Will Hillary Clinton be the next U.S. President?

So, what have those great predictors, the betting markets, been saying yesterday and today?

Clinton wrapped up the “invisible primary” long ago.

Not sure about the lock step part, considering the deep and irrational personal antipathy many bear for her, but on the whole, yes.

Why that last clause? The Sheldon Adelson Primary and the Koch Brothers Primary are how the Republicans got Romney and McCain, or any of the other “it’s his turn” nominees they come up with, and it’s why Jeb Bush is still considered viable.

Wow, that “invisible primary” is an eye opener and dead on.

So really it doesnt matter what the average democrat on the street campaigning for Sanders wants does it?

Not as long as the nominee is a good one. W2!'s invisible-primary win on the GOP side has done nearly nothing for him.

Don’t be shocked to learn there’s an insider’s game in electoral politics, please. Just also remember that the nominee has to be electable, and re-electable, and does have to get the support of The People. The insiders are *not *the enemy.

PredictWise, which uses a combination of real money betting markets and polling data, has her at 77% as of this posting. She had been hovering at around 70% for a couple months prior to the first debate.

I think the Sanders campaign will be successful at pushing the Democratic agenda, whoever the candidate is, from centrist positions toward progressive positions. This is what Democratic constituents want. The system works.

Similarly Trump is successfully moving GOP from obsessive-compulsive disorder and paranoia toward mania-depression and sociopathy. This is what GOP constituents want. The system works.

If the Democrats llose Pennsylvania of course, that will be evidence that the system is broken:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Yeah, the Dems might llose their llama, but they’re not gonna lose Pensylvania unless it’s a rout anyway. Republicans always think they have a shot at PA, and they never get anywhere.

I continue to be not worried.

And the answer to the question in the thread title is: Yes.

True dat. PA’s gone Democrat the last 6 elections, and if any trend can be discerned it’s only getting bluer.

Similar story in Ohio, although not as pronounced. Florida is getting that way, too. The Republican candidate needs all three, but is more likely to get none.

In a close election.

That is the catch. If a GOP nominee wins by 4 or 5 percent, maybe even 3 percent, in the general popular vote then they will carry all the states they need. Not sure that a rout is required, just a solid win. No I do not think that such is likely this cycle.

The GOP can’t get it without the Hispanic vote.

A Clinton/Castro ticket will (pardon the expression) trump anything the Republicans can put together. As a Cuban, Rubio is not well respected by all Hispanics. Cruz is political poison. Bush might have a chance. but who’d you pair him with?

Clinton/Castro is the likely ticket and likely to be the winning ticket.

Crane

The Latino vote doesn’t matter. It’s the African-American vote that’s key. If turnout is lower than in the last two elections or African-Americans vote 11% or more for the GOP then the GOP candidate probably wins.

Again, claiming that the Latino vote does not matter is really silly.

It doesn’t matter. The GOP can lose 100% of the Latino vote and still win the election. They would have to win 70% of the Latino vote to gain any electoral votes.

Since the likely result is between 30-45% of the vote, it makes no difference. A Republican can do as well as Bush did, or as poorly as Romney did, and it won’t matter in the electoral vote.

You never tire of looking at items that would only work if they were taken individually?

It does matter. Specially for the battleground states that were mentioned and since this is not happening in a vacuum, the woman’s vote will make a big difference too.

Not likely as for now as Trump and Carson are ahead.

Romney did lose.

Romney lost because of the African-American vote. Historically high turnout and didn’t get the Republicans’ usual 10%.

Again you are just looking as if a single item is key, no wonder you get so many things wrong in presidential elections.

As for Hillary and the back vote:

Your article makes no claim about the electoral college. Romney would have lost in 2012 if he’d won the Latino vote.