As we noted yesterday, one reason Bernie Sanders has lost momentum (despite winning states) is because Hillary Clinton has gone on the counterattack by insisting his math doesn’t add up. Clinton markets herself as the more moderate and realistic alternative who can build on Barack Obama’s legacy. In a way, she’s right. Her policies are less radical than Sanders’, but rest assured — much of what she wants to accomplish in the White House is based on the same deep-rooted fallacies. And that’s a reality many of her supporters refuse to accept.

Clinton’s recent pivot is to Nanny State initiatives. Her most recent idea revolves around child care. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, “Her solution is for the feds to cap the share of a family’s income that goes toward care at 10%, with the rest of the tab covered by various tax benefits, direct cash payments and scholarships.” Yet there are myriad programs already in place. The Journal says, “The auditors at the Government Accountability Office report that there are currently 45 federal programs dedicated to supporting care ‘from birth through age five,’ spread across multiple agencies. The Agriculture Department runs a nursery division, for some reason.”

Moreover, “Mrs. Clinton’s new dispensations for the kids are especially notable because she has already pledged to double spending on early education, create universal pre-school and mandate 12 weeks of paid family leave. She won the ‘pro-family’ bidding war with Bernie Sanders but won’t let it end. In any case, her campaign has now published no fewer than 31 white papers so far, even one last week dedicated to ‘protecting animals and wildlife.’ Instead of pivoting to the middle for the general election, Mrs. Clinton’s progressive ambitions are rising with her odds of returning to the White House.”

Last July, a befuddled Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the DNC, couldn’t explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist. That’s because, as Clinton’s agenda makes clear, at the core there really is no difference. The end result is the same. It’s merely a matter of how quickly we implode.

(Edited.)