The Worst Candidate
Sean Davis on Hillary's "big lead" against Bernie Sanders:
Hillary’s campaign has more money, more experience, more staff, better organization, higher name recognition, better favorable ratings, and a far less confrontational media environment than the one Trump faces, and yet when you add up all the votes that have been cast thus far, she’s further away from her party’s nomination than Trump is from his.
If not for superdelegates, which are themselves proof that the Democratic party prefers oligarchy to democracy when it comes to handling its own affairs, Hillary’s campaign would be revealed for what it is: a desperate attempt to drag an abysmal candidate over the finish line. Once you take into account the DNC belief that some people are more equal than others, Hillary’s delegate lead grows to 690: 1,748 for Hillary (469 superdelegates) and 1,058 for Sanders (31 superdelegates). That means that more than one out of every four delegates for Hillary comes not from rank-and-file voters, but from superdelegates. In fact, nearly 70 percent of Hillary’s lead over Sanders in the delegate race comes from superdelegates.
And as I mentioned on Wednesday, Sanders has pulled his punches on Emailgate and on the Clinton Foundation -- turning Clinton's legal and ethical troubles into non-issues during the primary cycle.
That said, absent an indictment from Obama's supine Justice Department, it's almost certain that Clinton will indeed win the Democrat nomination, and then go on to be the least electable candidate the Democrats have put up since Walter Mondale.
But don't count your electoral chickens just yet.
Larry Sabato has focused his crystal ball on the Senate races, and Donald Trump (and to a lesser extent, Ted Cruz) is bad news for the GOP:
The rise of Donald Trump and the general "polarization" of politics have pushed six Senate seats toward the Democrats, according to Larry Sabato and his "Crystal Ball" forecast.
Sabato's updated forecast bodes particularly ill for Sens. Rob Portman and Pat Toomey, Republicans who are defending their turf in major purple states. Because there is a strong correlation between the success of a presidential candidate and Senate hopefuls of the same party, Sabato argues that the GOP could endanger itself if it nominates a general election candidate unpalatable to the general public.
"Considering the rise of Donald Trump, the polarization in U.S. politics, and a higher rate of straight-ticket voting, this could be bad news for the GOP," Sabato writes.
"Assuming the GOP nominee for the White House is either Trump or Ted Cruz, we think the Democrats will fare reasonably well down-ballot (more so with Trump than Cruz, though Cruz will also have a difficult time carrying many swing states)."
As bad as Hillary is at this stuff, in head-to-head match-ups she still outpolls Cruz by single digits, and Trump by whopping double digits. There's been some happy talk that Trump could put New York in play -- but what of it? Demographics and likability ratings put Trump into Chapter 11 (a familiar place) in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. Given Trump's recent stumbles, GOP stalwarts like Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and even Arizona start to look iffy. Trump's challenge isn't getting to 270 -- it's getting to 200.
And you can forget about putting the Upper Midwest into play, as some (including me) had hoped at the beginning of this process.
So we find ourselves in a place where the broadest and deepest GOP field in a generation is having trouble beating a Democrat who campaigns with the same natural grace as the bug alien from Men in Black wearing his Edgar suit. And whose legal, ethical, and intelligence failures should have landed her a lengthy stay in a federal prison.
How did we get here?