Sanders/Clinton tied in states that have not voted

Huffington Post poll averages show Clinton leading Sanders by just 4.3% nationally -- which, in itself is pretty remarkable, given that she was leading by 20% at the first of the year.

Then they broke down the national data into two groups:  one from states that have already voted and another group from states that have not yet voted.    In the states that have already voted, Clinton leads 53% to 41%.   But in the states that have not yet voted, they are tied at 45% each.

What does this mean?   According to Ariel Edwards-Levy, polling director for Huffington Post, it's hard to know because it involves more than a dozen different states that don't look especially favorable for Sanders;  and there are few caucuses, in which he usually does better.   Another factor is that, although the survey sample is quite large, the size of each state's electorate is not factored in.   For example, states in not-yet-voted group range in size from California to Rhode Island.

All in all, there's little significance that can be reliably given to this interesting finding.   Still, Edwards-Levy concludes, ". . . the results could indicate Sanders is gaining significantly in some of the final states to vote . . . .  Regardless, even a notable uptick for Sanders may end up being too little, too late to overcome his current deficit in either pledged delegates or the popular vote."

Let's face it:   Sanders is not going to be the nominee.  But there is no doubt that he has changed this race, he has pushed Clinton to the left on positions, and he has changed the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction. 

More immediately, he wants to have an influence on the party platform and on the agenda going forward.   And he's not going away.   He will return to the Senate with impressively increased clout as the co-leader, with Elizabeth Warren, of the progressive wing of the party.

Ralph