Bernie's always been math challenged, and his wishful "we have to do very very well in California" understates matters significantly. To win the pledged vote, Hillary needs 2026 delegates (1/2 of 4051 + 1). Which means 257 of the remaining 781 pledge delegates or 32.9% - fewer than 1/3. That's not just "very very well" - that's deliriously fantastical, based on any primary to date, along with current polls, the most optimistic for Sanders putting Hillary 2% ahead, the worse one for him showing Hillary with an 18% lead.

Besides Bernie needing 526 pledged delegates to win, that would mean grabbing 1/3 of his delegates to date on June 7.

Bernie says superdelegates don't matter - but his entire shock & awe approach is based on converting superdelegates with the spiel that he should have won more pledged delegates - but even that argument is based on a handful of caucus delegates, while the primary delegates where Hillary excels are all obviously allocated by %. Nothing like arguing that 2 + 2 would have equalled 5 if not for the "establishment" interfering.

He says "We won in Washington state with 70 percent of the vote." which obviously means the caucus, since he lost the Washington open primary 374,044 (47.6%) to her 411,741 (52.4%), with ~3 1/2 times the 230,000 caucus participation. Since this was a week ago, presumably he didn't just forget, but in the recent Rolling Stone he's bragging about winning the caucus with 70% (& New Hampshire 60%), conveniently forgetting the Washington primary, along with New York's, Pennsylvania's, Ohio's, Arizona's, plus Florida, Texas and the rest of the south.

But where he's really hitting the meth too hard is when he starts talking about independent voters. 

Number two is, we gotta change the rules that govern the Democratic Party. For one, I think the idea of having closed primaries is a dumb idea.

Why?
Because the American people, more and more people, are looking at their politics as outside the Democratic and Republican parties – for a variety of reasons. Some of them think the Democratic Party is too conservative. But whatever, they are independents. Three million people in New York state could not cast a vote in the Democratic or Republican primary for the president of the United States. On the surface, that's absurd. You really could almost raise legal issues. You're an independent in New York, you're paying for that election, it's conducted by the state. But you can't vote?

Bernie presumably doesn't know history, as till 1792 the Electoral college chose candidates, while up to 1824, the Congressmen or state party chose the candidates. No need for the state to pay anything, as it was a private boy's club. Florida was the first to do a primary in 1901, and as of 1912, only 12 states had some kind of primary, in which Roosevelt triumphed, but Taft won anyway because they were non-binding. Thanks to reverse evolution, primaries decreased from 20, so that from 1936 to 1968 again only 12 states had primaries again. But by 1992, 40 states had popular primaries. The smoke-filled backroom approach has been out of style only since the calamitous 1972 election, caused as much by numerous party insiders' in-fighting and selfish positioning as it was by McGovern's pick of Eagleton and other missteps.

But Bernie seems to support this kind of excessive caucus posturing, with rushes to the stage to commandeer more delegates. One (wo)man/one vote? Not so much.

And being unaligned and unwilling to take a stance, Bernie thinks no one should have to. So Independents should be able to vote in Democratic primaries, whether they're unrepentant Civil War racists, libertarians, anarchists, religious fundamentalists, drown-gov-in-the-bathtub fiscal conservatives, or invade-the-Mideast neocons, the Bundys and Tim McVeighs - as long as they haven't promised fealty to Republicans, they should be able to vote with the Democrats. But then why exclude Republicans? If the Republicans made a similar rule, no one would need to join a party, and they could vote with either contest - or both, possibly.

Is that fucking goofy, or what? The idea of political parties is coming up with a shared platform, similar viewpoints to bind a group together for more strength. 240 million voters with no alignment makes it hard for politicians to even know what their voters want. We understand most Republicans want a slimmed down government, few social programs, and typically strong defense, with some dispute re: how activist we are abroad. Democrats (these days) are typically focused on issues of equality (racial, gender, sexuality...), defense of personal rights, safety nets and social cohesion, along with less reliance on military/violent means. By joining one party or another, people have been putting a line in the sand re: what they believe, because ever since Biblical times we've rather relied on "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Yet verily, Bernie is standing up for the lukewarm - those who can't choose a stance or a party, those who can't make it downtown in time to register to vote, etc., etc. Obviously we can start new parties  - much precedent to creating something new, whether successful or of some influence. But aside from some facetious Know Nothing and Mugwump parties, there's not a lot of precedent to spinning thread out of pure air as an affiliation.

It's a mugs game, all this reliance on gut beliefs and arbitrary stances. Bernie may believe an excited mob of 20,000 trumps an electorate of 3 million, but if that were true, Counting Crows would be governors of at least Texas based on turnout at the Motor Speedway, and Pearl Jam would rule Indio, California... What's next, mud wrestling for votes? Bernie now says he's going to fight up to the convention, whether he wins California & New Jersey or not - just because.

We've jumped ship from trying to provide a reason for doing anything. It's not his party, and we'll cry if he wants to. We've gone 240 years from the Whigs to the Whingers - even Scalia believed in some original intent, yet now we're just playing it by ear. Incensed or nonsensed? No longer for sure.