No, Matt, she was not slightly edged out of a win in one state, HRC lost a primary in what Nate Silver calls the biggest upset since 1984. That the New York Times calls a shocking.
Stop pussyfooting. I know you love Hillary (and I don't dislike her) but call it the way it is. She was given 99 percent odds to win Michigan. And she lost. That was a big deal.

But overall, I like your commentary here Matt. Can you add more about how the audience is reacting? I salute you for watching this. I'll never watch a Demo. or Repub. candidate debate in a thousand years. and I appreciate you for summarizing it for us.

Well said @1 and @2.

That animated short was painful to watch. It wasn't funny, and considering the inclusion of Jeb!, it wasn't timely either. They did nail the Hillary impression pretty damn well though.

And yes, thank you again, Matt, for going through the pain of watching these things so the rest of us don't have to.

@1 Yeah, only no. Sanders won by 2 percentage points, which is indeed a very small margin. Maybe the people making predictions failed epically, but that doesn't make a 2 point win any bigger.

@5 I guess the New York Times and Nate Silver are wrong. Thank you for the correction.

This "Nate Silver was wrong" or "NYT was wrong" thing is just silly. Nate Silver looks at polls. The polls were wrong, so everyone who bases their expectations on polls was wrong, Nate Silver is just one of them. (So, clearly, was Bernie Sanders himself, who clearly wasn't anticipating needing to make a victory speech.) My wager is that they didn't have a good model of likely turnout, because the last primary there in 2008 was so weird (the delegates didn't count, so it was a meaningless vote, but Clinton was quietly campaigning anyway), and probably didn't give them a baseline to work with.

The NYT and 538 say this is the biggest upset ever recorded in the history of polling. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that they called it incorrectly.
But @7, go to the 538 site, it has a pretty good breakdown of why this was a stunning victory. It is a big deal that Sanders won.
The TL:DR- young people support Sanders, they turned out- and Hillary's base is falling apart. The longer she campaigns, the more voters don't like her.
You are correct about the lack of modeling since 2004 for Michigan:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffa…

Thank you for mentioning the outrageously high deductibles in the Obamacare policies. I have one through Group Death, and it costs me $180 out-of-pocket to have a ten minute conversation with my doctor. It's just like my 'catastrophic coverage' that I had before except the premiums are twice as high, and I make just enough that I don't receive any of the tax benefit. Oh, and I also have pregnancy coverage, which as a gay man I'm just thrilled about. It's just one more ripoff in an entire eCONomy of ripoffs. SINGLE PAYER NOW!

Matt and @9 - outrageously high deductibles or outrageously high premiums? Take your pick. I have a no deductible policy through my employer, but I pay over $600 per month in premiums and my employer kicks in another $1700 per month. And I still pay $30 for every doctor visit, $50 for any specialist office visit, and I recently paid a $250 ambulatory surgery center copay to have an ear tube that had already fallen out removed from my ear canal with a pair of tweezers. And it has nothing to do with the ACA - I was paying these rates before the ACA was ever passed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% onboard with single payer healthcare, but what you're seeing as outrageous costs are really what those of us lucky enough to have coverage through an employer have been paying all along. The difference now is that you're at least able to get into that system, which you couldn't before without paying substantially more than you are now. Could it be better? Sure, and it should be, but it's still an improvement over what we had before.

@7 "This "Nate Silver was wrong" or "NYT was wrong" thing is just silly. "

Establishment pundits are wrong for not believing that Sanders can generate high voter turnout, and that when he does, he'll win handily. This also points to the poor electabilty of Clinton who won those states with dismal voter participation