I agree 100% with Scalzi on this. And it’s not because I don’t like Sanders. I liked what he added to the race and if the numbers were flipped at the moment I would be supporting Sanders over Clinton. (I think both of them are perfectly fine candidates, each with their strength and weaknesses) As a disclaimer, I didn’t vote in the Massachusetts primary. I was sick on the day of the primary and didn’t care enough for either candidate to push myself out of bed to vote.
Bernie Sanders is not going to be president, nor is he going to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. To date, he has won fewer electoral contests, pledged delegates and total votes than Hillary Clinton, and in each of these cases the margins aren’t close. While it is technically possible for Sanders to close the gap with Clinton in the nine contests remaining, from a practical point of view it’s impossible. In order to pull ahead in pledged delegates, Sanders would have to win something like 70% of all remaining delegates; given that he is substantially behind in polling in California and New Jersey, the two largest remaining contests, this is extremely unlikely.
Even when Sanders wins, he doesn’t win by enough — his win in Oregon, for example, netted him only nine pledged delegates over Clinton, which leaves her 272 delegates ahead. To be clear, and as I’ve said before, Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to win any more states to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States; all she has to do is not lose too widely. If Sanders could win all nine remaining contests — which he won’t — Clinton would still end up with an overall larger number of pledged delegates and votes, so long as the contests were close enough, close enough in this case being a margin less than 68% – 32%.