And leading the way, Politico. which so many in the media insist on portraying as a even-handed arbiter of our political situation, rather than the collection of Republican-friendly hacks they are.
Here is the essence of their pathetic narrative, to be fleshed out as Hillary edges closer to a crushing victory:
"Hillary Clinton’s all-but-insurmountable delegate lead in the Democratic race, and her strong numbers against any probable Republican opponent in the fall, now pose a paradox: She might win the presidency but lose the country."
This is because she doesn't have an "inspiring vision" for the country. Apparently, her vision of a nation led by highly competent, experienced people dedicated to our best interests is nowhere as compelling to the country as Trump's vision of a country full of hate-maddened white people, or Cruz' vision of a theocratic dictatorship. So people will, I suppose soon grow tired of job growth, low inflation, health care for all and diplomacy, and yearn for a few more years of useless wars and welfare for the rich.
The article continues:
"Running to fill the third term that Ronald Reagan was barred from seeking was enough to elect George H.W. Bush in 1988, but not enough to sustain him when his lack of the “vision thing” left him vulnerable to Bill Clinton four years later. Hillary Clinton now faces a similar challenge."
Ha. Of course, Bush was an out of touch rich ass running against a man who would become the best President of modern times, balancing the budget and keeping us out of foreign wars, while Hillary will be running against one of the two worst major party candidates to be President in our nation's history. But that's irrelevant, of course, because even if the Democrats win, they really lost.