I have a weird bubble effect going with Sanders. Almost everyone I see online seems to be supporting him and I don't think I've really seen anyone come out in full unequivocal support for Clinton, but she's winning pretty solidly. She must be doing better in the non-social media demographics but it looks really weird.
Clinton does well in certain demographics, none of which include young people. The online community skews towards younger ages hence why Sanders has overwhelming online support. Also worth noting is that a vote is an unqualified statement and does not brook detail. For instance, it would easily be possible for Sanders to be the more popular candidate and yet lose, since many people are hoodwinked by the media's claims that Sanders can't win. People believe that 'wasting' a vote on a losing candidate is a mistake, and if enough people are made to believe this it (strategically) becomes true. That's what we call magick with a k.
Another detail missing in a vote is
how much the voter supports that candidate. Let's say, for instance, instead of a vote each voter simply scored a candidate on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, and the winner was the person with the most points. The winner in such a contest might not be the winner in a "one vote" system where not voting for the other person gives them zero points. To date I've never met a staunch Hillary supporter, although I'm sure there are some out there. But for the sake of argument let's say that someone voting for her would give her a 5/10, and Bernie 3/10; and now let's say 10 people vote like this. Then let's say 8 people vote with 10/10 for Bernie and 1/10 for Clinton. Clinton wins the one-vote game, and Bernie by far wins the points game here, making him in a casual conversational sense the more popular candidate even though he loses in the current system. And I do, in fact, think this is the case, since many Bernie supporters tend to really believe in him and would love to see him govern, while Hillary supporters are no doubt distributed among those who outright support her, those who dislike her but see her as the best option, and those who feel they have no choice because to do otherwise risks a GOP presidency.
I also expect there is some amount of the standard election fraud going on (vote rigging and so forth), since I consider this to now be a standard practice wherever voting machines are used. Testimony before the senate made it clear that this is quite easy to accomplish and can't really be traced, and almost implied that it happens and there's nothing you can do about it.
