Utah: Sanders has more than a 50% lead. Idaho is more than 80%

Sanders is winning Idaho and Utah by such large numbers that he will take most of those delegates. (Utah has been called with Sanders getting 74% of the vote. And Idaho looks as good.) The total would be 56 delegates from those states. Say he gets 45 of those delegates. His projected loss in AZ (in dispute still*) gives him about 25 delegates from AZ. That's 70 delegates total for Sanders. Clinton's projected win in AZ gives her about 45 delegates from AZ. Plus she gets a few (say 10-ish) from Idaho and Utah.

That adds up to:

Sanders 70 delegates
Clinton 55 delegates.

Net 15 to Sanders.

THIS IS REALLY GOOD NEWS! --that he's on the plus side for delegates by winning 2 of 3 states.

I'm going to post this as an OP. Cuz that sure looks like what's happening. The problems in AZ were caused by a gross lack of polling stations, so that thousands still hadn't voted when the state was called for Clinton. (She just lost one pt on the NYT and CNN totals, as results are still coming in. 63% reporting. Clinton 59%. Sanders 38%. (3% are missing from that.)).

They knew this was coming.

Sam

What the hell is taking so long. I thought caucuses reported in pretty quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

This means he's going to come out ahead in the delegate count tonight, by winning 2 of the 3 states by huge margins. (His win in Utah is projected to be by 74%.) That'll add up to 10 to 15 more delegates for Sanders for these three contests.

extremely well in both Utah and Idaho nevertheless. So far, 18 delegates for him versus 5 for her in Utah. 100% counted in Idaho, with 17 for him versus 5 for her.

Counting Arizona, Bernie did not pull ahead at all, but only fell fractionally behind. A good show considering.

Funny how that works

Bernie is on the way!

Sanders supporters and the Sanders campaign have never been anti-POC.

AA voters in the south had the right to vote however they wanted. It's possible to acknowledge and respect that, on the one hand, and still point out that the candidate who got their votes had done nothing to deserve them.

My theory is that AA voters believe they can get something from HRC after giving her their support. For their sake, i hope HRC, if somehow elected, actually does reward AA voters, since she has no moral right not to. It would be unforgiveable for her and Bill to follow their natural instincts and ditch those voters as soon as it is convenient to do so.

Including growing numbers of POC.

That thing doesn't reflect who the prohibitive majority of us are.

We have been condemning that OP for months now.

And Bernie himself has made it clear that he utterly rejects such ugly thinking.

The tiny minority of Sanders posters who rec'd that did so out of confusion and cluelessness, not racism. They were wrong, but they have learned. And the person who posted it will never post here again.

We don't have to end the campaign to make up for it.

... Sanders camp leadership.

This is not just a DU thing, if its bad enough for 80 recs here then it's most likely worse every where else.

People on the left are always going to be committed opponents of bigotry.

It's time to let the "Stockholm" thing go already. You know perfectly well it wasn't Bernie's fault.

but the big losers will be indigenous workers in developed countries like us. The emphasis in terms of carve outs will shift to least developed countries which of course America is not. Minority and women owned SMEs in the US will likely lose big advantages they previously held. On the other hand, services firms from LDCs who are the least developed countries will do quite well if they are poised to pick up that business.(can be the lowest qualified bidders on infrastructure projects, which will become subject to competitive bidding via the global Govenment Procurement Agreement e-bidding system.