Hillary's Team is Optimistic She Takes at Least Four of Five Primaries Tonight

Bernie's shot is in Rhode Island which accrording to Benchmark Politics is a very close race-they have Hillary up by .25 percent.

Overall, the Clinton team is very optimistic:

"Clinton’s top aides are confident they will win at least four of five states tonight, eyeing RI as Sanders’ best chance."

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/725045647091576832

It looks like she could be poised to do very well in Pennsylvania-perhaps outperforming demographics in the state. Her internal polling seems to be telling her something like that as she will be in the state tonight for a big-victory-speech. Bill will be there again like in NY.

As for Bernie it seems he may take an after the night assessment though Jane Sanders was very insistent that they aren't getting out after tonight.

The Hillary team won't urge him to get out but they are reminding everyone that the math is pretty much nonexistent after tonight.

"If Bernie Sanders loses all five states up for grabs and falls further behind Hillary Clinton in the pledged delegate count, the Democratic front-runner's chief strategist said Tuesday that Sanders has a "virtually impossible" task in front of him."

"Right now, Hillary Clinton with five contests tonight which we’re working very hard to win," chief pollster and strategist Joel Benenson told MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." "We believe we are going to expand our lead in pledged delegates."

He continued, "It’s going to, you know, make it virtually impossible for Senator Sanders to catch us after this as the nominee."

"Referring to Sanders' comments at an MSNBC town hall the previous night in which he said he would work to prevent a Republican from being elected president, Benenson remarked that if the Vermont senator "stays true to his words last night, then he will be out there helping the nominees."

"But those are his decisions to make," Benenson said. "We are confident that Hillary Clinton will be at the top of the ticket leading the Democratic Party in November and in a spirited race against Mr. Trump, be elected president of the United States."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-acela-primary-222453#ixzz46xyVbupV

At the end of the day, Hillary got behind Obama in 2008. Bernie needs to get that you don't get to write the party platform when you finish second.

Input is one thing, but you don't write it.

Apparently Bernie isn't Going to do Everything in HIs Power to Stop Donald Trump

Last night at a Town Hall on Chris Hayes he seemed to suggest while he'd do 'everything in his power' to stop a President Trump, for some reason asking his supporters to vote for Hillary is outside his power.

"With Hillary Clinton almost certainly on track to large wins in Maryland and Pennsylvania today, both sides’ supporters are revved up in a big way over a sharp exchange she and Bernie Sanders had at last night’s MSNBC town hall meeting, in which they battled over how the endgame of this contest should unfold."

"In a statement that angered Clinton supporters, Sanders seemed to suggest that it’s all on Clinton to win over his supporters if she becomes the nominee, arguing that it will be “incumbent on her to tell millions of people” who have “serious misgivings” about her that she will be better on goals that matter to them, such as universal health care and getting big money out of politics."

"In her reply, Clinton reminded the audience that she worked hard to unite the party behind Barack Obama after a bitter, hard fought primary in 2008 that ended with Obama leading her by less than she currently leads Sanders. Clinton added:

“We got to the end in June, and I did not put down conditions. I didn’t say, ‘you know what, if Senator Obama does X, Y, and Z, maybe I’ll support him.’ I said, ‘I’m supporting Senator Obama, because no matter what our differences might be, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and Republicans.’ That’s what I did.

“At that time, 40 percent of my supporters said they would not support him. So from the time I withdrew, until the time I nominated him — I nominated him at the convention in Denver — I spent an enormous amount of time convincing my supporters to support him. And I’m happy to say the vast majority did. That’s certainly what I did and I hope that we will see the same this year.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/26/clinton-just-sharply-rebuked-sanders-she-made-some-good-points/

I also like that her answer to winning over the Bernie supporters: she doesn't have to support the Bernie platform as she's winning the election.

At the end of the day we know what the difference is. Hillary is a Democrat and was one in 2008. I was a Hilary supporter in 2008-though never part of PUMA. The minute it was over in June, I was an Obama guy.

She had the same attitude. She didn't feel sorry for herself but got behind Barrack Obama as the most important thing was getting a Democrat back in the White House. That's what real Democrats do. But Bernie is not a Democrat of any stripe. He is renting the party.

The difference between Clinton 08 & Sanders 16 is Clinton had a long history w/ Dem Party & wanted a future w/ it. Sanders not so much."

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/724771123917950976

Off topic: Many from Jamelle Bouie, to Chris Cillizza, to Matt Yglesias have pointed out that the Kasich-Cruz alliance isn't going to work.

I disagree with Harry Enten that it is even marginally helpful as it gives Trump a very compelling argument.

As Bouie says, Trump has a 'Trump card' called democratic legitimacy.

And Trump is right: this alliance reeks of desperation. MSNBC spoke to some Kasich supporters in Indiana.

1. Many said they will still vote for Kasich. And Kasich has been unwilling to say they shouldn't. Cruz, of course, is telling them shouldn't.

2. Some Kasich supporters even said that they don't like Cruz and Kasich's move offends them as it's so clearly desperation, that they are going to vote for Trump.

Oops.

Like Yglesias says:

"Guys, Trump is going to be the nominee."

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/724655545710342144

Finally Someone Gets it Right About the Real Meaning of 2016

The insight comes from Dave R. Jacobson, a Dem strategist. I have no idea how Huffington Post let this guy write there, but anyway...

The true difference between the Democrat and Republican parties is very simple: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Bernie has been roundly defeated, Trump has overrun and taken over the GOP. As Jamelle Bouie says, they can try to #StopTrump all they want but at the end of the day he has democratic legitimacy.

Jacobson:

"Clinton, Trump Matchup Could Equate to Vindication of Dems and Repudiation of GOP."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-r-jacobson/clinton-trump-matchup-cou_b_9772914.html

So it is. There has been a lot of talk about the Party Decides theory of elections. At FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver and Harry Enten have been pretty cagey about what Trump has done to this theory.

Yet the theory can be saved: just revise it to 'Healthy parties decide.' The Dems are essentially a healthy party, the GOP is a very unhealthy, dysfunctional party.

The GOP's dysfunction is a shown by the inability of it to find agreement with itself. For the Obama years, the GOP was able to unite around hatred for Obama. But this is not an organizing principle for the long term.

This primary has shown a total inability of the GOP to find consensus in its own party. The Dems may have been pushed by Bernie but they were able to withstand his challenge. The key is that the Democratic Establishment can act in concert. They function like a party-which is based on agreement among its members.

The repudiation of the GOP and vindication of the Dems carries with it some big opportunities going forward. There are also sure to be some headwinds and risks. The Emoprogs who wanted to primary Obama in 2011 have failed to take down Hillary Clinton.

But what about the future? I've listened some conversations on Reddit and it's clear that many of the Berners admire the Tea Party model. They'd like to do to the Democratic party what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.

Great model. The Tea Party has destroyed the Republican party as in any way a functioning party. Again, the Dems showed themselves a healthy party as they beat Bernie soundly. But there may be that subset of Bernie fans who will talk about either taking the Dems over like the Tea Party did the GOP or starting a third party.

Another wildcard going forward: Black Lives Matter. BLM while many of its activists have been critical of Hillary Clinton, has far from embraced Bernie Sanders. Many of the activists seem to have real pessimism about electoral politics in general. The current generation of black voters is very strongly for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party.

At the end of the day, voting has never been something that younger folks are that patient about. They tend to have a certain impatience about it. They tend to become disappointed if everything doesn't happen overnight. The paradox is kids seem to think that all problems in the system must be fixed before they engage with it otherwise they feel it will sully them.

There is some reason to worry about the future of the party if far fewer black voters engage in the process. However, this is about the millennials. The current generation of black voters sees the vote as sacred. In 20 years many of these young millennials may see things quite differently.

Here is Black Agenda Report-which is totally anti Democratic party; they seem to be patiently waiting for when black folks wake up and realize that justice for black folks will come when they realize that only Marxism can save them.

"It seems inevitable that Hillary Clinton’s corporate Democrats will profit most, in the short run, from the acute crisis in the GOP. Clinton will run a kind of “Americans united” campaign against Trump’s “politics of hate,” encouraging Black voters in the illusion that their perennial “politics of fear” (of the White Man’s Party) is actually a sophisticated example of “strategic voting” (the Black Misleadership Class’s euphemism for unquestioning loyalty to the Democratic Party). The end result will be a landslide for Clinton’s Democratic “big tent,” which will have been reconfigured to accommodate millions of “moderate” Republican refugees, leaving Blacks even less relevant and influential in the party than under Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill’s Black protégé."

"However, even this limited scenario, which leaves out any significant and dramatic exodus of insurgent Sandernistas, does not alter the inevitability of a destabilized duopoly structure. As I have written before in these pages, duopolies are like binary star systems, circling a central gravitational point in the electoral universe. A change in the path or properties of one party has immediate effects on both, destabilizing their orbits. At the very least, they wobble – and often, much worse."

http://blackagendareport.com/sandernistas_epic_fight_or_slow_fade

I do agree that while in the short term the Dems will obviously profit, in the long term, they need to watch potential head winds.

I don't necessarily accept that the Dems must destabilize if the GOP destabilizes-though I agree they could. I think it's quite possible but not inevitable. BAR presumes that there is something virtuous in having more than two parties, a belief I don't see as warranted. Look at the European countries. They have three or four parties. Does this make them utopias? Hardly. To be sure, they are socialists unlike me, but even so, it hasn't benefited 'socialism' however you want to define it, either.

I've written in the past that we've basically had divided government for 48 years-going back to Nixon's win in 1968. Between 1968 and 1992, the GOP dominated the Presidency, winning 20 out of 24 years. But the catch was the Dems continued to control Congress.

Kevin Phillips' Emerging Republican Majority never quite emerged. Then in 1992, Bill Clinton started the Dems in a period where we have dominated at the Presidential level. But since 1994, the GOP has dominated Congress.

For almost 50 years, then, the two parties have been in a virtual thumb war. The rise of Trump denotes a period where the Dems-if they handle it right-could again become the dominant majority party they were in the FDR-LBJ years for a generation.

Headwinds:

1. Wages. The Dems have to figure out a way to raise median wages which have been stagnant for 40 years. So much of the dysfunction of both Left and Right is predicated on this. If this problem is fixed, much of this will dissipate over time.

If not, then expect things to get worse. In this case the Dems may squander their opportunity. Hillary is on the right track with her plans to do something about the gig economy. Nick Hanauer is the man Democrats must study.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-on-uber-economy.html

The key is not to destroy the gig economy-as the GOP falsely claims she wants to do-but to regulate it. Workplace protections and regulations-unions, etc-need to be brought into the 21st century. The American worker of the future may well be someone who has many online jobs that they do at home.

Yes, it's understandable to be nostalgic to the time when you got out of college or even high school, got a decent job and stayed there till retirement. However, if workers of the future are able to make good wages once such piece work, it's actually enriching-it will give them much more leisure-a significant economic good.

2. Cultural issues. The country remains extremely racially polarized. We see this with the rise of Trump on the one hand, Bernie Sanders on another, and then Black Lives Matter on a third.

What was also very interesting is that black and white millennial see things so differently. Black millennials never felt The Bern in anything like the levels of their white counterparts.

Issues like criminal justice and diversity are going to be ongoing visceral issues. You have the Trumpians on the Right who hate the very big cultural and societal shifts were are seeing-race relations but also the rise of the LGBT movement.

Then you have the young BLM activists who are totally cynical about the entire electoral system. Combustible stuff.

I agree with what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar says. Never do we need a Hillary Clinton more than in this environment.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/kareem-abdul-jabbar-choice-between-hell.html

A choice between 'hell and reason' as he says. The Hillary haters have mocked her talk of 'love and kindness' and her promise to offer the nation hugs, but it seems that this is the time for it.

It's ironic that Hillary Clinton as the first female President-the oddsmakers now have her chances at almost 3 out of 4-will play this mediating role. As historically mediators have been a very female role.

'For What Reason Would Bernie Sanders be in Pennsylvania?'

Great line from Michael Nutter, the former Mayor of Philadelphia.

"Sanders has called the state’s closed primary on Tuesday “enormously important,” and repeated his standard claim that his chances are good if turnout is high."

"But even a strong turnout may not be enough for the Vermont senator, since polling shows Clinton with a double-digit lead."

"Clinton, who won the state by 9 points in 2008, has the endorsements of Sen. Bob Casey and Gov. Tom Wolf, as well as the mayors of of the state’s two biggest cities — Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. She’s also been endorsed by The Philadelphia Inquirer."

“The Clintons are known here,” said former state Democratic Party chairman T.J. Rooney. “Either one of them could pick up the phone and call ward leaders and state committee folks and it would not be the first or second or third time they received a call. So there is that longevity, that familiarity. They’re well-regarded. It’s hard in this state, in this environment to generate the kind of enthusiasm that Sen. Sanders would need to generate.”

“Hillary Clinton is very well known throughout Pennsylvania,” said former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. “She has family roots and history in Pennsylvania. She’s come to Pennsylvania numerous times, certainly Philadelphia and other parts of Pennsylvania, so I think that’s just a part of who she is and what she’s about. I mean she’s not new to the state. I, personally, have no idea how many times prior to this presidential race that Sen. Sanders has been in Pennsylvania. But on the other hand, generally for what reason would he be coming to Pennsylvania? He’s a senator from Vermont.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-northeast-primaries-222272#ixzz46wGSWIqU

It reminds me of the time Charlie Rangel said of Bernie in Harlem: 'Nobody has talked with Bernie Sanders. Now a few people have been lectured by him.'

An interesting question: how many black folks did Bernie have on his staff before he started running for President?

In any case, Hillary should be in for a strong win in Pennsylvania. The demographics favor her and there are signs that she may even outperform her demographics as she did in Ohio.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/did-bernie-lose-ground-in-pennsylvania.html

Bernie himself is admitting that they lost ground after getting blown out in NY. Benchmark Politics which had Hillary up 55-45 has revised their benchmark to 57-43.

There have now been 4 different polls which have her up by 20 or more in the state-though BM doesn't think she'll win by that much.

Meanwhile she should have a big win in Maryland and Delaware. Connecticut had a poll with Bernie within 2 yesterday but Benchmark Politics didn't put any stock in it-they throw out the highest and lowest polls.

In any case, polling is only 25 percent of their model. So they still have her winning in Connecticut 55-45. It's interesting as most recent polling has been a little closer there.

On the other hand even at 57-43, this is a little below the averages in Pennsylvania which has her up by 16.

The one state that Bernie has a decent shot at winning is Rhode Island. A poll yesterday showed him up by 4 points, though this is PPP which has tended to underestimate her.

They only had her up by 11 in NY-though most polling was similar. She outperformed most of her NY polling.

They now have her winning Rhode Island by literally .25 points. There are some divergences between Benchmark Politics and FiveThirtyEight averages. It will be interesting to see who gets it right.

Did Bernie Lose Ground in Pennsylvania After Bigger Than Expected Loss?

The recent polling seems to suggest it. Benchmark Politics which has been pretty accurate, had Hillary up by 10 points-55-45- for Tuesday's Pennsylvania's Dem primary.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/according-to-benchmark-politics-next.html

However, a Frank and Marshall poll came out last week that had her up by 27 points. At the time, it wasn't clear whether this was an outlier. The assumption based on demographics was closer to the 10 point margin of BM.

They did say, however, that if they saw more polls like this they'd revise their benchmark upwards. This morning we got this from the Bernie team:

"His goalposts have shifted in recent months. When it became clear earlier in April that New York was out of reach, people close to Sanders started suggesting Pennsylvania was the real prize — but even that rhetoric has softened as polls continue to show Clinton holding a lead there."

"Sanders’ team thinks he lost ground in Pennsylvania after his wider-than-expected margin of defeat in New York, which it believes got out-sized attention because it was the only state voting last week. And now, while Clinton is set to rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, a sign of her camp’s confidence in the state, Sanders is eager to project the image that he’s looking ahead to the states ahead, opting to host an event in West Virginia — where he’s likely to win, but which does not vote until May 10."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-caught-in-political-trap-222380#ixzz46rfgHWap

There is some irony here.

1. Bernie himself is the one who put so much attention on Pennsylvania. He had boldly declared he was going to win NY and his team had called it a 'must win'-that they were going to win.

2. The further irony is that his team has also been complaining that there is something unfair about having multiple primaries on the same day: this is yet another way that the 'Establishment' has somehow manipulated the results.

Anyway, it was notable as well that Bernie's team was admitting they have lost ground-internal polls are usually more frequent and accurate.

We've just gotten a slew of polls that seem to confirm that he has indeed lost ground post NY.

A new Harper poll has her up 28 points: 61-33; and a new ARG poll has it at 20 points: 58-38.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html

Benchmark Politics tweeted:

"ARG +20% for Clinton. PA about to get major revision in benchmarks."

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/724663608479641600

In that vein, there were some PPP polls out this morning that showed Bernie with a 4 point lead in Rhode Island and just two back in Connecticut.

BM revised RI again-they had HRC up by 6 before. Now it's more or less a tie-she literally leads by about .25 percent.

However, they haven't cut their revising on CT even though this 2 point race is the closet poll we've seen. They are keeping their benchmark at 55-45.

Finally, a new poll shows Katie McGinty ahead of Joe Sestak for Pennsylvania Senate, 39-33 after being behind 16 in early March and 10 in early April

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/pa/pennsylvania_senate_democratic_primary-4327.html#polls

I'd love to say my endorsement had something to do with it.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/04/id-like-to-endorse-katie-mcginty-for.html

It didn't, but I'd love to say it!

I also endorsed Chris Van Hollen for Maryland Senate and one more: how about Kathleen Matthews for Maryland's 8th Congressional district?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-matthews-our-choice-in-marylands-8th-district/2016/03/16/e8a911c2-ea27-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

Let me be clear: my endorsement here is totally irrelevant and not necessary. Ms. Matthews surely doesn't need my help winning tomorrow.

But I'd like to see if I can be 3 for 3 tomorrow in endorsements. Again, correlation is certainly not causation in this case.

Not counting Hillary of course...

So Funny Because it's True: 1 for 38 Kasich and Losing With Cruz

Trump has a way with nicknames but I think this might be his best one yet.

"Lyin' Ted Cruz and 1 for 38 Kasich are unable to beat me on their own so they have to team up (collusion) in a two on one. Shows weakness!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724567219062059008

It's terrific nickname, and it really gives new life to the meme he's been running for weeks against a rigged GOP primary.

Whether or not this helps limit Trump's delegates-and I don't know whether it does or not; it certainly could backfire-it gives him a powerful political message.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/25/donald-trumps-reaction-to-the-cruz-kasich-alliance-was-epic/?postshare=1841461588760208&tid=ss_tw

What makes 1 for 38 Kasich so great is it speaks the truth. Every time you hear it the next few weeks or months-and this is going to be a big meme that everyone will be using-it has a ring of truth in it.

Kasich has won just one state. He does still trail Marco Rubio in delegates and votes despite Rubio being gone for six weeks.

Lyin' Ted has caught on but it is kind of interpretive. Someone might argue whether they really agree he's a liar.

But 1 for 38 Kasich is a simple fact. There's no disagreement or argument here. It kind of begs the question: why is he in this race to begin with? How can it be legitimate to possibly hand the nomination to a candidate who has only won his own home state? There is no state left in the primary where he is likely to win. So why is he still running?

A few weeks ago a reporter questioned him on staying in a race when he's only won his home state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttQfawjR4jg

Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton did that? A big deal had been made over Trump's campaign manager grabbing a reporter. But what Kasich did was quite hostile too. He didn't just grab the tape recorder, he belched into it.

So clearly this fact about Kasich hit a nerve. Now he's about to hear about this a whole lot more with Trump's new nickname for him.

Kasich and Cruz Form an Alliance of Losers

After all, add two zeros together and you get: oops, zero. There are a few words that come to mind upon hearing their official alliance to #StopTrump. One is pathetic. The two candidates and the entire Republican party.

I mean when these are the last bullets in the gun to stop Trump it speaks very poorly for the competence of the GOP.

Here goes Trump:

"Wow, just announced that Lyin' Ted and Kasich are going to collude in order to keep me from getting the Republican nomination. DESPERATION!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724442801933565952

"Lyin' Ted and Kasich are mathematically dead and totally desperate. Their donors & special interest groups are not happy with them. Sad!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724445148910915584

It really is kind of sad. Kasich has wanted this for awhile but Cruz only recently took him up on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/ted-cruz-john-kasich-join-forces-to-stop-donald-trump/index.html

Of course. It's only now that Cruz has also been all but mathematically eliminated.

"Ted Cruz and John Kasich are joining forces in a last-ditch effort to deny Donald Trump the Republican presidential nomination."

"Within minutes of each other, the pair issued statements late Sunday saying they will divide their efforts in upcoming contests with Cruz focusing on Indiana and Kasich devoting his efforts to Oregon and New Mexico. The strategy -- something the two campaigns have been working on for weeks -- is aimed at blocking Trump from gaining the 1,237 delegates necessary to claim to GOP nomination this summer."

"Will this work? It's tough to say. I tend to agree with Joy Reid: you can't beat something with nothing."

Trump's argument that the GOP primary is rigged has seemed to be very effective. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-system-is-rigged-argument-is-working/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/23/the-never-trump-movement-had-the-worst-week-in-washington/?postshare=8651461510741014&tid=ss_tw

"Most GOP primary voters-even those who don't support Trump-think the candidate with a plurality of votes and delegates should win. "

"This is only going to give Trump a whole new meme. He can highlight how pathetic both Cruz and Kasich are, and that this shows the GOP trying to rig the game and stopping him from rightfully taking the nomination."

"Mere hours after the campaigns of Ted Cruz and John Kasich announced that they had reached a deal on a strategy to deny Donald Trump the Republican nomination, the GOP front-runner fired back in a scathing statement that drove home his running argument that the political system in the United States is "totally rigged" and would be unacceptable in other places in American business."

"It is sad that two grown politicians have to collude against one person who has only been a politician for ten months in order to try and stop that person from getting the Republican nomination," Trump said in a statement released through his campaign."

"In Kasich's case, Trump noted that the governor of Ohio has only won one state out of 41 contests, "and he is not even doing as well as other candidates who could have stubbornly stayed in the race like him but chose not to do so."

"Marco Rubio, as an example, has more delegates than Kasich and yet suspended his campaign one month ago," he said. "Others, likewise, have done much better than Kasich, who would get slaughtered by Hillary Clinton once the negative ads against him begin. 85% of Republican voters are against Kasich."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-slams-cruz-and-kasichs-horrible-act-of-desperation-222384#ixzz46q5rd0x2

You have to admit Trump is right here. It's a fact that Marco Rubio even now has more votes and delegates than Kasich who has won just his home state of Ohio.

So this will play right into Trump's hands politically. I mean, if you think his system is rigged meme was working before, this is just gold now:

"Trump then turned to criticizing the two candidates' apparent coordination, calling it "often illegal in many other industries and yet these two Washington insiders have had to revert to collusion in order to stay alive."

"They are mathematically dead and this act only shows, as puppets of donors and special interests, how truly weak they and their campaigns are," Trump said. "I have brought millions of voters into the Republican primary system and have received many millions of votes more than Cruz or Kasich. Additionally, I am far ahead of both candidates with delegates and would be receiving in excess of 60% of the vote except for the fact that there were so many candidates running against me."

"Thanks to his campaign, Trump concluded, "everyone now sees that the Republican primary system is totally rigged."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-slams-cruz-and-kasichs-horrible-act-of-desperation-222384#ixzz46q7dxVEO

You can't see me now, but I'm literally busting a gut laughing. I have to stop myself as it hurts my sides.

Regarding the Bill Clinton-Donald Trump conspiracy. The Clintons are either geniuses or really fortunate.