Bernie Sanders' victory over Hillary Clinton in West Virginia was impressive not just for the lack of effort it required — he spent less than 20 cents for each vote — but also for voters' eagerness to give it to him at this late stage of the Democratic presidential primary.

Isn't it supposed to be over?

Yet Sanders has now defeated Clinton twice in two weeks, and no one will be greatly surprised if he beats her again in Oregon next Tuesday.

It is nearly impossible for Sanders to catch up with Clinton, even if he were to win all of the remaining contests. But he's campaigning as though he doesn't know it or, more importantly, as though it isn't really true. When Sanders makes his pitch to the party's superdelegates in the contested convention he promises, he will be able to say, "Come on, who do you really think has the better chance to beat Donald Trump in the general election?"

Campaign number crunchers and psephologists, the political accountants by whom Clinton is surrounded, say it is she. But what a hapless, lifeless candidate, incapable of exciting anyone. On the other hand, as Sanders can boast without being controverted, here's a grizzled old socialist who inspires excitement and high turnout. In polls, he beats Donald Trump by bigger margins than she does.

Clinton, the second most unpopular major-party nominee in history, relies heavily on Trump being even more unpopular. Even so, he also sparks excitement, and Democrats would feel more comfortable if there were some of that on their side, too.

Clinton is also precisely the sort of candidate who could blow an easy win. She has no skill at retail politics, and it isn't just a technical problem. As hard as she tries, she cannot fake the sincerity she so obviously lacks. This, and not just a lack of rhetorical skill, is why she shouts her way monotonously through her lackluster speeches. Anything more subtle would be even more unconvincing.

Clinton's abysmal personal corruption is a problem that hasn't been plumbed in the primaries. Yes, her emails have been brought up from time to time (although not by Sanders). But the fact that she put herself above laws on government transparency and secrecy, apparently to shield herself from the scrutiny of voters and the president, is only one issue among many. Hardly anything has been said about the effortless six-figure payouts that she and her husband have gobbled up from people who had something to gain from her service in government.

If Trump is alarming because he admires Vladimir Putin, what are we to think of candidate Clinton, whose bank account is home to money from Kremlin-linked institutions? If Trump's finances are shady, what of the candidate whose wealthy donors steered American uranium rights to Russian firms while she served on the panel that approved their activities?

There are countless valid reasons why Clinton is having such a hard time putting away an aging 1960s radical. Sanders has beaten Clinton not just occasionally but again and again, and forced her to embrace positions she previously opposed. Early on, she came out against the free trade agreement that she had helped write as secretary of state. Now she has come out in favor of a government-option healthcare plan. This may seem tactically astute, but it also underscores her lack of conviction and her weakness as she pursues power. She'll do anything to get to the Oval Office, and she is doing just about everything.

The relatively low turnout in this year's Democratic primaries may not mean anything for the fall election. But it does demonstrate that even the party's die-hards wouldn't crawl over broken glass to support the establishment candidate. Who can blame them?