Krugman's latest column "Democratic Groundhog Day"

[Moose_Jaw]

"But here’s the thing: a lot of Sanders supporters don’t understand this reality — 29 percent still believe that he’s the likely nominee, and another 11 percent aren’t sure. If news reports say that he “won” tonight, they’ll persist in their illusions — and the narrative that Clinton is somehow stealing the nomination will continue to fester."

Yep. It's always that 30% or so, isn't it? That percentage always pops up with the most strident deniers of reality. Remember W. Bush's approvals? At their lowest, that 30% held on. There's got to be a Ph.D for why it's always 30% or so.

Anyway, here it is:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/democratic-groundhog-day/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0

[BootinUp]

1. Krugman is not always right, just 99.9% of the time. nt

[SharonClark]

5. That sounds about right.

[SunSeeker]

2. K & R

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Thank you Mr. Krugman. You've proven a Math conspiracy against Sanders. Clinton has bribed...

all the numbers.

[Cha]

4. Oh dear.. we're getting into birther territory.. with the % of those who don't believe

President Obama was born in the USA.

This is what we hear from BS..

Mark Murray ?@mmurraypolitics 8m8 minutes ago
Per @DannyEFreeman, Sanders held press avail while in Puerto Rico. When asked about NV tension/chaos, Sanders walked away during middle of Q

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=135504

[Koinos]

6. Standard response to inconvenient questions: Walk away.

Gives a whole new meaning to "transparent." It means "opaque."

[BootinUp]

7. Also a unifier, don't forget that. lol.

[Cha]

8. That's the Orwellian candidate.. up is down, transparent is opaque... " a future to believe in"?

Are you freaking kidding me?