Nate Silver runs the Electoral College Map in a Clinton/Trump Matchup FiveThirtyEight

Hillary Clinton is looking good in her march to the Democratic nomination in the presidential campaign. This possible electoral map released yesterday indicates that Clinton could have a November blowout, winning by 384 to 154. The prediction masters dove in more deeply today, writing Trump Will Have A Hard Time Turning Blue States Red in November.

With a flurry of new polling now out FiveThirtyEight made new predictions about who will win upcoming primaries:

Wisconsin - HIllary: Clinton has 71% polls-only forecast; 86% polls-plus forecast

Maryland - Hillary: Clinton has 98% polls-plus forecast

Pennsylvania - Hillary: Clinton has 97% polls-plus forecast

Berned Out?

Sorry, Bernie supporters. Your candidate is not 'currently winning the Democratic primary race' The Washington Post

Denial is powerful. The extent to which the human mind can conjure up scenarios besides the one we don’t want to see is impressive, the result of some weird psychological glitch that probably evolved as a way of allowing us to keep our sanity. I don’t know; I’m not an evolutionary psychologist.

What I am is a dude who spends a lot of time looking at poll numbers, and particularly poll numbers related to the 2016 nomination contests. I am the author of various articles assessing the chances of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic iteration thereof; those articles come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is very, very likely to be the party’s nominee. It’s a simple function of math. Sanders needs to win a lot of states with a lot of delegates by a lot of points -- something that he’s so far shown no ability to do. He needs to win about three-quarters of the remaining delegates. Unless deus emerges from the machina, he will not.

But that’s me looking at things objectively. I suspect that Seth Abramson — a University of New Hampshire English professor and author of “Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You” — is not considering the race from the same space.

Clinton is beating Sanders. Don't blame the party, blame the people The Guardian

"As of March 22, after votes were cast in Arizona, Utah and Idaho, Clinton has earned 1,223 pledged delegates to the convention while Sanders earned 946, a 277-point margin of deficit.

Clinton has won delegates in the fairest way possible. Party rules dictate that delegates are allocated according to the share of the win. This is a break from the past. Primaries used to run on a winner-takes-all system (sometimes called the “unit rule”), in which the candidate who got a majority (or plurality) of votes took all the delegates. The second-place candidate got nothing while the first-place candidate got the votes of the second-place candidate.

In 2016, the candidate in second place gets a percentage of the delegates she earned while the winner does not get delegates she did not earn. This is the case with every primary and caucus in every state. It’s hard to imagine a more meritocratic and thus progressive system."

( . . . )

Sanders response to this fact should give American leftists reason to pause. He is looking to the political press to give the impression that winning in caucus states like Utah and Idaho means the people are on his side. If the people appear to be on his side, the thinking goes, then the Democratic party’s “superdelegates” should back him.

In other words, the democratic socialist candidate hopes to create the illusion of winning in order to sway the very same Democratic elites that his coalition ideologically despises.

As Tad Devine, a Sanders strategist, said: “People will look at different measures: How many votes did you get? How many delegates did you win? How many states did you win? But it’s really about momentum.”