Monday, April 25, 2016

Hillary Clinton Will Secure the Democratic Nomination Tomorrow

Yes, there are plenty of contests left on the calendar.

And yes, her competition might stay in the race until the last contest is over.

But April 26th will be the day Hillary Clinton fully secures the nomination for the Democratic Party in 2016...and everyone will know it, even Bernie Sanders.

It's all about the pledged delegates, where Hillary currently leads Bernie by an already-prohibitive 235...and she's getting ready to increase that margin quite bit.

Clinton won New York by 58%-42% last week, which had 247 pledged delegates at stake. But Pennsylvania and Maryland have a combined 284 pledged delegates, and here's what 538 has to say about her odds there:

Hillary Clinton has a greater than 99% chance of winning the Pennsylvania primary.
Hillary Clinton has a greater than 99% chance of winning the Maryland primary.

538 predicted that Hillary's win margin in New York would be 15 points...amazingly close to the final result. In Pennsylvania and Maryland, they are currently predicting 17 and 30 point margins respectively. Personally, I think the margins might end up being a little bigger in light of Clinton's post-NY momentum. Whatever the case, she's about to win a lot of delegates in just those two states.

Polling in Delaware is basically non-existent, but this seems about right to me:
That's a few more delegates right there.

Beyond that, Connecticut will likely be about a 5-10 point Clinton win and Rhode Island should be a squeaker in which the delegates are split.

So Hillary will undoubtedly gain a lot of delegates tomorrow and increase her lead to near 300. The only real suspense is whether or not she'll sweep all five states and shut Bernie out in a demoralizing repeat of Super Tuesday II. Whether or not that happens may be the difference between him carrying on in defeat or folding up early to unite the party.

Whatever the case, after tomorrow there shouldn't be any doubt among anyone anywhere about who the Democratic nominee will be.

Those cracks in the glass ceiling are growing deeper and louder every day, aren't they?


  1. It's likely if she'd been a male candidate the networks would have called it 'sewn up' after super Tuesday. According to Bernie, he pretty much expects her to win four, he held another expensive rock concert in Rhode Island, which he hopes will give him one state or keep him to a smaller margin for a loss in that one state.

    It seems like he's going for 'an amendment to the bill' and maybe that's why he's spent so much on fundraising and has been so gleeful when tarnishing her, he thinks his 2M+ (so he claims) donors will be valuable to sell for influence. He wants to pick the VP, probably wants to be the VP, and he wants to write in his 'replace ACA with single payer' and his 15 minimum wage with no exceptions and no CPI increases into the DNC platform.

    I think he thinks it works that way. Like when he went into the Clinton data base and thought everyone did that.

    I think he thinks Obama traded SOS for her support, that's how cracked I think he is.

    Based on what his bloggers are saying, I also expect he'll want his campaign debt paid by her donations, so it doesn't matter if he runs it up even more, as he also seems to think that was a trade. In fact her '08 campaign debt wasn't paid off until right before the '12 election, and it was with new donations, although Obama did then ask his donors to help her retire the debt.

    I used to chip into it every few months, not that it was enough to make a difference, I just wanted to show her I appreciated her staying in until it was really over, to show she could not be bullied into quitting and to show her grace, in case she wanted to run in '16.

    Sanders first officially met with his campaign team in December of '14, and at that point Biden and Warren were possible. He waited until it was clearly not Warren, and only one other male Democrat who wasn't well known and who hadn't a chance was running, and he didn't go negative until Biden gave up, that first debate with the 'enough with the emails' was before Biden made it clear he would not run, and since then it's been personal smears.

    Before that he said they mostly agreed on policy and that he was running because he thought he was most committed, and after that he was the only one who wasn't taking wall street money and who didn't have a pac.

    And since then it's been focused on the expensive rallies and the victim outraged fundraising.

    So, I don't think there is room for suspense, Bernie thinks she's for sale and he's purchased something he can sell her for influence.

    If I am right and this is his game, he has no clue who she is.

    If I am wrong, he'll concede and release his tax returns so as to avoid setting a new low standard for presidential candidates. I think he released '14 instead of '15 so as to hide how much he paid Jane in '15 to be his senior advisor.

    I am not holding my breath

    1. I suspect that as a couple they have a lot more assets than they want us to know about. You can hold real estate, etc. and it won't show any income. I'll bet in previous years they've bought and sold stuff, and paid some hefty capital gains taxes. Then there would be the discussion that Bernie is paying lower taxes rates on his income, just like the "fat cats".

  2. me too, but that would not show in their tax returns, that's just taxable income.

  3. watching Hillary on Maddow, Maddow is all, 'if you are ahead after California' and Hillary says, 'I am ahead, by 2.4M votes, by 250 pledged delegates,' and points out she and Barack were tied in the popular vote and he was never as far ahead in pledged votes as she is over Bernie. That is how Maddow always talks, as if Bernie has a chance, not just the right to stay as long as he wants however hopeless his quest, but saying that 'if' in front of Hillary was pretty strange.

    And also asked about concessions to get his support, so it looks like that is coming from Sanders, that she is for sale, she'll sell influence for his donors, and so he can pay for influence with his donors, and the media is cooperating.

    I happen to remember Maddow from '08, and she was all, 'when is that Hillary going to get out' she claimed to think Hilary was too negative, thought she ought not have forced him to try so hard to win the primary.

    this is sexism, and obviously Maddow is feminist, and yet does not know how insulting it is to ask the woman who is far ahead what she'll do for concessions for the man's support, and not question the man's right to demand, or question the man's fund-raising tactics.

    1. Yeah, a couple of the questions were annoying, but Hillary was amazing in the town hall... as usual. Feisty too! We'll have the video up shortly.

    2. not to be feisty, but feisty is for females and little children and kittens, considered weak, anyone weak who won't back down. The strong don't need to be feisty, they are commanding (or just in charge). If it's used on a man it's considered an insult. For a woman it's under the radar, 'in the culture,' not an insult, just confirmation of the stereotype.

      'Fact checking' would be both gender neutral and would refer to wonk. And given that Maddow is also a wonk, it's wonking the wonk, or teaching the teacher.

  4. Maddow has been riding the Bernie train since - dare I say "DAY ONE". After years of watching her nightly I an barely tolerate her now. If Hillary had allowed Maddow to keep up her sanders questions, we would have had hour 2 of the Bernie Show..
    So proud of Hillary standing up for herself and putting a stop to that crap.!

  5. Rachel Maddow is a journalist, a Lesbian, not a feminist. She thinks of herself as a feminist, as most women do, but she lacks something that a true feminist must have to earn the title: guts. Listen to how she panders to the arrogant pundits, that have news shows, around her, like Lawrence O'Donnell, or Chris Hayes. That's not a feminist.

    1. Oh my. Are you sure you wanna go there?