The New York Times this morning is full of predictions that Hillary will win the primary there today.
And then I check my in-box. Here's Bernie Sanders latest campaign update:
Last week, when we asked for 15,000 of you to call New York, we honestly weren't sure if we could hit that target. But Sunday night when we ran the numbers, we found that you smashed through our original goal of two million calls, and put more than THREE million calls into New York in just two days.
That is simply incredible! And it could make a huge difference today. But we can't stop now. Despite a ton of on-the-ground momentum, Bernie is still down a few points in the polls this morning as New Yorkers head out to vote.
URGENT: we need 7,500 of you on the phones for one hour today to make sure Bernie supporters in New York get out to vote. If 7,500 of you get on the phones for at least one hour, we'll put another million calls into New York when it counts the most – on primary day. ...Sanders campaign email, 4/19
That's a lot of phone calls. The Washington Post sees a surefire Hillary win... with long-term consequences for Sanders.
A big win for Trump would bring him closer to securing an outright majority of Republican delegates — an outcome that remains in jeopardy and has prompted rival Ted Cruz to mount a spirited campaign to force a contested convention.
For Clinton, a victory would give her a boost of momentum after a blitz of recent primary and caucus wins by rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.). Unlike Trump, Clinton is so far ahead in the delegate count that it’s close to impossible for Sanders to catch up. ...WaPo
The New Yorker's John Cassidy sheds some more light on what we might expect.
Two weeks ago, according to the survey data, Trump had a huge advantage in New York over his Republican rivals, and Clinton was leading Sanders by double digits. Today, the picture is virtually the same. According to the RealClearPolitics poll average, Trump is currently leading Kasich by about thirty percentage points, and Clinton is ahead of Sanders by twelve points. As the following charts demonstrate, this situation hasn’t changed much over the past few weeks: the lines showing the candidates’ poll numbers are basically flat. ...Sanders,NewYorker
No,really! Look at the charts and I'd say the lines for all front runners in both parties are, well, flat as pancakes. Yes, but that's what it looked like at first in Michigan.
I have yet to see a full explanation of how the pollsters went awry in Michigan. But their failure seems to have gone beyond the standard complaints—that they didn’t rely on large-enough samples, and that they missed people who only have cell phones. The bigger problem appears to have been that pollsters relied on flawed turnout models to weight their raw numbers. Turnout in pro-Sanders areas and among pro-Sanders demographics was much bigger than expected, and that proved enough to swing the election his way. ...Sanders,NewYorker
Well. I'm glad we figured it out. The winners will be ^*^($$sR) and ($F$*n).