When Hillary was "inevitable," was she planning to lose NH, CO, MN, OK, VT, NE, KS, ME, MI, UT, ID?

Bill Clinton is rightly beloved in the Deep South as the kid from Hope, Arkansas, who won a Rhode scholarship to Oxford and went on to win the Presidency. Hillary Clinton is rightly beloved in the Deep South as Arkansas' former First Lady who has fought side by side with Bill as his "two for the price of one co-president" and for all she has done since.

Of course Hillary did well in the Deep South. You need not place a phony racial story line on this fact.

Hillary has a Southern accent (when she's speaking in the Deep South) and Sanders has a distinct Brooklyn accent no matter where he speaks. You don't need to fabricate a phony racial construct on this primary to guess which candidate's accent is more welcome in the Deep South.

The Bible Belt is the most Christian-church-going region (and also the region least progressive in accepting GLBT and reproductive rights as a result). Hillary is the least progressive candidate who talks about her Christian faith when campaigning in the Bible Belt. Sanders is a progressive Jewish candidate, but doesn't wear this Jewish identity on his sleeve no matter where he campaigns. A fake racial meme is unnecessary to predicting which candidate will have more appeal in the Bible Belt.

Leaving race aside, Hillary won all 13 states of the Deep South and you don't need race as a mental crutch to understand that.

By the end of the day, however, Hillary will likely have lost over two thirds of of the states outside of the Deep South (she has already lost 11 states, Illinois was a delegate tie, Sanders is favored in 3 more states today, and she won - mostly narrowly - 6 states).

When do we analyze this voting pattern without someone trying to say "it's racist to point out Hillary's not doing well outside the Bible Belt"?

If Hillary underestimated Sanders and underperforms in the contests outside of the Deep South, when do we ask whether she's also underestimating the Republican candidates and why should we expect her not to underperform in a general election if we nominate her?

If Hillary's primary campaign has been weak and her supporters unenthusiastic and her predictions of running the table have been way off the mark, why should we expect these problems to vanish in the general election?

Why Ted Cruz sucks on the issue of net neutrality

Mother Jones: "Hillary Clinton's Trust Gap Is Killing Her With Millennials"

[link:http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clintons-trust-gap-killing-her-millennials|
Hillary Clinton's Trust Gap Is Killing Her With Millennials]

Bernie Sanders didn't win 80 percent of the millennial vote in Michigan just because he's an idealistic liberal. The only way you get to a number like that is against an opponent who's pretty seriously disliked.

But why? The most obvious reason millennials dislike Hillary so strongly is that they think she's too slippery. "I feel like Clinton lies a lot," a college student told PBS a few weeks ago. "She changes her views for every group she speaks to. I can't trust her." Quotes like that litter the internet, and in tonight's debate Karen Tumulty asked about it yet again. "Is there anything in your own actions and the decisions that you yourself have made that would foster this kind of mistrust?"...Unfortunately, Hillary has fostered a lot of this mistrust herself....Tonight, Jorge Ramos brought up allegations by the Benghazi families that Hillary had deceived them, and asked, "Secretary Clinton, did you lie to them?" The only answer to this question is "Of course not." But Hillary started by expressing her sympathy for the Benghazi families and only then said of her accuser, "She's wrong." Maybe this seems like nitpicking, but it's not. Unless the very first words out of her mouth are "Of course not," she's going to leave an immediate impression that she's about to tap dance around the whole thing. I like Hillary, and even I sighed when she began delivering that answer.. ..People my age might forgive Hillary a bit of this lawyerlyness because we remember the 90s and understand the damage that even a slightly misplaced word can cause. But millennials don't. They just see another tired establishment pol who never gives a straight answer about anything.... especially this year, when her competition is a guy like Bernie Sanders, this just makes her look evasive and insincere.

After 40 years in the public eye, I don't know why Hillary is still so bad at this. But she is. For a long time, liberals mostly forgave her wary speaking style because they were keenly aware of the Republican smear campaign that birthed it. Now, for the first time, there's a generation of liberals who don't care about any of that. And an awful lot of them loathe her.

Stop scapegoating African Americans for Hillary's failure to connect with Progressive grassroots

within our party!

Progressive African Americans support Sanders while older, centrist white voters support Hillary so it is NOT a racial divide but an ideological rift!

Sanders is winning states (both Democratic states and states that lean Republican in the general election) where the Democrats in that state are more progressive, more enthusiastic, and younger.

Hillary is winning in states where the Democrats are less progressive. End of story. Stop scapegoating African American Democrats as if they all think, vote, and act as a homogenous collective!

Sanders Wins Nebraska on Top of His Earlier Win in Kansas! MSNBC calls it!

Sanders Wins Kansas!

MSNBC has called it!

Help me win a debate with a Republican co-worker. Do Hillary's emails show she told Chelsea a

different explanation for Bengazhi than what Hillary told the public?

Although I'm a Sanders supporter, I think Bengazhi is 100% Republican-manufactured phony outrage bullshit, but I don't know anything about the emails to Chelsea.