Paddipower's betting odds on the Democrats winning have gone from 4/5 last month to 1/2 today (a bet of £10 won £8 last month but only £5 now).
I'm not a regular, or particularly open-handed, gambler, so I'm not particularly familiar with contest odds. I'm interpreting this (the winnings falling) to mean that the odds, according to Paddipower, have improved for the Democrats, no matter who they run. Is that a correct interpretation?
Okay...I want to note that in Kansas and Nebraska, Sanders won both states with a 17 delegate gain because of the distribution. Then, look at Louisiana, which is between the Kansas and Nebraska and note that after the distribution of delegates, Clinton had a 25 delegate disparity over Sanders. That's a net gain of about ten delegates for Clinton for the three states. Her win in one state more than counterbalanced his win in two states that day. With incremental gains like that, Clinton will chip away at scraping together enough delegates for the nomination.
The high-reputation journal of international politics and culture, Current Affairs, had this interesting article about what the author thinks needs to happen vis a vis a Trump nomination by the Republican Party.
I've seen John Oliver and his take on the American way of life is usually right on the mark from what I've seen. It often takes an outsider to look at something, point at it and say "What the hell is going on with that?"