What does thinking strategically about delegates mean? It means this... (HRC group)
Hillary's team has quietly put together a plan designed to maximize delegates earned to create space between her and Bernie. She did this by campaigning frequently everywhere, in both states she is expected to win and states expected to be close. Bernie had chosen to maximize headlines by targeting states for "upsets" under the belief that those will change the narrative. This has happened at the expense of universal location campaigning on his part.
In no place is this more obvious than Michigan. Bernie pushed hard for an upset there while ignoring other states and he eked out a 4 delegate advantage. But the headlines! The enthusiasm! Made it worth it, right?
Not quite.
See, just a few days later Clinton won the N. Mariana Islands caucus and gained back 2 of the 4 delegates she was down from Michigan (I'm ignoring Mississippi to make my point here). That caucus had only 167 people participate. 167! Those 167 halved what Bernie earned by fighting tooth and nail to get the headline in Michigan.
And that is why math says that Bernie is maximizing headlines and message time versus winning the candidacy. He either refuses to think strategically because it goes against his beliefs, or he has concluded that perception of momentum is the only way he has left to the nomination. At the same time, Clinton has carefully made sure that Bernie gains can be negated or nullified. Michigan got a lot of headlines; it didn't put Bernie any closer to winning the nomination.
= new reply since forum marked as read
ahead in the popular vote. 
This doesn't seem to hit home.
Where is the "revolution" going to come from if not from the people? And the "people" are behind Hillary so far.
Those SuperDs who are in the Senate and the House and who KNOW BOTH Hillary and Bernie from working with them have also overwhelmingly endorsed Hillary.
then he can still win the nomination.
