Hillary Clinton has won 13 states in the race for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders 9. The delegate count stands at Hillary’s 760 to Bernie’s 546.

This is far closer a race than most political pundits expected. Bernie only lost Iowa by 0.3%, and crushed Hillary by 20 percentage points in two-thirds of his victories: New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Vermont, Kansas, and Maine. In recent history, Kansas has always voted for the eventual Democratic nominee. Bernie’s victory in Michigan was widely dubbed, as Politico put it, a “stunning upset,” as Hillary had a strong lead in Michigan surveys just before losing.

As Florida, Missouri, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio prepare for their turn on March 15, Bernie Sanders has the opportunity to shake the nation again, and move closer to overtaking Hillary in the delegate count. But before the race moves forward, let’s look back at what Bernie has already accomplished.

1. MOST INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Americans have donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign more frequently than they have to any presidential candidate in history. Bernie reached 2.5 million campaign donations faster than Barack Obama. So far, Bernie raised $94 million from individual supporters alone (averaging $27), a feat Common Dreams calls “historic.” Both loses and victories garner floods of new campaign cash: Bernie received $6 million the Monday after he lost South Carolina and $5 million within 28 hours of his Michigan win.

2. LARGEST CROWDS

Bernie is drawing far larger crowds than Hillary (her campaign claims she prefers small crowds). MSNBC called his crowd in Madison, Wisconsin the “biggest crowd of any 2016 candidate yet.” 26,000 people came to see him in Boston (a record for Boston, larger than Obama’s rally), 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in Las Vegas. Nearly 400,000 flocked to his rallies between his campaign launch and November 2015. And there’s no slowing down. Thousands in Florida are currently gathering to hear him speak.

3. RECORD VOTER TURNOUT

True, this one is also thanks to Hillary supporters, no question about it. It’s not technically a record he holds alone. Yet the states shattering turnout records are giving victories to Bernie Sanders. In Kansas, almost 40,000 people voted for Bernie or Hillary, a new record. Bernie won in a landslide. Breaking a record from 1972, 2.5 million voted on both sides of the aisle in Michigan, meaning Bernie has to share that record with even more candidates, but he won the state in the Democratic contest. 595,000 voted for him, more than any candidate — 20,000 more than Hillary, over 100,000 more than Donald Trump.

4. FIRST JEW TO WIN

When Bernie took New Hampshire, he became, to quote USA Today, the “first Jew to win a presidential primary.” However, according to the Jerusalem Post, even garnering delegates in the earlier contest was a milestone: he was the “first Jewish figure ever to win delegates in a presidential primary through his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.” Bernie says his faith inspires his progressive politics, and at the debate in Flint, Michigan said, “I’m very proud to be Jewish. Being Jewish is so much of what I am.”

5. FIRST DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST TO WIN

No one calling himself a socialist has done so well in a U.S. presidential race. Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, never winning a primary, garnered nearly 1 million votes in the 1912 general election, about 6% of the popular vote. Should Bernie win the Democratic nomination, his popular vote count will demolish that.

Of course, Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, but his policies are that of a social democrat. His “socialism” is just an expansion of popular Democratic programs — making Medicare cover all citizens (taxpayer-funded universal healthcare), expanding Social Security, using funds for Pell grants and student loans for free college tuition instead, more closely regulating Wall Street and giant corporations, raising the minimum wage, curbing the tax evasion of corporations and the wealthy, and launching a New Deal-style jobs program for the unemployed.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

North Carolina and Mississippi are engulfed in controversy after Republicans enacted laws curtailing the rights of transgender Americans and homosexuals.

North Carolina’s House Bill 2 declared multi-person bathrooms in public schools, public colleges, and government buildings must be designated for use by biological gender only, not gender identity. Transgender North Carolinians will therefore be required to use bathrooms based on the gender listed on their birth certificate.

In Mississippi, House Bill 1523 stated people with religious or moral beliefs that include the notion marriage and sexual relations should be exclusively between a man and a woman can refuse service to homosexuals planning a wedding ceremony. Religious organizations can refuse to marry gay couples, sell or rent to homosexuals, or provide therapy, treatment, or surgery related to gender change or gay couples’ counseling. Foster and adoptive services can likewise turn gays away without fear of legal action.

North Carolina’s bill also banned cities and counties from passing or enforcing local anti-discrimination laws. Two other states, Tennessee and Arkansas, have similar statutes.

The creators characterized the bills as means to protect privacy and religious beliefs (the name of the Mississippi bill implied requiring businesses to provide service to homosexuals would be “government discrimination”), but enraged civil rights advocates, who believe discrimination in private and public spaces based on sexual orientation or identity cannot be tolerated in a free society. Many groups are working to reverse the decisions.

Mississippi and North Carolina are among 28 states, mostly in the Midwest and South, that do not ban private businesses from firing or refusing to hire someone because he or she is gay or transgender. Two states (outside these 28) protect homosexuals but not transgender people. 52% of LGBT people live in a state without either protection. Race, nation of origin, gender, religion, and other characteristics are protected.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules created by the federal government offer protections to government and public sector employees in these states, but they extend no farther.

You can see which states protect gay employees from discrimination here.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

According to the most recent data, federal prisons hold nearly 96,000 inmates for drug offenses (about 50% of all federal inmates) and state prisons hold 208,000 (about 16% of all state inmates). Another 184,000 people are in local jails for drug law violations, for about 490,000 Americans total. There were 1.5 million arrests for drug crimes in 2014.

In 2004, about half of drug offenders in federal prisons and one-fifth of those in state prisons were convicted for marijuana-related crimes, 45,000 people total.

Nearly half a million people in prison for drugs is equivalent to the size of some major U.S. cities. It is higher than the populations of Sacramento, Kansas City, Atlanta, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Miami, or Pittsburgh.

The Sentencing Project writes that

the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses has skyrocketed from 41,000 in 1980 to nearly a half million in 2014. Furthermore, harsh sentencing laws such as mandatory minimums keep many people convicted of drug offenses in prison for longer periods of time: in 1986, people released after serving time for a federal drug offense had spent an average of 22 months in prison. By 2004, people convicted on federal drug offenses were expected to serve almost three times that length: 62 months in prison.

Further, although whites and blacks use drugs at equal rates, blacks are much more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for drug use, and serve longer sentences than whites who commit the same crimes.

What is the cost of holding so many nonviolent offenders?

The Vera Institute of Justice found the average cost to keep one person behind bars is $31,000 a year (in some states like New York, it’s closer to $60,000), a cost funded by taxpayers. This means the cost of housing drug offenders alone (using the average cost) is about $9.4 billion each year for state and federal prisoners, $15.1 billion a year when you add in local jails.

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, the U.S. spends $51 billion a year on the War on Drugs.

2.2 million people are in prison, for all crimes — the highest incarceration rate in the world.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Oregon by a ten-point margin, and the Kentucky contest was a virtual tie, with Hillary winning by a couple thousand votes but the state delegate count being split almost evenly.

The total delegate count stands at 1,767 for Hillary, 1,488 for Bernie. When Hillary officially gets the win in Kentucky she’ll get 1 more delegate, and if results hold in Oregon she’ll get 3 more; Bernie will earn 6 more. Likely totals will soon be 1,768 to 1,494.

This does not include superdelegates, who do not come into play until the national convention; Hillary has 524 superdelegates who plan to vote for her at the convention, Bernie has 40. There are 712 superdelegates in all. Unlike state delegates, which are awarded based on how the people voted, superdelegates can vote for whomever they wish.

There are now two scenarios that would allow Bernie Sanders to make the most epic comeback in American political history.

SCENARIO 1: BERNIE ABSOLUTELY DOMINATES THE FINAL 9 CONTESTS

And I mean dominates. No more virtual ties. No more splitting delegates. There are 781 delegates up for grabs in the remaining 9 contests. The largest prizes are California (475), New Jersey (126), and Puerto Rico (60). Bernie Sanders would need 528 of these 781 delegates to have a 1-point lead over Hillary Clinton.

He needs to win 67% of everything. This is extraordinarily unlikely — it would take nothing short of a miracle.

The superdelegates could still side with Hillary, of course, but this would give Bernie the strongest chance of convincing them not to.

SCENARIO 2: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PANICS OVER DONALD TRUMP

Seth Abramson of The Huffington Post posited last week that even if Bernie does not pass Hillary in the state delegate count, the superdelegates, looking at past and predicted voting patterns, might flock to Bernie.

He writes that Hillary almost refused to concede to Barack Obama in 2008, hoping the superdelegates might overrule the popular vote and delegate count that favored him and instead side with her, but eventually decided she didn’t have much of a case to convince them to: “Obama had kicked the hell out of her in the latter half of the election season, winning 16 of the final 25 states.”

He writes that if Bernie wins the remaining contests, which is actually quite plausible, he would have a case for superdelegate support (keep in mind this was written just before Oregon and Kentucky, so Bernie has already lost one “remaining contest”); by June 7, a sweep would mean

Sanders has won 19 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses (not a typo); Sanders is within a few hundred thousand votes of Clinton in the popular vote; Sanders has won 54 percent of the pledged delegates since Super Tuesday; and Sanders is in a dead heat with Clinton in national polling.

In other words, Bernie could look like just as strong a candidate as Clinton, regardless of her lead in the delegates. Then add to that the ample data suggesting Bernie could best defeat Donald Trump in the general election:

Sanders has dramatically higher favorable ratings than Clinton, despite months of attacks from his Democratic opponent and Trump and GOP super-PACs generally laying off both Sanders and Clinton; Sanders beats Donald Trump nationally by much more than does Clinton (12 points, as opposed to 6 for Clinton, in an average of all national polls); Sanders beats Donald Trump in every battleground state by more than does Clinton; and Sanders beats Trump by 22 points among independents, while Clinton loses independents to Trump by 2 points…

The idea that Clinton is in a dead heat with Trump in the three most important battleground states at a time when Trump is the most unpopular major-party candidate in American history is horrifying to Democrats. How horrifying it is cannot be overstated; along with recent polling showing Clinton tied nationally with Trump, and the fact that Hillary’s unfavorables are already rising while Trump’s are already falling, and the fact that the Republican Party is uniting dramatically behind Trump precisely because Clinton looks to be the likely Democratic nominee, the fact that Hillary is already struggling in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania against an absolute buffoon of an opponent is causing Democrats to worry that she actually can’t win.

This could be adequately described as a nightmare for democracy.

Hillary receiving the most state delegates but the superdelegates handing Bernie the nomination would thrill Bernie supporters, but it would be the precise thing, the very assault on democracy, that they (and Sanders) have ranted against this entire election season (calls for the abolition of the superdelegate system are already having a positive effect). Should (or would) Bernie Sanders take advantage of an undemocratic system, one of many obstacles erected by the Democratic Party to stop him and grassroots candidates like him?

Regardless, this scenario seems unlikely. One might argue Hillary has such strong allies in the DNC and among the superdelegates (her husband is one of them) that they would stick with her regardless of any poll. Further, superdelegates, since their creation in 1984, have never decided the outcome of the Democratic nomination process, and doing so would tear the Democratic Party apart.

Then again, deciding the outcome is precisely what superdelegates were designed to do. Abramson writes:

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Monday, the Associated Press got the ball rolling on Hillary Clinton’s coronation, declaring:

Striding into history, Hillary Clinton will become the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party, capturing commitments Monday from the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

Other news outlets quickly followed suit. The New York Times declared, “Hillary Clinton Clinches the Nomination. Will Bernie Sanders Fight On?” Had Clinton actually clinched the nomination, one might wonder what Sanders had to fight for.

Clinton allegedly reached the 2,383 delegates (a combination of both superdelegates and delegates awarded according to the will of ordinary voters) after a “decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates.” Clinton won 16 more delegates than Bernie Sanders in the Puerto Rico primary. Superdelegates only offer endorsements until they actually vote on July 25 — and between then and now they can change their minds, as Sanders is banking on.

Sanders hopes to convince the superdelegates to swing his way with the argument that he is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump in the presidential election, as polls consistently support. His mission is an immense challenge, as Clinton has 571 superdelegates currently backing her and Sanders has only 48 (93 more are undecided). In the regular delegate count — those awarded based on the results of the primaries and caucuses — Clinton has 1,812 and Sanders has 1,521.

On Tuesday, six states vote for the Democratic nominee, and hundreds of delegates are up for grabs. Many Sanders supporters are angry the media would already announce, in the words of the AP, “Clinton’s victory,” before the remaining six states (and later D.C.) have voted. California, the largest prize on Tuesday, has popped up in a Twitter hashtag: #CAVotesCount. The band Foster the People called all this “irresponsible journalism” and “voter suppression,” echoing common sentiment.

Of course, there is also worry that declaring Clinton the winner early may affect the results on Tuesday — discouraging Sanders voters from making their voice heard — called “misleading” by some and “voter suppression” by others. This is on top of the feeling among Sanders supporters and critics of the media that calling superdelegate support “unequivocal” (AP) or set in stone is also misleading, when in fact superdelegates can change their mind at any time and do not vote until the end of next month.

As unlikely as it may be that Sanders could convince the majority of superdelegates to switch support, and the questions such a thing would raise for longtime critics of the superdelegate system, how it is designed to overrule the will of ordinary voters, declaring something like “Clinton Clinches Democratic Presidential Nomination” (CNN) is a bit premature.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.