CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 15, 2016 05:50 PM UTC
83 Comments
Yuuuge wins by Hillary Clinton in Fla and North Carolina, plus she is leading in Ohio where exit polls showed Bernie with just 51 percent of the white vote while she, as usual, crushes him with African Americans exit polls show Bernie with 2 pt leads in Missouri and Illinois. Even if they hold, she wins both bragging rights and adds at least 100 delegates to her lead. A very good night for the pantsuit mafia.
Ohio now called for HRC. She's ahead in Illinois but at 37% in her lead is shrinking a bit. With Ohio going to Kasich a first ballot romp for Trump would require him to capture 60% of the remaining delegates. Maybe now the media will start paying a little attention to Kasich who was pretty much completely ignored while Trump was getting about a billion in free exposure.
Saw Kasich's victory speech. The guy is so much more likeable than HRC. Good thing for Dems the possibility of them maneuvering the nomination to him is pretty much nil. He'd be the perfect candidate to peel away more moderate to conservative Dems from a candidate nobody likes very much. Besides you, Voyageur.
HRC still ahead in Illinois with 64% in but her lead has shrunk a tad more. Down to four points and they're still not calling it. Seems likely to end in a close HRC victory.
most everyone completely dismisses Trump's chance at becoming president. They shouldn't.
Concurr.
I don't think most of us are dismissing anything in this craziest ever election year. But there are lot's of sound reasons to consider an utimate Trump presidency as less than likely. I wouldn't entirely dismiss it but I certainly wouldn't bet money on it either.
I believe it's more plausible than you think.
you now sound exactly like the GOTP in December, 2015.
I'm glad to see that Ohio was called for Kasich on the Republican side.They say that many Dems switched to vote for him, in order to help stop Trump.
In bizarro news world, Chris Matthews proposed that Hillary ask Kasich to be her veep. Seriously. Somebody please put Matthews out of our misery.
In bizarro news world, Chris Matthews proposed that Hillary ask Kasich to be her veep –
Just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger…..Has Rubio been offered a talking head post at Fox yet?
Matthews has been out to lunch ever since GW for whom he voted (his own admission) because he seemed like a more likable guy than Gore. Big regrets later with 20/20 hindsight. Then came Obama giving him the pre-teen fan girl shivers. This is what passes for political acumen from the Interrupter in Chief over at MSNBC. The man is pathetic.
Did he also suggest that if the offer is made by HRC, Kasich bring his 66 Ohio Republican delegates to the Democratic National Convention? Because that would be really interesting to see happen….
I just avoid msnbc anytime bad breath Mathews is on. Why does the network insist on affirmative action for blowhards?
Hope the two factions of the Democratic Party can find common cause in the coming months. They are going to need the disillusioned as well as the ecstatic to fend off the Republicans and elect the first woman president in the history of the United States. That's a revolution too.
The disillusioned being the Clinton supporters, I assume? They're a pretty cynical bunch.
As a Clinton supporter I have never attacked a Sanders supporter, nor presented a cynical position towards one. I simply do not see how Sen. Sanders could accomplish his goals as President, and I am far more convinced of Sec. Clinton's ability to accomplish hers.
I would certainly hope Hillary embraces Bernie supporters and their very definite policy choices rather than doing the DC Conventional thing of moving to the "center" – which is where the NeoLiberal/NeoCon/Corporatist/TPPFreeTrade agenda lives.
Obama did it and the R's screwed him and us.
Everyone, and I mean every frickin' Op-Ed writer of every stripe, all the cynical and destructive R's who spent the last 8 years throttling our national government, and far too many Dems will urge the same of Hillary after she beats whichever whacko the R's run.
Mike Bennet will be oh-so-serious in urging Hillary to work with his Republican Friends in the senate. Bennet will be thrilled to live his Blue Dog dream unhindered: being socially liberal, economically conservative, thoroughly aligned with corporate interests over those of his constituents, and never getting any flack from the rubes in Colorado.
Clinton, Bennet, Udall are DLC'ers in a post DLC world with a base that rejects the philosophy:
It's a political formula that will work. Sadly, I don't think most Dems have the guts to force American corporations to become good corporate citizens again.
Wake up. HRC isn't the one who will have to do the embracing.
Zapp: it appears that you're back on the anti-Bennett and pro-Tim Neville bandwagon again.
As recently as 50 years ago Mr. Zappatero, it was considered impossible for an African American to become president but it came to pass. Perhaps in the years to come the unthinkable will happen with corporations and they will emerge from their infantile state into mature and responsible citizens. They are considered people at this point.
While I respect your dismissal of this presidents accomplishments, I find it plausible that he has played the long game and accepted less during his presidency to allow the Republicans to self-destruct so that his successors will continue the process of progressive change. Be of good cheer sir and carry forward the torch of equality that your septuagenarian candidate has tossed to you.
Obama made history just by searing in — as his Nobel Prize noted. Plus, after a century of presidents beginning with Teddy Roosevelt tried, he won a start toward a national health care system (with enormous help from the great Nancy Pelosi.) He may not rank with the greats, but he will rank with, say, Truman. Now, if he would only issue an executive order banning the designated hitter rule, he would leave office to the huzzahs of a grateful nation
In such a close contest with so much emotions involved it is inevitable that the supporters for the candidate who doesn't get the nomination will be let down and disappointed. On the other side, the supporters for the winning candidate will be excited that their candidate will get to move forward and face off with one of the all time creeps in American politics. Time will tell if the Democratic candidates are capable of bridging their differences and uniting their supporters. If this schism can not be mended than only the Rude One will have benefited from this Democratic primary. At this point, it looks like both candidates are stronger and capable of facing whatever the Republicans throw at them.
Don't worry. We united for Obama and whether it's Trump or Cruz, the motivation to vote against will be high as evidenced by all the Dems crossing over to vote against Trump and for Kasich in Ohio and Illinois. Kasich would be formidable but if they handed it to him somehow that would almost surely lead to some kind of third party rebellion what with him not being anywhere near crazy (though deeply conservative) enough for a third of the R electorate.
We united when the opponent was McCain. We'll certainly do it in the face of the likes of Trump or Cruz.
How about this: just let the fricking returns come in and the votes get counted. I think that Bernie will take Illinois, and of course, it won't be enough to make much of a dent in the delegate imbalance.
Keep in mind that California and New York , with their 837 delegates, are still to vote – and Nancy Pelosi was surprisingly ambivalent on the whole superdelegate thing.
If it comes down to it, Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary – just don't expect us to be happy about it. Hell, you all aren't even happy about it, for the most part.
It ain't over until it's over.
No it's not but you can't complain while being combative about attracting a little snark. Comes with the territoty.
I gotta revert back to the ol' -I'd be surprised if Bernie won- in New York. That's Clinton turf through and through. California should be an interesting match-up. I think Hillary takes it, but it'd be narrow as hell. We'll get a lot of insight how that one will play out when we see Arizona next week.
Counting today, which states has HRC won this year that she did not win in 08?
(you can count TX)
the sequence and delegate math is a little different this time. She is ahead today. But it ain't over until CA.
Not sure where you're going with the 08 comparison. She's won the black belt in its entirety, and could win IL as well. She lost NH, Oklahoma, and Michigan.
In California, Obama essentially won the coastal counties and most of the north, Hillary won the rest. The dynamics are different this time around. Bernie should win the bay and the central coast, Hillary should win San Joaquin, LA, the Inland Empire and San Diego. Its tough to tell who wins the state, since the state splits 50-50 at Bakersfield.
California is a majority minority state . Bernie sucks with Latinos and African Americans. The 08 comparison is invalid because obviously, Obama ran well with blacks. Bernie's only reliable demographic is white men. They don't run California any more and Hillary will win big time. It will be Fla. All over again except with sourdough bread on the side. Plus Bernie's radical anti trade rants will scare Silicon Valley into HRC's arms.
She's won Illinois and Missouri. Barely. Just not official yet.
Leading in Misouri by 1500 votes, so it looks like Hillary went 5 for 5. Probably just a 1 delegate pickup, but a remarkably strong finish after a week when the pundits shouted themselves hoarse that Mernie's narrow win in Michigan made him a juggernaut..
And she won Ohio very decisively. Tuesday put to rest the narrrative that she's somehow just a southern regional candidate and that's a narrative that has an unfortunate subtext coming from the Sanders campaign. Too much like saying she can only win in states where African Americans are a large part of the Dem electorate. Kind of like when Bill mocked Obama's victory in S. Carolina by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's win there years before, meaning of course… he's no more a "real" contender than Jesse Jackson. Of course the black guy won in S. Carolina.
Then as now many found that kind of race based dismissal offensive. The truth is, it isn't Clinton who's the "regional" (make that black preferred) candidate. It's Sanders who is too much the candidate of white liberals for a party so dependent on important minority demos who are pretty sick of being taken for granted by…. you guessed it…. white liberals.
Sanders can ask for a recount in Missouri since it meets the minimum margin requirement but hasn't yet. It's not automatic. Must be requested. It would do him a very limited amount of good. The delegate difference would be next to nothing, if not nothing, and it wouldn't have much value for bragging rights or momentum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/16/clinton-ahead-in-missouri-but-race-in-limbo-pending-decision-on-a-recount/
"the disillusioned being the Clinton supporters……." Why should they be disillusioned? They're winning.
snark my good man. It is kind of like the mouse flipping the bird at the owl. Liberals enjoy getting to the point by going the other way.
"Disillusioned": Definition: disappointed in someone or something that one discovers to be less good than one had believed.
Clinton supporters shrug off the news that Hillary may be dishonest, corrupted by Wall Street donations, less effective as a Senator than Sanders, etc. She did have some accomplishments – not really enough to bolster her claim that she "gets things done". To be fair, there is also plenty of reporting that she is well liked by her constituents and peers. The drumbeat meme, on this blog as elsewhere, is that only she is "electable".
I do think that Clinton was an effective Secretary of State; if foreign policy tops domestic policy in voters' minds, that would be a good reason to vote for her. But to do that, one has to throw out any hope of a public option, Medicare for All health plan, an end to drowning students in debt forever, or any meaningful curbs on Wall Street abuses.
Dem supporters of Hillary know all of this, and they don't care; they like to think that they are no longer under the illusion that a candidate can really represent the people and our best hopes for the future. They have settled for what they think is achievable, and have already given up on what they really want. Hence, "disillusioned".
'illusion' or delusion?
People often get those two mixed up. Sorta like its and it's. Or FU and the other thing. Or nuclear and nucyoulur.
Either way, it hurts.
Bitter and hateful spewing like this doesn't win support for Bernie.. But it isn't intended to, is it? Try defining "sore loser."
I notice you didn't challenge any of the facts I presented – but then, Clinton's mediocre Senatorial record is what it is. So instead, you resort to name-calling: bitter, hateful, sore loser. That dynamic, too, I've noticed among supporters of your candidate – don't respond with facts, just resort to personal attacks.
As far as my own attitude, "sad and resigned" describes it much more than your adjectives. I'm sad for Clinton supporters that they gave up their ideals so easily and settled for so little; I'm resigned to the fact that I'll probably have to vote for her in the general, but don't see it as any kind of a victory, nor a "revolution", as Dio called it in his original post that started off this particular comment thread.
Clinton's said herself that she intends to carry on Obama's cautious, incremental policies. So, no public option for health, no meaningful restrictions on Wall Street speculation, companies are free to shelter their taxes and offshore their jobs to their stockholder's content, and we'll continue stoking the resentments of ISIS with drone strikes, preferential treatment of Israel vs Palestine, and continuing to hold Guantanemo prisoners. The fact that the person at the head of the government implementing these policies will be of my same gender is noteworthy, and speaks to progress in American equality, but is hardly "revolutionary".
I didn't challenge your "facts" because you have none. Let's see. Pernie is perfect in every way. Hillary is evil personified. Hillary' s backers are fools and opportunists who will burn in hell for denying the divinity of Bernie. Bernie's purity is proven because he has never passed a major piece of legislation. But after all, a loser like me can't be expected to understand the greatness of Bernie. Have I left any " facts" out, Ms Gall and Wormwood?
Thanks, Voyager, for making my point for me. No facts, no response to facts on Hillary's mediocre Senate record, and limited effectiveness in "getting things done" explaining something of the lack of enthusiasm for her.
Since you have no response to factual information, you will undoubtedly resort to more name calling. How low will you go?
I am willing to go to .5 on the MJ scale but that would be very low indeed, You and Donald Trump share the belief that your bloviations are "fact" merely because they were blown out of your sacred butts and there is no point debating with such a narcissist. Have a nice hate and learn the difference between fact and opinion before making a fool of yourself again.
I share nothing with Donald Trump except humanity.
So you dispute the Senate voting record? Do you have differing "facts"?
You may have noticed that not a single polster has come to your defense. What does that tell you?
V, this thread is days old, and you're being an asshole. So there.
If it's over, you have to campaign the general now- this isn't that. Shhhh.
You know what mama? You're complaining about mean HRC supporters putting your guy down has now officially reached the tippy top of the height of hypocrisy. That is all.
That would be "your". What's with me and extraneous apostrophes lately?
"less effective as a senator……" I did a quick skim of that link. I don't think it says what mamajama really wants it to say. Sanders' record is mixed; like any other politician. For me, I continue to note that the US Postal Service Board of Governors is operating with just one governor, thanks to Senator Sanders putting a hold on all of the President's nominees. Seems to me like Senator Sanders is more interested in toadying to the postal unions than he is for being about the peoples' business.
If you go to the source for that article, i.e., Congress.Gov, which tracks every bill introduced since 1973, and track how many bills Senators Sanders or Clinton sponsored, or cosponsored, which became law, you will find that:
Clinton sponsored 15 bills, 3 of which became law. 2 of these were fluff- "naming" bills which named post offices or other facilities. She sponsored 15 bills which passed one chamber. 1/2 of these were "naming" bills. During her Senate tenure (2002-2009), She co-sponsored 58 bills which became law.
For Sanders, he sponsored 2 bills which became law, 4 bills which passed 1 chamber, but he cosponsored 243 bills which later passed into law. A somewhat better record of bipartisanship and effectiveness. Look it up for yourself.
On the "Post Office" bill, we've tangled on that before – IIRC, Sanders went with the union point of view,which was that he didn't want to confirm a Postal director who wanted to get rid of all due process protections, nor to privatize the US Post Office.
No, you really don't want to condescend to me, nor to challenge me to a fact-off. I am sometimes in error, and admit it, but I do investigate sources and original sources. I also don't back down or back off when I'm right. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on POV), I now need to go do teacher and school stuff, so you all will have a reprieve from me for a while.
This is a politics blog. I am damn well going to write about politics, even if the truth is perhaps not as flattering to your candidate as you may wish. You are also free to tout the glories of Hillary – why DO you support her? What are the strengths you want to promote? I grant you foreign policy – what else?
I will never have any problem with an honest discussion of the different candidate's policies and proposals, nor of their past history, complete with flaws.
Neither should you.
It is way too premature for Hillary supporters to call for a moratorium on criticizing their candidate for specific issues, and way too early to call for a general Kumbayah let's all hold hand-around-the-Democratic-table .
Half the states have yet to vote. Let it play out without trying to shut down debate by yelling "Surrender now deluded Bernites!" , or by doing continuous gloating happy dances. Hillary herself, if you remember, took it all the way to the convention in 2008, even when she started losing states to Obama.
"Why do you support her?" For one, she's my next alternative if Governor Kasich doesn't get the Republican nomination. For me, won't vote for the Trumpster and won't vote for the Ivy Leaguer who falsely claims to be an "outsider." As for 2008, I voted for Senator McCain and even contributed to his campaign; just as I did in 2000. Then McCain got screwed by Karl Rove in South Carolina with the false rumor that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.
Led to the slogan: George W. Bush, the best candidate that money can buy.
"Why do you support her?"
Because she is grounded in reality and she is not delusional. Because politics is the art of the possible and not the ability to promise people stuff that the politician will never be able to deliver. She knows that if she wins, she may get a Democratic Senate – by a narrow margin – but she will still need to deal with a GOP House thanks to the gerrymandered districts.
Do you actually believe that the House Ways and Means Committee under Tea Party control would even conduct hearings on President Sanders' public option for health care or his free college tuition scheme?
If we directed even one tenth of the bile against Bernie that you throw every day at Hillary, you'd have a stroke. That's okay, losers deserve some hurting time.
Facts do not equal "bile". I see Frankly wrote that Hillary is "grounded in reality". What exactly does that mean? Which of her policies do you support that you think are more realistic? Is it all image or is there any substance to her claim that she "gets things done" domestically? I think that she's been a fine Secretary of State – but her record of persuading and working with other Senators on successful legislation is 58 to Sanders' 243.
My wild leftie source here is Congress.Gov. Very easy and user friendly website. Check for yourself.
Sorry, Hillarions, You all are not really rising to my challenge to tell me why you support Hillary. Convince me that her policies and proposals will make my life better as a unionized teacher, retiring in the next decade, with millenial -age younguns whose lives I want to be secure and stable. If you can't convince me, a leftie political geek, how can you convince your neighbor or your colleagues?
Convince me that she will be better for the environment, for working people, for peace and prosperity. As a special challenge to Voyageur, see if you can manage that without calling me names. Ready….set…..go!
That is simply not true, V. I read the same blog you do…
and….
Talk about being delusional , Frank, If you think Hillary can get anything more accomplished with the Republican caucus than Bernie can, you're the one suffering from delusions.
I admire your tenacity.
they don't/won't and maybe can't understand.
Tell me again why it is our responsibility to convince you? God died and left you in charge while we were busy watching hillary trounce your boy in 5 out of 5? I didn't get the memo.
If you could stop frothing at the mouth for a couple of minutes, mama, maybe you'd notice that I never said you shouldn't write about politics or any of the other bull in your tirade.
All I'm saying is that you're just as vicious about HRC as the anti-Bernie folks on this blog are about your boy so you don't have a leg to stand on when you complain about gloating, happy dancing, calling you deluded, being mean or anything else.
If you're expecting anyone to take your hypocritical whining and scolding about people being nasty to you poor Bernie supporters seriously you're going to be disappointed.
I've explained many times why I'm supporting HRC and I'm certainly not a Bernie hater. But, whatever, you can feel free to insult me as an HRC supporter to your heart's content. Honest. Give it your best shot. It won't bother me a bit. My blood pressure won't suffer. I just find the whole whining thing a little tedious.
BC, you know I like you and your acerbic and insightful comments. We disagree often, certainly about Bernie and Hillary, but at least you aren't a jerk about it.
However, I'm at a loss as to how I'm being "vicious" about Hillary when I'm pointing out things that you yourself have said – that you don't find her particularly likeable, that you doubt her honesty, that you are reluctantly campaigning for her because you think she is the only electable Democrat.
If I have said something that insults you, in particular, I'm unaware of it, but I'll apologize for it. That's not my intention.
V has decided I'm his enemy, for some weird reason, but even if it's not yet time for Democratic Kumbayah, you and I are on the same side.
For the rest, I'm a big girl, and I can take the back and forth. I even enjoy it. I like to think I'm doing my bit to bring out strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates.
However, it is tedious and time-consuming, so I'll back off, again, for a few days to let things cool a bit.
Mama. I think your taking a little stepping back time would be a good idea for you since you do seem to be taking this so personally. I think you don't see that you are no less combative in asserting your positions than V is in asserting his.
V and I have had our little flame wars in which I may have let slip that I thought he was being an asshole and he may have accused me of being anti-feminist for not sharing his feelings about HRC and the relation between adoring her and being a legitmate feminist. But we don't accuse each other of being mean or scold each other over lack of kid glove treatment.
Neither of us is shy about offering the occasional, shall we say less than filtered jab. In short we may get a little pissed off but we don't get our feelings hurt.
Your passion for Bernie is admirable and the strong, passionate, feisty way you express it is fine but a combative style of expression does invite equally strong, combative responses. If you'd prefer more toned down discourse, well, it works both ways.
If there are "factions" tHere are not two, more like 6+.
but I agree- whatever happens, the GOTV against the Trump will have to be large, unifying and urgent.
Finally, finally …
… a good night to be JEB¿, stay at home and crack open a brew!
I didn't see a breakdown for JEB! but the Times has 3.3% for "Other" which I'm guessing is JEB! and everyone else who didn't get out in time to have his or her name stricken from the ballot. So the didn't cost Rubio the Florida primary. Rubio lost it all by himself.
http://twitter.com/HBendaas/status/709169276138217473/photo/1
And you created the designated hitter rule!
Recounts possible in Missouri with ultra thin margins in both D and R primaries but Illinois now called for HRC even with the lead weight of Emanuel weighing her down.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/03/missouri_recounts_possible_aft.html
a recount would be meaningless. In a general election, a tiny victory gives you all the electoral votes. Here, a tiny victory gives you just one delegate more than your rival. And nobody claims big mo in a hair's breath victory in Missouri. Let it be. Or recount if you don't mind wasting the money.
Hate to break it to all the Bern supporters, but after yesterday, Bernie is toast. Only question remaining is whether the Bern supporters will sit on their hands and watch the Trumpster getting elected in November.
Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.
No one makes this point louder or better than D. Wasserman-Schultz.
Get over yourself, guys…this isn't over…the only toast I've seen this week is Marco…
All I can say, Duke, is you'd better prepare yourself, pipe smoking lizards not withstanding.
It's over and Hillary won. But Bernie should go on, helping expand the party base. Given a choice of Trump or Cruz, anybody Bernie recruits will stand with the Democratic nominee in November. The PUMA thing stops well short of embracing fascism.
Agree. Bernie is injecting a level of excitement into the Dem campaign for the presidency that would have been totally lacking if HRC had been crowned long ago and he absolutely will support HRC in the face of any R candidate and work to bring his energetic constituency along. He's no petty spiteful Nader. When all is said and done Dems and the country will have a lot to thank Sanders for and the movement he started will go on and continue to be influential.
"he's (Bernie) no petty, spiteful, Nader……" Wouldn't be too sure about that, unless you've spoken personally to Bernie. Time will tell.
And Kasich is still around and kicking.
Use Katich's full name: "Mr. Irrelevant."
Once again, CHB , your concern trolling is touching. And I mean that sincerely. Honest. I'm just so deeply moved I might need a tissue.
Thanks for your concern, CHB but the sitting on hands thing is a Republican "you wish". I remember all the blather about HRC's PUMAs refusing to vote for Obama and that turned out to be much ado about nothing.
I was talking to a buddy yesterday. He said in his beautiful accent that he was so stressed out. I asked what was stressing him out? Trying to study for his immigration test while working two jobs. A true African American (in that he was actually born in Africa). He said, "I must vote against that strange orange man."
Applications for naturalization are way up all over the US. The Trumpster seems to be the main reason for this. Keep building the Democratic party, Drumpf, my little-handed man. You're helping us out.
And on another note, since the Drumpf seems to have a real problem dealing with women, I wonder how he would stand up to Angela Merkel of Germany? I am also wondering if screaming about his penis will impress Hiliary Clinton during the upcoming general election debates?
"I must vote against that strange orange man."
That needs to be all of our mantras.
Probably why we're not hearing that Bernie is asking for one.
I see Frankly wrote that Hillary is "grounded in reality". What exactly does that mean? –
It means that you play the hand of cards that you are dealt. You don't pretend that a pair – or one of kind – is a full house. And you don't try wedging a square peg into a round hole.
The campaign for free stuff doesn't have enough traction. (OTOH, there is probably enough support to build a coalition for making stuff affordable and available.) No Republican will ever support it. A Republican friend of mine characterized Sanders' promises as being akin to stealing people's souls. (I thought that was a bit extreme.)
Most independents are against that because for the most part, they are middle class and will end up paying more in taxes. (I know, Bernie promises that only billionaires will pay more in taxes but we know that's not how it will work out.) An unaffiliated friend of mine insists that making folks pay something for college means that they will value their education. There's a certain logic to that.
And frankly a lot of Democrats are against the free stuff movement. How else can you explain the fact that many of us have been, are and will continue voting a candidate with some baggage over the guy who is promising rainbows and unicorns?
Obama got it right last Friday. It's time to move on.