MADISON, WISCONSIN—The first thing we learned on primary night was that Brian Williams of the MSNBC electric teevee channel—as well as (possibly) Chris Matthews, though he may have been kidding, or suffering a terminal brain freeze after talking earlier with Ann Coulter—thinks "mishigas" is an old Irish Gaelic word for something. It's not, dude. But "omadhaun" is. Look it up.

That was the early highlight of a night that ended early. Bernie Sanders, who was in Wyoming, and Ted Cruz, who stayed in Wisconsin to deliver a victory address that may still be going on, won their respective primaries from here to there. The initial reactions seems to be twofold: first, that the Republicans are increasingly willing to fall in line behind the Tailgunner if it means stopping Trump and avoiding a televised ritual slaughter in Cleveland next summer; and second, it is time to ask seriously if the problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign may be an unresolvable dissonance between a formidable campaign machine and a candidate who isn't quite up to the job of leading it.

As to the first, Cruz is sealing the deal as the only viable candidate of the Stop Trump movement.

While Trump has held on to most of his previous support levels there's one exception—he's doing less well, and Cruz especially better— among voters focused on electability. Although they're s small group, Cruz won seven in 10 voters who care most about the candidate who can win in November, up from 22 percent in previous contests. Trump won just two in 10 of these voters—down from a third previously. Also, asked who'd best be able to beat Clinton, 42 percent picked Cruz, 38 percent Trump

The more he wins, the more Cruz makes a convention-blessed third alternative less likely. Watching the anti-Trump people bungle around over the past two months does not fill me with confidence that the party is capable of screwing over two candidates with substantial blocs of delegates, which is what the party would have to do in order to foist Paul Ryan or someone else on the delegates. (You will note that, even though Cruz is about as popular among the Republican establishment as the mange, no prominent Republican is openly contemptuous of his becoming the nominee.) This became even more difficult on Tuesday night, when John Kasich proved to not even be a factor in Republican primary.

As to the second, there is no question that HRC is still odds-on to be the Democratic nominee. However, she is proving to be, at best, a slightly less uninspiring candidate than she was in 2008. And the campaign's latest line of attack—that Bernie Sanders is not a real Democrat—is an amateur-night concoction that beggars belief. Is there a single progressive Democratic policy initiative that would cross the desk of President Sanders that he would refuse to sign, whereas President HRC would? (And, yes, I include gun safety laws in this.) As far as helping with down-ticket Democratic races goes, the record of both Clintons on this is spotty at best. (For that matter, so is the record of the current president, a fellow of considerable charisma, which means that the Democratic Party has a systemic problem in getting people to turn out in local elections, particularly in the off-years, that no president can solve. This is one of the many reasons why Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go.) The Sanders campaign, and liberal voters in general, seem to be getting on the candidate's last nerve, and I'm not sure I understand why.

HRC is the 2016 choice of the Democratic Party establishment.

That's been clear for about five years now.

She seems caught between embracing that identity and trying to break off enough of the Sanders electorate to put a populist sheen on a powerful, but very conventional, campaign. That's a task for a more nimble politician than HRC even has been. She'd be better off just letting the machine run of itself and explaining to Sanders voters that she shares their concerns and that those concerns will be a priority in an HRC administration. "I can get things done" assumes facts not in evidence, especially given the nature of congressional Republicans these days. There has to be a more nuanced appeal to the folks who are filling the halls for Sanders than that, which sounds for all the world like the way DeGaulle used to tell French Algerians, "I have heard you," before cutting the colony loose. She has a trust gap there that's better addressed than ignored, and certainly addressed in a better way than telling all those people that their candidate isn't a real Democrat. The campaign is now sliding into what passes this year for conventionality. This may give us all a blessed break for a while, and give Brian Williams a chance to brush up on his Irish. Or, as W.B. Yeats used to say to Sean O'Casey, in the language of their ancestors, "Oy, gevalt."

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io