Blame Trump?

The man who sent bombs to prominent Democrats turned out to be a Trump fan.  Therefore, Trump is to blame for the bombs being sent.  The man who shot up a synagogue and killed 11 turned out to be a Trump hater.  Therefore, Trump is to blame for the massacre.  It sure looks like if something bad happens, Trump is inevitably the root problem.

Of course, by this logic, Bernie Sanders has to take responsibility for the Bernie Bro crackpot who shot Steve Scalise at the Republican baseball practice and Obama gets credit for the Black Lives Matter nut who killed several police officers in Dallas.

 

Adversarial rhetoric is not the same as incitement.  Hold the person who did the shooting or mailed the bomb responsible.

Rigged Election!

"Court Admits DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schulz Rigged Primaries Against Sanders"

Michael Sainato, Observer

This is both funny and sad.  Some upset Bernie supporters filed a class action suit against the DNC and Wasserman Schulz in 2016.  Though the judge finds that the plaintiffs are right on every count, he dismissed the case because it isn't the place of the courts to tell the DNC how to run their primaries.  Awesome.  Even as unpopular as Donald Trump is, this going to be hard for the DNC to overcome.  How do they run a primary in 2020 and have the voters trust the results?  Bernie won 43% of the vote in the 2016 primary and it is now a fact that the DNC put a thumb on the scale to favor Hillary.  What do those 43% (13.2 million voters) do in 2020?  There is talk of the Republicans splitting thanks to Trump's following vs. the Never Trump wing.  The Democrats have a similar problem that isn't getting the same media attention.  The Green Party may see a big boost come 2020 with disaffected Democrats switching parties.

 

Also, this really hurts the rigged election claims by the Democrats.  If it was okay for you to cheat against Bernie, why isn't it okay for Trump to cheat against you?  Who cheated first?

Democrat Postmortem

Just a week before the election, The New Yorker had an article asking why Trump was wasting his time in Michigan and Wisconsin where Hillary led by a wide margin?  Reading it today, it is humorous that the writer suggests he should be in states where he can make a difference, namely Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Nevada.  With the exception of Nevada, he won those suggested states by more than 100,000 votes each, Ohio by nearly half a million.  However, he won Michigan by 10,704 and Wisconsin by 22,748.  Sounds like campaigning in these two states just prior to the election was vital.

Was Trump a better candidate?  Meh.  Was he a better campaigner?  Absolutely!  Trump lost Wisconsin to Cruz during the primary.  After getting the nomination, he had multiple rallies in the state to attract those voters and bump up Republican turnout.  By contrast, Hillary lost Wisconsin to Bernie.  After she secured the nomination, she never campaigned in the state.  This is a state she lost to Bernie and the best she does is to send her daughter and Tim Kaine to campaign in her stead.  In the 2012 campaign, there was an exit poll asking whether Obama or Romney cared more about voters.  Obama won something like 80% to 20%.  I don't know if that question was asked this time around but Wisconsin voters had to see that Hillary was taking their votes for granted while Trump was in the state trying to make the sale.  Complacency cost the Democrats the state.  What about Michigan?  Trump won the state in the primary with a plurality of the votes.  Even so, he had multiple rallies to boost turnout and make the sale.  He was personally on the ground.  Again, Hillary lost this state to Bernie and then did nothing to secure the Bernie voters after the convention.  She was largely absent from the state though Michigan saw higher ranking surrogates, including Bill Clinton and President Obama.  In the last couple of weeks, Hillary did make some campaign stops in the state.  Complacency cost another state.

 

Hillary's frequent and extended absences from campaigning fed into rumors of her bad health.  Once that took hold, however unfair it may have been, she needed to address it by being visible.  That her actions only seemed to confirm it must surely have hurt her numbers.

 

Those who say Bernie would have been a more formidable candidate may be right.  He was far more energetic on the campaign trail, he provided more enthusiasm, and he wasn't an insider candidate.  As we know from the DNC email leaks, the primaries were rigged against him and Hillary had media insiders feeding her debate questions and providing positive press.  Though he would have lacked many of Hillary's weaknesses, he would have brought self-identified "socialist" with him.

 

In much the same way Republicans started winning the state and local elections after Obama won in 2008, the same is almost certain to happen this time around.  The Republicans are at their high water mark and will start sinking next year with governorships and in 2018 in the House.  Unless the national situation is really bad in 2018, the electoral map may see further losses in the Senate for Democrats.  That the Democrats have retained the leadership that has led them here is probably not a good sign for their future prospects.

Democratic Primary as Scripted as Professional Wrestling?

The latest email to be revealed shows Robby Mook of the Clinton campaign suggesting that a signal be sent to Bernie Sanders to knock it off with his attacks.  After all, the Clinton campaign had 'leverage' on him.  This is from May of 2015!  If Hillary had 'leverage' against Bernie that would blunt his attacks on her and the DNC was clearly favoring Hillary throughout the primaries, blackmailed Bernie never stood a chance.  And he knew he didn't stand a chance.  He was the Washington Generals to Hillary's Harlem Globetrotters.  The outcome had already been determined in 2015, if not earlier.  The Democrats don't trust the voters, even their own.

 

Of course, this yet again demonstrates that the Democrats are better at political intrigue than the Republicans.  The Republicans wanted to do they same thing only their chosen candidate was JEB!  However, Trump came along and stomped on their plans.  Even their secondary candidate (Marco Rubio) and their final desperation candidate (Ted Cruz) failed to stand before Trump.  A surprising amount of Republican stalwarts are among the Never Trumpers.

 

Looking at that, which party had an honest primary and which was fixed from the start?  What does that tell us about that two candidates?  What does this tell us about Democrats?  What does it tell us about Republicans?  If so many were willing to use underhanded means (blackmail rival), get insider information (Donna Brazile and the debate questions), and engage in vote fraud (Project Veritas videos), why doubt those same tactics would be used in the general election?

The Fix was In

Just came across this story from Election Justice USA.  It doesn't provide any data, just gives the conclusions of their study.  Valid?  I don't know.  So I checked out the page on their website.  Here I found a summary with a snippet of data.  The graphic was quite telling.  It only offers Kings County, New York but it is interesting how Hillary's final percentage is always higher where the ballots were machine-counted.  Bernie showed better when the ballots were hand counted.  That is a peculiar coincidence.  For what I know of Election Justice USA, they may be socialists who wanted Bernie to win.  Then again, maybe they are non-partisan like their website states.

Glenn Reynolds proposed that we return to paper ballots in part because of the growing threat of hacking from foreign powers.  Clearly, it would also benefit those who were not part of the establishment too.  Though it appears that the Republican establishment are a bunch of incompetent buffoons - couldn't prevent Trump from winning - the Democrat establishment know how to rig an election for the favored candidate.  Consider that the Obama Justice Department declined to prosecute New Black Panthers who stood with billy clubs in front of a polling station during the 2008 election.  Or that the IRS somehow refused tax exempt status to the Tea Party movement that had shellacked the Democrats in 2010.  What interesting stuff is going on behind the scenes to give Hillary a boost come November?

Bernie Sanders has left the Party

After drawing a shade over 40% of the delegates (almost 46% if you factor out the super delegates), Bernie Sanders threw his support to the Wall Street funded Hillary Clinton and then left the party.  Yes, Bernie is back to being an 'Independent.'  What does this say about the Democratic Party?  A self-described socialist ran in the Democratic primary, gaining increasing momentum with each new primary.  This despite the now exposed efforts by the supposedly neutral DNC to hamper his campaign and boost hers.  Bernie said the system was rigged and, thanks to leaked emails, it turns out he was right.  Nearly half the party wanted a socialist!  And somehow the Republicans are the extremists.

 

How do the Bernie supporters switch to Hillary?  Bernie railed against banks and Hillary has given countless highly-paid speeches to those Wall Street banks.  She wasn't threatening them with regulations; she was assuring them that the good times would continue to roll under her administration.  Hillary is the system that Bernie opposed.  Now that he has left the party, what does that say to his voters?  Strategically, if you are the kind of person who wants Bernie's socialist paradise, you are more likely to move in that general direction with Hillary than with Trump.  However, if you want to poke a finger in the eye of the establishment that sought to undermine your candidate from the start, Jill Stein is your new candidate.  If all the Bernie voters switched to the Green Party, Jill will be in the debates.  It would almost certainly result in a President Trump.

 

Bernie started a revolution and then decided to get off.  That is difficult to do.  Look how many of his followers considered him a traitor for endorsing Hillary.

Stop the Emails

Yet again, email has proven destructive to the career of woman in the hierarchy of the Democratic Party.  Wikileaks has exposed thousands of emails that show Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS), the DNC chairwoman, was indeed steering the nomination to Hillary and seeking to torpedo Bernie.  Bernie's demands that she resign and support for her primary opponent were completely justified.  His argument that the system was rigged is borne out by the evidence.  The Democrats weren't running a primary campaign but a predetermined coronation.  Doubtless, Bernie's supporters are going to be even harder to bring back into the fold.  Many of them would be thrilled if he accepted Jill Stein's repeated offer to let him lead the Green Party ticket on the November ballot, perhaps garnering enough support to appear in the debates.  The party has stabbed him in the back and perhaps bringing ruination upon them will teach them a lesson.  With the barely Republican, and fellow New Yorker, Trump as the alternative to the Wall Street shill and carpetbag New Yorker Hillary, he might actually do it.  Yes, it is still very unlikely.  Strategically, it might not be a bad idea to stay in the race and make sure his voters don't break for Trump.  Risky.

It is late in the day for DWS to resign.  Her tenure as DNC Chair has been mostly a series of losses for her party and yet she has been the longest serving chair in decades.  Her ties to Hillary Clinton have likely allowed her to remain as long as she has (her predecessor in the job is Tim Kaine, the newly announced VP candidate) but even that cannot save her from the latest email disaster on the eve of the Democratic Convention.  The stars are aligning against Hillary with conspiracy-like precision.

One set of Rules for the Elites, Another for the Peasants

Donald Trump is a racist because he wants to put up a wall along the border.  Then does this one also signify racism?  I am reminded how the Democrats told us that Voter ID was racist during the 2012 election cycle and then required an ID to enter the convention.  Or how about this from the Democrat-run state of California:

The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

 

Or how about Congress being exempt from the Affordable Care Act?  It is amazing how often 'our betters' exempt themselves from the laws they impose on us.  Is it any wonder that the electorate is voting for crackpots like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump when the 'normal' politicians show such disdain for We the People?

Clinched?

As I write, Hillary is way up in California though only a fraction of precincts have reported.  A solid win would do wonders for her whereas an embarrassing loss could be big trouble.  According to RealClear Politics, Hillary currently has 2469 Delegates, more than the 2382 she needs to secure the nomination.  Done?  Interestingly, I read an article recently - can't recall where - that argued that super delegates should be unbound until the convention.  Candidates should arrive only with the delegates they won.  What would that look like?  Again looking at RealClear Politics, Hillary has won 1898 while Bernie has won 1589.  As such, neither has 'won' the requisite 2382 delegates to secure the nomination outright.  This is going to be Bernie's argument if he doesn't concede after tonight's delegates are divvied.  Thanks to the arcane system, that is an excellent argument.  However, an even better counter argument is that Hillary garnered 14.4 million votes to Bernie's 10.8 million.  That's a big gap.  Democrats are big fans of the popular vote and Hillary wins that contest handily.

End of the Line

According to RealClearPolitics, Hillary is only 27 delegates away from clinching the nomination.  754 delegates are up for grabs on Tuesday.  If Hillary can get 3.6% of those delegates, she will be the nominee.  Obviously that is going to happen.  This day was coming and Bernie knew it.  And yet he persists.  He claims he will go to the convention.  To what end?  Yes, there is still the possibility that Hillary will be indicted though that is extremely unlikely.  Obama does not what his Justice Department to indict his Secretary of State for actions she took during his administration.  Really, that just doesn't look good.  Then again, if she looks like a crippled candidate, he could dispatch her in favor of someone who can continue his policies.  That person isn't Bernie.  A switch in candidates at this late date will doom whomever that candidate is to defeat in November.  The Bernie voters won't follow if the party overlooks their guy.  So we are back to Hillary and no indictment.

 

As mentioned in a previous post, the gap between Bernie and Hillary is entirely within the margin of super delegates.  The voters have not shown a decisive enough selection to eliminate the possibility that the supers select the candidate.  Bernie has all the momentum.  If that is still the case on Tuesday, especially if he wins California, his presence at the convention will loom very large.  Could he be assuaged with the VP nomination?  A cabinet office?  Or will he torpedo the party that he has repeatedly identified as corrupt by becoming the Green Party nominee?  Democratic bigwigs are pondering these very questions and trying to find a solution that will hold the presidency for their party.  They did not expect the primary campaign to be this exciting or last this long.

 

What is funny is that the super delegate system is what has doomed the Democrats to a troubled convention.  If those delegates had just gone with their states, Hillary would have an unassailable lead and there would be no possibility of shifting loyalties at the convention.  I suspect the super delegate system will see some changes before the 2020 primaries.

An Unexpected Turn of Events

For months, there has been speculation that the Republicans would have a contested convention in which Donald Trump would duke it out with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and the Republican establishment.  It was going to be exciting and probably destroy the Republican Party for a generation, if not longer, regardless of the outcome.  But Ted Cruz lost in Indiana and dropped out leaving the field clear for Trump to get the 1237 delegates he needed.  Exciting convention averted.

Also for months, it has been said that Hillary will easily win the nomination.  In fact, she should get the necessary delegates in the next batch of primaries.  However, there is a problem.  Thanks to the super delegate system, Bernie will be well within the margin for a switch by these party leaders to make him the nominee.  Even though Hillary will have secured in excess of the 2382 she needs before the convention, there is yet wiggle room.  Super delegates aren't locked to the candidate like those earned in the primaries and caucuses.  Thus, if Hillary was suddenly indicted by DOJ, the super delegates could abandon her en masse and Bernie would get the nomination.

Ever since the 2000 election disaster, Democrats have been big fans of popular vote rather than delegates.  In that regard, Hillary has crushed Bernie.  She has received 12,989,134 votes to Sanders 9,957,889, a gap of more than 3 million.  She has garnered 56% of the popular vote to Bernie's 43%.  Clearly, she should be the nominee.  However, her trend is not good.  Her portion of the popular vote is shrinking.  In February, she won 59.7% of the votes.  In March, she dropped to 58.2%.  April was 55.4%.  In May, she has fallen to 46.3%.  It is too late for Bernie to overtake Hillary in the primaries but you can be assured that party bosses are aware of this trend too.  Will super delegates reconsider?

 

We were promised a contested convention, it was just assumed that it would be the Republicans who would be having it.  Apparently not.

Super Delegates

Bernie Sanders has won yet another primary, further chipping away at the inevitability of Hillary.  Even so, Hillary still dominates the delegate count.  She has 2,240 to Bernie's 1,473.  She just needs 142 more delegates to clinch the nomination.  That is just 14% of the remaining delegates.  By contrast, Bernie needs 909, or 87% of the remainder.  Bernie may be on an upswing but that is not going to happen.  That looks pretty hopeless.

Let's look at it a little differently.  What if the super delegates switched?  If Bernie had 524 super delegates and Hillary had only 40.  Suddenly, Bernie would be 200 delegates in the lead with 1957 to Hillary's 1756.  He would only need 40% of the remaining delegates while Hillary would need 60%.  Isn't that interesting?

 

Hillary has the support of 524 super delegates while Bernie has only 40.  These delegates are not allocated based on how their state voted.  Looking at the delegate count without super delegates, Hillary has won 54% vs. Bernie's 46%.  But Hillary has the support of 93% of the super delegates.  That hardly sounds democratic.  If the super delegates were dumped into the pool, Hillary would still have the majority of them and be the likely nominee.  As it is, the gap between Hilary and Bernie is close enough that a switch of the super delegates could change the nominee.  Because that is the case, Bernie has an excellent argument for a contested convention.

The Enthusiasm Deficit

This story shows that Hillary has won fewer votes in this cycle as the leading candidate than she won last cycle as the trailing candidate.  It does demonstrate the lack of energy in the Democratic campaign.  Obama is far more charismatic than Bernie and Hillary combined.  His life story was far more compelling than Hillary's.  Also, the Democrats have had the presidency for two terms and are clearly disappointed; Bernie is trashing the status quo and getting substantial support from the rank and file Democrat voter.  As a matter of fact, part of the reason Bernie is ignored by the media is because he is not painting a flattering picture of Obama's economy.  Back in 2008, the Democrats had been out of power for 2 terms and there was natural excitement; look at the Republican primary campaign this time around.

 

Even so, it is a problem.  It shows that there is considerably less excitement on the Democratic side and less excitement for Hillary herself.  In the infamous 'who do you want to have a beer with' poll, Trump is going to win that by a large margin vs. Hillary.  I'm no Trump fan and don't drink beer but I would certainly choose him.  The two-terms for one party then switch pattern exists for a reason and the Republicans ought to win this time.  This story just gives another indication why that is probable.  Yeah, get ready for President Trump.  Sigh.

Et Tu, Yahoo?

This is not a good sign for Hillary.  I found this on Yahoo!  Yahoo leans left on its news feeds and usually overlooks, or generously spins, Democrat malfeasance.  To prominently post this is to take Bernie's side in the campaign.  With his streak of victories, it does look like the tide may be turning in his favor.  Of course, even if he manages to win the majority from here out, he will lose based on super delegates.  In states Bernie has won, the majority of the super delegates have remained in Hillary's camp.  Might we see a change?  If her inevitability collapses, the odds of her indictment will rise.  Rough waters ahead.

 

I still think Hillary is going to be the eventual winner but it has been a more challenging campaign than the Democrats ever expected.  That hints at her unpopularity.  In 2008, Democrat voters had an alternative to the inevitable Hillary and took him.  In 2016, they have a less charismatic and historic alternative and are starting to lean in that direction.  If the Democrat base isn't enamored of Hillary, how is she going to do on the national stage?  She is going to need to make the Republican nominee toxic with negative ads.  Luckily for her, that shouldn't be too hard with either Trump or Cruz.

Bernie Revived?

Bernie has managed to win the last 5 contests but still trails by a wide margin in delegates.  He has 1004 while Hillary is well in advance with 1712.  Hillary still needs to win only 33% of the remaining delegates while Bernie needs 67%.  In his recent 5 states sweep, he has secured 76% of the delegates available.  Wow!  If he can keep that up, he could turn the corner.  Factoring out the super delegates, Bernie has 975 to Hillary's 1243.  That is inside the margin where a switch of the super delegates could swing the election to Bernie.  That is highly unlikely but possible.

In a winner-take-all scenario, Hillary is crushing Bernie.  She has won 19 states that represent 1911 delegates while Bernie has won 14 with 752 delegates.  In popular vote, Hillary has 8.9 million to Bernie's 6.4 million.  That's 58% to 42%.  That has narrowed a bit thanks to Bernie's recent surge but can he overcome that by the convention?  To really justify a switch among the super delegates, Bernie needs to cover that gap.  Again, highly unlikely.

 

Hillary is still on a glide path to win the nomination handily but Bernie's strength does make it a more entertaining campaign.  If only he hadn't taken character issues off the table, he might have been more competitive.

New Delegate Math

I have seen varying counts depending on which site I check but they are all pretty close.  Just for sake of discussion, let's go with this one.

Starting with the Republicans, Trump's commanding lead has become virtually insurmountable.  Baring a miracle, I don't see that Cruz can catch Trump, let alone surpass him.  With 749 delegates, Trump needs 498 more to secure the nomination outright.  That means that he needs 59% of the remaining 848.  That's a tall order.  However, he is almost certainly going to take California and New York, which is half of what he needs.  If he can pull of 42% of the rest, he wins.  I give him excellent odds of doing that and cancelling the idea of a contested convention.  Cruz has 465 delegates and needs another 772.  That's 91% of the remaining, which isn't possible as there are proportional states still to go.  He cannot win the nomination except through a contested convention.  Lastly, there is Kasich with 143 delegates.  There are not enough delegates left for even a miracle.  If he wins another state, I will be surprised.  Kasich can only hope to deny enough delegates to Trump to force the contested convention.  Even if that happens, why would someone who proved so lackluster through the campaign be selected as the nominee?  Consider also, under a winner-take-all system, Trump would have 22 states worth 1012 delegates to Cruz's 10 states and 429 delegates.  Cruz would be viewed as desperate and Kasich (1 state, 66 delegates) as a crackpot.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary has a lead even more commanding that Trump has among the Republicans.  With 1690 delegates, she needs only 692 (31%) of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.  By contrast, Bernie needs 1436 (64%) to capture the nomination.  Yes, there is something funky about math.  Both can win.  Let me check the NY Times again.  Clinton has 1690: check.  Bernie has 946: check.  Democratic delegates remaining is 2245.  Add those three numbers together and we get 4881 delegates, 118 more than the 4763 available.  Well, that will teach me to trust the NY Times.  In any case, Hillary can be absolutely crushed by nearly a two to one margin for the rest of the primaries and still win.  At this point, even if she is indicted, she will win the nomination.

 

A Trump v. Clinton election is a virtual certainty.  Trump has a surprising amount of cross-over appeal but is anathema to much of the conservative base of the Republican Party.  Will he be able to attract enough Independents and disaffected Democrats to make up the gap?  Hillary owes her political career to her husband's charm and political skills.  Can that and the loyalty of the Democratic base push her to victory?  I cannot think of two more flawed candidates in my life time.  Would you like bad or bad?  Disaster or catastrophe?

Bernie Cooked

With his lackluster showing, Bernie's campaign is becoming embarrassing.  He only has 851 delegates to Hillary's 1606.  He needs to win 66% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination.  Despite all the talk of his magnificent insurgency, he only gets further and further behind with each primary.  A more traditional Democratic candidate would bow out as gracefully as possible and allow the party to unite against the Republicans.  Hillary's eventual victory is plain as day.  Unless Bernie has inside information on a pending indictment, it's time to suspend his campaign.

Interesting bit about the Democratic primaries.  There are 4051 delegates allocated through state contests and 712 allocated by Super Delegates.  It is possible, though highly unlikely, that one candidate to accumulate 2381 delegates (1 short of the 2382 need for the nomination) through state elections (58.8% of the total) and then lose to the candidate with 1670 delegates because the super delegates chose that person instead.  Such is not the case, but it is interesting just how far the super delegate system can thwart the will of the voters.

Who believes in Free Speech?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 
I remember when this quote was all the rage. Anyone who believed in the First Amendment would roll this one out every time the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan wanted to march down main street. It used to be that the biggest self-proclaimed First Amendment defenders were Democrats. But not anymore. Here is an article that lists the Democrat-aligned groups that prevented Donald Trump from speaking in Chicago. I too disagree with a lot of what Donald Trump says but it would never occur to me to prevent him from speaking. I could say the same for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It is troubling - and should be to his supporters - that Bernie's name was chanted among those who stormed Trump's planned rally. Instead, there appears to be pride in denying free speech to an opponent.

In the wake of the Citizens United decision, Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment to limit the First Amendment. He thinks free speech is good for some but not all. Hillary Clinton agreed with him.

It's not much of a right if it is totally limited and constrained.

Hillary Clinton

 

Hillary said this in relation to abortion and how the Texas legislature is regulating abortion clinics out of existence. Of course, one wonders how universal she thinks that statement is? Is free speech still a right if it is totally limited and constrained? How about the Right to Bear Arms?

 

This pattern of liberal activists preventing opponents from speaking has been going on for a long time at college campuses. The problem appears to be spreading.

Democrat Delegate Mathematics

You just have to love the Democrat primary process.  Bernie had a surprise upset win in Michigan but somehow won fewer delegates than Hillary!  Oh, those super delegates.  This is the sort of event that will cause Bernie voters to not vote for Hillary in November.  Worse, this is an unforced error.  Hillary is crushing Bernie and could afford to let him have more delegates.  In a winner-take-all system (dumping super delegates into the pool with the rest), Hillary would have 1,023 to Bernie's 516.  Hillary has won 12 states and Bernie has won 9.  Hillary won 4 of the 5 states with over 100 delegates.  Bernie won 5 of the 6 states with fewer than 40 delegates.  There would be no hard feelings under a system that rewarded these facts.  The super delegates - most of which pledged support before the base had a chance to vote - can only infuriate the Bernie voters.

 

Using the abstruse current rules, Hillary has 1223 delegates to Bernie's 574.  Hillary only needs to win 39% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination while Bernie would need 61%.  As it stands, Bernie has won 40% of the popular vote to Hillary's 60%.  I don't see that flipping.  As I have noted before, unless she is indicted or her persistent cough is shown to be a serious medical issue, she is going to win the nomination.  She should disavow her super delegates - whether that is possible or not - and ask them to allocate themselves based on who wins the states they represent.  This would go a long way to mollifying Bernie voters and she will get the nomination anyway.

Super Tuesday and Super Saturday

Two big election days have come in the last week and have mostly improved the standings of Trump and Hillary.

On the Republican side of things, Trump has now won a dozen states and has 382 delegates, 31% of the total needed for the nomination.  However, 35% of the delegates have been allocated.  Trump is behind where he needs to be to win the nomination outright.  He will need to win 53% of the remaining delegates to avoid a convention fight.  Cruz has won 6 states and 300 delegates, 24% of the delegates for the nomination.  He will need 58% of the remaining delegate.  Rubio only has 128 delegates and will need to run the table, winning 68% of the remaining delegates.  Kasich has won no states and has 35 delegates.  His presence can only make a convention fight more likely.  This may sound dire but part of the issue is that so many of these early states have offered proportional delegates (South Carolina being the only exception so far).  18 of the remaining states - constituting 901 delegates - are winner take all.  If the states to this point had been winner take all, Trump would have 526 delegates, Cruz 319, Rubio 38, and everyone else 0.  With that in mind, if Trump continues to win states by at his current rate, he will be the undisputed nominee.  There is a codicil: Cruz performs better in closed - Republican voters only - contests.  When Independents and Democrats don't vote, Cruz has won 5 of 8 contests.  Like the proportional contests, open contests are mostly front-loaded.  If he continues to win 63% of closed contests, he would get 640 additonal delegates.  That would still leave him 300 delegates short so he would need to perform quite well with the remaining contests that have 570 delegates.  As for Rubio, his only hope is to be chosen on a second ballot at a contested convention.  He can no longer accumulate enough delegates.  In short, Trump or Cruz are the likely nominee, Trump being more likely.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary is leading.  She has won 11 states and 1121 delegates, giving her 47% of the delegates needed to win the nomination.  Bernie has won 8 states and 478 delegates, 20% of what he needs.  Unless he starts winning more often and by larger margins (or Hillary is indicted), he isn't going to win.  Much of the cause for Hillary's tremendous lead despite a relatively equal number of states won is super delegates.  Hillary has 458 to Bernie's 22, a huge margin.  However, even if the super delegates are factored out, she still leads in the delegate chase by 651 to 456.  If that pattern holds, Hillary will be the nominee.

 

The most likely result is still a Trump-Clinton contest in November though it is marginally possible that Cruz overcomes Trump's lead to become the nominee.