Bernie Sanders should be the Democrat nominee

"Winning states and broad support are not the same. Bernie has won states but they lack delegates." For the third time, because he has won 20 out of 43 states it shows he does have a majority of backing from Democrats in those states. As well as that he has the support of what would seem a majority of independents. As well as the proportionate share of delegates in Democrat primaries shows that you are discounting support in the states he lost; he does have a lot of support. 10 million votes from Democrats, and the support of millions of independents is not something that can be discounted so easily as "he has no broad support". "The population of the states he wins are usually small in comparison to the one Clinton wins." Are they? Washington state has a population of over 7,000,000 while the population of Nevada is around 2,000,000. Minnesota has a population of 5,000,000 while South Carolina has a population of 4,000,000. I could go all day here selecting states Sanders won with massive populations and compare them to states Clinton won with small populations. Its a terrible way to measure "support", by state population. Unless you provide evidence of a trend I am going to discount this point. "The pro side is trying to use this 20 out 43 states as a indicator of success while these states are all different and are not equal." I am using it as an indicator, but not of success, as an indicator that Sanders does have support within the Democrat party, which he does (10 million votes). "Winning Iowa means practically nothing in the grand scheme of the election." I agree, but Hillary won Iowa. Iowa is often an indicator to see how successful each candidate will be throughout the course of the election, however, so to say the result means nothing is incorrect. "That is the case for many states that Bernie has won." What states in particular? "I would also add that the results do include some independent. If the primary is "open," than independents can vote; and in the states that had open primaries, Clinton wins all the same." Did she? New Hampshire is an open primary state. Vermont is an open primary state. Wisconsin is an open primary state. Oklahoma is an open primary state. Michigan is an open primary state. Indiana is an open primary state, to name a few. So she doesn't win them "all the same". And because Sanders can win closed primary states, it is a pretty big indicator that he is supported by the majority of Democrats in the states he won. "The pro side also wants to move delegates around to suit his argument." The same could be said of you, seeing as the chairwoman of the DNC explicitly said the media should not include super-delegates in the delegate counts. "The current standing still shows Sanders lacking support from that establishment and the general public." Of course he lacks support from the establishment; i'm fairly sure we covered why a couple of rounds ago. As I have proven several times over he does have support from many Democrats and many independents (not the general public, but none of the candidates could ever hope to have the support of the general public in the primary season. "I like Bernie, I do, but I like democracy more; and the democratic system that is in place is saying Clinton is going to win and thus "should" win." Sanders is a better candidate than Clinton, and thus, "should win". Prove to me that Sanders is not a better candidate than Clinton. "A Sanders presidency will have to face angry Republicans hell-bent on burning his legacy to the ground." That didn't stop you from voting in Obama did it? Why should that apply here? "Sanders does not have the luxury like Obama of democrats controlling Congress." Obama doesn't have the luxury of a Democrat controlled Congress. Sanders may do, we cannot say until the 2016 Congressional elections. "Even if democrats take control of a house, Sanders lacks their support too." You really cannot shake off this Sanders has no support thing can you? I'm not going to waste time addressing this anymore, its farcical to be fully honest with you. "Sanders fails on foreign policy issues like most socialist (sic)." Fails? What does that mean? And thats an extremely broad statement; "like most socialist (sic)". And if I recall correctly Clinton voted in favour of the Iraq War which was a complete and utter catastrophe that has helped destabilize the region. She lied about her visit to Bosnia, she is responsible for the only death of an American diplomat since 1979 due to her ineptitude to carry out her job. "He has said a lot on Obama and how he has failed liberals and progressives." Infuriatingly I thought you would have realised he is probably the first person to say this, seeing as he is a figurehead in the American left. "Free College - College for All Act It sounds nice but even this savor(sic) like figure is lying to you... It attempts to lower the price by getting the state and fed to work together on spending. It is close to the Affordable Care Act in that case, however, it is less generous and expects states to pay for a lot of the cost... States have refused the medicare funding from the ACA and will block the CFA just the same." If I was offered the option of reduced fees of US universities I would still take it. It is a step in the right direction just like the ACA. And while states may have refused medicare funding from the ACA over 32 million people can now afford healthcare. If the same happened with Bernie's proposal for universities that would be a major success in US Development. "Again, sounds nice to the middle class but still fails when it meats(sic) real life." Around 70%-80% of the USA is considered middle class according to your census bureau; you would do well to focus on policies benefiting the middle class. "Higher tax rates on individuals and corporations is the reason for them keeping funds overseas." Not higher taxes, taxes in general. The tax rate for the top bracket in the USA is 39.9%; incredibly low compared to other developed nations (the UK has 45% for example). "That money could come in the US to stimulate the economy but current policies go against this. Sanders will only make this issue worse...the rich that we demand to pay more will simply leave and now we get none of that money." That money could come into the US economy, but lowering taxes isn't going to make the rich move money from offshore bank accounts where tax is 12.5% to the USA where tax rates are 39.9%. "To be honest, this is laughable. A increase that large on the Federal level will have devastating cost to our economy" How so? "He also wants to spend billions to "help" the youth employment. Raising the min wage hurts black and youth Americans the most." How so? In fact raising the minimum wage would move low wage workers closer to the cost of living in their respective states, and would ease the strain on the welfare system in the US. "Trade policies - isolationism" Isolationism is a foreign policy term, not an economic one. Therefore he cannot advocate "isolationist trade policy". While I get what you are trying to say, he isn't advocating a complete shut down in trade and a move to autarky. He is advocating a repeal of free trade deals, which do result in flight of manufacturing jobs (it has occurred in every major free trade block thus far). "Like many socialist, trade is a weak spot. " Again a sweeping statement without evidence. "fails (sic) to grasp classical economic theory." He doesn't however he does disagree with neoclassical economics. "He wants to expand social security, medicare and medicaid. He fails to explain how to pay for all this policies and just says the rich will pay for it." He has a very extensive tax plan actually. "The 1% pays for almost all of the income tax revenue already." I'm going to beg the question here, quite rightfully too. Round 1, if you had bothered to read it, is my explanation of why Sanders>Clinton.