Still Not a Fan of BeeYawnSay

There's a lot of things I can say positive about Beyonce Knowles. She's got a great voice, she's an active participant in causes she believes in, she's a great businesswoman, and a lot of people look up to her as a talented star. I'm just not a big fan. I don't like her music much, and she personally just doesn't do much for me. Going back to Destiny's Child, i've just never caught the bug.

I have to say, she just re-affirmed my dislike with "Lemonade." An entire album about your husband's supposed infidelity is frankly not aimed at me as the audience, so that's no shock. It strikes me as tacky, and "TMI," for my tastes. I find it whiny, and not something I care to listen to. In short, I think Kanye was wrong- I prefer Taylor's stuff.

The State of the Presidential Primaries

All good- and bad- things must come to an end. For the 2016 Presidential Primaries, that time is coming. Both races as we knew them are essentially ending. While neither front-runner is a lock to win their nomination outright with pledged delegates, both have all but eliminated the competition.

First, the state of the Democratic race:

• Pledged Delegates- Hillary Clinton 1,644 Bernie Sanders 1,316 (Clinton +328)
• Super Delegates- Hillary Clinton 520 Bernie Sanders 39 (Clinton +481) 
• Overall- Hillary Clinton 2,164 Bernie Sanders 1,355 (Clinton +809)

Hillary is well on her way to the nomination, probably sometime in May or early June. Hillary needs just 219 total delegates to surpass the 2,383 total, and just 382 more pledged delegates to clinch that count as well. After Tuesday's big night for Clinton, there are 1,014 remaining pledged delegates, and 230 super-delegate remaining uncommitted. She can win around 38% of the remaining delegates and both win the pledged count and an overwhelming victory overall. In short, this race is over.

Now, the Republican side:

• Donald Trump 987 Ted Cruz 562 John Kasich 153 (Marco Rubio is still technically third with about 170)

I really should not list anyone but Trump at this point, because no one else is still running for President at this time. Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio could get together and be behind in this race. No one but Trump has a mathematically chance to be nominated, Kasich is making a fool of himself continuing to run, and everyone else is just trying to survive to a convention in hopes of winning there. It's funny, actually.

Donald Trump needs exactly 250 more delegates to win the Republican nomination. There are 583 still available, meaning he too does not need a majority of the remainder to get a win. Simply put, this race is as over as the Democratic race, the only question is whether or not Trump can seal the win like Clinton will. Cruz picking Carly Fiorina as his running mate was hilarious, and perhaps just further proof of the low quality of the candidates in the Republican race. This race has been an embarrassment to America, and yesterday was just the latest example of it.

Thoughts on Tuesday's Presidential Primary

In case you didn't want to believe it, Pennsylvania's Democratic Primary voters once again proved their taste for stability and known quantities on Tuesday. On a night that went very well for the party's chosen candidates, Hillary Clinton crushed Bernie Sanders in Pennsylvania, 56-44%. She won in Philadelphia, she won in Pittsburgh, she won in the Philly suburbs, the Lehigh Valley, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, and almost every other population center. She walked away with a net-gain of over 20 delegates from the Keystone state.

What happened? Well, Democratic Pennsylvanians liked Hillary eight years ago, and they like her now. That's most of the story. She does have some problem spots- i'm looking at her loss in Cambria County most specifically- but she remains popular here, and she held her ground. It is worth noting that she clearly did better amongst African-Americans in Philadelphia than eight years ago, and similarly didn't do as well with blue-collar white voters in the state, but there's no sign that lasting damage was done to her in Pennsylvania. If anything, she starts this state stronger than President Obama did eight years ago as the nominee. For the record, President Obama won the state easily, twice.

In short, the norm held in Pennsylvania. Hillary Clinton did what she was expected to do. Now it's on to November for the potential 45th President.

Thoughts on Tuesday's Senate Race

Katie McGinty really never had a lead in the polls for the U.S. Senate race. At one point, she was way behind Joe Sestak, and appeared to be done. Today, she's the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate. How'd it happen?

Let's start with the obvious- Tuesday night's Democratic Primary was the ultimate "establishment" night. McGinty had the endorsements of President Obama, Governor Wolf, Senator Casey, former Governor Rendell, and virtually everyone of note within the party. Joe Sestak and John Fetterman both had none of that. The DSCC and other outside groups spent a minimum of $2 million helping McGinty beat Sestak. There was even money spent on Fetterman, once it was clear that he was cutting into Sestak's totals.

It's not fair to say that was the only factor though. Katie McGinty was not a very good candidate at all when she finished last in the 2014 Governor's primary, or even when she started this U.S. Senate race. She became a very personable, likable figure as the race went on. She improved as a public speaker, her message became sharper, and she became a very disciplined candidate. Her ads over the final month were outstanding, and she clearly won the ground game in the big cities too. Katie McGinty won this race, and she deserves the credit for that.

While McGinty did win by 10%, there is more work to do. She did not carry Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Delaware County (Sestak's home), and Northampton County (Easton), amongst the Democratic-leaning counties around the state. She must improve her standing in the Lehigh Valley, the home of Senator Toomey, so as to not allow him to run a huge margin there. She also has to run a winning number out of Allegheny, if he wants to win.

I supported McGinty in this primary and i'm glad she won. Obviously there are some hurt feelings after this race, but hopefully folks who supported Sestak and Fetterman will eventually come around to her candidacy. Only time will tell if she can hold her momentum through November.

Pennsylvania- Go Vote for these People

I support her mom.

I've been out working the polls this morning, and it's been a busy day already. I'll be going to vote shortly, and I will be voting for the following people:

• President- Hillary Rodham Clinton
• U.S. Senator- Katie McGinty
• Pennsylvania Attorney General- John Morganelli
• Pennsylvania Treasurer- Joe Torsella
• Pennsylvania Auditor General- Eugene DePasquale
• U.S. Congressman 17th- Matt Cartwright
• Pennsylvania House 137th- David Mattei (Write-In)
• Delegate to the Democratic National Convention- Jennifer Newland, Ed O'Brien, Adrian Shanker, Jacqueline Blandine Mballa-Fonkeu, and Tara Stephenson. All the Northampton County candidates. I will cast one more vote as well, and recommend Grace McGregor-Kramer, Neil Makhija, and Jessica Rothchild.

Vote Tomorrow

Eight years ago, our country made history, electing Barack Obama as our first African-American, and 44th overall President. I remember the euphoria and good will surrounding that victory, the celebrations in the streets of major American cities, and the tremendous outpouring of support at his inauguration.

The country's mood seems ironically different. Life is considerably better than it was in 2008, and yet the public is far more sour on their candidates. This makes voting tomorrow in the Pennsylvania Primary all the more important. I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton, the most qualified and proven candidate in the field, to be our next President. I hope you'll go out and vote too, and let your voice be heard. With such important offices as U.S. Senator and your local State Representative on the ballot, you could be the difference. Please vote tomorrow.

Yes, I Support Closed Primaries

This is Washington Square in Manhattan, actually....

There are two major parties in American politics, the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats represent the broader American left, and the Republicans represent the broader American right. At times, these parties may drift more moderate, or more towards their polar opposites, but that is driven by the voters who make up those parties. If you choose to not register in either party, and be an independent, you are saying you cannot be a part of either of these coalitions.

I understand that anyone can register as what they would like- but there are repercussions to all decisions. If you are not a Democrat, you should not vote in Democratic Primaries. If you are not a Republican, you should not vote in Republican Primaries. The voters who choose to put their name in a given party should choose what kind of party they are in. Being a member should have benefits- like getting to choose what the group wants in a nominee. Not only do I not support "open" primaries where independents get a vote for the party's nominee, I actually would support a rule that doesn't allow delegations not elected by Democrats alone to be seated.

The practical implications of this are that Bernie Sanders' does not get as many votes, because some of his supporters refuse to register as Democrats. My argument is that they should register Democrat, and if they are unhappy with where the party is, then vote people out in primaries. Political parties are simply a product of their members. If you think the Democratic Party sucks, do something about it.

In the meanwhile, I hope Democrats pick Democratic nominees for office.

When An Institution Becomes an Embarrassment

The irresponsibility of a U.S. Senator suggesting violating the law for political purposes is incredible. Or, it's what you expect from Iowa's senior Senator, Chuck Grassley:

“And if there’s political interference, then I assume that somebody in the FBI is going to leak these reports and it’s either going to have an effect politically or it’s going to lead to prosecution if there’s enough evidence," he said.

Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pushed for additional scrutiny of Clinton’s email use during her tenure as secretary of state, a subject that has dogged her throughout the 2016 campaign cycle.

But Grassley said that he wouldn’t break the law by "encouraging" a document leak. 

“I wouldn’t be encouraging it because if it’s a violation of law, I can’t be encouraging a violation of law,” he said. “This is kind of my own opinion, this is something I’ve heard.”

Basically, Grassley isn't "encouraging" anyone to break the law, he's just throwing out the idea of an outrageous abuse of power by federal agents who want to play politics with justice. Hillary Clinton didn't violate the law. The Department of Justice will end up saying that again, soon. In his political desperation to get re-elected, Grassley is just going to be nakedly partisan and rant and rave to impress his base. Iowans should kick this bum out of office in 2016.

Is This the Best We Can Get?

Ted Cruz visited Allentown yesterday. Not that I like any of them, but you'd think that front-runner Donald Trump or less-knuckledragger John Kasich would visit the third largest city in the state. With under 96 hours to go, neither of them, or Democrats Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders have been to the Queen City. Lyin' Ted is the best we can get.

For perspective, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been to Scranton or it's suburbs, as has Bernie Sanders. Chelsea Clinton has even made the visit. Obviously they have all been in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg, Erie, and Johnstown are getting some love too. Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton are all getting forgotten. Reading is being left off the docket. Even Scranton's neighbor, Wilkes-Barre, is like a forgotten place. This is not like 2008 much at all.

I do get it. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are actually the most important places in the state for a statewide primary. I get that Harrisburg is our capitol. Past that, i'm sort of lost. Allentown is a considerably bigger city than Scranton. It's residents better fit our party's demographic. Lehigh County and Northampton County are both bigger than Lackawanna County. Luzerne County is much bigger than Lackawanna. Now, if I were a Presidential candidate, I would visit Lackawanna, with it's rich history of electing statewide Democrats, and reputation for strong organizational politics. This isn't an either/or thing.

I'd just make sure I visited Allentown or it's neighbors.

Happy Earth Day!

From NASA's Facebook

Welcome Chelsea Clinton to Philadelphia

This Monday night, come join us in welcoming Chelsea Clinton to Philadelphia at an event in support of her mother Hillary's campaign for President. The event is at 7:30 pm at the CODA and tickets are $45. Buy here.

Philadelphia Sports and Our Fans

Now that the Flyers are back on the road, and game three is in the rear-view, I can say this- that was a real embarrassment. The play was pathetic on the ice, but that does not excuse the behavior in the stands. The bracelets handed out to commemorate Ed Snider's life were handed out to a proud fanbase, and to particularly great fans, the type that spend their hard earned money to go to a playoff game (which usually costs more). The idea was not for those bracelets to be tossed onto the ice, or for anything else to be tossed onto the ice. It was not a high point for Philadelphia fans.

The other side of that coin isn't so sweet either. Bryce Harper ripped those Washington fans last September for leaving in the 7th inning of a close game with the Mets during a pennant race. I've seen Cardinals fans clap for a closer who just blew a save. On the other side, fans in LA and Dallas have violently attacked fans outside the stadium from opposing cities.

Philadelphia fans are passionate, which is what makes them great. They aren't pathetically happy, or any more consistently violent than any other city. They are loud, they are tough, and they are there- a big deal compared to some fan bases. Game three might have been ugly, and the fans didn't behave as planned, but the harm was minor. Very minor when compared to the greatness that is Philadelphia fandom.

How I Really Feel About Bernie Sanders and His Supporters

When this process started out, my stance on the Hillary vs. Bernie fight was that I liked both, and would vote for her in the primaries. I've been familiar with Bernie Sanders for a very long time, going back to my days as an undergrad at Moravian, where several of my professors were huge fans of Bernie's as a Congressman (at that time). Sanders was presented as a pure-liberal, the kind one can support and sleep peacefully at night, and I liked that. Those were the days of George W. Bush and Denny Hastert's Washington, a time when Democrats in Congress routinely disappointed their supporters, and a time when Howard Dean was energizing the American left. Barack Obama was a nobody State Senator in Illinois and Elizabeth Warren was basically a professional wonk.

I got into politics at that time, a time when most of my friends and compatriots were shunning the whole business. I got into it because I was mad about the miscarriage of justice in the 2000 Election, I was mad about the rush to war in Iraq after 9/11 (and for that matter, even Afghanistan at the time wasn't something I was for), I was mad about Bush's social-conservatism, I was mad about Bush's tax cuts, and I was mad about the fall of industrial America, something I grew up watching as Bethlehem Steel left the Lehigh Valley. That's who I was in 2002, 2003, 2004, and even 2005, and it's actually someone I'm proud of. While I realize how unrealistic my puritanical positions were at the time, idealism is a great place to start if you want to involve yourself in politics. It's not a great place to finish though.

This brings me back to Bernie and 2016. Something really amazing has happened with him, something we all should acknowledge- a lot of younger people who didn't want to be involved in politics before are getting involved now. I have friends and relatives who I did not even know what their political beliefs were that are coming out and saying they support Bernie's campaign. They were willing to sign his petitions, willing to go see his rallies, willing to volunteer for him, and even willing to vote for him. It's been a beautiful thing. I think even for someone almost 15 years removed from their most-idealist state of mind like me, this is something you want in American democracy. I'm glad he introduced many people to the process, but i'm not sure his message is one that is ultimately good for them.

The idealism that started has faded in some Bernie supporters, and possibly the candidate himself. Puritan politics might make you feel better at night, but the reality is that it's actually like handcuffing yourself and going into a fist-fight. Attacking Hillary Clinton for raising money, for the DNC no less, is not productive. Slamming "the establishment" of the Democratic Party, and saying the process is "rigged" every time you lose, is not productive. Promising that as President you will make college free, expand Medicare to everybody, end fracking, and break up the banks, without giving details to anything, and only explaining the "how" with "by a political revolution," is not only not productive, but is dangerous in that it sets up a whole generation of young voters to see politics as a failure when it does not happen. The tone, the sanctimonious nature the campaign has taken, the unwillingness to accept the results as legitimate when they aren't favorable, and the near freak outs at every critique of Bernie leaves me wondering if this was ever really a good thing at all. The behavior of Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver makes me really question if I like the guy anymore.

Ultimately, I come back down from the ledge. Bernie Sanders has moved the conversation left on a great number of issues during this campaign, and I think he's made Hillary Clinton a much better candidate for the general election. I agree with some of his ideas, and agree in theory with his world view on the whole. Beyond that, we have a local Sanders campaign here, one that I have interacted with. I like his volunteer leaders locally, they are solid progressives who work hard. I will even vote for some of his delegates (because it makes strategic sense to, and because I like them) in the 17th Congressional District. It's important to not let "Bernie Bots" on Twitter end up dragging your opinion of an overall positive movement into the gutter.

So what do I really think of Bernie Sanders? I like him, a lot, as a United States Senator. I hope he goes back there and passes some of the good ideas from his campaign into actual laws. I hope he paves the way for future progressives to carry on his movement, and I hope his young supporters stay involved moving forward. I just hope he doesn't destroy our party along the way.

The State of the Democratic Nomination Fight- #BernOut

It's over.

It's been over, but any dreams you had are over now. Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. No way, no how, no Bernie. You can write Hillary Clinton down in pencil or ink if you want, but there's no way for Bernie to get there. If you want to believe in some crazy Republican conspiracy about Hillary Clinton being indicted on some phantom crime, I'm not going along with you, but you can. Even then, the Revolution is dead though. Math says so.

After last night's win in New York, Hillary Clinton holds substantial, frankly insurmountable leads. She leads the pledged delegate count 1,428 to 1,151. She leads the super-delegates, or unpledged delegates, by a count of 502-38. That's 1,930 to 1,189 overall, or a margin of 741 delegates. Yes, Bernie is entitled to make the super-delegates actually vote, if he wants, at the convention. No, they're not going to vote for him. With 1,400 pledged delegates out there still to be awarded, he is not going to make up a 239 delegate disadvantage. Not with next week's states being on the horizon.

There are 189 pledged delegates on the line next Tuesday in Pennsylvania, and Hillary holds a 13 point lead in both the latest poll and the RCP average of polls. Maryland has 95 pledged delegates on the line next week, and Hillary holds a 25% lead in the latest poll, and a 20.7% lead in the RCP average. RCP has just one poll in their Delaware average, a state with 21 pledged delegates, and Hillary Clinton holds a 7% lead. Connecticut has 55 pledged delegates, and a few polls, and RCP shows her leading by 7.5% there. Rhode Island has no recent polls on RCP, but the last one showed Clinton up 9% in the race for their 24 pledged delegates.

Clinton is extremely likely to add to her lead next Tuesday. Giving Clinton a 10% win in Pennsylvania (which seems low) and a 20% win in Maryland (which also seems low), that would yield 104-85 and 56-39 in those two. Even if Sanders won the other three (unlikely as it would seem) by ten points each (even more unlikely), she may come out with 12-9, 30-25, and 14-10, best case scenario. Clinton would still gain another 24 delegates that night on Sanders. There will be just 1,016 pledged delegates left on the table after that, and Clinton's lead would be up to 1,632-1,331 in the pledged count. Bernie would have to beat her by 302 out of 1,016 remaining pledged delegates, or a 30% margin. He is not going to win all of the remaining primaries by that. He particularly won't win California and it's 475 pledged delegates by that margin, a state where RCP shows Clinton leading by 9.5%.

For academic purposes, Hillary has not clinched the nomination yet, but in reality, she has. Any pathway to victory for Sanders always included winning the 4,051 pledged delegates. Given how unlikely that is, write it off now. He can prolong the inevitable by denying her 2,383 pledged delegates, and forcing the super-delegates to vote in a contested vote in Philadelphia. None of them will be happy about that though, so i'm not sure exactly why he thinks they would vote for him? The talk of his "good polling" numbers doesn't mean much to most super-delegates- they realize he isn't facing negative ads.

Jeff Weaver can come on MSNBC and talk however he'd like, the only question now is how Bernie Sanders wants this play out. Perhaps he thinks so lowly of Hillary Clinton that he will attack her hard this week, and into the future, and drag the race to Philadelphia without a hope of reconciliation between the two sides, throwing the Presidency to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. If he does that, he will return to a Senate where he is hated and shunned by his colleagues, and where he will finish his career as an ineffective old man. Perhaps on the other hand, he will contest the next week, and then begin to tone down his rhetoric. Perhaps he will not drop out as she surpasses the 2,383 total delegate mark, but he will simply seek to win delegates and have a say in the future of the party. Perhaps he will then campaign for her and other Democrats this Fall, and take his new-found influence and fame back to Washington next year and pass a major piece of legislation from his campaign platform. In this scenario, Sanders becomes an icon, an elder-statesman within the party. The choice is Bernie's now. The choice will come due very soon.

No, Not Bernie

After his recent winning streak, some Bernie supporters hypothesize that Clinton supporters, both super-delegates and regular ones, will now reconsider their support of Hillary Clinton. Let me just start by saying that's not going to happen. Then let me say that I certainly won't be reconsidering.

I'll make the obvious argument, the pragmatic one, first. I don't think Bernie Sanders is an electable candidate. Sure, he polls well right now against Republicans, but that's because no one is really attacking Bernie yet. That would change over night if he were nominated, and his numbers would drop like a lead balloon. Bernie would be hit for being a self-described "socialist," for saying he'll raise taxes, for wanting a pacifist foreign policy, and for his lack of details to his grand plans. Bernie's political base is basically white liberals, and his inability to energize African-Americans would spell doom for him. In short, I think a nominee Sanders would be a disaster for himself. I also think he would be for the party, the party that he has criticized often in the past, and who he isn't fundraising for now. All of this is before the GOP digs through his voting record and eviscerates him that way too.

Then there is the practical math argument- Bernie isn't going to win, so why are we entertaining his attacks on the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton. Bernie trails in elected delegates 1,287-1,037, a margin of 250 delegates, which is insurmountable under Democratic proportional delegate rules with just 1,647 elected delegates remaining. That margin is compounded by her solid leads in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey, her smaller lead in California, the lack of caucuses remaining, and the closed primary contests ahead. Bernie claims that the super-delegates will switch to him as the process goes on, but that has no chance of happening. Hillary leads 469-31 amongst super-delegates, a margin four times as large as her biggest 2008 lead, and that will not change since she won't ever trail in the elected delegates. The super-delegates might at least entertain the thought of switching over if Sanders lead the pledged delegates, but that is never going to happen. Since she leads both pledged and unpledged delegates (elected and super), it's fair to say the current scoreboard says 1,756-1,068 in favor of Clinton. Clinton will win 627 of the next 1,647 delegates pretty easily, plus more super-delegates most likely. She will reach the majority of elected delegates, 2,026, with ease, but winning 739 of the remaining 1,647 pledged delegates. In short, this race is over, even if Bernie wins the majority of the remaining delegates, which isn't likely. Her leads in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and California represent an overwhelming majority of what's left.

Finally though, I don't want Bernie on the substance. Bernie has promised a bunch of things he cannot, and plausibly should not deliver. He has no substantive plan for breaking up the banks, no idea how he would go about it, and no idea what to do for the people impacted by that. He has no substantive plan for giving everyone free college education, or any idea how to react to the economic jolt that will cause to some people. His "Medicare for All" plan scraps the Affordable Care Act and could crater the economy with the immediate job losses, assuming he ever figures out how he is going to pay for it. He's going to throw the bankers in jail, with no real legal authority to do so. He's going to overturn Citizens United and get money out of campaigns, with no realistic plan to do it. He's going to do all of this of course, even though President Obama was unable to do much more than a meager Stimulus program, the Affordable Care Act, and the Dodd-Frank bank legislation, all of which Sanders calls inadequate, but all of which contributed to massive Democratic losses in 2010 and 2014. Sanders is going to do it by leading a "political revolution" where his followers come protest in DC or something. You'll find this shocking i'm sure, but I doubt the GOP is all that afraid of this. You also won't be surprised to hear that I'm horrified by the prospects of going down this road, and proving once again that the American left is so idealistic that it is incapable of governing in a responsible way.

I want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee and next President. I want her experience and I want her more realistic plans. When I hear a candidate talk about increasing apprenticeships for tradesmen, I want that. When I hear a candidate talk about lowering student loan debt, instead of just making college free, I want that. When I hear a candidate say she wants to work within the current constructs of the ACA and Dodd-Frank to take on issues in our health care and banking systems, I want that. Yes, Clinton has made mistakes before, like her Iraq War Vote, but so has Bernie (gun manufacturer immunity, the 2008 bailout, saving Detroit/American car manufacturers, voting against funding for 9/11 first responders, etc.). Clinton seems to have learned from it, and apologizes for many of her mistakes, while Bernie defends his behavior with many excuses. When we're talking about taking on the Syrian crisis, improving on the ACA, handling global climate change, and negotiating new legislation with Congress, I want Hillary Clinton.

I started out this process really liking Bernie Sanders, and appreciating the energy he brought to the primary. At this point, his attacks on Secretary Clinton's campaign finances and Senatorial voting record have completely turned me off to him. I would love to say that I would never vote for Bernie in the general election, but realize how disgustingly privileged that is, knowing the neanderthal Republicans would do lasting damage to the lives of millions of people living in America who need a President. The irresponsible, childish behavior of the #BernieOrBust crowd, their lack of any real-world perspective on politics, reminds me that both parties are capable of having a Tea Party. The rigid ideology, the anger, and the lack of specifics turns me off.

So, don't assume I just like Hillary because of pragmatism. I prefer her on all fronts.

Crazy Stuff From Congressman Cartwright's Opposition

From Rep. Cartwright's Facebook page

Bernie O'Hare re-capped the highlights of the 17th Congressional District's GOP Tea Party debate. I'm cherry-picking my favorite parts here.

On electing Senators:

According to Connolly, one of the reasons this Amendment was adopted is because "the wannabe senators were bribing the state legislators in order to elect them." But he said Senators today "bribe every voter out there. And they do it with promises they can't keep, and they know they can't keep, and they buy votes by spending our grandchildren's money." He said that having state legislators pick U.S. Senators would bring back "another level of accountability to the people."

Geissinger agreed, saying that the 17th Amendment "destroyed the balance."

Say what? Appointing Senators makes them more accountable? Okay then...

Connolly on abortion rights:

"I believe the child is innocent, regardless of the sins of the father or the irresponsibility of the mother," said Connolly  His position with Project VoteSmart is that abortion should only be considered "when the women did not consent or if the mother's life is in danger." At the debate, he said that "I have yet to see a true medical situation where the baby must be aborted to save the life of the mother. If it exists, that's not going to be part of the legal system. That's going to be part of the medical system. That life issue will soon become the lifestyle of the mother."

I think that stands on it's own as crazy. Let's leave it there.

Federal spending:

Balancing the Budget. - Connolly said he'd start by nixing the automatic increases in programs that go on year after year. Geissinger added that a family is unable to last long if it spends $50,000 every year but only takes in $40,000, and must look to cut expenses He pointed to Lou Barletta, who in Congress has pressured the General Services Administration to negotiate leases that potentially could save billions over the long term. For example, people with 1500 sq ft would see that space reduced to 150 sq ft.

Cutting Federal Agencies - Geissinger said he'd reform the Veterans Administration, which employs 270,000 people.Connolly would eliminate the Department of Education and slammed the EPA as a collection of "unelected bureaucrats with no accountability."

I'm sure glad that Congressman Cartwright is going to beat these guys.

Primary Eve- Come Rally With Chelsea Clinton in Philadelphia

A lot of times when you're involved in politics, you get invited to events where you'll be like four miles from the guest of honor. Not all the time though. On April 25th in Philadelphia, you can come to an event where you'll actually see Chelsea Clinton. For $45, you can come see Chelsea rally the Pennsylvania faithful at The CODA on Rittenhouse Square. It's sure to be a great event, one actually worth your while in terms of political fundraisers.

Phillies First Week Notes

Some notes on the first week that was:

• From the department of bad signs- Bourjos and Hunter have 18 at-bats a piece, while Darin Ruf has six. This isn't me telling you how I think Ruf will be awesome, this is me telling you that the .167 and .111 hitting outfielders scare me.
• Cesar Hernandez is off to a nice start, hitting .421 (8-for-19) and posting an .895 OPS in week one. Lost in that though is a very concerning stat- two times he was caught stealing this week. Cesar needs to hit for high average and steal bases for his offensive game to play up enough to make him a long-term solution at second base. While I believe that he will, this week he was caught stealing more than we would like to see. He also did strike out four times, a rate he cannot continue at.
• Jeremy Hellickson wasn't just good on the mound- he went 2-for-4 this week.
• The IronPigs were supposed to open on Thursday in Syracuse, and instead they opened on Friday in Allentown. The Phillies AAA club actually played a doubleheader at Coca-Cola Park in front of one (1) fan. They lost both games and are 0-2 so far. Most of the players that fans are worried most about- Nick Williams, Will Venable, Darnell Sweeney, Andrew Knapp, and Tommy Joseph- all went hitless in the two games. Brock Stassi had a hit though in three at-bats. Adam Morgan and Jake Thompson both threw five innings of one run ball though in the losses.
• Jeanmar Gomez is getting a lot of attention for his emergence in the closer race, closing out two saves this weekend. Hector Neris is probably getting less attention for his 4.1 innings of one hit ball this week. It'll be interesting to see if he eases into more important spots if he keeps pitching well.
• Jeremy Hellickson should be 2-0 for the kind of week he had. In 11.2 innings, he gave up two earned runs. While I'm not confusing him with Clayton Kershaw, a return towards his early career self in Tampa would be huge for Hellickson's value, both to himself and the Phillies. He could prove a valuable trade piece, and could earn himself a decent payday as a free agent.
• With Roman Quinn's walk-off single on Sunday, Reading is 2-2 in the AA Eastern League. Jorge Alfaro is hitting .500 a week in, while most of the other prospects of note are scuffling in the .200s. It's worth noting though, Reading was playing in 34 degree weather on Saturday, which is frankly ridiculous for April.
• I don't want to pick on Pete Mackanin too much a week into the season, but should it have taken until now to think about Jeanmar Gomez as a potential closer, or Darin Ruf as a left-fielder? I might understand it if either were a rookie, or weren't on last year's team even, but these are guys he already knew. It strikes me as odd that he didn't know to try them.
• No matter how many lefties you carry in the pen, the rotten stats of the week go to lefties Daniel Stumpf and James Russell, rocking 40.50 and 54.00 ERA's a week into the season. Stumpf also could be linked to the rotten state line of his fellow Rule-5 pick, Tyler Goeddel, who struck out in four of his five at-bats this past week. Obviously the Phillies want to get both through the season on the roster, but both have to show they can compete a little more than they did this week.
• Clearwater posted a 2-2 week in the Florida State League this week. Carlos Tocci posted a .471 average on the week, picking up right where he left off in Spring Training. Kyle Martin hit two homers on the week two.
• Odubel Herrera's week wasn't just terrible at the plate. "El Torito" posted two errors in center field in the opening week. That's impressively terrible.
• Starters hitting below the Mendoza on week one- Odubel Herrera, Peter Bourjos, Cedric Hunter, and Darin Ruf. Ruf didn't get a lot of at-bats, but we'll count him with the others for now.
• Lakewood got off to a 1-3 start, which is only really scratching the surface for how bad the week was. Super prospect Franklyn Kilome pitched two innings in his start and has an ERA of 22.50 after. Former top pick Shane Watson is 0-1 with a 6.75 ERA after going four innings in his season debut. Alberto Tirado, a highly ranked reliever picked up for Ben Revere, has a WHIP of 3.00 after 1.2 innings in which he walked three guys. In case you think I'm just picking on the pitching, Cornelius Randolph struck out six times in his first week, on the way to a .105 average. Jose Pujols was pretty terrible too at .167, and he struck out eight times. It was an ugly week.

As the Phillies Come Home, Maintaining the Phaith

No one should confuse what i'm about to say with false hope- the Phillies were a lot better team in the first week of the season than perhaps you think they were. Yes, the bullpen was as terrible as expected, losing two games in which they had a lead in the 8th inning or later, something they did three times last season. Yes, the line-up looked anemic at times, and showed signs that it will struggle this season. If you pretty much gave up hope of seeing improvement in 2016 once the team was at 0-4, you may want to stop reading here.

The Phillies are 2-4 a week into the season. They lead four of their first six games in the 8th inning, which is actually a pretty good sign. Five out of six games they played on the first road trip saw their starting pitcher get into the sixth inning give up three earned runs or less. Ryan Howard, a player for whom there was not a lot of hope before the season, hit a couple of homers this past week. The Phillies won a series against the defending National League Champion New York Mets this weekend- something they did not do in 2015. Jeanmar Gomez at least showed you he can handle the pressure of the 9th inning, and Vince Velasquez looked as good as advertised in his Phillies debut.

None of this is to say that you should put down your deposit on playoff tickets right now. The Phillies line-up was as rough as advertised, and the bullpen had two key pieces (Hernandez and Hinojosa) melt down in the first week. The team is 2-4, and the current roster doesn't figure to be a lot better than it was this past week. I'm not trying to sell you false hope.

I'm saying this though- the starting pitching is fairly decent, and despite the team's deficiencies, they have the ability to get leads for the bullpen into the 8th inning. If they play as well as they did last week, winning 70 games is not out of the question for this Phillies group. Of course, this is the "glass half-full" view of the team. If they blow two leads a week this season, 100 losses is the tip of the iceberg.

As Primary Nears, PA-8 a Real Battle

The best chance for a Democrat to take back a Republican seat in Congress in Pennsylvania this year is probably the 8th Congressional District. The seat encompasses battleground county Bucks, and some of the Republican leaning parts of Montgomery County. Mitt Romney narrowly carried it in 2012, and Mike Fitzpatrick is retiring in 2016, leaving the seat wide open in this race.

I haven't seen a single poll of the 8th Congressional District, but all signs point to a competitive race between State Representative Steve Santarsiero and Shaughnessy Naughton, who narrowly lost the 2014 primary. Normally, geography can tell you a lot about who will win a race in this district- but not this time. Neither one lives all the way down in Bristol or Bensalem, or where most of the voters live- both live a little bit up the river. Santarsiero carries most of the party establishment endorsements with him, but Naughton carries that of Governor Rendell and Congressman Cartwright. While Santarsiero has been in the state house for eight years, Naughton ran and nearly won the primary two years ago. The race should be very close.

If I had to guess, Santarsiero's party backing gives him an edge. With that said, Naughton starts out with a solid base of votes from 2014, and that could give her an edge too. Both are on television with ads, and are running robust field efforts. Santarsiero has a history of winning in a tough house seat, and that experience could come in hand for him on the 26th.

The PA College Dems Conference, Happy Valley Make for a Great Weekend

I got up pretty early on Saturday morning, which is not normally my thing. I had to take a long drive though, all the way to the center of Pennsylvania, State College. I had been invited to participate as a speaker on a panel about running for office at the College Democrats of Pennsylvania Annual Conference at Penn State, which I guess makes me old, but also is an honor. So I shot up 33 to I-80 and drove all the way to the Bellefonte exit for Interstate 99 down to State College. I was off to Happy Valley!

The one thing to know about State College is that for as great as it is on a football game day, it's better when there isn't a game. You can get around easier, the restaurants and shops are less crowded, and you get to appreciate the town a little more. I took some time to do that during the course of Saturday, checking out the campus, the Nittany Lion shrine, Old Main, Rec Hall, and shops in town. I should have visited the Creamery, but now you can do that here in the Lehigh Valley, so it was less urgent.

The conference was quite an experience. A young lady from Pitt's Democrats was our moderator, and she asked some creative questions. I spent most of my speaking time talking about finding candidates with passion, how the Democratic Party desperately needs younger people to run for office, how Pennsylvania politics makes you keep fighting after losses, and different strategies for winning elections. I talked about how most elected offices are part-time gigs, and how a young person can start a career and still serve their local communities. I also talked about how many of our major elected officials in Pennsylvania have to lose before they win, sometimes several times. I talked about the need for a cause, or some passion on an issue, being the most desired characteristic I had in candidates. I hope the kids at the conference liked it.

I didn't hang around for the U.S. Senate Primary debate or after-parties, which is probably all for the best, and I came home after the dinner. I'm probably one of the younger State Democratic Committee members in Pennsylvania, and I hope that while I have that distinction, I can help us reach out to the younger, potentially talented people who we need to keep in our party. I also hope I can spend more time in Happy Valley, any time of year. The whole trip made my weekend.

The Bernie Fantasy's Impending End

Let's be clear- the race for the Democratic nomination has been over in reality since South Carolina, and really since Super Tuesday at the latest. Hillary Clinton holds a delegate lead this afternoon of 250 in the elected delegate department with just 1,647 to go, or what we like to refer to in the math based world as insurmountable. He has no chance to overcome that and win the elected delegate count, so there's no reason to believe her 469-31 super-delegate lead will do anything other than grow, so I think it's probably safe to call the state of the race exactly what it is- 1,756-1,068. Clinton is on her way to the nomination, barring something miraculous happening.

Now, I have long been a fan of Bernie Sanders, going back to when he was Congressman Bernie Sanders in Vermont and I was a college kid learning about him in the early 2000's. I like Bernie, but I don't like some of the messages being pushed right now by and about him, this race, and Hillary Clinton. The coverage of this race by the media, pretending the super-delegates might switch sides, is silly. The coverage of this race, as though 250 elected delegates is not insurmountable, when a lead of half that was for President Obama in 2008, is just incorrect. The negative tone of where this race is going, particularly with Senator Sanders calling Hillary Clinton "unqualified" in a raving speech that brings up corporate money and the Iraq War, is very unfortunate. Talking about "taking it to the convention" as though a floor fight would change the outcome or be good for progressive politics, is insane. In short, the last week or two has soured me on the "niceness" of this year's primary process, and made me want it to come to an abrupt end.

Fortunately, we're reaching the point where that will happen. CNN polling today put Hillary up 11% in Pennsylvania and 16% in New York. It is the second big lead in a row for Clinton in New York, where Emerson put her up 18% this week. The RCP average on the state is Clinton up by 14% at this point, a little over a week out. This makes sense in a state with a large African-American, Hispanic, unmarried women, and "AIPAC" Jewish coalition in their primary electorate. Clinton is consistently in the 50-55% range in Pennsylvania right now, even with all the coverage of her losing streak recently, and RCP gives her a 16% lead here. This is fairly consistent with her numbers in neighboring Ohio, Maryland, and New Jersey. Speaking of Maryland, while it has tightened a bit, it still looks safe for her on the 26th as well, as she's leading comfortably there. This state may be safest of all for her, as African-American turnout should be high with a Baltimore Mayor's race and a U.S. Senate primary being on the ballot. Those three states combine for 531 delegates, and combined with Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, there are 631 delegates left this month. She will win over a majority of them even if she drops a little more. While the media hasn't covered this race correctly so far, hopefully that will end the practice of pretending this race is in doubt.

Hillary Clinton's pledged delegate lead is likely to enter May around 300. It could be a little more, or a little less. There will be just over a thousand pledged delegates left. In short, the next two plus weeks are likely to end this race. Even if Bernie were to narrow all three of these states to ties, it would likely be over. Reality is about to set in, and at least in my view, it's about time.

Re-Litigating the 1990s in Today's Context is Stupid

If I had to guess today, only a hand full of Democrats would vote for the 1994 Crime Bill if it were put forward today. Mandatory minimums, taking away education money for convicts, and industrializing prisons has not worked. If I had to guess, Bill Clinton would not sign the same bill today. As a party, we are moving towards rehabilitation in the criminal justice system, and realizing that the effects of the "get tough" era in criminal justice have left a generation of poor, no longer employable ex-convicts in our society with no real answer for what their lives mean now. We're moving towards de-criminalization of addiction, "banning the box" on employment applications to see if someone was a previously convicted felon, and ending mandatory minimum sentencing. We should move in this direction, and this is a good trend.

Re-litigating the 1994 Crime Bill in a 2016 context is stupid though. It's stupid because many of the people protesting it were too young in 1994 to understand what was happening then. In 1994, the "crack epidemic" was a recent thing. The violent crime rate in America was way higher than today. Many of our biggest cities had just elected "tough on crime" Mayors, many former prosecutors, and those cities were asking for more tools to "clean up" their streets. The conditions on the ground in 1994 were a lot different in 2016- the questions weren't about what will happen to those convicted, but what would come for everyone else. In 2016, we know that many of those fears were misguided. In 1994, they did not know that.

The world we lived in back then, real or imagined, wasn't the one we now occupy. We're at a different place now as a society, a much better place. This isn't to say that everything in the Crime Bill was bad either though. The Violence Against Women Act was a part of the Crime Bill, as was the Assault Weapon's Ban. While I'm sure this would stir a lot of debate, but I'm a supporter of the COPS Act that was in there, which hired more police officers- it provides good paying jobs and it supplies a great counter argument against the NRA's drivel about everyone needing to be armed. You can start a very lively debate by showing the drop in violent crimes since 1994, which some will argue was circumstantial, but it is a debate, nevertheless.

My main point is this- the protestors who want to shout at Bill and Hillary Clinton about the Crime Bill in 2016 (and ironically, less so Bernie, who actually voted for it) are trying to re-litigate something that we can't re-litigate 20 years after the fact. The entire context of the conversation has changed, and if you don't get that, you're pretty clueless. Quite clearly, people in 2016 can see the problem with industrialized prisons, and a criminal justice system that focuses on punishment. In 1994, those were not arguments that prevailed too often.

I'll make one final prediction in light of the other day's "incident" in Philadelphia- it will not hurt Hillary Clinton at all in Philadelphia, and it might even help her amongst African-American voters. While the campaign might want to sit Bill Clinton for a few days and make sure there aren't more incidents like that (which could make the issue a national conversation, which might not go as well), the incident itself isn't likely to cause Clinton much trouble. Older African-Americans in Philadelphia, who vote more often than younger folks (which is true across all demographics), have a history in that city of supporting some "tough on crime" politicians. I'd bet that they have a bit different perspective on the 1990s than the younger activists holding up signs calling Hillary Clinton a "killer" at that rally. Ultimately, the incident will either end up as a wash, or a slight positive for Clinton in the end.

Not Bernie

For most of this process, I have maintained that I'm fine with Bernie Sanders, and that I agree with most of his world view. In theory, I do. In reality, I don't want Bernie's revolution. Sure, I think the big banks do some bad things, but the devil is in the details. The details aren't good for Bernie.

First, let's get real about the art of the possible- Presidents don't get to do everything they want, as they wish. Political capital is hard to come by, and even harder to preserve. Congress requires you spend a lot of it in order to pass things. Bernie Sanders has promised to break up the banks, make college education free, raise taxes, and expand Medicare "for all." That is four legislative achievements that are on the level of the Affordable Care Act. That is simply more than is possible for the next President. This is not to mention immigration reform, and other major issues that are already on the next President's agenda when they take office. The over-promise here is clearly setting up their supporters for disappointment.

Even if you want to believe that the "political revolution" will happen, what will happen to Congress? Will the House flip to Democrat this Fall? If not, will Republicans suddenly stop obstructing and give a President Sanders what he wants? Of course not. The Senate won't be 60-40, so things won't move there either. Unless you believe in magic, partisan politics are a factor.

Even if we assume that Bernie Sanders can get done the things that he is proposing, there is the question of what happens next. What about the details? The Washington Post sums it up:

There’s more — lots more — including an exchange over what law, exactly, Wall Street executives broke during the economic collapse and how Sanders would actually prosecute them. But the two passages above give you some idea of how the bulk of the interview went: the Daily News pressing Sanders for specifics and asking him to evaluate the consequences of his proposals, and Sanders, largely, dodging as he sought to scramble back to his talking points.

You could apply this critique across the board on Bernie. What happens to the people who work in the finance and health care industries you want to destroy? Who pays for free college education? How does this all work?

Look, I agree with Bernie's general feelings about Wall Street, about worker wages, and the economy in general. Details happen to matter. Bernie is a legislator, and it showed in this interview. That lack of thought into the aftermath of his political "revolution" is a bit troubling, and would be a huge issue in a Fall election. While Bernie has good polling numbers now, that would change the minute he would be the nominee, as Republicans would seek to fill in the blanks about Bernie's proposals, and would define him. These issues would haunt him through November.

I think nominating this guy would make for political issues this Fall, and he would never be able to actually do the things he says he wants to do. I have substantive issues with Sanders. I do get the appeal though- Bernie Sanders "feels" better for many than Hillary Clinton. He's promising lots of big items, he's appealing to existing beliefs on the economy held by many. Hillary is not promising nearly the same level of change, which kind of makes sense, because she's living in a reality where she might actually have to do it.

I think Paul Krugman basically nails this:

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

I get it- Bernie feels good. Feeling like you support a "pure" candidate feels better than supporting someone who deals within the system. I don't want the revolution though. I want the pragmatic, qualified Hillary Clinton. I'm tired of the unfair attacks on her, and the assertion that she is corrupt because of fundraising. I guess taking money and support from the gun manufacturers is more "pure." I agree with what Krugman says:

And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates — based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises — Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?

The Sanders campaign has brought out a lot of idealism and energy that the progressive movement needs. It has also, however, brought out a streak of petulant self-righteousness among some supporters. Has it brought out that streak in the candidate, too?

I believe it has. It's about time to wrap this up. Hopefully the good people of New York will join us in Pennsylvania (a week after them), and put an end to this charade. I like Bernie Sanders plenty, he's a fine Senator. The U.S. Senate is a fine place for him to be in 2017.

I'm Unhappy to See "The Process" End for the Sixers

It's Been Fun...

The NBA rewards two things- greatness and absolute failure. Being a fifth or sixth seed in the playoffs means you stay a fifth or sixth seed. To become an elite, contending for a title type of team, you have to pick high in the draft, and/or have lots of cap room to sign multiple major free agents. If you already have that kind of talent, you are contending. If you are terrible, you probably have high picks and money. If you're just good or mediocre? You aren't going anywhere.

Sam Hinkie got lots of things wrong, but he at least got that part right. He took over the Sixers in a complete mess, coming off of the Bynum disaster, and he attempted to build a durable contender. He got lots of things wrong in his personnel choices, but he was right to assume the team needed a gutting out to ever get back to contention. They were a borderline playoff team as long as they kept borderline players around, and he recognized you can't win that way. Sam Hinkie was right about that.

Did he get other things wrong? He certainly didn't need a roster as bad as the one he put together this year to contend for the top pick. It's arguable on all of his draft choices as to whether or not they were the right pick. Did he get enough for Michael Carter-Williams? There are lots of "what if's" to talk about. Clearly, nothing Hinkie has done so far has proven out perfect. It's easy to question his evaluation of talent, but you do have to remember that much of the "talent" the Sixers have is still very young.

I'm fearful of the Colangelo era that is coming ahead. I believe Jerry Colangelo was sent to Philadelphia by the NBA to make the team "good" again. The NBA wants the Sixers to try and be a playoff team, even if that means getting there before they have a star that gives them a chance to excel there. I'm fearful that the goal will become getting in the playoffs, even if that means mid-round picks and a lack of cap space for stars. I do not want to see this team stuck in "sixth seed hell" after going through these couple of awful years.

Sam Hinkie put some of the worst basketball teams we've all ever seen on the court. He could have signed a couple of adequate basketball players and put together a 20-25 win team some of these years, but he didn't. No one enjoyed his tenure as GM of the Sixers. On the other side of that coin, Hinkie leaves the Sixers with about $50 million in cap space and up to four draft picks in the first round this year. He does not leave the Sixers in the purgatory they were in when he got here. They're just bad right now. I do worry that his successors will not be patient enough to see the process through, or effective enough to go get a star now. We shall see.

Under Three Weeks Out From the 4/26 "Super Tuesday," Some Reality on the Presidential Race

On April 26th, voters here in Pennsylvania will go to the polls and vote in races for President, Senator, Congress, state row offices, and state legislative races. The Presidential primary is starting to get a lot of attention, and a lot of misinformation is being spread to "heighten the drama" on the race. Let me put some of that to rest.

• Hillary Clinton still holds a very large lead amongst pledged, or elected delegates, 1,280-1,030. That is a margin of 250, with 1,661 delegates remaining. Sanders will still close this gap a little bit next month when Washington finishes it's delegate allocation. Even then, he will remain substantially (like 220-225 delegates) behind. 
• Hillary leads Pennsylvania by either a solid margin, or a blowout. In the Harper Poll this week, she lead 55-33%, a blowout. There are just 12% undecided in that poll. In Quinnipiac's new poll it was closer, with Clinton leading 50-44%. That poll showed few undecideds though (6%) and that 80% had made up their minds. My guess is that it's actually between the two, with Clinton around 52%, and Sanders around 40%-ish. 
• Sanders does not have a single super-delegate from Pennsylvania at this time, that i've seen. No one is switching.

With all of that out of the way, Clinton leads the delegate count 1,749-1,061. Clinton needs 634 more delegates to win.

Vote John Morganelli for PA Attorney General

In Wisconsin, Bernie's Pointless March Towards Nowhere Carries On

Senator Bernie Sanders won Wisconsin last night, in fact he won it by an impressive 14%. I only picked a 5% win for Sanders, so obviously this was a good night for Sanders. It was his 7th win in the last eight contests. Sanders has done well lately.

This is where I tell you how last night means nothing. It is getting annoying to tell people this, i've been doing this for two or three weeks now, but it remains the same. While I'd love to sit here and tell you about how Clinton slammed the door and won a state she should not have, that's not going to happen. It's all about the demographics. Don't take it from me, take it from former Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe.

Here's the honest impact of last night- with 99% of the votes counted, Bernie Sanders won by about a 57-43% margin, but it will have very little impact on the race. So far, 83 of the 86 delegates have been apportioned, and Sanders leads that count 47-36, a net of 11. Let's assume he wins two of the last three, he would net a 49-37 split, a 12 delegate gain for him. He entered last night down 263 in the pledged delegate count, and is now down 251. That's obviously closer, but let's not forget that Sanders has won 7 of the last 8 contests, and is still down 251. The exact math will end up as 1,280-1,029 in the pledged delegate math. Overall it will be 1,749-1,060 when it's all done, a lead of 689 delegates. In other words, Sanders faces a ridiculously steep road to the nomination.

Looking ahead, Bernie has one more real solid night ahead, in Wyoming, before this month becomes hard for him. Despite Bernie's insistence that New York will be good for him, it's worth noting that he trails by double digits and it is a closed primary- something he has not won yet. Even if he narrowed New York to a virtual tie, there will be 1,397 delegates left after New York, and that would still put him behind in the neighborhood of 240 pledged delegates going into Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island on the 26th of this month. With three weeks to go in those states, he trails in delegate-rich Pennsylvania and Maryland by well north of 20%, sometimes 30% in the polls. There are 384 pledged delegates that day, meaning there will be just over 1,000 left (1,013) at the end of the month. Being really, really charitable here, Sanders could maybe win a 49-30 split in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Clinton is likely to take a split in the 75-100 net gain territory from the other three. I'll be nice and say she wins a +55 day on the 26th. That puts her lead back at about 295 delegates, with 1,013 left. In other words, it becomes impossible. Even if he narrows that by a lot, he's just running out of room. She is nearly a lock to cross 1,500 pledged delegates and 2,000 overall delegates by the morning of the 27th. Even if he beats her fairly badly in California, Clinton reaches 2,383 easily. The math is the math.

So, what is the point now? If Bernie is running for the nomination, he is hoping for external events to force her out of the race, a highly unlikely outcome. If this is about his own ego, that is pointless. If it's just about influencing the process and having a say in the platform at the DNC, that is a great reason to keep going, but then Bernie needs to back off of some of his more sharp jabs at Clinton. Saying Secretary Clinton is "nervous" about a race that she has an insurmountable lead in is poor form. If this is all about just extending the race to extend it, frankly there's no point.

The media will continue to cover this as a horse race, which is just incorrect. This is not a close primary fight. In 2008, President Obama won the overall delegate count by just over 300- Hillary's current lead is just under 700. Why is Bernie continuing to run this race? I have no idea. I have no choice at this point but to believe someone's ego is involved.

Wisconsin Predictions

He won't be winning tonight.

Tonight in Wisconsin, we'll learn the winner of that state's Democratic and Republican Primaries. It's been a week and a half since anything has went on, and tonight is the first glimpse into the mood of the public after Easter.

On the Democratic side, I believe Bernie Sanders will win a 52-47% victory over Hillary Clinton, netting 45 of the 86 pledged delegates, gaining just 4 in the contest. This contest will just highlight the futility of Bernie's continued run, and will highlight why the race is basically over. After tonight, there will be 1,661 remaining pledged delegates to be contest, and Clinton will lead that count 1,284 to Sanders 1,025. With unpledged delegates in the count, Clinton will lead 1,753 to 1,056. She will need 630 more delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. She will need 742 to win the majority of the pledged delegates. Both appear likely to happen.

On the Republican side, tonight could be a dagger in the heart of front-runner Donald Trump. This is a "winner-take-most" primary, meaning a Ted Cruz win nets him the majority of the 42 delegates on the line tonight. I expect that he will get 30-35 of the delegates with a win that gives him 42% of the vote. I believe Donald Trump will come in second at 35%, and John Kasich will get the remaining 23%. Let's make this a 30-8-4 split, for argument's sake, and change this race to Trump at 744, Cruz at 493, and Kasich at 147. With just 806 delegates remaining, Trump will be slightly less than 500 delegates from the win. He won't finish lower than first, and he'll get close, but I'm not sure he can reach 1,237 delegates now.

Tonight won't "change" the race, but Wisconsin is likely to give us plenty to talk about.

Phillies Season Predictions

Some Predictions on the Phillies:

• Most Wins- Jerad Eickhoff 13
• Most Losses- Eickhoff 13
• Best ERA- Aaron Nola 3.21
• Most Saves- Dalier Hinojosa 21
• Strikeouts- Eickhoff 184
• Innings- (tie) Eickhoff and Nola 202
• Batting Average- Odubel Herrera .314
• Home Runs- Maikel Franco 31
• RBI's- Franco 94
• Runs- Herrera 102
• Stolen Bases- Cesar Hernandez- 37
• Hits- Hernandez 184
• OPS- Franco .875
• The Phillies All-Star- Franco
• Top Prospect Call-Up Dates- Nick Williams- June; J.P. Crawford- September; Roman Quinn- September; Mark Appel- August; Jake Thompson- August; Jorge Alfaro- September; Andrew Knapp- September; 

A Wisconsin Primary Primer

Tomorrow, voters in Wisconsin will go to the polls and cast their primary ballots for President on both sides of the political universe. On the Republican side, it's another chance to stop the Donald Trump runaway train. On the Democratic side, it's a chance for Bernie Sanders to keep running, but it won't matter much unless it's an absolute runaway. The two races are in vastly different places.

First, on the Republican side- this is an important state. Wisconsin has 42 delegates on the line tomorrow, and the winner automatically gets a majority of the delegates. Ted Cruz has held varying leads in this race so far, and he's likely to win tomorrow, thanks in no small part to Governor Walker's support. Entering tomorrow's primary, the GOP Delegate count is:

• Donald Trump 736
• Ted Cruz 463
• Marco Rubio 171
• John Kasich 143

I only list Rubio to drive home the main point- Kasich has a less than zero chance of winning this thing. He is behind a candidate who has been out for several weeks now. That he remains in this race is silly, and frankly is all ego. Yes, you poll well right now in general election polls, which is in no small part because you're never going to be in a general election. No one is picking the third place finisher.

This nomination is a two-way race, and at least tomorrow night it should favor the guy in second. I expect Ted Cruz to win about 33 of the 42 delegates, and Donald Trump and John Kasich to split the rest, something like 7-2 or 8-1. This means Trump will probably come out of tomorrow up 743-496-145. The eventual winner will need 1,237 delegates, and 806 will remain after this. The math for Donald Trump, coming out of a loss tomorrow, is very difficult. He will need victories later this month in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, including some bigger margins, to get back on the pathway to reaching the number. He is highly unlikely to get much of the Colorado convention's 37 delegates. I can see Trump picking up another 165 this month, getting him to 908 with 502 remaining. Under that scenario, it's going to Cleveland. The only question then is if the GOP is willing to take the nomination from the guy who got the most votes? If they do so, their convention will be a trainwreck.

On the Democratic side, the race is much different. Wisconsin's 86 pledged delegates will be up for grabs tomorrow, but the split is unlikely to change much of anything. Entering tomorrow, the math:

• Hillary Clinton- 1,243 pledged delegates, 469 unpledged delegates (super-delegates), 1,712 overall.
• Bernie Sanders- 980 pledged delegates, 31 unpledged delegates, 1,011 overall

By most accounts, Sanders has reversed Clinton's slim lead, and now has one of his own. Let's assume Bernie wins tomorrow by 10%, a very substantial popular vote win. Being very generous, he could win the delegate count 48-38 then, though it's more likely to be something like 46-40 or closer. She would continue to lead 1,281-1,028 in pledged delegates, or by 253 pledged delegates. There will be 1,661 pledged delegates remaining at that point, meaning he'd have to win the remaining delegates by about 15%. Considering that he's well behind in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland later this month, and all the states are proportional, Sanders remains in bad shape even with a huge victory tomorrow night. In fact, she'll probably surpass 1,750 total delegates, giving her a shot to reach 2,383 in the next month (in reality, the unpledged delegate endorsements do count). There are 531 pledged delegates in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland alone this month, and she is likely to win all three states. She should at least cross 2,000 total delegates in April.

In other words, feel the math- unless Bernie starts beating her 85-15% in states like this, Hillary is going to be the nominee.

Wrestlemania Review: Maybe Shane McMahon Should Have Won

I think we were all mad about the ending

It's been a few years since I watched a Wrestlemania- you can make of that what you will- but when a few of my buddies went in on getting the WWE Network from Royal Rumble through Wrestlemania and asked me to get in on it with them to drop the price to $7, I was totally game. The sheer entertainment value was worth $7, so there was no loss in it. I got my hopes up a bit though- I was a bigger wrestling fan back in the "Attitude" era, and well, that era is over.

I'll never question the genius that is Vince McMahon, a business tycoon who took pro-wrestling from Ag-Hall in Allentown to a global business. I'll just question where his commitment is these days. The ending of this Wrestlemania had no special twist, wasn't sold to the crowd in Dallas, and was just kind of dull. None of the matches had the kind of exciting twist that you wait for in pro wrestling. Frankly, the highlight of the night was Shane McMahon jumping off a 20 foot high cell and crashing through a table. On a night where Vince McMahon could have interfered in a match, the Rock could have played a role in an actual major match, or where they could have tied together any number of feuds, they just didn't. The consistent "clean" endings, and attempts to put over younger stars quite frankly was kind of boring.

This isn't to say that there were no interesting matches. The Rock was, as usual, awesome. While Cena's return was sort of awkward, but it made for more interesting television. The Shane McMahon-Undertaker match was actually pretty good. DDP's appearance was cool, thought it would have been more cool if he had made it to the end of the Battle Royale. Same for Shaq's appearance. Rick Flair interfering to help his daughter was a fitting way to end that match too. The event on the whole just didn't have any dramatic turning points. It was dull.

In the end it was a funny event to watch with my buddies, and they did give us five hours of event, which is a lot. I just question how pro-wrestling survives in the MMA world without good storylines. Tonight didn't further any interesting storyline going forward. Yes, the Rock is still cool, and Triple H had to go out and "do the job" of losing to another young star to try and put them over, and the fans hated it. Undertaker is still cool too, and Wrestlemania can still get a star like Shaq. The event itself was kind of dull though. Maybe they actually should put Shane in charge of the company.