Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, sports, and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
With but D.C. (D) left, we can summarize. There is about a 55/45 split among pledged delegates with Sanders in the end having a respectable finish, especially with starting expectations and doing so bad in Southern states. His combative approach got him far, but ultimately, Sanders supporters have a reasonable grounds to feel proud and think they helped in the long run. Bitter enders will exist but should be a statistical nonentity by November. After Wisconsin, Kasich received a few more stray delegates than Cruz (NY helped), but never did quite past Rubio's totals. Meanwhile, unless there is some write-in upset or something, the Democrats are assured at least one win in the Senate races since the new California rules means two Democrats will be on the ballot in November. One estimate suggests a 3-2 split in toss-ups will result in a 50-50 Senate, underlining removing a senator to run as Clinton's veep is a really dubious move (choices seem to all be from states with Republican governors).
Anyway, it is also useful to note that of the minority that is the Republican voting block that took part in primaries/caucuses, only a plurality voted for Trump, helped by post-Wisconsin belief he was a lock anyhow and everyone else eventually leaving the race. In delegates, he received a clear majority, but winner-take-all rules and that late "it's done" surge helped too. Ultimately, Trump probably would have been the candidate anyhow, but current rules somewhat exaggerate his support. This plus the usual lag time for things to settle (e.g., Sanders votes to shift to Clinton) make current poll data misleading.