The lefties at Salon have nothing positive to say about Hillary! and the state of her coronation — I mean, campaign:

Wisconsin represents more than just Bernie’s sixth straight win, or the likelihood of seven straight wins after Wyoming, right before New York. This political revolution, ignited by Bernie Sanders and fought for by people of all races, faiths, and ethnic backgrounds across the U.S. has been bolstered by political momentum. It’s not current delegate count or prior poll numbers, it’s unprecedented political momentum that will win Sanders the Democratic nomination.

It’s the fact Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be interviewed by the FBI like Clinton, and also the fact Wisconsin has kept political momentum alive at a crucial time in the Democratic Primary race. Since Sanders does better against GOP competition than Clinton, he’ll win the presidency when elected Democratic nominee. Clinton’s “FBI Primary” is around the corner and Wisconsin symbolizes the continuation of something profound.

Had Clinton won Wisconsin, America’s political establishment would have tried to nail the coffin shut on a political movement that is just getting started. Had Bernie lost Wisconsin, the naysayers would gleefully have remarked that ideals and principles are nice, but FBI investigations and Iraq votes define pragmatism. In short, Wisconsin kept the flame alive, despite attempts by DNC and progressive naysayers in the media (you know who they are, the same people who can’t stand H. A. Goodman) to dim the lights.

Thus, the “adults” in the room, as they like to be called, must come to the realization that Clinton isn’t only battling the FBI, but also Bernie Sanders and millions of voters opposed to status quo politics. In addition, this movement is bolstered by women and younger voters.

82% of voters ages 18-29 went to Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin.

66% of voters 30-44 went to Sanders.

Sure, but the older, more experienced voter chose Clinton, right?

Well, Clinton only won voters 45-64 by a margin of 54% to 46%.

Most importantly, 57% of voters were female, and the women of Wisconsin sided with Bernie Sanders over Clinton, 50% to 49%.

50% of female voters chose Bernie Sanders.

49% of female voters sided with Clinton.

The smartest people in the room also never imagined Bernie Sanders would be raising more money than Hillary Clinton. The professional “inevitability press” failed to predict Bernie Sanders battling a political juggernaut and former Secretary of State in April of 2016, and certainly never predicted Sanders would have earned over 1,000 pledged delegates at this point.

Political momentum from Wisconsin will result in even more money for the Sanders campaign. Bernie’s ability to outraise even Hillary Clinton is highlighted in a U.S. News & World Report piece titled “Bernie Sanders: the Fundraising Front-Runner”:

Say what you will about the viability of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ candidacy at this stage in the campaign. He is an undisputed fundraising machine.
Sanders raised $43.5 million in February, according to filings to the Federal Election Commission, more than any candidate in either party.

Yes, the “undisputed fundraising machine” has raised “more money than any candidate in either party.” With all of Clinton’s Wall Street ties and prison lobbyist donors, Bernie Sanders soundly defeats the former Secretary of State and other Republicans in terms of fundraising.

Bernie’s Wisconsin victory will no doubt add even more money to the Sanders campaign. Like the inability of pundits to predict his ascent in national polls, and the Vermont Senator’s current political momentum, establishment critics never predicted the cascade of money flowing to Bernie Sanders. An article in The Washington Post titled “Bernie Sanders outraises Hillary Clinton for third consecutive month” highlights what poll numbers can’t tell you:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s fundraising juggernaut outraised Hillary Clinton’s campaign in March, surpassing her for the third consecutive month.
Clinton announced on Monday that her campaign had raised $29.5 million for the month compared with the $44 million raised by the Sanders campaign. Sanders’s March fundraising haul surpasses the campaign’s own record-setting $43.3 million raised in February.
Sanders has made a point to raise a vast majority of his money from small-dollar contributors who donate online — an average of $27 each, according to the campaign. He has also criticized Clinton for devoting time to fundraising from the wealthy.

“What this campaign is doing is bringing together millions of people contributing an average of just $27 each to take on a billionaire class which is so used to buying elections,” Sanders said in a statement on Friday. “Working people standing together are going to propel this campaign to the Democratic nomination and then the White House.”

With an average of only $27, the Sanders campaign has outraised everyone in 2016. Not only has Sanders defeated Clinton in six straight contests, but he’s raised more money in three consecutive months.

While Bernie Sanders just won Wisconsin and will continue to outraise everyone else, Hillary Clinton must contend with the FBI. Years from now, somebody will be reading this and wondering how Americans could possibly vote for a person at risk of DOJ indictments. Yes, future readers, as of today establishment Democrats still think Clinton’s experience overshadows an FBI investigation.

I explain what Hillary Clinton thinks of the FBI in the following YouTube segment.

Nonetheless, there are people questioning the logic of voting for a person linked to an FBI investigation. An article by Ronald J. Sievert in USA Today titled “Hillary’s ‘classified’ smokescreen hides real crime” highlights the case for DOJ indictment:

Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling ‘national defense information,’ classified or not.

Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document … or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.

The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution.

Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.)

The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.

Finally, I explain in a recent CNN International appearance that Clinton faces potential FBI indictment. I also discuss on CNN New Day that Clinton’s email fiasco is the epitome of white privilege. Ultimately, Wisconsin just elected Bernie Sanders president, and the momentum from this win will lead to further landmark victories. While Bernie is raising more money than anyone, Clinton is facing potential FBI and DOJ indictment. Clinton’s excuses regarding retroactive classification won’t impress the FBI and very soon, Bernie Sanders will be the official Democratic front-runner. Wisconsin continued the momentum at a critical point and helped elect President Bernie Sanders.

I don’t know who “H.A. Goodman” is, but clearly H.A. doesn’t lack for self-esteem or for making predictions that aren’t based on solid evidence. Goodman appears to not grasp that should Hillary! be indicted, there is Joe Biden ready to step up and succeed her. Goodman also appears to not grasp that Democratic National Committee leadership do not support Sanders. Hillary!, remember, failed to be elected president the last time she ran.

If you think Goodman is crazy, consider this from Politico, reported Tuesday before Wisconsin primary results were released:

Bernie Sanders will surpass Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates and emerge as the nominee at a contested convention, his campaign said Tuesday.

Sanders has vowed to win Wisconsin, New York and, ultimately, the nomination, but his campaign is pushing back on the notion that either state is a must-win. The Vermont senator holds a narrow lead over Clinton in Wisconsin, according to a RealClearPolitics average of state polls, but trails her by 11 percentage points in New York.

“We’ve mapped out a path to victory in our campaign in terms of delegates — pledged delegates — and we don’t have to win everywhere, but we do have to win most of the states coming up,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told MSNBC on Tuesday. “So there’s no one state that’s a must-win, and as we look forward we’re gonna be able to accumulate the delegates we need to get the pledged delegate lead by the end of this primary and caucus process.”

Clinton has a 263-pledged-delegate lead over Sanders. But factoring in superdelegates, who are free to support any candidate at the Democratic convention, Clinton’s advantage surges by 438 delegates. The Sanders campaign has maintained that superdelegates should shift their support to match the popular vote and rejected the “funny math” that suggests Sanders can’t win.

“He is winning by these gigantic margins, and that’s gonna allow him to catch up to the secretary,” Weaver said on CNN’s “New Day.”

Weaver said it’s highly unlikely either candidate will garner 2,383 pledged delegates to win the nomination. Superdelegates “don’t count until they vote, and they don’t vote until we get to the convention,” Weaver argued. “So when we arrive at the convention, it will be an open convention, likely with neither candidate having a majority of pledged delegates. So I think it’ll be an interesting Democratic convention.”

After more than a century without a single contested convention, imagine two contested conventions this summer.

UCLA Prof. Lynn Vavreck:

Americans are angry. That’s the sentiment that many believe is driving the 2016 election. They are angry because the rich are getting richer, the average guy is struggling and the government in Washington hasn’t done anything to stop the trend.

But it may not be that simple.

Data on the nation’s economic recovery, people’s reactions to current economic conditions and their overall sense of satisfaction with life doesn’t suggest Americans are angry. In fact, historical measures indicate people are about as happy and satisfied with the economy and with their lives as they were in 1983 when Ronald Reagan told us it was “morning again in America.”

If that’s the case, why does it feel more like a 1 a.m. bar brawl?

The answer may have more to do with political parties than economics, or at least with the interaction of the two. Today’s voters have sorted themselves and polarized into partisan groups that look very different than they did in the late 1980s. To make matters worse, members of each side like the other side less than they did before. Americans aren’t annoyed only by the economy; they’re also annoyed with each other.

Objective economic conditions measured by the Federal Reserve suggest that the nation’s recovery from the Great Recession began in 2010, when gross domestic product began to expand, unemployment began to fall and real disposable income began to increase. By 2015, the misery index — a combined measure of unemployment and inflation — was about as low as it had been since the 1950s, which means there was an active demand for goods and services along with low unemployment and inflation.

Most Americans seemed to appreciate this growth. Data on the Index of Consumer Sentiment, one of the longest-running measures of Americans’ views of the economy, show that by the end of 2015, consumer sentiment was as positive as it had been in the mid-2000s and mid-1980s. It was nearly identical to where it was at the end of 1983, when Mr. Reagan’s re-election romp — based almost entirely on the victory over stagflation — began to take shape.

Even breaking the consumer sentiment data down by income levels does little to buoy the argument that Americans were pessimistic. From 2009-2015, the average gap in economic satisfaction between the upper and lower thirds of the income distribution was 13.7 points, much lower than it was during the Reagan years (21.3) and lower than the gap during the administrations of George H.W. Bush (14.7), Bill Clinton (16.7) and George W. Bush (18.4).

As we entered 2016, Americans — of all income levels — felt positively about the economy even though by some indicators many people had not recovered their losses. The employment-population ratio and median household income, for example, had only begun to recover in 2015.

 

To get a sense of whether these economic factors were affecting the general mood of the nation in a way not captured by consumer sentiment, I examined one of the longest-standing measures of general happiness. Since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked people to “take things all together” and rate their level of happiness. The 40-year trend shows only modest changes — and may actually suggest a small increase in happiness in recent years.

Describing Americans’ mood as distinctively angry in 2015 elides this evidence. Americans were optimistic about the nation’s economy and generally happy — in fact, no less optimistic or happy than they had been historically.

But there was an increasing sense in the fall and winter of 2015 that many Americans were filled with contempt. Using analytic tools provided by Crimson Hexagon, I calculated the average monthly increase in the share of news articles about the 2016 election that contained the word “angry.” Between November 2015 and March 2016, the share of stories about angry voters increased by 200 percent. Where was the sense of gloom coming from?

Some evidence suggests that the ire was derived directly from politics. When asked by various pollsters about trusting the government, the direction of the country, American progress or the president, Americans were gloomy — gloomier than their economic assessments might have predicted. When broken out by party, these pessimistic views reveal a growing partisan divide, one that has been distilling around racial attitudes for nearly two decades.

The increasing alignment between party and racial attitudes goes back to the early 1990s. The Pew Values Survey asks people whether they agree that “we should make every effort to improve the position of minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment.”

Over time, Americans’ party identification has become more closely aligned with answers to this question and others like it. Pew reports that, “since 1987, the gap on this question between the two parties has doubled — from 18 points to 40 points.” Democrats are now much more supportive (52 percent) of efforts to improve racial equality than they were a few decades ago, while the views of Republicans have been largely unchanged (12 percent agree).

That Democrats and Republicans have different views on issues — even issues about race and rights — is not surprising. But recent work by Stanford University’s Shanto Iyengar and his co-authors shows something else has been brewing in the electorate: a growing hostility toward members of the opposite party. This enmity, they argue, percolates into opinions about everyday life.

Partisans, for example, are now more concerned that their son or daughter might marry someone of the opposite party (compared with Britain today and the United States in 1960). They also found that partisans are surprisingly willing to discriminate against people who are not members of their political party.

We’ve entered an age of party-ism.

Writing in The Washington Post, Michael Tesler, a University of California, Irvine, political scientist, explained that because the growing partisan divide is partly fueled by racial attitudes, partisans (in Washington and in the electorate) also take increasingly opposite positions on many racially inflected controversies.

Some are squarely political like police misconduct. But others spill over into areas like sports, music and movies, which we often think of as more social than political. Disagreements between people about nominations for the Academy Awards, for example, may now become emotional as well as political if they involve racial attitudes because of the sorting of these attitudes by party and the contempt people feel for the other side.

Democrats and Republicans like each other a lot less now than they did 60 years ago in part because they have sorted into parties based on attitudes on race, religion and ethnicity. These attitudes and emotions have been activated in the lead-up to the 2016 election, sometimes by terrorist violence and other times by candidate language itself. Add to this mix the fact that the country is becoming less white and that nonwhites are disproportionately more likely to be Democrats, and an explanation for the anger that filled the air in 2015 emerges.

Vavreck terms this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing, when if you’ve been reading social media comments over Donald Trump it’s a Republican vs. Republican (as self-described) thing too. There is less hate between Democratic supporters of Hillary! and Comrade Sanders, but it shows up on occasion as well.

You will not be surprised that the vast majority of the comments blame Republicans for this, thus proving Vavreck’s point. It is impossible to imagine how this will go away. It is hard to imagine that the hate will not spiral until, sometime this year, a political candidate or supporter (or maybe more than one) will be assassinated by someone from the other side.