A couple of weeks ago, Bernie Sanders said the Democratic nominating process was unfair because the primaries had a bunch of "red states" scheduled early, and that Clinton had gotten her lead in both votes and delegates in those red states.
His remark was stupid, and his followers carried it even further by inferring that Clinton could not win "blue states" (states likely to vote Democratic in November) -- and that Bernie should be the nominee (in spite of having fewer votes and delegates) because he did better in those "blue states".
This angered a lot of "red state" Democrats, because it inferred that they shouldn't have a voice in choosing the Democratic presidential nominee. These people don't seem to realize that those "red state" Democrats work as hard for the party (if not harder because of the obstacles they face) as any other Democrats -- and sometimes they are successful. The Bernie supporters putting forth this odious idea are quick to claim to support "one man - one vote", but seem to not want that in red states. Where's the fairness in that?
Fortunately, last Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton smashed that stupid "red state" myth. She won significant victories in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Delaware -- all "blue states". And when you add in the victories in other blue states (like New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois), it becomes clear that Clinton can win in either red or blue states -- and in purple states like Virginia and Ohio.
Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee -- and that is true because most Democrats (regardless of the color of their state) want her to be the nominee.
