it's not the same thing, because he's been the front runner and he was polling higher than she was, and he had far more money. He was expected to close the deal, and when that doesn't happen the candidate is viewed as not the right one, and you look to the next in line.  I think it's because he needed a mandate to sell his world view, he's always said he needs to bring congress with him and have the people behind him, in that bottom up way that is the basis of his theory. So even if he squeaked a win, he would have set himself up as unable to get his bottom up agenda underway.  Her message of change is a strong task-master leader who'll make sure things are done properly. He's made a few bad mistakes or errors in judgement. His idea of taxing capital gains like income is a non-started, not only does it bring in less revenue and tax middle and lower income people, it makes it harder to invest, and people do want to invest, it's part of the American Dream as much as home ownership. His health care plan appeals to the very people who want a flat tax on capital gains, so he's lost that advantage.  He can't take advantage of the war issue because her exit plan is more far reaching than his.  Most of his talent is in his campaign and he's not keeping up with world events and national priorities the way she is. She puts out several press releases a day on issues and where she stands, her solutions campaign is contained in her press releases. Also, we  know who her advisors are and where they stand, while his are more academics who haven't taken as many decisions, so not only do we not know much about who advises him, we don't know their advise. he's put that aside with the idea of bottom up, but he doesn't have a mandate from the bottom, what will he do?  We actually don't know, and I suspect he doesn't know either.  His problem in debates isn't that he has vetting issues, it's that he can't speak clearly about what he plans to do.  And his jokes are only understood by academics, when he quipped that she was in her element in debates he meant that she can parry better than he, but most including me heard it that she's a politician and is comfortable in the area of politics. That's good, not a deficit.  If he can't sway anyone in a debate, how does he plan to negotiate with congress and with foreign nations?  The big point is that she's now clearly more qualified, whether or not he denigrates her past experience, her experience shows in her solutions and capabilities.  So, it's a much bigger problem for him, that he hasn't closed the deal. the longer it goes on the less chance he has of recapturing those he's lost much less of gaining any new support.  I hope he gets more practical and starts thinking of the vice presidency. i can see him giving a great concession speech saying she won if, and that means to him she's the right one for the job, and that also means to him that he can learn from her and he'd be proud to run as her running mate.  That would thrill the entire world, and would show that he's a decent man who does want what's best for the nation and who's thus willing to put his ego aside and do what's right.