Apr 7, 2016 4 min read

With a win in Wisconsin this week, Hillary Clinton could have suggested a bit more strongly that it was time for Bernie Sanders to concede the Democratic presidential nomination to her. With a win in Wisconsin, Donald Trump would have been in much better position to secure the delegates needed to claim the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention and avoid a floor fight.

But Tuesday didn’t turn out so well for the current frontrunners in the nomination races. Clinton was thrashed by Sanders, and Trump was thumped by Ted Cruz.

Even Clinton’s people would be hard-pressed to deny that Sanders has nearly all the momentum. He’s won six of the past seven caucuses and primaries, including an obliteration of the former first lady, senator and secretary of state in Washington state. And there’s no quick fix. The calendar is all but barren until April 19, the date of the New York primary. But that’s where Clinton gets her mojo back, right? She represented the state in the Senate and has enjoyed a commanding lead in the polls there. But wait. “Enjoyed” – past tense – is the operative word here. Clinton did, indeed, lead Sanders by 50 percentage points in New York polls taken in mid-March. But in a poll released Sunday by CBS News/YouGov, Clinton led only 53 percent to 43 percent, and that was before Sanders’ win in Wisconsin.

By nearly all accounts, Clinton is still the heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but what if Sanders were to find a way to win in his native New York, then build on his roll in Pennsylvania on April 26? It’s another state where, until recently, Clinton had a big advantage in the polls. But on Wednesday, a fresh Quinnipiac poll showed Sanders within 50 to 44. Then it’s on to the delegate-rich contests in New Jersey and California.

The Clinton forces are quick to point to her significant advantage in current delegates. What they don’t go out of their way to mention is that many of those delegates are the so-called “superdelegates” who exist largely to support the establishment candidate. In this case, that’s Clinton, who has had many built-in advantages in this race, including a Democratic National Committee chairman largely viewed as being in her back pocket. When you count only those delegates earned through caucuses and primaries, Clinton is just a couple-hundred ahead. And those superdelegates are allowed to change their allegiance if a tide turns. Sure, if one were going to bet the house on who the nominee will be, Clinton is still the best bet, by a significant margin. But it’s not quite as good a bet as it was a couple of weeks ago.

It’s clear Sanders has Clinton’s attention. She’s appeared increasingly agitated of late and has started tossing mud his way with more venom and regularity. The other day, Clinton questioned Sanders’ credentials to even seek the party’s nomination, saying, “He’s a relatively new Democrat. I’m not even sure he is one.”

Everyone knows that Sanders, throughout his long political career, has run as an independent. He’s a self-described democratic socialist. But he also has regularly caucused with the Democrats in the Senate and shares nearly all of the party’s core policy positions.

Would Clinton prefer that Sanders had run a third-party campaign instead? We’re guessing not.

Hillary Clinton was overwhelmed by the Obama wave in 2008. Eight years later, she is suffering the misfortune of being an establishment candidate in a clearly anti-establishment political year.

She may very well right the ship, and Trump could rebound and claim the GOP nomination, but whatever the case, at least we in Pennsylvania will have a chance to cast significant primary votes, in both the Democratic and Republican races.