I agree with everything you said except that he wasn't right.
He didn't say she's the nominee, he said she has all the votes she needs to win the nomination at the convention, baring something disqualifying her before then or all the super delegates deciding to completely thwart the will of the people and vote for Sanders, contrary to their current declarations. That is correct. It's not 100% "over", but something drastic and fairly unprecedented would be required to switch the outcome at this point.

Actually he's not right, she's not yet the nominee because the super delegates haven't yet cast their votes. They do that at the convention in July. All we have is a 'snapshot' of which way each super-delegate was leaning way back when they were asked which was, in many cases, before Bernie was even on the radar.

By 'claiming' the win, she's doing the same thing that boxers do at the end of a fight that is going to decision... they put their arms up and pretend they know they won, it looks better when you actually do win to have been confident before it was confirmed, and it may even make a judge second guess himself.

but it's not over if Bernie holds on until the convention.

D'oh.
You are correct sir. They don't make it easy to follow now. Even the websites that showed the count without the super delegates listed the 2383 number to win. I looked at 3 sites before writing my above comment, they all gave me the wrong impression.

EDIT: In my defense, they have been claiming she's the presumptive nominee since before the first primary, and again after every single primary day, so I mistakenly assumed this was just more of the same. However, it is correct that she's not the nominee yet, but she is the presumptive nominee with the votes to win, both pledged and non pledged. The actual vote won't happen until the convention.

But there is still SLIGHT hope that, now that she's the "presumptive nominee", the Republicans will jump the gun and indict her before the convention, giving the Democrats a reason to pick Sanders. Paper thin hope, tissue paper thin, but there is a single grain of hope left.

That is factually incorrect.

There are 4051 pledged delegates available. So to win the pledged delegate count, you only need 2026. Hillary currently has 2203.

You need 2383 INCLUDING the superdelegates (Hillary has 2777).

On both counts, Hillary has won.

It's over. Bernie lost.

I don't like it either, but short of Hillary being unable to accept the nomination for some reason (dying, dropping out, being disqualified somehow), she is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. If Bernie is staying in the race, it's only to gain some leverage (maybe a VP ticket?)

That said, I agree that this is a pretty weak attack on Trump. Everyone already knows he's an asshole, and his supporters clearly give zero fucks about insulting people with disabilities. They probably think it's hilarious.

"Democrats: We got here because black people are allowed to vote."

See, this is what most media misses, and it takes an entertainer like Sam Bee to give us the facts. So many news outlets try to explain what superdelegates are - and why they are - but the actual answer is simple: Superdelegates are the delegates that black people chose. I guess. Apparently. Since black people are her explanation for Clinton.

Hasn't SHE also been filmed mocking Trump at her rallies...another person with disabilities, but his are purely mental.

EDIT: Also, is his mocking a disabled man really the most important flub he's made? Wouldn't disputing some of his policies be more to the point and make more of a difference. I mean, we already know he's a douchebag, and that's a selling point for most of his followers, not a deal breaker. Explain how his tax plan doubles the national debt, raises taxes on all non millionaires, and ends all social programs many of his followers use to live, while drastically lowering tax rates on millionaires and making it easier for them to hide money and move businesses out of the country, contrary to what he tells them in his rallies. I see this as a huge part of the problem this election, it's become all about personality, nothing of substance at all, because neither main candidate wants to discuss their plans or history.

EDIT: The following statement has been found to be inaccurate.

Um...keep in mind that she's NOT the nominee yet, people. It's another lie from her campaign, repeated by all media organizations.
A candidate needs 2383 PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination. She has 2184. Because there seems to be some question among Clinton supporters, 2184 < 2383. She's 199 short. That doesn't mean Sanders has much chance, it means the claim that "she won the nomination" is a BOLD FACED LIE that apparently 90% of Americans are gullible and ignorant enough to buy. Don't be a sucker and fall for then repeat another lie. Wait for the convention before calling her the nominee. She didn't win yet.

Actually, I think most Sanders supporters would say the entire primary process has been a "mockery of democracy". (although that contention starts from the misunderstanding that the primaries are supposed to be purely democratic...they aren't, the parties are private clubs not government organizations, so they're under no requirement to be democratic)
That "mockery" starting with the super delegates declaring their votes for Clinton before a single actual vote was cast, and continuing through the media pretending they don't understand that super delegates are not counted in the delegate count to "secure the nomination" and claiming that Clinton has had it secured for a while now, even though they know clearly that they are repeating a lie, because until they actually vote at the convention, super delegates can change their minds, so their "votes" aren't actually votes yet....which is why they are never counted in the pre-convention vote totals, except this time.... it's a con game that they're winning. Similar to Trump, they're banking on the American people's ignorance and gulibility, and it's working.

That said, you have a good point. Either the super delegate system is terrible and undemocratic and should be eradicated, or it's a good tool for choosing the best candidate and should continue....but many respond as if they think it all depends on who it's benefiting today and they flip flop like a mud skipper. Those people can be ignored, because their 1/2 vote for counters their 1/2 vote against, as I see it.

I googled and looked at a few sites like
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/
both of which said 913 left to win.
You're missing DC, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Also, I guess my numbers included super delegates in those remaining states. I couldn't find anywhere that listed what's left to win without the super delegates included, where did you find them?

?
1769 - 1499 =Sanders 270 behind Clinton
Up for grabs on the 7th = 913 (+ all super delegates, technically)
Hence...not hers.
It's not hard math....but I guess it's harder math than anyone in the Clinton camp can do. One more thing to worry about with her since it seems NO ONE in her administration can do the most basic addition/subtraction.

Why, oh, why, can't she just come out and endorse Sanders?
Why, oh, why can't she be offered, and accept a VP position in his administration TODAY so he can win big on June 7th and be ahead of Clinton on votes and delegates?
We need her, he needs her. She seems like the perfect padawan for Bernie-Wan-Sanders, and he can use the support in his struggle against the evil empire.

It is a bit sad that she missed the part where the 'deadline to register' she spoke of that invalidated many Sanders delegates was created a week AFTER that deadline had passed. In no way is that OK or honest, and that is the part that chaps my hide.

So since Hillary won big in Washington when all voters were allowed to vote, but we go by caucuses here....

Shouldn't Bernie, to be fair, cede those delegates to her? Because Democracy? Because Voice of the People?

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/24/24121754/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-lead-in-pointless-washington-state-primary

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/24/24121759/clinton-winning-washington-state-democratic-primary

My county went overwhelmingly for Sanders both in the caucus and the primary. Bunch of old progressive hippies. They make me proud.

No, I don't think I said that. Again, it would be nice, but if she locks it up (not counting super delegates) then Bernie's run as a Democrat is over, as is all hope. I don't hold onto even a shred of hope that he'll sway her policy, no matter what he gets her to say during the election.
She's already been incredibly inconsistent on the minimum wage thing, actually taking 3 positions in one sentence in one debate. Can't trust her.
Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests.
A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between. Without that, we'll never get candidates that will work for us OR fix the system that supports them, or even be able to trust our elections. As I see it, Sanders is our one and only hope of fixing the system, so the only hope of saving the union.

@newtboy

Ah, yes. "Fair." The cri de coeur of the idealist.

I can guarantee you that nobody who fights as hard as she has, and has the delegates to gain the nomination, is going to give it up nobly.

Obama didn't buckle under the pressure to give up. Sanders isn't buckling under the pressure to give up.

And Clinton should?

Ain't gonna happen. I don't think it SHOULD happen. I want a fighter for President, with a healthy ego and sense of purpose (I know you don't think she has one, but she does.)

And. Bernie might yet pull it out. He has gotten farther than anyone thought he would.

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.