Primaries aren’t representations of general elections. They are how parties pick who will best represent their ideas come fall. Calling them unfair because they don’t allow people, who don’t want to be represented by their party anyways, a say in what happens in their party is highly misleading. Primaries are usually closed so opposing party members wont tamper or try to vote for the weaker candidate in that party in order to gain an advantage in the fall.

If you have to omit votes and contest in order to show how your candidate is the stronger candidate, inherently you are proving their weakness. Its almost as if we should’ve never had a primary if we have to nitpick which contest is valid and which is not based on the rules that everyone was privy to from the beginning and demographics that are unfavorable to your candidate. Which is a thing since Sanders has not been able to attract minority voters in any significant way except in three states Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska. And not because “They just don’t know him.” It’s a campaign even if it were true that they were somehow oblivious to Sanders it is the campaign’s job to undo that.

Which isn’t for a lack of trying either. Sanders has outspent Clinton in just about every contest. He had four times the man-power she had in the southern contest. And the only candidate with more media appearances than Sanders was Donald Trump.

The ironic part however is the idea that Super-delegates should flip to a candidate whether they come from a place where the people voted for that candidate or not. Which was something Sanders was patently against because it would be un-democratic. Now we say screw democracy I wanna run for President. Because the polls show I’m more popular when I've had near zero negative attention this entire campaign yet still managed to lose my own primary. Yet somehow this makes Sanders the stronger candidate?