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.”

Yes, it is about momentum. Just ask Hillary Clinton."

Hillary Clinton Headlines March 24, 2016

Glamour, Facebook partner to hold political town halls on women's issues Politico

CNN/ORC poll: Clinton tops Trump on presidential traits CNN

Endorsement: Hillary Clinton for president Wisconsin Gazette

The Myth of the Trump Democrat Slate

Poll: Trump would lose home state NY in general election The Hill

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Lead in California Sacramento Bee

America to Establishment: Who the hell are you people? Sacramento Bee

New PA poll: Clinton up 25 points over Sanders, Kasich three points behind Trump Philly Voice

Emily's List Makes a Push With Millennial Women for Hillary TIME

This new campaign for Hillary from Emily's List couldn't come soon enough! the organization is starting #Sheswithus: a movement of young women online talking about why they support Clinton. The first group of testimonials went live Thursday on Medium.

Reading TIME just now, it says that single women are such a powerful voting force that if they had voted in the 2014 midterms in the same numbers as they did in the 2012 presidential election, Democrats would today control both the Senate and the House.

Writer Rebecca Traister dug deeply into the political power of America's single women in her recent cover story The Single American Woman.

Single women are also becoming more and more powerful as a voting demographic. In 2012, unmarried women made up a remarkable 23 percent of the electorate. Almost a quarter of votes in the last presidential election were cast by women without spouses, up three points from just four years earlier. According to Page Gardner, founder of the Voter Participation Center, in the 2012 presidential election, unmarried women drove turnout in practically every demographic, making up “almost 40 percent of the African-American population, close to 30 percent of the Latino population, and about a third of all young voters.”

Perhaps more dramatically than any other voting block, unmarried women — comprising as they do other liberal-voting groups including young women and women of color — lean left. Way left. Single women voted for Barack Obama by a wide margin in 2012 — 67 to 31 percent — while married women (who tend to be older and whiter) voted for Romney. And unmarried women’s political leanings are not, as has been surmised in some quarters, attributable solely to racial diversity. According to polling firm Lake Research Partners, while white women as a whole voted for Romney over Obama, unmarried white women chose Obama over Romney by a margin of 49.4 percent to 38.9 percent. In 2013, columnist Jonathan Last wrote about a study of how women ages 25 to 30 voted in the 2000 election. “It turned out,” Last wrote in The Weekly Standard, “that the marriage rate for these women was a greater influence on vote choice than any other variable.”

Unmarried women and the 2016 elections AmericanWomen.org

An emerging wild card in the 2016 election is 1) how many angry white men committed to Bernie Sanders will switch to Donald Trump if Hillary Clinton is the candidate; and 2) how many Republican (in particular) women will vote for Hillary if Donald Trump is the Republican candidate. AmericanWomen.org queried 800 registered voters that included an oversample of 200 women ages 18 to 35, resulting in a total of 321 interviews among unmarried women and 296 interviews among millennial women.

Russell Simmons Endorses Hillary Clinton

Def Jam co-founder Russell Simmons (pictured above with Lucy McIntosh) has endorsed his "longtime friend" Hillary Clinton while slamming "her rival, Bernie Sanders, as a candidate who is insensitive to African-Americans' hardships and is making promises he can't possible keep.

Simmons hit Sanders even harder, telling CNN that "He's insensitive to the plight of black people."

Sander is “insensitive in a number of ways, and I would get into it if we had time,” Simmons said. “But I think Sen. Clinton has been sensitive, supportive of the progressive agenda. She’s realistic in what she can get done. She’s able to beat the Republican candidate, and I think that Bernie Sanders would not be able to, or could lose, and I don’t wanna take that chance.” via Politico