Mrs. Clinton raced around Kentucky in the two days before the primary, hoping to fend off Mr. Sanders in a state that she won easily in 2008. In unofficial results late Tuesday night, Mrs. Clinton edged Mr. Sanders by about 1,900 votes, or less than half a percentage point, with all counties reporting. The Associated Press had not declared a winner by midnight.What is the "symbolic triumph" of winning by virtually nothing?
The close result meant that she and Mr. Sanders would effectively split the state’s delegates. Nonetheless, winning Kentucky would give her a symbolic triumph that could blunt the effect of her loss in Oregon as she turns her attention to Donald J. Trump, her likely general election opponent.
The top-rated comment, with 500+ votes, comes from Australia:
It has been about 1 year since Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy and only about 6 months since the first Democratic debate where people could see and hear what Bernie Sanders was all about. Prior to that, most of America had never heard of him.Also with 500+ votes, from Portland:
Apart from that very few of his policies have been presented in a positive way by the mainstream media and he has had to do his best to get noticed against Hillary Clinton's massive awareness level among Americans, huge infrastructure (including the DNC itself) and previous experience as a Presidential Candidate.
Despite ALL THIS and so much more, Bernie has won over 20 States so far and less than 300 pledged Delegates behind Clinton with over 900 to go.
Mrs. Clinton is a very weak candidate. VERY WEAK.
Any way you look at it, Sanders has come from NOTHING to become the most successful outside candidate in History.
Whilst it says so much about and for those behind Sanders, it says very little about Clinton and the level of support she should have got but has not.
She will probably win the Candidacy but frankly, her result is by no means anything to be proud off and to even get where she has, involved her following Sanders lead on Policy and NOT here own.
That also is very telling and shows just how weak Clinton has been in this competition.
The facts speak for themselves.
The queen of the Democratic Party should not be bragging about a 0.5% "victory" over a democratic socialist in conservative Kentucky. The NYT should not be claiming this somehow blunts Sanders momentum. The fact is that she should have been able to pull out the voters to support her in the way she did in 2008. Here is more evidence of the weakness of Hillary Clinton. I fear Trump will clean her clock in November.And closing in on 500 votes, from Brooklyn:
Most of the Times' columnists could have retired if they got a nickel every time they reflexively mentioned Clinton's "insurmountable lead." They must be muttering it in their sleep by now.Yes. It's only "insurmountable" with the inclusion of the superdelegates, who can switch sides, as they did — against Hillary — back in 2008.
Management at the NYT must see that its readers are not happy with its pro-Hillary efforts. It's not helping Hillary and it's hurting the newspaper.
ADDED: The original meaning of the word "triumph" — according to the OED — is "The entrance of a victorious commander with his army and spoils in solemn procession into Rome, permission for which was granted by the senate in honour of an important achievement in war. "