Logic is not a strong suit among the Sanders set.

And after she served 4 years in the very public position of Sec. of State?

And after Bernie won 86% of the vote in his home state?

Hillary did not do well. It wasn't terrible, but she should have had a bump and did not. This is especially true since it was a closed primary in a state that did not allow re-registration to change party affiliation after a date in October.

This is not a good sign for Hillary.

I'll bet her campaign is thinking about the facts in the OP.

it. She should have increased her percentage and her vote totals.

Bernie will never sniff the Presidency. Go back to Vermont Bernie.

She has money, spousal fame, political clout and a hit list.

Bernie has himself and his message.

He's doing great.

You gotta be good at what you do.

But, you stay with that narrative.

Sanders campaigned here for almost two straight weeks. Had a debate here.

And still got his ass kicked so hard he had to fly to Vermont to curl up in a fetal position.

That's why Bernie figured he would have to spend more.

But Bernie did better in New York than Obama did in 2008. And Obama was a super-popular candidate.

Feel the Bern!

The numbers speak for themselves.

Bernie did better than Obama did in New York.

Voters do not really like Hillary. Hillary gets lots of free positive reports in the media while Bernie's media coverage is at best lukewarm.

Don't underestimate Bernie. He is the strong candidate here -- especially when he gets the name recognition.

I understand that Hillary supporters don't want to face what these numbers really mean, but . . . . Bernie is much stronger and Hillary much weaker as candidates that Hillary's fans want to admit.

Feel the Bern!

That's a brutal beat down, and it ended any illusion of hope of Sanders winning.

Lame spin won't change that.

I don't understand all the hyperbole. NY is such a prize at this stage that of course Sanders had to spend big or not at all. It wasn't enough to knock off the more recent resident of the state, who has always been favored to win. No amount of new money was going to outdo the old money behind Clinton, or the name-recognition she's had for decades, and the same may turn out to be true for the entire primary.

Time has been on Sanders' side, and he has made steady inroads on default Clinton support, but maybe there just wasn't time for voters to get to know him like they do his opponent.

And he was never Senator for New York.

Hillary was busy paying people to post here.

Film not at 11.

I'm not making anything up.

Hillary won but by fewer votes than she received in 2008. And after four years as secretary of state.

That's not a good sign.

Seriously, as someone pointed out that's statistical noise.

It's noise going in the wrong direction. It's the train driving away from the station, not toward it.

In essence, the 'analysis' is she did crappy because she won, he was brilliant because he lost. I don't think he can afford much more brilliance...

That is a bad sign.

Bernie started out with nothing, hasn't campaigned but for maybe an eighth at most of the time that Hillary has campaigned. Bernie was just a senator that most people never heard of, but he got more votes than Obama in New York in a contest with Hillary.

That does not say anything good about Hillary's chances nationally as a candidate.

Got a feeling her vote total is going to increase big time on Tuesday.

if it takes having her "win" the nom, and losing the gen -- they will.

But, I am not sure they are smart enough to understand.

They will "blame" voter ID laws and the like and will be only partially correct.

What they will fail to understand is that the 1-2% of votes they lost to voter suppression and voter ID laws, etc. wouldn't have meant ANYTHING if we had massive voter turnout with strong Independent appeal for our candidate.

to have a strong case during/after the general.

I know I would never vote for her and HOPES she loses, because I can't think of a worse president.

And if you can't think of anyone worse, you need to broaden your sources of political information.

the believers think that the facts will just go away with some bullying and horse laughs.

they won't...and she can't win the general.

Bernie did better than Obama did in 2008, and he won the general election.

Hillary's numbers went DOWN. They should have gone up. They did not.

We're talking a drop-in-a-bucket 15k. If that's the argument that you want to hang your hat on, by all means...

What does this accomplish, though? Who does it sway to your side?

state, has actually not gained much ground if any even after four years as Secretary of State.

That is a very bad sign.

It is a question of momentum and enthusiasm. And Hillary does not attract that. Not even in her home state.

Her campaign is very negative. Her ideas are humdrum. She is not that strong a candidate.

Her supporters need to understand that she should have done really, really well in New York, the state she represented in Congress. She did not.

Bernie won 86% of the vote in his home state of Vermont.

Contrast. It's startling.

California is very diverse, but New York is probably more diverse even upstate than many parts of America.

Not sure how they got that.

I'm sorry that your preferred candidate is losing, but this is just sad.

Hillary was Secretary of State for four years between 2008 and 2012.

These numbers are not good for her. Not terrible, in that you are right.

But they are not good for Hillary.

She is not gaining momentum over 2008.

And Bernie was preferred to Hillary in better numbers and percentages than Obama was.

That is also reason for concern in the Hillary camp.

Hillary should have done much, much better than she did.

Bernie is still the one gaining momentum.

I haven't seen a side to side comparison over the two seasons, state by state, but this is pretty big news!

Her position as Secretary of State should have given her at least a little boost. But as we see, there is no real lift-off. Not at all.

You're deluding yourself if you think differently.

Obama actually won more delegates in Texas than Hillary. Hillary also flipped the South and will win Maryland this time.

Obama won because his coalition was diverse. Sanders will lose because his coalition is very narrow.

Sid

Voter suppression effects everyone.

I don't know if this is real or just some weird artifact on the NY Times site, but those numbers could approach parity if they come in at the rates they were reporting at.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york , click on "Show Estimated Remaining Votes" below the map.

2008 - 56.5%
2016 - 58.0%

There were fewer voters in 2016. 67,773 fewer voters.

Hillary will win New York in the general election even if Trump is their nominee. Considering that Obama won New York by 2 million votes over the Republican nominee in 2008 and 2012 it shouldn't be a problem.

Bernie did better than Obama, she got her same base from before (they said they made their minds up months ago), independents were locked out. Voter turn out was repressed which is the one thing that has determined his win more than anything else.

and get on with the important job of electing the only candidate worth electing in 2016.