Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton lost the Wisconsin primary last night. Here’s how she responded:

Congrats to @BernieSanders on winning Wisconsin. To all the voters and volunteers who poured your hearts into this campaign: Forward! -H — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 6, 2016

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump lost the Wisconsin primary last night. Here’s how he responded:

That nicely illustrates the differences between the two primary races this year.

By now, political junkie that you are, you’ve likely heard that Bernie Sanders’ interview with the New York Daily News editorial board did not go well. You can read it for yourself here.

I voted for Clinton in my primary last month but retain enough affinity for Sanders to occasionally serve as a proxy BernieBro when a Clinton partisan can’t get his or her hands on an actual Sanders supporter to upbraid. But I gotta admit I was appalled by Sanders’ responses on several key issues during that interview, including his dissembling on how to break up the big banks and his inability to come up with a single example of Wall Street malfeasance that is worthy of prosecution.

Several of the Bernie boosters here at Balloon Juice could have answered those questions more ably, citing, for instance, the robo-signing scandal as an example of fraud that should have resulted in jail time for banksters. You can make a good faith argument that criminal prosecution was warranted, and you can make a good faith argument that the settlement that actually happened instead was the better deal for the people who were screwed by the robo-signing banksters (not that the actual victims were made whole — they weren’t!).

But if you’ve made outrage over banksters getting off scot-free after the crash a central plank in your campaign, it is inexcusable to be unable to cite even one example. Will Sanders’ terrible interview change anything? Not so fast, says Steve M. at No More Mr. Nice Blog:

This will give any remaining fence-sitters pause, but it will flip few if any Sanders backers. This is a year when it’s seen as shameful to have roots in the system. Deep knowledge of the issues is as suspect as ties to lobbyists. Sanders critics have been complaining for a long time that he turns every question back to his bullet points about the rich and powerful, but his backers don’t care because the message is untainted by qualification or nuance, which makes it seem less like a product of compromise. Besides, few voters know the details themselves. They’re judging the candidates on intentions, and his are seen as good. I don’t know how many votes Hillary Clinton can win by pouncing on this. When she says she’s been in the trenches and has the experience, voters seem to envision not statecraft but shady deals in back rooms. Touting her experience is probably hurting her. It’s just that kind of year.

I don’t think it will flip many Sanders backers either, but it doesn’t have to; given the state of the race, it’s Sanders who needs to win the remaining primaries by hefty margins, which means he needs to bring those fence-sitters on board. This interview isn’t going to help, so Clinton probably will pounce.

Another point to note is that while there’s a tendency to conflate the Sanders and Trump phenomena and conclude that this is an angry, anti-establishment year across the board, that’s only partially — maybe 65% or so — true.

The Republicans are on a rage-o-holic bender of epic proportions. Some Democrats who were ground down by the Great Recession and left behind in a spotty recovery that mostly benefits the wealthy are angry, with good reason, and joined by the Greenies in backing Sanders.

It’s a thing. It shouldn’t — and isn’t — being ignored by Team Clinton. But I think it’s a mistake to conclude that the HULK SMASH impulse that animates the Republican base is driving the Democratic primary as well. The differences are as stark as the frontrunner concessions last night.