They will be far, far better served to wait and vote against Trump in the general election.

Voting in the primaries to block Trump’s nomination will likely have the undesirable result of helping a malevolent extremist/anarchist get his name on the ballot — one who is more likely to win (even if he has the distinction of being the most hated Senator in U.S. history) and thus embark on his own gleeful destruction of America.

Interestingly, if it ends up Trump vs. Clinton this will be the first time that both major-party candidates are actively disliked by a majority of the public, including some of their own voters. Hard to say how that turns out.

DC 106.6
MD 77.2
DE 64.6
NY 60.9
NJ 58.0
CA 55.6
NM 51.1
CT 50.3
PA 48.5
AZ 47.7
HI 46.5
IN 46.1
RI 43.8
KY 43.3
WI 42.3
WA 41.1
AK 40.0
OR 38.1
UT 37.4
WV 36.6
ID 36.0
WY 35.6
SD 34.4
ND 33.9
MT 33.1

Yes, it predicts Clinton will win 106.6 percent of the DC vote, this is what you get when you use a linear fit and throw in an demographic outlier like DC.

Although Sander’s is projected to win more states, toward the the top of the list, and thus projected wins for Clinton, are a couple of large states (NY, CA) with lots of delegates which Clinton are projected to win. So the larger number of states that Sanders is projected to win does not necessarily mean more delegates.

Toward the bottom of the list, thus projected Sanders wins, are heavily republican western states (ND, SD, WY, ID, UT, AK) for which we have not much data among the states that have already voted. It will be interesting to see it their demographics follow the pattern that the mainly eastern and southern states for which we have data. That may be the primary unknown here.

Much has been made about Hillary getting “victories” (delegates) in States that are not competitive in the general.

But I took a look at the county results provided by NYT, (click on maps) and what’s interesting is that many of the Bernie victories e.g. in Illinois are in areas that voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney.

So I have to wonder just how much of the “independent” White Male vote going to Bernie is strategic voting by those who typically vote R.

And while a couple of very gracious comments here by Bernie supporters are comforting, over at the NYT, it is hard not to see a Republican trolling operation gearing up; endless repetition of “I’ll never vote for that murderous slut” and so on. Psych-ops standard kind of voter suppression.

And maybe everyone could stop with the “winning the State” stuff and talk about delegate numbers. Basically splitting the delegates is just the same whether it’s Bernie or Hillary that has a percent or two more votes.

It’s usually also the case that there are some provisional ballots cast that aren’t counted until the voters, whose eligibility was questioned at the polling place, prove that they are eligible to vote. That can take a day or more, and in a really close election might make the difference. In general elections, in most parts of the country these questioned voters are poor and/or minority and therefore skew Democratic, but I can’t guess how they might skew in this primary.

How could you be certain “she didn’t need it?” What might happen if everyone who felt she didn’t need it stayed home?

The more votes the Democratic nominee gets the better. Going to the polls would also help the other Democratic candidates, and this is also important.
http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/state-for-sale

Republicans are arguing that a new Supreme Court Justice should not be voted on until the people have spoken. Every additional vote for the Democrat will be a vote that makes it harder for Republicans to oppose a Democratic President’s nominee. Do you care about that?