Go to HuffPost Pollster right this second. Then click on Real Clear Politics.

You too, Nate Cohn of The New York Times, who wrote a piece on July 8, 2015 titled "Why Bernie Sanders’s Momentum Is Not Built to Last."

While we’re at it, Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight wrote a piece on August 11, 2015 titled "The Bernie Sanders Surge Appears To Be Over."

Harry and Nate need to click on HuffPost Pollster and Real Clear Politics.

According to HuffPost Pollster, Bernie Sanders is less than 3 points away from Clinton, nationally.

According to Real Clear Politics, Bernie Sanders is only 1.2 points behind Clinton, nationally. Harry, Nate, and the entire American political establishment should also ask why Bernie Sanders has virtually tied Clinton in national polls, despite being given little chance to even compete with Clinton at this point.

The smart cookies, and the authorities on polling data also won’t explain why Bernie Sanders beats both Trump and Cruz by wider margins than Hillary Clinton. Any thoughts on why Bernie Sanders beats Cruz by 11.3 points, while Clinton only beats him by 3.4 points?

Is there any explanation why Bernie Sanders beats Donald Trump by 16.3 points, while Clinton beats him by 9.9 points? I thought Hillary Clinton was the “pragmatic” choice. Nate and Harry, why is all this happening?

Furthermore, Bernie Sanders is ahead of Clinton in three national polls: Bernie Sanders is ahead of Clinton nationally in the PRRI /The Atlantic poll, 47 percent to 46 percent. Bernie Sanders beats Clinton nationally in the McClatchy-Marist poll, 49-47 percent. Bernie Sanders is also ahead of Clinton in the Ipsos/Reuters national poll, 49-28 percent.

Did anyone imagine Bernie Sanders ahead of Hillary Clinton in three major national polls, and almost tied in others, by mid-April of 2016?

I explained last year that polling trajectory would lead to Bernie Sanders surpassing Clinton in national polls.

Bernie Sanders was once down by over 50 points, and is now almost tied with Hillary Clinton in national Democratic Primary polls. Most importantly, Sanders is consistently raising more money than Clinton, as explained in a Washington Post piece titled "Bernie Sanders outraises Hillary Clinton for third consecutive month."

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month... Sanders has made a point to raise a vast majority of his money from small-dollar contributors who donate online — an average of $27 each, according to the campaign.

No static noise machines, just $27 from the average American voter. Nobody ever imagined that Clinton would raise $15 million less than Bernie Sanders in March.

While Sanders has started a political revolution that threatens the establishment, many can’t fathom ideals replacing a warped view of pragmatism. It’s the Daily Beasts and Banters of the world who simply don’t care that Hillary Clinton’s 3 a. m. ad against Obama contained a “racist sub-message,” as stated by Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson.

Many Democrats haven’t read Professor Patterson’s New York Times op-ed titled "The Red Phone in Black and White," where he writes “The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.”

Lord knows if it were a Republican who used this 3 a. m. ad, then echoes of Willie Horton and current racism would be on their front pages. Ultimately, most progressive pundits have made a career out of mocking Republicans, as opposed to truly championing ideals. A disparaging meme of Sarah Palin, combined with vapid accusations that Sanders supporters are sexist, is an irony lost upon the Hillary crowd.

I address why Hillary Clinton is able to get away with controversy, and even racism, in my CNN New Day appearance with Victor Blackwell.

Also, everything is morally relative to Clinton supporters. If Bill and Hillary Clinton receive $153 million from Wall Street since 2001, then it’s viewed as money to battle Republicans. If Clinton voted for Iraq, or was Secretary of State during Obama’s worst mistake of his presidency, then attention shifts to future Supreme Court nominees.

Hillary Clinton once called black youth “super predators,” acknowledged and even apologized for the statement, yet most progressive pundits don’t care at all.

Yes, Hillary Clinton once made this statement, as Michelle Alexander explains in The Nation:

In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

In the epitome of poetic justice, the FBI might be making the same statement about Hillary Clinton and her top aides in several weeks.

In addition, Clinton’s acceptance of prison lobbyist donations is simply irrelevant to certain Democrats, since accepting money from two major prison lobbyists is condoned if Hillary Clinton is the recipient. As Lee Fang writes in The Intercept, "Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton":

As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton. Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future.

The same dynamic works for oil and gas corporations, Wall Street and even foreign donors.

The Daily Clinton Inevitability Press also doesn’t care that in 2008, Clinton’s staff spread this photo of Barack Obama. In response, David Plouffe stated it was “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.” Again, any mention of this reality, and it’s viewed as hate, not critical thinking. From prison lobbyists, to racist television ads and “super-predator” comments, don’t expect Clinton supporters to care.

No, these people are the pragmatists and realists, who’d vote for Clinton even after FBI indictments.

Why anyone would vote for a candidate investigated by the FBI in the first place is another story, but remember that all of Clinton’s scandals are either a GOP conspiracy, or morally relative because Republicans are evil. Get ready folks, because when criminal indictments hit the Clinton team, many liberal pundits will say Clinton is still qualified, even with FBI and DOJ indictments.

No doubt, they’d vote for Hillary Clinton if she flew to the Kremlin and handed the 22 Top Secret emails personally to Putin. The fact that hackers in foreign nations already tried to hack into her emails, and that the FBI has spent one year investigating Clinton, is simply irrelevant.

Finally, for all the pragmatists in the Democratic establishment, please explain how an FBI investigation makes Hillary Clinton qualified to run our nation. You couldn’t get a job at McDonalds, or a job anywhere in the country, telling your employer that you have an upcoming interview with the FBI.

As The Los Angeles Times reported several weeks ago, “Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.”

Does this sound presidential to you?

You also couldn’t get a job anywhere that required a security clearance, with a prior FBI investigation targeting you and your associates.

This is a fact.