As the Michigan reality settled in last night and after a good sleep, it occurs that the Michigan upset is a lesson for the taking.  Along the lines of "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger," this kind of lesson suggests the importance of a hard-fought primary season for the delegate leader.  Here: If the economic vulnerabilities for HRC in The Rustbelt were muddled before Michigan, yesterday brought an inescapable clarity ... and an opportunity.  Perhaps, HRC can take her economic message and the specific, real jobs program she has only started to lay out; and, address the so-called Rustbelt directly about real-time jobs in the real economy of today.  In so doing, she could take the lead as well in asking for details about any Sanders plan for Main Street Ohio.  It would be helpful for a number of potential voters to hear the specifics of the Ohio Main Street plan from both HRC and Sanders in debate or town hall or other address.

An aside about Michigan voting dynamics: (!) A quick look indicates that the voter turnout for under-30 was comparatively high at the 20% level and with the same preference pattern holding in this state with many colleges.  (2) Some indication that the Independents voted as high as 70% (?) for Sanders in this open primary state ... in view of Trump's solidifying his frontrunner position last night, I am curious as to whether Independents et al will forego the Democratic primary in Ohio in order to vote for the "favorite son" Kasich should they want to keep Trump at bay, etc.?

When I say that the region -- my region -- is hunting country, that does not mean that all gun owners are "redneck gun nuts" . . . your words, not mine. It does not even mean that most are "redneck gun nuts."  It does not even mean that a sizeable number are "redneck gun nuts."

For example, you may recall that once (and future, I hope) Senator Feingold, next door to Michigan, is not for many gun-control measures.  

News flash: He is not a redneck.  Nor is he a nut.

I will attempt to be more clear for you about what I meant:  I wondered whether this issue was tested by the pollsters.  I think not, as I have not seen evidence of such a question in polling in Michigan -- and I have other evidence, as I also am being polled a lot now, with an upcoming primary, and never have had that question asked.

And so, my point is that this issue may have played a part that was missed by pollsters.  And if so, that may explain their miss in Michigan -- and that may mean missing this and other regional issues and differences in upcoming primary states.

Now, if your point is that all gun owners and hunters are "redneck gun nuts," that is incorrect.

Or if your point is that I am against these folks, that also is wrong.  Some are family members, like yours.  Some are friends.  None are rednecks.  None is nuts.  

Hillary's inevitability lie: Why the media and party elites are rushing to nominate the weakest candidate

For two years, media has swallowed and peddled the Clinton inevitability line. She's the one Dem even Trump beats

This was not a "cheap shot," as I hear on CNN. It's a crucial distinction. Sanders will apparently throw everyone under the bus in order to stick it to Wall Street.

I know this was a fantastic upset that isn't likley to reoccur during this primary. Still, I'm not going to trust any polls from here on out. I have no idea how the polls could have all been so wrong. The exit polls don't suggest that Sanders won overwhelmingly among voters who recently decided. Instead, the polls apparently weren't capturing a representative sample.

As for what happened in Michigan, I think the racial divides are revealing. She won African Americans by 30+ points. That would be a huge margin in most elections, but she had been winning this group by 80 points in some cases. If she had had that margin in Michigan then she would have won. There are clear intragroup differences among that voting block.

Imagine, for instance, a brutal stretch for Mrs. Clinton, one where she underperforms the demographic projections by as much as she did in Michigan for the rest of the year.

She loses in Ohio and Missouri next Tuesday. States where Mrs. Clinton was thought to have an advantage, like Arizona, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, California and Connecticut, become tossups. Mrs. Clinton wins New York, but by just eight percentage points.

She gets swept in the West, including big 40-point losses in places like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and Montana, and 30-point losses in Washington and Oregon. She loses by 20 points in Wisconsin and Rhode Island, by 30 in West Virginia and Kentucky.

She still wins -- and comfortably.

How? She's already banked a large delegate lead, and it has nothing to do with the "superdelegates."

Forty-three percent of all of the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention have already been awarded. She's won those delegates by roughly a 60-40 margin.

To overcome it, Mr. Sanders will need to do nearly as well from this point on. Not even the very strong showing for Mr. Sanders imagined above would be enough.

In fact, it still wouldn't be very close. Mr. Sanders basically splits the delegates with Mrs. Clinton the rest of the way -- leaving him far short of the big 15-point advantage he needs.