Hillary barely squeaked out a win in Iowa (and even that result has been called into question by some).  Sanders pwned her in New Hampshire by 20+ points.  How, then, do you explain this?

The Candidate of Wall Street Billionaires Has Rigged the Game: Despite One Tie and One Blowout Loss, Clinton Has 394 Delegates to Sanders’ 42

My understanding of it is that most of Hillary’s “lead” is in so-called “superdelegates” who aren’t chosen through the usual electoral processes (caucus or primary).  For people who call themselves “Democrats,” isn’t this a rather small-D undemocratic way to pick a candidate?  From the outside looking in, it looks like a way for the party bosses to pick the candidate they want, and to hell with what their rank-and-file want.  I understand they might have concerns with Bernie Sanders’ nonexistent electability (to say nothing of the fact that he actually wasn’t even one of them until fairly recently), but maybe they should’ve addressed those concerns early enough that they could’ve offered up a few more choices.  That, of course, would require that the fix is not already in.

This election should be the Republicans’ to lose.  The only fly in the ointment is that the Republicans have in recent years made a science out of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Whether the Democrats end up nominating the communist or the crook, GOP ineptitude could still give them more of a shot at winning than they deserve.