Why Clinton is SO far behind in the Pledge Delegate Count

Answer cause of the liberal bias in the method by which this party selects its delegates. This bias is one reason why the Democratic Party's Presidential nominees tend to be too far left to win the general.

And thus you have Obama's David Axelrod saying that the working class wasn't really reliably Democratic and the fact that Obama was losing that vote was understood and implicitly acceptable.

Dang boy! Are you stupid? No wonder McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry and now Obama.

If Hillary was just behind by 47 delegates she'd be ahead with her super delegates. And by picking off the majority of the remaining elections she would win the nomination. There would be no backroom politics involved.

Instead we have a situation where the Party is going to have to decide which demographic they are going to tick off.

If Liberals aren't happy, what are they going to do – go join the socialist Party?

If working class voters aren't happy, what are they going to do – go join the Republican Party?

Too bad the working class that constitutes the bulk of America just doesn't seem to be loved by either mainstream party.

Who is the most disenfranchised voter? The guys and gals paying the bulk of the bills.

The question we are all waiting to see the answer to is how will the super delegates vote?

Who are the remaining uncommitted super delegates? What percentage of them are hard core liberals? How many of them come from red to near red voting districts? How many have working class voter blocks to contend with?

The liberal bias of the Democratic Party's election rules is going to have to be addressed sooner than later.