I think you're confusing defeat with victory.

Hillary will still have blown a big lead in a state she once represented.

it is a tough, close primary. Totally irrelevant to the general election. Lets not forget that Obama was losing states as late as May in 2008 and his lead was never as large as Hillary's is this year. Obama was not a weak candidate going into the GE. Neither will be Hillary.

if she only limps past the finish line in NY, shen she was their Senator, after losing 8 of last contests... Well then Hills momentum is not trending upward. A squeaker of a win where she was projected to crush Bernie would be a defeat for her.

What, he's not sticking around for his "victory" speech?

I think the only exception was Vermont. We were checking returns in San Diego. Trust me, we did not vote that day, or I blew it

Phew, June has not come and gone!!!

he is still the loser. Unless you really think the nomination should not go to the person with the most votes and most pledged delegates.

And if he had lost a double digit lead, after losing 8 staight contests then I would be worried about him, but he hasn't. That particular loser would be Hills.

his lead over Hillary was never as large as Hillary's is over Bernie. Yet he was not a weak candidate going into the GE and neither will Hillary. Bernie is losing big. It is ludicrous to believe that makes him the better candidate.

Tonight's results will be fun.

Of course the other side of that coin is Bernie couldn't get enough people to feel the bern and will still be losing popular vote, pledged delegates and superdelegates. Other than that, awesome for Bernie. LOL.

What does that make him?

Sanders victories in insignificant delegate count states...in the end...math wins

If Hillary can't win NY in a blow out it is not a good sign for the GE. She's supposed to be the most lovable NY Senator evah.

I would love it if we had even an average sort of female candidate up. Say a woman who has only been a one term senator who has a lot of the same ideas as Bernie. Or even woman who's been in the Senate or a Congress person for decades. I really don't care about the long list of checked boxes. What I care about is that we don't have someone who has so many obvious conflicts of interests and is constantly creating scandals. So, I would vote for this fictional woman who hasn't accomplished much but has a much cleaner record.

the 2 presidencies after.

Even on the republican side, they threw their status quo candidates out a while ago.

It was Hillary's to lose, and she's doing a damn fine job of it.

And much as her supporters would disagree, although she might currently be ahead, she's not winning.

(Bernie's not winning, either, but neither is he losing.)

I think Hillary would have lost by now in a landslide even against another woman running even if she appeared to not be as strong a candidate on just that single issue. My point is that people really would love to have a woman president. Hillary would be a good candidate in theory, but she is all in for the establishment and that is not the path forward.

They've seen their standard of living slide more than any other group in the last 35 years, and they're PISSSSSSSSED.

All she has to do is get more votes than her opponent.

pledged delegate lead. I'm betting she can live with that, don't you think.

A win is a win. A loss is, well, not such a good thing at this point in the primary race.

But, you can rationalize it as you choose, I guess.

it keeps her delegate count up and she is headed for the White House...the most important goal in sight

This is gonna be one long field goal!!

Second place gets this set of steak knives. Third place, you're fired.

Or words to that effect.

Don't worry. If you think really hard, you'll understand at some point.

B) There has been no reasonable route to victory for Sanders since Nevada. After Nevada, only very narrow and unlikely paths remained. Every primary since then has further narrowed his path, making an unlikelihood veer closer and closer to impossibility. If Sanders doesn't make up a very large part of his 200 delegate shortfall tonight, he has no chance of making it up. There is no place for the votes to come from. I have no doubt that you are certain he does have a path, but you are simply wrong.

Anything over a tie for Hillary means she has won the primary.

Would Sanders consider winning the primary a good outcome? I am guessing he would. But, what, Hillary needs to somehow do more than that?

Also, Nevada was literally the third state to vote, and I have no idea where your statement is coming from.

Iowa was a tie, Bernie kicked ass in NH, and Hillary squeaked out a 5-point win in Nevada.

This one is no different.

Despite getting a pass on a number of irresponsible positions and statements.