Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

REALLY demonstrates what a terrible candidate she is.

With more unfair advantages than a reasonable person would ask for, HRC is drowning in shallow water. She has also had 8 years to retool her image and her campaign style, yet she has changed nothing. Not for the better, anyway. Her unfitness to be the Democratic nominee is patently obvious, her political baggage weighing down her campaign train to the point of stress fracture.

When all you've got left is calling in chits to buy ugly smears (as "artful" as they may be), it's time to lay down your load. Give this country a break, and go spend more time with your Family.

The oligarchs likely want a weak or weakened POTUS who will continue to need their money and media after the election. On that criteria she does well.

I hope they have plenty of supplies.

And it shows that the contests are not close, she is being rejected across the entirety of each state.

Indeed, the math tells the story. She went from 335 ahead to 215. The national and state polls are tightening. She's damaged goods, even if she can keep her padded lead.

Arithmetic.

or how we got here.

But a formidable front-runner with her resources and lead should not be getting beaten so badly this last in the contest. It says something about her whether you choose to admit it or not.

She beat Obama in a many races towards the end of the primary in 2008, yet people were calling for her to drop out. Why isn't Sander's receiving the same treatment? Obama had a much smaller lead on her, yet it was game over then.

Why don't you just admit it, you dislike her and would go along with any narrative that helps you achieve what you really want.

Yes, of course I dislike her as a candidate. I think she is a horrible candidate and I don't trust her. I think she is a liability in the fall and is burdened with scandals.

A Clinton presidency would be total gridlock and constant investigations.

I strongly disagree with her on trade and foreign policy. I agree with her in social issues.

Obviously I am supporting Bernie. I voted for him in my primary.

She is not held to a different standard, so don't play that poor her thing. People have been calling on Bernie to drop out since SC.

n/t

I agree that she is held to a different standard, to a much lower standard. She didn't drop out last time but has been calling on Bernie to drop out for at least a month now.

They have been bashing and ignoring Bernie since day one. She hasn't. The DNC is the only thing keeping her afloat.

Would anyone be allowed to stay in the race while being investigated by the FBI?

with the entire party apparatus behind her and a fawning lapdog media carrying her water is being held to a different standard.

So that means she only won 2 counties

And 2.5 million more people have voted for Clinton over Sanders.

for about a month now.

How come after his total domination of her the last three weeks....she's still up by 2.5 million. How does that work? Several of his wins have been total blowouts. That number has to have moved a bit.

I know math is hard, but it usually works better than wishes.

Perhaps they will kindly update their total after yesterday's primary...

... or maybe not because it won't help their meme.

Math is hard, I know.

Because there are a whole lot more repubs and independents with the apathetic Left that she will not win the GE.

There is no measurable mathematical correlation between the total popular vote and the total delegate allocation.

You are the math challenged one here, apparently.

I wouldn't call her a damaged candidate...just an old-fashioned one being overtaken, maybe, by a new sort of campaign. But her lead is still formidable.

he surely won more counties. http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

You must have ducked to miss it.

The point is about the trend of the race. The formidable front runner is losing badly in a series of late voting states. These are not squeakers. She is not taking any counties (or hardly any) in these states.

more than he won. He lost counties in Ohio by 79 to 20. He won 18 counties in PA. Counties don't matter.

Hillary did take all the WV counties, but she did not shut him out in a series of six states.

IT's the breadth of her recent losses that is notable.

... and I believe Polk county will be corrected also soon.

And then it will be 2 counties.

Which is the point. She would not be floundering so badly this late in the contest is she is a good candidate. She is not.

Over the past 6 contests, she is floundering. Getting her ass kicked. Landslide losses. Embarrassing numbers for the leader.

still get the nomination, but she is undeniably damaged. She's not going to win the GE if she only gets votes from urban centers, because she will NOT win the deep south.

Hillary needs to broaden her appeal and she simply isn't/won't/can't.

That wasn't my claim and your response is a non sequitur.

Really funny!

... unbelievable.

Only 1 county in Wisconsin.

Thanks to the OP for editing the thread title.

"dirt doesn't vote".

essentially in these six recent states. These contests are not even close. Even you cannot deny this makes her look very bad.

Hillary is up 10-0 after the 1st inning, the runs scores on a few grand slams and several errors by the opposing team.

He gets more hits than Hillary, but also left lots of runners on base (i.e. potential scores that didn't happen).

With all those hits, Bernie gets a single run in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th innings.

Result, Hillary wins 10-9.


In both cases, a metric (counties and hits, respectively) is being touted that is made to look impressive by the plain number of them, but in the end really doesn't count for anything. You play a game of baseball with the goal of scoring more runs than the other side. You enter a a primary with the goal in mind of winning delegates than the other side. There is no other metric that matters.

And with that, we turn to football and a closer by Herm Edwards;

And we aren't in the ninth inning yet.

An announcer calling the game would see three innings in the middle where the leading team was shut down 1-2-3, while the trailing team added runs, cutting the lead by a third. In real time, prior to the end of the game, the leading team would replace the pitcher who looks worn out, run down and who is risking blowing the game.

We have many more inning to play. The last six states were not "close losses" for HIllary, but blowouts. She was pummeled, it was not even close. She does not look like a front runner any more, delegate count notwithstanding.

Let's be blunt here.

The game is already winding down, Sanders just can't come to terms with that yet.

and discount the ones you do not.