To the contrary - it’s an understanding of exactly how the ‘system’ (party machine) ‘works’ which leads to dismay….

1. With regard to yesterday’s Wyoming outcome - my post above should speak for itself - but to be clear…
There’s an irony when, as occurred in this instance, because of the vaunted ‘system’ rules, the actual winner turns into the pragmatic loser.
That occurred because of “The Rules”.
It's absurd - but more to the point - it’s undemocratic!

2. With regard to Sanders ‘losing the popular vote in states that don’t use the caucus system’ , I assume, in that assessment, you’re including - New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan and Wisconsin.

It’s absolutely true, as you point out, that Clinton has, to date, outperformed Sanders overall in winning the popular vote in State Primaries.

And she may very well continue to do so. But she may not.
Sanders has a formidable battle ahead. Will it finally prove quixotic? We’ll see but…

3. If, at the end, Clinton secures the nomination with BOTH the required delegate count, as well as the majority Popular Vote - that will be a democratic and fair victory - one which even her opponent would support.

To be fair the US is a Republic.

Autocracy may be a better description.

Has always amused me that US Laws are often titled the opposite of what they are, a non contentious one, the Paper Work Reduction Act. So why should the Parties names be any different.

Hey...as Shakespeare said:

What's in a name?
- a skunk by any other name still stinks!

ps: but I remain both cynical and hopeful as far as the 2 parties are concerned.
As Bernie would say..."if enough people rise up "

Admittedly, the UK doesn't have a presidential form of government, but the manner in which the major US parties select their presidential candidates is a heck of a lot more democratic than the way parties in England tend to select their parliamentary candidates.

Well then, we can take comfort in the reality that it could always be worse.

The Wyoming Democratic caucus had all of 280 votes. Those votes were divided among various Democratic constituents, including local party leaders, etc. They chose some of the delegates.

There were other delegates called superdelegates who had already been selected by other means and pledged their respective votes on their own.

The final result comes from the aggregate of these two groups, both of which are limited to specific people within the party.

So your attempt to claim that the regular delegates are "real" participants while the superdelegates are "fake" is completely bogus. They're simply two different clusters of players within the party.

Good heavens !
I don't have a clue what you're banging on about.
You include an accurate quote of my entire post in your 'reply'.
But to what and to whom are you (supposedly) replying?

Where does my post mention "real" or "fake" delegates of any kind?
It doesn't!
Where do I "attempt to claim" anything about anything?
I don't....

My post was simply an expression of dismay over what I perceive as an ironic outcome to the Wyoming election.

And if you disagree with my perception - that's perfectly fine. It doesn't invalidate my view, however (and vice versa).

But - thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-read that post because I now see, when citing examples to address your assertion that "Sanders is losing the popular vote in states that don't use the Caucus system" (item #2 in my post) - I neglected to include Kansas - a 6th win for Sanders in a Primary election.

In sum, if anything is (as you charge) "completely bogus" - it's the accusation itself.

Enough! Not worth our time. !
Or do you wanna disagree with that?

Watching my Republican in-laws flounder around when Obama beat Romney so soundly was weird. They were so convinced that it was going to be close, that Obama's early lead wouldn't stay for long, that they completely lost faith in the media when Obama won so decisively. Only lasted a couple of years, back to Fox News again so now they go on about how evil Clinton is and repeat "What difference does it make" over and over, while not really knowing why they hate her so much.

You're obviously unhappy about the Wyoming results, and you're unhappy about it because of this delegate vs. superdelegate issue. Hence, my points.

And your claim is just a talking point from the Sanders camp, which has done a pretty good job of ignoring the fact that Clinton has also received more popular votes than Sanders in the states that have primaries.

So Sanders doesn't just have fewer delegates, but he also has less support of Democratic voters. He's not only in second place, but he's well behind and there is no way that he can overcome that gap.

Should keep you busy for the day:

Disgraceful!

Clinton Campaign Accuses Sanders of Trying to Win Nomination - The New Yorker

Donald Trump's Kids Never Bothered to Register to Vote for Him

So, Trump's kids are either not registered to vote at all or are actually registered Democrat (or maybe independents).

Hillary in a racist skit.

I've been here for 33 years. Please quote me any credible poll results that support your assertion about abortion and gays.

There is a substantial majority that supports a woman's right to choose - has been that way for a long time. And the majority is even bigger if you include rape/incest/health of mother, all of which Cruz is against. So he's simply on the losing side on that one. Gay rights is a more recent phenomenon, but there's a majority that support that issue too.

What I've observed, very simply, with gay rights, is that nowadays everyone knows someone who has 'come out' as being gay, and it's no longer possible to view gays as some remote concept; it's now your son/daughter/neighbor/boss/coworker. My nephew is gay; the head of Apple is gay; a ton of people I work with regularly are gay. They are all perfectly normal, decent people. This observation is what is sweeping America and makes it impossible for people to support discrimination against gays. So Ted Cruz is on the wrong side on this one too.

We will find out soon enough ... it's "only" 7 months away ...