that could( 'nt?)...

Sanders is not a member of the party, so there's every reason for the superdelegates to avoid supporting him. The whole point of having superdelegates is to reduce the odds that someone like Sanders will win. He has zero chance of being nominated.

But even in Michigan while he won the state he split the delegates almost equally. The Democrats don't do winner take all states. I suspect the Republicans might not in the future.

I for one don't want Sanders to win. I thoroughly respect him, and appreciate a well fought fight, but I don't think free education for all is a good idea, and I don't think he has what it takes to be a president. I guess it's fine for him to keep battling on; the longer he and Hillary have 'respectable' debates, it just makes the Republicans look that much more obviously dysfunctional.

But that's not his position, as I understand it....

He's asking that all public community colleges/universities be tuition free.

Unless I'm mistaken, Harvard, Stanford, Amherst etc. etc. will continue to cost <$60,000> yr.

So that's not 'free education for all'.

It's "free tuition at all public colleges regardless of ability to pay", which is poor public policy imo. Inevitably segments that can well afford tuition end up being beneficiaries of such "largesse".

Why would anyone be against tuition feee public colleges?

To keep people who cant afford college uneducated?

Just so taxes dont go up?

I for one think anyone should be able to attend a public college regardless of ability to pay and a more educated country could do the US good.

Lots of people who would like to go to college out there who simply cannot afford to do so currently.

I've given my view as to why it's poor public policy to make it "free for all". Far better to concentrate support on those that cannot afford to attend.

Little known, fun factoid (thanks, NPR)....

"Democrats Abroad" primary (yep, primary - not caucus ) was also won by Bernie!
It took place between 1-8 March, 34,000 Democratic voters cast ballots in more than 170 different countries.
That was a 50% increase in participation over the 2008 primary.

Bernie trounced Hillary by 69 to 31 percent

He netted 9 pledged delegates to Hillary's 4.

well.....every pledge counts - motto of the moment (lots of crumbs make a loaf, maybe....sometimes)

The only countries where Hillary beat Bernie were the Dominican Republic, Nigeria and Singapore. And in Nigeria only 5 people voted.

Bernie won the other 167 countries

This has got to be the most feel-good, amusing story of the primary season

Not entirely disagreeing with you. However, some people just aren't college material. Perhaps they are more vocationally oriented yet they are the ones most likely to be preyed on by private colleges offering expensive certificates in HVAC or culinary schools or whatever. Free or low cost community college vocational courses would be good.

Explains perhaps views here?

The problem in this country at present is that many professional positions have to be filled from foreign sources. America is relying on imported brains

How many doctors, dentists, engineers, physicists etc are American born these days ?

Where I live reading the names of the highly skilled nursing staff at our large local hospital staff from surgeons down to RNs is like reading a page from the Calcutta or Beijing telephone directory

In short it's just become too difficult for many in America who have the brains and ability but not the money

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Democratic Party's Super Delegate maneuvering.

In any case, the Super Delegates don't have "every reason to........avoid supporting him".
At least not those Super Delegate governors, senators and congressmen/women up for re-election in States where he's won the primary. Not if they want to hang on to their o-so-precious-seats.

Furthermore, "the whole point of having superdelegates is" NOT "to reduce the odds that someone like Sanders will win."

According to DNC Chairwoman (witch-in-chief) Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a CNN interview:

"Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

Senator Bernie Sanders can hardly be discounted as a "grass roots activist".
Not after the Democratic Party has welcomed/counted upon him as a valuable voting member of their caucus for years.

Finally, with regard to assessing possibility or probability...the way I see it is:

Never say 'never' - except when saying 'you never know'