The Clinton and Sanders Puzzle at the Finish Line; Who is the Winner?

The big question is: should the media declare Hillary Clinton the definitive and final winner of the party primaries at the end of voting on Tuesday, or should they wait, as some of Sanders' supporters and he himself insist, until the Democratic National Convention about a month and a half later? Why has this question gained importance and what is the debate between the two sides about? After Hillary Clinton's recent wins, she now needs about 15 to 25 delegates (party representatives who will vote for the final nominee at the convention) to officially surpass 50% of her delegates and secure a majority. However, this 50% will consist of the total delegates obtained from the people's votes and superdelegates (special votes from important party members like congressional representatives or Democratic governors). If we subtract the superdelegates from Hillary Clinton's total votes, she will not reach 50%. The superdelegates who have currently stated they will vote for Hillary Clinton are allowed by party regulations to change their minds up until the convention day and vote for Sanders instead. In fact, their votes only become definitive on the day of the convention. Until then, whatever they say can be mere hot air! However, superdelegates have never, since the modern nomination process was established in the Democratic Party in the 1970s, won a nomination against the will of the people and the votes obtained during the primaries. In other words, without exception, the Democratic Party has always nominated the person who received the most votes in the primaries across all 50 states and territories. Currently, Hillary Clinton is ahead of Sanders by over three million votes and about 300 delegates. After the last round of voting, it is unlikely that there will be any extraordinary change in this ratio. Even if unexpectedly and contrary to some polls, a decisive majority votes for Sanders on Tuesday, this difference might only reduce to two million votes and 200 delegates. Still, Clinton will lead by a significant margin in garnering public votes over Sanders. This will be the first time a woman has secured the nomination of one of the two major parties in American history, and the reporting of this historic event has been questioned by some even before it occurs. With that said, let’s assume Sanders manages to meet with the superdelegates in the next month and a half and provides them with sufficient reasons to vote for him. Logically, if the superdelegates change their votes and decide to support Sanders, their action would be entirely undemocratic and millions who voted for Hillary Clinton would feel disillusioned. Moreover, such a coup against the candidate who has received the most votes would also contradict the Democratic Party's tradition and has never happened before. If they do such a thing, they would effectively undermine the logic of voting from the people to select a candidate. Lastly, considering the relatively high votes of the superdelegates, which account for about 15% of the total votes, no one has been able to win in the few close Democratic primaries without superdelegates. The last example was Barack Obama, who, when the voting ended in 2008, was only ahead of Clinton by a four percent margin in delegate counts. Obama was even behind Clinton in the popular vote in that election, but since he had more delegates, he ultimately won with the addition of party leaders' votes. Hillary Clinton stepped aside for Obama weeks before the convention and personally participated in the gathering on convention day, contributing to Obama’s nomination with an open demeanor and a campaign speech. Now, back to the main question: should the media declare Clinton the final winner tomorrow or wait until the convention? What else could prevent Hillary Clinton from achieving the nomination? The answer to this question in Sanders' campaign is: the FBI's investigation into Clinton's emails during her time as Secretary of State. This is essentially the same issue that, according to Bernie Sanders, had no importance in the first debate and was a Republican excuse to distract the American people from key issues like minimum wage or the welfare level of the middle class. It seems that now the same 'misleading' issue raised by Republicans has gained enough importance in Sanders' view that it warrants waiting to see if Clinton's nomination will be jeopardized. How could this investigation seriously threaten Hillary Clinton's nomination? If, in the next month and a half, the FBI concludes that Hillary Clinton committed a crime by using personal servers during her tenure as Secretary of State, the FBI would file charges against her. Such an event, regardless of the final court outcome, would mean the end of Clinton's campaign for the White House. This would be Sanders' greatest chance to become the Democratic Party's nominee. The media has until tomorrow night to decide. This will be the first time a woman has secured the nomination of one of the two major parties in American history, and the reporting of this historic event has been questioned by some even before it occurs. Not by conservatives and figures like Donald Trump, known for their anti-women sentiments, but by one of the most liberal senators in America and their supporters, some of whom are among the most progressive figures in American culture and politics and cannot easily be labeled as anti-women. This puzzle will be solved in the next 48 hours.