I follow the actual polls, not the most optimistic imaginings of where a candidate might be.

Why don't you link to a poll that has Sanders ahead in SC or Florida? Seriously, you're implying I am mistaken, so present your facts.

> They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination.

Currently those are the delegate counts. And furthermore it is a clear endorsement by the democratic establishment.

You are stating the delegate count as if it is in stone, when in fact it doesn't work the way you imply, as others have pointed out.

Yes they are. You mean to say that polls aren't conclusions within themselves.

Polls are a piece of data, a fact.

So the GP's point about the nature of polling itself isn't pedantic but my retort on the same topic is?

You'll have to explain that to me. Neither post is very productive discourse, but you think one of the two is "perfectly correct" so call out the other..?

Sorry but that's some mind boggling mental gymnastics you had to go through to write this reply.

In my book, only one of those things is pedantry.

I'm not entirely sure how that's either mental gymnastics or a double standard, but I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything, so I'm prepared to be mistaken.