Krugman's making sense again

[charlyvi]

“http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/opinion/feel-the-math.html?_r=1

Now, I’m not a political scientist or polling expert, nor do I even try to play one on TV. But I am fairly numerate, and I assiduously follow real experts like The Times’s Nate Cohn. And they’ve taught me some basic rules that I keep seeing violated.

First, at a certain point you have to stop reporting about the race for a party’s nomination as if it’s mainly about narrative and “momentum.” That may be true at an early stage, when candidates are competing for credibility and dollars. Eventually, however, it all becomes a simple, concrete matter of delegate counts.

That’s why Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; she locked it up over a month ago with her big Mid-Atlantic wins, leaving Bernie Sanders no way to overtake her without gigantic, implausible landslides — winning two-thirds of the vote! — in states with large nonwhite populations, which have supported Mrs. Clinton by huge margins throughout the campaign.

And no, saying that the race is effectively over isn’t somehow aiding a nefarious plot to shut it down by prematurely declaring victory. Nate Silver recently summed it up: “Clinton ‘strategy’ is to persuade more ‘people’ to ‘vote’ for her, hence producing ‘majority’ of ‘delegates.’” You may think those people chose the wrong candidate, but choose her they did.

[Gothmog]

1. Prof. Krugman is correct in his analysis

[charlyvi]

2. He usually is.

But too many people ignore him because they don't want to hear it.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. He's being pragmatic, and pragmatism has no place in the realm where the fringies think they live.

Hence the GOP nomination of the Lyin'-Don and BS' "popularity".

[fleabiscuit]

4. And he outed himself as a hack with "...I am fairly numerate..." obviously. Math!

[Lucinda]

5. KNR Thank you!