New York's primary election changed everything for both the Democratic and Republican nomination contests.
First, it reinvigorated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign by putting a barricade up to thwart the swelling tsunami-like wave of momentum that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was building after a series of back-to-back victories. Secondly, her triumph served as a testament to the notion that Clinton's umbrella coalition of support comprised of women, African Americans, Latinos and older voters-- all of whom make up the vast majority of the Democratic Party-- was alive, well and thriving.
It also hit the reset button on the media narrative that not only is Clinton the prohibitive favorite, but given her delegate count, she's just shy of becoming the Democratic Party's official nominee in waiting.
For the Republican hometown hero, Donald Trump, the Empire State constructed what amounted to a skyscraper-sized roadblock to halt any gains Senator Ted Cruz had made following his commanding victory in Wisconsin.
Trump's New York win was so resounding that it changed the entire Washington, D.C. echo chamber narrative. Instead of the endless talk of the near certainty that Republicans would have a contested convention, Trump's blowout performance forced a new media storyline centered around the idea that it's becoming conceivable that Trump could theoretically reach the prized 1,237 delegate number to become the Party's nominee.
There's one more nugget of information that New York's election results illuminated but which has hardly received the attention it deserves. It's the vindication of the Democratic Party's establishment and the utter demise of the Republican Party's establishment.
What do I mean by that?
Well, let's start with an examination of the Democratic race.
Sanders' insurgent crusade was founded on a platform of railing against the Washington establishment. According to his campaign, Sanders defines this establishment as Clinton and the institutional players and leaders that make up the Democratic Party, including Party elites, elected officials, heavy-hitter donors and organizations like Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign.
It's a message that Sanders used to create a movement that has inspired young people, independents and disenfranchised working-class folks into the electoral process. To a large degree, it's worked. He's won a slew of states, racked up about 1,191 delegates, raised more money online than almost any candidate in history, forced his rival to talk about issues like income inequality, and he has prevented a widely anticipated early coronation to the Democratic Party nomination for Clinton.
Even though he's accomplished so much, Sanders and his anti-establishment message have failed to make inroads with or galvanize support from key demographics that represent the backbone of the Democratic Party.
Clinton, on the other hand, has built up a cadre of support from them, most significantly among women and minorities. That's why in roughly every major big state that's voted, from New York to Florida, Ohio to Nevada, Illinois and others, Clinton has crushed her opposition. Why? It's primarily because these states comprise voters that make up the Democratic Party's base, and overwhelmingly, these voters have brushed off Sanders' criticism of Clinton, siding with her over him.
As a result, to date, Clinton's received 1,941 delegates -- a sizable 750 more than Sanders and a mere 442 shy of hitting the omnipotent 2,383 threshold required to secure the Party's nomination.
All of this provides us with hard evidence of the fact that Democrats are somewhat satisfied with their establishment. Part of this could be attributed to the fact that Democratic voters perceive their Party's ultimate establishment figure to be the head of the Democratic Party -- President Barack Obama -- who enjoys tremendous favorable ratings among Democrats.
And, with Clinton's successful effort to ride the Obama coattails throughout this primary competition, she's benefited directly and indirectly from being dubbed by Sanders as the Democratic Party's establishment standard bearer.
The race for the Republican Party's nomination illustrates the polar opposite of what we're seeing on the Democratic side. The sheer creation and mushrooming of Donald Trump, first as an outsider candidate, then as a frontrunner to now the leader in the delegate battle for the nomination, all are the product of Republican voters being fed up with their Party's establishment.
Trump's brash, unorthodox and outspoken behavior is a vivid reflection of the resentment and anger that Republican voters have with their Washington leaders and institutions. And, it makes sense. After years of electoral victories in Congress built upon vows to dismantle Obamacare, cut funding of Planned Parenthood, slash the EPA and scores of other promises that have been broken, Republican voters want an overhaul of their leadership. That's precisely what led to the birth and the increasing success of Donald Trump in 2016.
By embracing Trump, Republican voters have passed up a bevy of establishment candidates, from Senator Marco Rubio to Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Scott Walker and others. Their support of Trump as their delegate frontrunner and possible nominee would be the equivalence on the Democratic side of Clinton and Sanders switching places. In the Republican race, it translates to a flat out rejection of the Republican Party's establishment.
If Clinton and Trump prevail tomorrow in the bulk of the Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware and Connecticut primaries, it will add fuel to this theory that the Democratic establishment has been vindicated and that GOP voters' repudiation of the Republican establishment is now the Party's new reality. If they fail to do so, not only will it have blindsided nearly every political expert watching this race, but it will reaffirm with certainty that 2016 is the most erratic, surprising and bizarre race in modern Presidential politics.