1. It’s Tuesday, May 10, 2016.

2. When Bernie Sanders rails about hedge funds, this is what he’s talking about:

Ken Griffin and James Simons, two men whose names are unknown to all but a few Americans, each made $1.7 billion last year, according to an annual survey by Institutional Investor’s Alpha magazine. 

That, folks, is $3,234.40 every minute. It took them about two hours and four minutes to earn the same amount of money President Obama is paid for running the United States.

What do they do? Griffin and Simons manage hedge funds. To varying degrees, they program computers that determine how to deliver a steady flow of income to the people who can afford to sock their money with them.

Their returns aren’t bad – Griffin made about 14% for his investors, while Simons earned about 16%.

Overall, according to Alpha, the top 25 hedge fund managers collectively made nearly $13 billion last year. And that wasn’t even the best year they ever had. In case you want to throw up, last year they only made about half what they did in 2009, when their pay stubs (Yeah. Right.) totaled $25 billion.

Some of the people on the list didn’t even make money for their investors last year, and they still got the big bucks.

3. There are two reasons this is perverted.

One, the average public school teacher earns $57,379 a year – what Griffin and Simons make in about 18 minutes. The highest paid doctor, a spinal surgeon, makes about $628,000 a year; Griffin and Simons have to toil a little more than three hours to match that.

And you can imagine other occupations that actually do something to help more than a few people. Griffin and Simons can match all the professions you can think of in 30 seconds in a trading day behind the screen.

Secondly, what can you do with $1.7 billion a year? I guess you can accumulate homes and art and cars and other gizmos.

But eventually, you find other uses. One of them is politics.

According to The New York Times, Griffin hasn’t spent his money well this year. He’s bet on Marco Rubio, Jeb! Bush and Scott Walker in the presidential race. For his sake, you gotta hope he’s better at picking investments.

Simons has had better luck. His money is on Hillary Clinton.

It doesn’t matter. In this instance, Sanders is right – the amount of money the people who have hedge funds can throw around in a presidential race is outright disgusting. They can counter those $27 donations Sanders touts in an eye blink.

Obviously, the idiotic Citizens United ruling doesn’t help. These guys can put whatever money they want into political action committees and there’s nothing to stop them.

It doesn’t change the equation that Griffin’s vote is equal to mine. Yet. But it does give Griffin the ability to spread his viewpoint a lot further than I can spread mine. I have this blog, and if you tell your friends, that’s my advertising. If Griffin had one, he could put a billboard on every interstate highway promoting it and provide free access to it in every hotel.

So I sympathize with Sanders and his view that this money is soiling politics.

4. But I also think it’s nuts to try to fight hedge fund money by not taking it.

It would be unilateral disarmament for Clinton not to take Simons’ money. She’d have nowhere near the ability to spread his message that the Republicans – and that includes Donald Trump, who you’ll notice is weaseling away from his self-funding promise – will have in the fall. They don’t seem bothered by this money, and they got the Citizens United ruling to back them up.

The solution is simple. Get a Democrat into the White House. Get a Democratic Senate – hell, get a Democratic Congress. And then get Supreme Court Justices who understand that money doesn’t equal speech.

I’m sure Ken Griffin and James Simons have their virtues. They probably donate tons of money to charities and love their kids.

If they have any. Who knows? These aren’t people who are accountable to you and me, and yet they made $1.7 billion last year.

5. President Obama is going to Hiroshima later this month. He’ll be the first sitting President to visit the Japanese city that was the target of the first atomic bomb.

Americans have been leery of the idea that any official in any administration visit Hiroshima, seeing it as a form of apology for what we did.

I don’t think Obama sees it that way. Yes, we take responsibility for what we did. But we did what we thought we had to do. Ultimately, horrific as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they saved lives by shortening the war. That was their goal.

I think the President is wise to face up to what we did. We can’t hide from it. And it’s horribly sad. But we’re not ashamed – Harry Truman and the American military did what it had to do.

The good news is that Obama goes in peace. That’s how things get better.

1. It’s Monday, May 9, 2016.

2. Hope all the moms had a terrific Mother’s Day. One of the best days of the year.

3. By my conservative estimate, I have watched Bartolo Colon’s home run more than 120 times. That includes 15 times just sitting at the Cheesecake Factory at brunch yesterday and seeing it on screens in the background.

If you want to watch it – and, unless you’re poor San Diego Padres pitcher James Shields who yielded this, you do – here it is: http://m.mets.mlb.com/nym/video/v671207583/must-c-classic-colon-launches-first-career-home-run/?affiliateId=clubMEGAMENU. In fact, in this clip, you get to see it eight times.

4. Not that I don’t want this jackass to lose all 50 states on Nov. 8. But wouldn’t Donald Trump be better off if he went on vacation for a while? That would be the best thing for his candidacy. Because every time he opens his mouth on some TV show, he sounds like the dolt he is.

If your retirement hinges on a nicely put together package of securities designed to take you deep into old age, Trump is your one-way ticket to working for the rest of your life.

His proposal to “negotiate,” as if he was trying to weasel out of one of his bankruptcies, is de facto crippling to the world’s economy.

Put it this way: You put $100 in the bank on New Year’s Day expecting to earn $2 in sure interest in a year. The bank has a 240-year history of delivering on its promises, so you’re feeling confident that, while the money isn’t growing rapidly, you’ll be better off than you were.

On New Year’s Eve, the bank’s wacky-looking new chief comes to you and says he doesn’t want to give you your $102. He wants to give you $100 back. Or $99.

The first thing you’re going to think is, hey, doofus, I trusted you to give me the extra $2 when I signed up for this deal.

Secondly, if I didn’t want to make money, I would have put the money under a mattress. Or given it to some other bank that keeps its word, like First Ayatollah or Vlad’s Vault.

Third, why should I ever invest money with a welsher like you?

The bank needs that money to grow. It won’t be doing much growing if people don’t trust it.

The U.S. economy relies on the idea that our money and our debt are the most trustworthy financial instruments in the world. Trump’s idea of renegotiating it sends a signal to the world that we can’t be trusted. 

That wouldn’t make America great again. That would make America as unreliable as any Third World country.

Frankly, we could all use a break from hearing this meatball open his mouth.

1. It’s Tuesday, May 3, 2016.

2. On this day 30 years ago, Ferdinand won the Kentucky Derby.

I know this because I watched it in the back of a gray limousine in lower Manhattan, en route to my wedding reception.

So the Ferdinand mention buries the lead. It was also on this day 30 years ago that I married the love of my life and lived happily ever after.

3. President Obama knocked ‘em dead, as they say in the comedy business, at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday.

We have no video of Lincoln, but he’s the only one I can imagine having the same sense of comic timing as this Hawaiian kid does. And, as good as he was on Saturday, he wasn’t nearly as funny as he was on the Jerry Seinfeld “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” segment.

4. One of Obama’s riffs focused on Hillary Clinton’s inability to reach younger voters, losing them overwhelmingly to a guy who’s older than she is. He joked about how awkward Clinton seems on Facebook.

“Hillary trying to appeal to young voters is a little bit like your relative who just signed up for Facebook,” the president said.

Then he mimicked how he thinks she sounds: “‘Dear America, did you get my poke? Is it appearing on your wall? I’m not sure I’m using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary.’”

For her part, Clinton laughed along wherever she was; she wasn’t at the event.

“@potus Nice job last night. Aunt Hillary approves. #WHCD -H,” she tweeted on Sunday, the “-H” indicating that she tweeted it herself.

5. This reprise of Saturday’s laughfest is my way to get to the point I’ve been trying to make ever since people started discussing who will be Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

She’s running against Donald Trump. There are not a lot of groups in the Democratic base with whom she’s going to need help.

But younger voters are one of them. There’s no way she’s going to improve her own standing with them unless she picks a running mate who can reach them.

And that’s why I like Sheryl Sandberg.

Those asking who she is are in my generation. Sandberg is the chief operating officer of Facebook. She is 46 years old and she turned Mark Zuckerberg’s idea into a money-making machine.

But Sandberg is no novice. She was chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in the Clinton administration. She was an executive at Google in its early growth years before jumping over to Facebook.

6. What would Sheryl Sandberg bring to a Democratic ticket with Hillary Clinton?

— Relative youth. She’s more than 20 years younger than Clinton.

— An ability to reach younger voters. She’s in a different league than Clinton or anyone the Republicans can throw up against her. She understands technology and how younger people use it. And she knows the issues that affect them better than older politicians can. These are people that Trump and the Republicans have no idea how to talk to.

— Business acumen. Sandberg knows how to make money. Frankly, she’s better at it than Trump; companies she’s helped run have never sniffed the word “bankruptcy.” That will resonate with those who think the ability to handle economics is important.

— Doubling down on women. Sandberg is also known for her strong stance on women becoming leaders in the workplace. Her book “Lean In” was a manifesto for women’s rights and equality. Clinton gets an opportunity to play further to her strength in the campaign – and to Trump’s biggest weakness.

— A real change. Bernie Sanders supporters, you say you want a revolution? Sheryl Sandberg would be it.

What are the negatives?

— Does she want it? Sandberg is probably a pretty content billionaire in Silicon Valley. Why give that up for the mess that is Washington?

— Family considerations. That would normally be sexist to say. But Sandberg’s husband died suddenly last year, leaving her a widow with two children. If you think about the sudden death of Beau Biden affected his father, the vice president, you can imagine that Sandberg might be feeling the same sad pull. She would have to consider if she and her kids are ready for the stress of a national campaign.

— Dealing with Trump. The circumstances of her husband’s death, a treadmill accident at a Mexican resort, are probably not beyond the caustic touch of a creep like Donald Trump and others of his ilk. Would she be willing to endure that?

Hillary Clinton has about a month or so to determine her running mate. Sheryl Sandberg is not on any lists. Floating a trial balloon on Facebook might be a way for Aunt Hillary whether a Clinton-Sandberg ticket excites people.

I think it would.

1. It’s Wednesday, April 27, 2016.

2. Nine months ago, I sat with friends in Connecticut musing about what seemed at the time to be Donald Trump’s quixotic presidential bid. All of them believed that this was just a publicity ploy, that he would be bored with the process, that no one would support him, that he’d be done by Thanksgiving.

Yesterday, that same Donald Trump got 58% of the vote in a three-way race to win the Connecticut Republican primary. And that wasn’t even his best showing in the five primaries contested. That, ahem, honor goes to the 64% of the vote he got in Rhode Island.

Most serious observers would not have bet a dime on how the Republican race stands now. Trump is so close to the nomination he can see the gold-plated balloons dropping on his head in Cleveland 12 weeks from now.

The Democrats’ problem has always been that there was no winning candidate for the nomination besides Hillary Clinton. That’s thanks in large part to the fact that whatever bench the party might have had was decimated by losses suffered in recent off-year elections.

What’s the Republicans’ excuse? They won those years, and the stars of those elections put themselves forward for 2016 – Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Rand Paul, Walker, Perry, Kasich – along with Jeb Bush, a party elder with presidential pedigree.

Cruz and Kasich are still around. Barely. They limp into the final states with their limited non-aggression pact aimed solely at stopping Trump. They were humiliated in the five states where they competed last night – neither one could manage even 30% of the vote in any of them.

The Republicans thought they were put up an all-star team of candidates and licked their chops at the idea of taking back the White House. Now, even if Trump wins in November, they will still be outsiders, held in contempt by the guy they tried every which way to stop.

They – and we – will have a lot of time to figure out what happened. After Hillary Clinton’s inauguration.

3. Somewhere in the headquarters of the Democratic Party or in the Brooklyn lair of Hillary for America, there must be a team of people prioritizing which of Donald Trump’s ridiculous statements will be on posters, coffee mugs and signs come this fall.

Last night’s should be high on the list.

“Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5% of the vote,” he told his supporters after his win last night. “The only thing she’s got going is the women’s card.”

Yeah. OK.

First, not that women were flocking to him, but that can’t make him more attractive.

Second, if I could plant a question at the presidential debates between these two, it would be about some part of the world that doesn’t get a lot of attention. Maybe someplace in Africa or South America. I’m dying to see if Trump can even figure out where it is, let along address the issue – which, by the way, Clinton will know cold, as she’s demonstrated time and time again in the debates with Bernie Sanders.

Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I’d wonder if there’s any of the 50 states Trump could possibly win.

4. If you get a chance, you should read the always perceptive Frank Bruni’s column in The Times.

It’s about sore losers.

He’s responding to the Bernie Sanders people saying they’ve been robbed of the nomination by whatever — closed primaries, campaign funding from Wall Street and other sinister stuff. Some of them say they’d vote for Trump before they’d vote for Clinton.

He’s also responding to the Ted Cruz campaign that has essentially said it needs to subvert the Republican Party nominating process in order to save it. It believes that even though Trump has won a majority of the states so far and nearly enough delegates to clinch the nomination, he’s not a legitimate Republican.

Bruni says that this is a phenomenon in both parties, the idea that any loss is the result of corruption and chicanery and the winner is illegitimate and needs to be thwarted at every turn.

It’s food for thought.

I think he’s right to an extent, and if I’m honest I think I see myself. Elections seem to have become more life and death. The idea of Trump winning, even if the pollsters say the possibility is remote, sickens me.

5. How did we get here? I’m betting on the turbulence of our change.

Things happen faster. We see more thanks to our technology, and the picture is sometimes more disagreeable than we can stand.

Same-sex marriage, an issue that Bruni has championed, is one of those things. At the turn of the century, 15 years ago, if you had said same-sex marriage would be legal in all 50 states, you would have been thought to be wildly mistaken.

And yet, legal it is. It happened faster than anyone seriously could have imagined.

But while the rate of acceptance is pretty amazing, the people who steadfastly oppose same-sex marriage didn’t go away.

So look what they did. They found other ways to go after people who don’t conform to their conception of normality. The North Carolina transgender bathroom law. The Mississippi law allowing business to refuse services to same-sex couples planning to marry.

These people cite religious beliefs and personal freedoms.

It escalates. If you’re on this side of the issue, it’s hard not to blow your stack. You cheer the Bruce Springsteen boycott and PayPal’s decision not to create jobs in North Carolina. You attack the people who perpetrate and support such laws as bigots and fools.

That’s the way it is with every issue. On every topic. On every side.

The stakes seem bigger, so losing seems untenable.

Is that right?

No, probably not. Compromise is a virtue. You get something now, and maybe after you see how that works, you go for something else later. When change is slower, the impact is muted and the side effects can be mitigated.

One other thing: The fact that when we lose on an issue or an election, it’s not just something you read in the paper the next day. It’s 24/7 on cable news networks. It’s trending on Twitter and Facebook. It’s in your face all day long and for days after. It’s all you can see and all you can hear.

That has to light a fuse.

Bruni’s column is thoughtful and incisive. It’s also a lost cause. This is an era of no compromise – “no retreat, baby, no surrender,” as Springsteen sings.

It’s not a pretty picture.

1. It’s Tuesday, April 26, 2016.

2. It’s Gary Wright’s birthday.

For you young’uns and those of my generation who were chemically distracted in the mid ‘70s, Gary Wright is the guy who performed the song “Dream Weaver.” It was ubiquitous in the early part of 1976. Any time I think back to eating a meal in college, I hear “Dream Weaver” playing in the background and see a salad in front of me (I was in the process of losing 60 pounds).

Wright, who turns 73 today, has a Web site. From this we learn: a) he wrote and recorded other songs; b) he had a close friendship with George Harrison and says they shared a “spiritual conversion and journey”; and c) his book about his friendship with Harrison called – you guessed it – “Dream Weaver” is available on Kindle for $4.99 (although the site says it’s a preorder, the book has been out for a year and a half.)

By the way, the Web site is www.thedreamweaver.com. Not that it’s the only thing he’s done in his life. But Gary appears to be one who rides the horse that got him there.

3. I have to confess that sometimes I confuse Gary Wright with Gary Numan, who did “Cars” about four years later.

His birthday was last month. Numan’s site doesn’t seem nearly as “Cars” obsessed as Wright’s “Dream Weaver” fixation. 

What Numan and Wright have in common: a) first name and b) both their signature songs could be soundtracks for bad dreams.

4. While I’m talking entertainment, it’s my understanding that Beyoncé released an HBO video and a new album that has something to do with an infidelity theme.

I think Beyoncé is an amazing talent, but I am not a rabid fan. I’ll let my daughter download “Lemonade” and tell me what she thinks.

All I know for sure, from following social media yesterday, is that Piers Morgan doesn’t like the album. And if Piers Morgan doesn’t like it, you know it’s gotta be good.

Let me complete my entertainment theme with this:

5. I also gather from social media that, at least for today, there’s peace between Kelly and Michael.

Because she’s of Italian ancestry and a Met fan, I tend to side with Kelly. I’m loyal that way. Michael is still going to head off to “Good Morning America.”

Mostly, though, I don’t care.

But my former colleagues at CNNMoney are all over this story with their fantastic media team. And if you care, they’re the ones to read. 

6. Some have called today’s round in the presidential campaign the “Acela primaries” because Amtrak’s fastest train passes through the five states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

That name reflects the Washington punditry and the New York media. Those folks don’t bother driving when they can write and make phone calls on the train. Few people watching on TV even know what Acela is.

I see them as the “I-95 primaries.” I have spent more hours than I care to count driving on I-95 south to take my daughter to school and see my brother in Maryland. I have spent more hours than I care to count driving on I-95 north for getaways in Mystic and Misquamicut Beach.

I’ll bet when people think of those states, they think about Chesapeake House. That ridiculously expensive toll for driving 13 miles through Delaware. Feeling as though you’re on a pothole-ridden demo derby track in Philadelphia. Wondering why Connecticut signs show the tribal land names instead of the casinos you’re actually looking for. That creepy-looking giant insect on top of the exterminator’s headquarters in Providence.

7. The expectation is that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will win all five states. There’s a chance Bernie Sanders could take Connecticut and/or Rhode Island.

It will not be the first test of the holy(?) alliance between Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Their limited non-aggression pact affects only Indiana, which is next Tuesday, and Oregon and New Mexico, which come later.

But with wins, Trump will move even closer to the magic number – or to the point where it becomes even harder to have a “Kumbaya” moment in Cleveland in 12 weeks.

8. Finally, this interesting study in the New York Times: a survey asking people when America was greatest. 

Of course, that plays off the Trump campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

The year that more people chose than any other was 2000. Its appeal is understandable. It was the year before 9/11. Democrats like it because it was the last year of Bill Clinton’s successful presidency. Republicans like it because George W. Bush won the presidential election – although, given how that turned out, it’s hard to understand why they look back on that nostalgically.

Also, the Y2K thing didn’t materialize. Everybody’s computer worked on Jan. 1, 2000.

I find this a little misguided. I side with the 44% who say America’s best years are ahead. Isn’t that supposed to be our goal in life – make each year better than the one before it? There’s no point in the kind of nostalgia that tries to relive a past year, because there are too many things that are better today.

9. Sorry about making “Dream Weaver” go through your head all day.

1. It’s Monday, April 25, 2016.

2. My favorite Prince piece is “1999.” I love that organ open on the recording. It announces itself, as a lot of great songs do.

As for Prince himself, I haven’t listened to much of what he’s done in the 21st century. The songs of the 1980s and 1990s set quite a standard on their own.

My brother says the reason Prince’s death resonates with so many people is that his music is the soundtrack of their romance.

I can’t say that’s true for me. But his music is the soundtrack of a time and place in my life that was exciting and adventurous, and I think that’s why his sudden death resonates so much.

3. Still, I was a little surprised by the outpouring for him.

I didn’t expect President Obama to issue a statement – although there is the possibility that he and the First Lady had “Little Red Corvette” playing in the background of their first days. Sports teams and cities turned their sites and buildings purple to commemorate his passing. Maybe it was the shock of someone not so old, and the suddenness.

4. So do you think the deal went down?

Did the rival gangs meet at the Golden Corral in Hermitage, Pa., to work it out?

Was Reince Priebus held hostage, like the Bocchiccios in “The Godfather,” until the details were worked out and no one was double-crossed? (Is he still there?)

Did the two principals meet and kiss each other on the cheek – nah, I take that back, these guys aren’t letting that photo op take place.

Those guys, of course, are Ted Cruz and John Kasich. They have announced an alliance of sorts in an effort to stop Donald Trump from a first-ballot presidential nomination at the Republican convention in Cleveland.

Cruz won’t campaign in New Mexico or Oregon, while Kasich will pass on Indiana. Together, those states have a little more than 100 delegates, but they could be enough to stall Trump and allow one of the two – or, of course, some mysterious else – to claim the nomination.

5. There’s a bunch of flaws in this in my mind. But I – like almost everyone else – have been wrong an awful lot this election cycle, so take this with appropriate grains of salt.

First, if I’m a moderate Republican in Indiana, I might be thinking Ted Cruz is as bad for the party as Donald Trump; and the Ohio governor is a neighbor.

Similarly, if I’m a fundamentalist conservative in Oregon, do I really feel comfortable voting for Kasich, who said in an early debate he attended a same-sex marriage of a friend even though he opposes the idea?

In short, how comfortable are people voting for someone because he’s not someone else, rather than voting for who you want?

Secondly, if I’m Donald Trump, whose success is predicated on the idea that the system is out to get me and you and everyone like us, is this the smoking gun or what?

No one wants me except you, he can tell his minions in Indianapolis and Bend and Gallup, and it’ll resonate.

Finally, let’s say the Cruz-Kasich Pact succeeds. They stop Trump from getting the nomination on the first ballot.

Who the hell do the Republicans nominate?

Cruz and Kasich won’t be able to combine their delegates to choose the candidate themselves. Are they going to be able to convince other non-Trump Republicans and those forced by law to support Trump on the first ballot that their partnership is the path to beating the Democrats?

Does Cruz, who has far more delegates, have to take Kasich or Kasich’s designate as his running mate?

Does someone who never ran in a single primary, or who dropped out, get a gift nomination?

And how do you think the people who support Trump, who now are less than 400 delegates from their goal and will be even closer after tomorrow’s mid-Atlantic primaries, would feel about the nomination going to “Lyin’ Ted,” “1-for-38 Kasich,” “Little Marco” or anyone else not named Donald J. Trump?

It’s 84 days until the Republican convention. It’s gonna be a fun 12 weeks.

1. It’s Wednesday, April 20, 2016.

2. Maybe the Mets should have saved some runs for tonight’s game. But I do like 11-1 wins!

3. There’s a lot to ponder after the New York primaries. So let’s start with a general observation.

This is my 12th presidential election, and I’ve voted in New York in every single one. So I can understand why anyone who’s voting for the first or second time might be a little flummoxed by the byzantine way of elections in the Empire State.

But this morning, some of the Bernie Sanders backers are complaining that independents, who have strongly supported their man in other states, couldn’t vote in yesterday’s Democratic primary. That, they said, made the difference in what was otherwise a blowout win for Hillary Clinton.

This didn’t seem to come up much in the run-up to the vote. But I’ll leave that part aside.

The idea that people who don’t declare for a political party can influence the nominee of one or the other party is a two-way thing. I’m a Democrat, I believe in what I think the Democratic Party stands for. And because I’ve made that declaration, I believe I – and others who’ve taken the same stance – should have the say about who our party’s nominee is.

And, following that logic, I shouldn’t have anything to say about who the Republicans nominate. There are Republicans who believe in what they think their party stands for. And because they’ve made that declaration, they should have the say about who their party’s nominee is.

If I believe that Donald Trump is the worst possible candidate the Republicans can run, and I’m happy whether Sanders or Clinton is my party’s nominee, it’s in my interest to cross over to the Republican primary and vote for Trump.

It is not in the interest of someone who has made a commitment to the Republican Party and believes that Trump is a disaster. And that Republican would have a legitimate case for claiming that I’m screwing around with the political process and their party’s right to put forth the candidate that best represents its members.

So I’m perfectly happy with the fact that only members of a party can vote in that party’s primary in this state. If independents want to support a presidential candidate, they can create a party and hold a primary that puts her or him on the November ballot.

The Sanders people knew the rules before the contest started. You can’t cry about it after the fact.

4. New York City’s comptroller will investigate the fact that the Board of Elections lopped 120,000 voters off the rolls in Brooklyn.

The Board of Elections is notorious for the mysterious ways in which it operates. That’s been the case for as long as I can remember, going back to my first journalism job in 1976 helping to set up the city vote-counting center on the Lower East Side. There was an always an issue with the Board of Elections, even when your side included the New York Police Department, which was officially responsible for counting votes.

Voting should be among the easiest things we do. In every city, in every state. But because of the way this nation is divided, setting a national standard that would make American democracy as transparent as other nations is a dream with little chance of reality.

Since Clinton won Brooklyn, I’m skeptical that Sanders would have picked up more than half of those disenfranchised, as some of his backers claim. Even so, those people should have been given the right to express their support for him.

5. Ted Cruz is right about New York values. For him, they equal zero. He didn’t win a single delegate in the nation’s fourth-largest state, and not because the rules were winner-take-all, like they are in Florida.

That appears to be just the start of his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.

Apparently, Cruz spent a part of an e-mail to supporters whining about the strain of campaigning for president. He complained about a lack of personal time, being away from his family and little sleep affecting his health.

Unfortunately for Cruz, one of those who got access to the note was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the liberal firebrand from Massachusetts. She sent out a series of sharp-tongued tweets pretty much putting Cruz’s “sacrifices” in perspective. 

“Are you kidding me, @TedCruz? We’re supposed to pity you because trying to be the leader of the free world is hard?! 2 words: Boo hoo.” was the third in the series, after she introduced the issue.

And then she attacked.

“Know whose health is limited? Workers w/ no paid leave who can’t stay home when sick or caring for kids. @TedCruz won’t support it.”

“Know whose sleep is limited? Working parents who stay up worrying about getting kids thru college w/o big debt. @TedCruz blocked #refi.”

And more along those lines. If you follow @elizabethforma, you can see the whole thing.

Sometimes I wonder how different this race would have been if she had gone for the presidency.

She probably would have gotten clobbered, much as Sanders would if he were to win the nomination. But she would have been a lot more substantive in her solutions to the nation’s problems.

1. It’s Tuesday, April 19, 2016.

2. It’s a gorgeous day here in New York for the state’s presidential primaries. I voted around 8, and there were people in the polling place, so turnout should be pretty good.

If you’re a fellow New Yorker who’s registered as either a Republican or Democrat, you should vote today. We’ve had months of debates and TV soundbites and speech making and comedy show appearances.

Now you actually have to think about it. Which of these people do you trust most to steward the world’s largest economy and command the world’s strongest military? Which of them will proudly bear the standard of your party in the fall election?

3. I picked Hillary Clinton. I feel pretty good about that. Whether you pick her or Bernie Sanders (if you’re picking one of the Republicans, you’re probably better off reading something else), you should emerge from the polling place with a feeling of satisfaction in your choice.

I’m still thinking it’s Hillary by something between 55-45 and 57-43.

4. The Pulitzer Prizes were announced yesterday. I always believe the winners are deserving; last year’s winner for biography was an amazing book about the collaboration between Mussolini and Pope Pius XI.

I’m specially interested in the journalism prizes, and one that stuck out this year was the one for explanatory reporting. It went to the Marshall Project, a nonprofit group specializing in reporting on the criminal justice system, and ProPublica, another nonprofit that focuses on stories about the public interest.

I almost as though I shouldn’t describe the story – the writing by Ken Armstrong and T. Christian Miller is so good that it reads like a good novel. But it involves a rape victim who was badgered into recanting her accusation – and her eventual vindication.

Besides being a fascinating tale, it is a reminder that young women – especially those who aren’t the stars of society – face a daunting task in getting people to believe them when it comes to violence and abuse.

I highly recommend it. I commend the Pulitzer panel for honoring this. And I congratulate the writers and editors for putting this forward. Here it is: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/16/an-unbelievable-story-of-rape?ref=hp-1-112#.X2D2JXnIY

1. It’s Monday, April 18, 2016.

2. Your tax filings are due today. If you haven’t filed them yet, it’s more likely National File-For-An-Extension Day.

3. It’s also Patriot’s Day in Massachusetts and the running of the Boston Marathon. The weather is gorgeous here in the Northeast – in fact, it might be too hot for a 26-mile, 385-yard run. But best to all the runners and spectators.

4. So I’ve been saying that, even though I support Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders should keep running. He’s had something important to say, and I’ve believed that he’s making Clinton a better candidate for the run in the fall.

And I still think that.

But.

I’m hearing more people talk about how this campaign is starting to drag, and the more it goes on, the more annoying they think Sanders is. It seems to them as though Sanders says pretty much the same thing all the time, in the same gruff shout.

These people are going to throw up if they hear the phrase “millionaires and billionaires” one more time. Or “Wall Street bankers.”

Yes, income inequality is an important problem in this country. Yes, we need more younger people involved in the political process. Yes, Clinton should release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and others.

But in the months since this campaign started, these folks – and I don’t know that I agree – believe Sanders is only focused on a couple of issues. He does not have the breadth of knowledge and the ability to change focus that Clinton does.

And, while some may doubt Clinton’s sincerity about her compassion for people, has Sanders shown any emotional attachment to the people he says he running to help? He does not have a personal touch in the same way that she or President Obama have among Democrats.

Tomorrow is the New York Primary, and Sanders needs a good showing to make the argument that he is a better alternative to the flaws of Hillary Clinton. He has a lot of support among young people, as evidenced by those big rallies in Greenwich Village and Brooklyn’s Prospect Park.

But will Democrats turn out for Sanders? I’m skeptical. I think Clinton wins by 12 or 13 percentage points.

5. One important way to bridge the income gap is to make sure everyone can afford health care.

That’s what Obamacare is supposed to do. And, according to an analysis reported in The New York Times today, that’s exactly what it’s doing. 

The study, based on 2014 statistics, shows that the poor and minorities have gained the most from the law. Hispanics have seen their coverage rates grow at the fastest pace, up more than 10% from the year before the law took full effect.

And this growth comes despite the spite of Republican governors in 19 states who have refused to expand their Medicaid programs to the poor. They, of course, are more interested in making a political statement than helping people.

Obamacare isn’t perfect. Lots of folks have seen their insurance rates soar and, despite President Obama’s promise, lost the coverage that they had and enjoyed.

But even the president acknowledges that his signature achievement needs fine tuning. Hopefully, that will happen in the new administration, and the gains shown as a result of the Affordable Care Act will grow.

6. One Republican governor who is not spiteful is John Kasich of Ohio. Although it seems unlikely that he’ll be his party’s nominee, it would be interesting to see if he campaigned on these improvements in health care coverage that he, honestly, contributed to.

That probably wouldn’t sit well with the GOP orthodoxy – but would make him a better candidate against the Democrats.

7. Another interesting thing in The Times today is an op-ed piece on immigration by former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. 

The Republican defends President Obama’s right to focus on the immigration issue in the way he sees fit, saying Congress abdicated its responsibility to him. But, now that it doesn’t like what he’s doing, it and other Republicans are challenging him.

It’s like we don’t want to tell you how to do your job, but you should do your job they way we want you to.

The Supreme Court is listening to the GOP arguments against Obama’s executive actions on immigration today, which is why Lugar’s piece appears. He’s one of those Republicans that the hard core would call a RINO – Republican In Name Only. But he’s actually governed, which is more than you can say for the clowns who dominate the party now.

Lugar’s piece is worth a read.

1. It’s Wednesday, April 13, 2016.

2. I wonder how much Hillary Clinton’s discomfort using MetroCard in the New York subway led to the announcement that the New York subway system is replacing MetroCard. It’s not a moment too soon.

Also, the Clinton campaign can use this as proof that it gets results.

3. Again, if you get a chance on either one of its numerous re-airings or to buy a version for home viewing, Ken Burns’ “Jackie Robinson” is excellent.

I went on ad nauseum yesterday about the judgment of history relating to the guys who obstructed Robinson. So let me talk about two things that stuck in my mind from Part Two.

First, I’m sympathetic to Robinson’s travails in his later years. Here’s a man whose courage in breaking baseball’s color line should be unimpeachable.

And yet, as the civil rights movement became more militant in the late 1960s, Robinson found himself on the other side. His criticism of Muhammad Ali’s refusal to be inducted during the Vietnam War looks really bad in the light of history – almost an echo of what I said yesterday about the guys who petitioned and hurled epithets when Robinson played for Brooklyn.

But it’s a dim echo, overpowered by his courage speaking his mind about the civil rights movement and his willingness to put his prestige and name behind efforts to improve the economic status of African-Americans.

Second, I’m struck by the toll being Jackie Robinson took on Jackie Robinson. He died a physically diminished man at just 53. I don’t know the extent genetics played on his health problems. But the stress he faced as he shattered one of America’s biggest barriers must have been overwhelming.

4. Good for the Golden State Warriors. There were those who believed they should ease up on the idea of setting a NBA record for wins in a season – the idea is to win the championship, and that’s done in the playoffs.

But they weren’t having that. They won their 72nd game over the weekend against their toughest possible foe, the San Antonio Spurs. Tonight, they go for 73.

In some ways, that’s bigger than the championship. The regular season in most major sports has been diminished; in hockey and basketball, it’s almost a joke. But people pay money to see those games, and they should have some meaning.

That’s the respect the Warriors are paying to their fans and those of their opponents. I’m not a big NBA fan; if I were I’d root for the Brooklyn Nets. But I hope the Warriors do it because of the integrity of their pursuit.

History might or might not remember if the Warriors win the NBA championships. Winning 73 of 82 games will get history’s attention. Big time.