Tuesday, May 03, 2016


National Review's Jim Geraghty reads a Wall Street Journal editorial and expresses despair:
... the biggest howler in the Journal’s editorial is this:
If Mr. Trump does lose, his voters need to understand that he was the architect of his own demise. Republican voters also need to see that alienating non-whites, women and young people was a losing strategy.
Do you see any scenario where the majority of Trump voters “understand he was the architect of his own demise”? John Nolte is already blaming #NeverTrump Republicans. The vast majority of Trump supporters believe that the most unpopular presidential candidate since David Duke is going to beat Hillary, and most think he will beat her in a landslide. If and when Hillary wins, most of Trump’s supporters will insist the election was rigged and that massive numbers of illegal immigrants voted. Like the man they hail, their modus operandi is blaming everyone but themselves.
Yes, they'll blame skulduggery and Democratic deployment of sinister black and brown people -- but Republicans always do that, don't they? Here's a 2012 Townhall article called "Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud." Here's a Breitbart article from 2014 titled "Study: Non-Citizen Votes May Have Tipped 2008 Election for Obama." And for the "respectable" version of this, read "Romney Blames Loss on Obama’s ‘Gifts’ to Minorities and Young Voters."
n a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said....
However, with the passage of time, rank-and-file Republicans have decided that they loathe both Romney and McCain. If you ask them whether Obama won because of ACORN or "free stuff" or massive numbers of undocumented immigrants voting, sure, they'll say yes -- but they still blame the last two party nominees for being big losers. Why shouldn't the same thing happen to Trump?

But Trump is different, you say. All along, rank-and-file Republicans thought McCain and Romney were sellout Establishment milquetoasts, while Trump is a warrior for their cause. Yes, but once upon a time these same Republicans thought Sarah Palin was literally the modern equivalent of the fighting Esther of the Bible. Now, on the right, she's largely seen as a joke. Prior to that, George W. Bush was seen by conservatives as worthy of Mount Rushmore. Now the right's opinion of him is a mixture of admiration and embarrassment.

I could add lesser examples: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Ben Carson. All were right-wing heroes -- but then they were brought low, and they no longer seemed to have any power over their political enemies, who just laughed at them. If that's Trump's fate in November -- which is certainly what the polls indicate -- then Trump's going to go the way of all the other enemy-smiters who surrender their hero status when they lose their ability to smite.

At Business Insider, Josh Barro writes:
Trump and his fans will say that the Republican establishment sabotaged Trump by withholding their support, hoping they could quash his insurgency by manufacturing a wide loss to Hillary Clinton. They will not go away quietly.
But they won't have Trump to rally around -- he's said, "I don't think I'm going to lose, but if I do, I don't think you're ever going to see me again, folks. I think I'll go to Turnberry and play golf or something." And no one else who might fill the void has Tump's media savvy, or his credibility with non-Trump broadcasters and reporters, or the aura of winning that's so thoroughly fooled his fans.

So I think all the energy will dissipate -- and eventually Trump himself will be seen as someone who took on all the evil people and just became a laughingstock. Eventually he'll be a punch line even on the right.

The next right-wing hero will be anyone who makes President Clinton's life miserable, or undermines some other high-profile group of Democrats and/or liberals. That's how the dream of totally annihilating their enemies will live on in rank-and-file conservatives' hearts.


Donald Trump broke bread yesterday with an old smear merchant acquaintance:
[Trump] and two aides sat down at a table for lunch with author Edward Klein, perhaps best known for his series of bombshell books spreading rumors and innuendo, much of it discredited, about the Clintons.

... Klein, who rode to and from the restaurant in the same vehicle as Trump in a Secret Service motorcade, said he is following Trump around for a couple of days to gather material for a new book. But the visit with Klein comes as Trump promises to debut new attacks on the stump about the Clintons.
You remember Klein, author of many Clinton-bashing books, including The Truth About Hillary. In his review of that one, conservative humorist Joe Queenan wrote the following:
... it sleazily intimates that Hillary Clinton is a lying, scheming, smelly, left-leaning lesbian and a non-maternal parent who consorts with lawyers who defend mobbed-up unions and bears a striking character resemblance to both Richard Nixon and Madonna, and who tacitly approved of her husband's rape of a young woman at a time when Mrs. Clinton may or may not have been bathing, washing her hair or shaving her underarms, while hanging out with short-haired women from the sapphic charnel house Wellesley College.
Klein claimed in that book that Chelsea Clinton was conceived as a result of marital rape, an assertion that was too much even for Sean Hannity, who questioned it in a 2005 interview with Klein.

As Oliver Willis notes, "Klein says he has known Trump for 35 years and has "met with him on numerous occasions, talked to him on the phone countless times, traveled with him, and written two lengthy magazine cover stories about him." He adds, 'I believe I understand him better than most people outside his immediate family.'" Trump provided a back-cover blurb for Klein's 2012 book The Amateur.

Klein is obsessed with Hillary Clinton's health -- he says he has "dizzy spells" and gets "blinding headaches," and may even have multiple sclerosis. This is odd because, according to Klein, she's also vigorous enough to knock all the items off the desk of anyone who angers her, something she apparently does on a regular basis:
Clinton has a habit of violently clearing off desks in fits of rage. An unnamed "Foreign Service Officer" tells Klein that "after a telephone argument with President Obama, she took her right arm and cleared off her small working desk, sending pictures, glasses, everything crashing to the floor."

A few chapters later, Clinton does the same thing to her husband's desk....
Trump will probably work a lot of this into his campaign rhetoric. And the alleged lesbianism. And maybe the alleged rape. And almost certainly Bill Clinton's relationship with wealthy convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a subject Klein writes about a lot.

Oh, and Benghazi, of course. A small problem here is that the initial focus on an anti-Muslim YouTube video -- which right-wingers consider the worst cover-up in American history -- was, according to Klein, President Obama's idea, not Hillary Clinton's. Klein, she bill Clinton wanted her to resign on principle, because the cover-up was so horrible. I'm not sure how Trump (and Klein) will square that with the "Crooked Hillary" meme, but maybe Klein will change his story once he realizes that the old story is no longer damaging enough. (It wouldn't be the first time.)

We know that Trump will spread the most absurd gossip on the campaign trail because he's spreading this story about Ted Cruz's father now:
Trump also began to say that the elder Cruz was with Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who assassinated President John F. Kennedy, before he shot JFK. The National Enquirer alleged that Rafael Cruz is pictured with the assassin handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963....

“What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death — before the shooting. It’s horrible,” Trump said.
As I explained last month, this story is nuts. But Trump is out there using it.

And when Trump does start quoting Klein, here's a top media figure who'll be right there backing him up:

I'm not looking forward to all this.

Monday, May 02, 2016


The New York Times has a story today about Texas's voter ID law and its effect on turnout in the state. The story begins this way:
In a state where everything is big, the 23rd Congressional District that hugs the border with Mexico is a monster: eight and a half hours by car across a stretch of land bigger than any state east of the Mississippi. In 2014, Representative Pete Gallego logged more than 70,000 miles there in his white Chevy Tahoe, campaigning for re-election to the House -- and lost by a bare 2,422 votes.

So in his bid this year to retake the seat, Mr. Gallego, a Democrat, has made a crucial adjustment to his strategy. “We’re asking people if they have a driver’s license,” he said. “We’re having those basic conversations about IDs at the front end, right at our first meeting with voters.”
Well, that's good, because, as it turns out, voters need to be reminded of what sorts of ID they need to vote -- ID they may not realize they actually have:
... a study of the Texas ID requirement by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy released in August found that many more qualified voters, confused or intimidated by the new rules, have not tried to vote at all.

“What voters hear is that you need to have an ID,” said Mark P. Jones of the Baker Institute, an author of the study. “But they don’t get the second part that says if you have one of these types of IDs, you’re O.K.”

... After Mr. Gallego’s narrow loss in 2014, researchers from the Baker Institute and the University of Houston’s Hobby Center for Public Policy polled 400 registered voters in the district who sat out the election. All were asked why they did not vote, rating on a scale of 1 to 5 from a list of seven explanations -- being ill, having transportation problems, being too busy, being out of town, lacking interest, disliking the candidates and lacking a required photo identification.

Nearly 26 percent said the main reason was that they were too busy. At the other end, 5.8 percent said the main reason was lacking a proper photo ID, with another 7 percent citing it as one reason. Most surprising, however, was what researchers found when they double-checked that response: The vast majority of those who claimed not to have voted because they lacked a proper ID actually possessed one, but did not know it.

Moreover, Dr. Jones of the Baker Institute said, “The confused voters said they would have voted overwhelmingly for Gallego.”
So people who could have voted for Gallego didn't vote -- or, to put it another way, Gallego lost votes because people who would have voted for him didn't know they could vote, and the Gallego campaign didn't help voters figure that out.

The Republican backers of these laws know they're sowing confusion; as far as they're concerned, that's a feature, not a bug.

But what was wrong with the Gallego campaign that it didn't understand that this was a problem until after the 2014 loss? The Texas law, after all, went into effect in 2013. Its provisions were known to the campaign -- right?

I don't want to blame just the Gallego campaign. What was wrong with the Democratic Party? Why isn't word going out to every candidate in a voter ID state that it's important to educate voters about these laws? Why can't the party fight the laws and work hard to make sure voters aren't deterred from voting, especially if all that's preventing them from voting is a misunderstanding of the requirements?

It's political malpractice to lose seats because of these laws and then say, "Duh! We could have made an effort to educate voters!" Get it right the first time.


A Republican congressman from Florida says he's not sure whether he'll vote for his own party's presidential candidate in November:
Rep. David Jolly of Florida, a Republican running for Senate in the state, says he doesn’t know if he’s going to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in November.

“So, I’m gonna tell you something you rarely hear in elected official say, I don’t know,” Jolly told AM970 The Answer’s Effective Radio when asked what he’s going to do in the presidential election. “I truly don’t know.”
Hmmm ... what could be upsetting this Floridian who wants to run for a U.S. Senate seat on the GOP line? Could it be this?
Donald Trump is the catalyst who could force a decisive break between Miami-Dade County’s influential Cuban-American voters and the Republican Party, a new poll has found.

Local Cuban Americans dislike Trump so much -- and are increasingly so accepting of renewed U.S.-Cuba ties pushed by Democratic President Barack Obama -- that Trump’s likely presidential nomination might accentuate the voters’ political shift away from the GOP, according to the survey shared with the Miami Herald and conducted by Dario Moreno, a Coral Gables pollster and a Florida International University associate politics professor.

Thirty-seven percent of respondents supported Trump, a number that is still higher than the 31 percent who backed Clinton -- but also “the lowest in history that any potential Republican candidate polls among this traditionally loyal demographic,” according to Moreno. He added that the results put likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton within “striking distance” of winning over the influential voting demographic....

Moreno surveyed 400 likely Miami-Dade Cuban-American voters from April 21-23, conducting more than three-fourths of the interviews in Spanish. His results mirror those from a national poll conducted last month by Latino Decisions, a firm that has worked for Clinton, on behalf of the pro-immigrant America’s Voice organization. That poll found, among other things, that 73 percent of Florida Hispanic voters have a “very unfavorable” opinion of Trump.
Could it be that in combinaion with this?
Even though a whopping 42 percent of Florida voters have a "very unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton and more see her image negatively than positively, the likely Democratic presidential nominee today easily beats either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in Florida, according to the latest tracking poll by the Republican-leaning Associated Industries of Florida. Get this: Among Hispanics (about 14 percent of the electorate and this polling sample), Trump is viewed negatively by 87!!!! percent.
A memo from Ryan Tyson of Associated Industries of Florida elaborates:
Amongst Hispanics, who will make up ~14% of the general electorate in Florida, Trump is -77 (10/87), and no, that is not a typo. Trump is also underwater with Cubans by 60% (17/77).
I was expecting Trump to alienate non-Cuban Hispanic voters, but I didn't realize that so many Cuban-Americans would be equally repulsed by him. Jolly is right to want to run as fast as he can away from Trump.


Andrew Sullivan has a big honking essay about Donald Trump in New York magazine right now. A lot of Sullivan haters are going to dismiss it as ridiculous without reading it. As for me, I don't think he's crazy to fret about the danger that Trump poses to America -- I think he'll lose in November, but I'm not certain of that, and I think the election will be 53%-47% at best. If Trump were to win, do I agree with Sullivan that, "In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event"? I think we'd survive. But it would be ugly.

A key argument Sullivan makes is that our Constitution wasn't designed to permit pure democracy, yet we're approaching pure democracy now, partly as a result of the failure of our elites:
An American elite that has presided over massive and increasing public debt, that failed to prevent 9/11, that chose a disastrous war in the Middle East, that allowed financial markets to nearly destroy the global economy, and that is now so bitterly divided the Congress is effectively moot in a constitutional democracy: “We Respectables” deserve a comeuppance. The vital and valid lesson of the Trump phenomenon is that if the elites cannot govern by compromise, someone outside will eventually try to govern by popular passion and brute force.
But I think Sullivan overestimates how much the elites are failing, at least by their own standards. They've been made whole since the start of the Great Recession. Their economy isn't in the doldrums. That's because they still get the government they want. They absolutely have control at the state and local level. And even in Congress, while they've failed to prevent gridlock, they've made it clear to even the increasingly insane GOP that the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 is not to be repeated.

They don't love Trump, but I think they assume they can live with him, or get their way in a Trump presidency by taking advantage of his utter ignorance of federal law (a problem they, with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists, don't have). The horror of Trump won't be full-blown fascism -- it'll be unbridled Republicanism, what you see in Kansas and North Carolina and Michigan and Wisconsin, with a big dollop of Trump on top. It'll be awful for Mexicans and Muslims, for terror suspects we torture and for civilians we bomb the shit out of. But, beyond that, it'll just be Brownbackianism -- Trump won't know any better, so, as Scott Lemieux says, “he will sign pretty much every horrible piece of legislation that a Republican Congress puts on his desk,” as long as work starts on his glorious wall.

Sullivan, because he's a media guy, is certain the elites are in decline because he's seen the elite-run press give way to blogs, then social media. He believes America's historical expansion of the franchise and the rise of party primaries have taken power away from the elites. Fine so far -- but he falls for the myth that money doesn't matter anymore in politics:
Many contend, of course, that American democracy is actually in retreat, close to being destroyed by the vastly more unequal economy of the last quarter-century and the ability of the very rich to purchase political influence. This is Bernie Sanders’s core critique. But the past few presidential elections have demonstrated that, in fact, money from the ultrarich has been mostly a dud. Barack Obama, whose 2008 campaign was propelled by small donors and empowered by the internet, blazed the trail of the modern-day insurrectionist, defeating the prohibitive favorite in the Democratic primary and later his Republican opponent (both pillars of their parties’ Establishments and backed by moneyed elites). In 2012, the fund-raising power behind Mitt Romney -- avatar of the one percent -- failed to dislodge Obama from office. And in this presidential cycle, the breakout candidates of both parties have soared without financial support from the elites.
First of all, it's a myth that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton and then John McCain bankrolled exclusively by small donations, as The Washington Post's Dan Eggen noted in 2012:
Nearly half of the donors to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2011 gave $200 or less, more than double the proportion seen in 2007, according to the analysis from the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks money in politics....

The 2011 data show that Obama has relied more on small donations this cycle than he did in 2007, when he raised a larger proportion of his money from wealthy donors before grass-roots supporters drove his fundraising.

Obama had raised only 22 percent of his $96.7 million in 2007 from donors whose contributions aggregated to $200 or less, the CFI study found....

It’s harder to accurately gauge Obama’s reliance on higher-end donors because this year he can raise money jointly with the Democratic National Committee, which can accept donations of up to $30,800 per donor.
(Emphasis added.)

This year, we can be impressed by the small-donation fundraising of Bernie Sanders, but, well, he's losing. And Trump is a special case, because he gets all the campaign advertising he needs from the networks and cable news, for free.

The elites have lost a fair amount of control over the process, but in part it's because pragmatic elitists, who prefer establishment Republicans and Democrats, have lost power to ideological-zealot elitists such as the Koch brothers. Into the breach walked Trump, a zealot whose ideology is himself. But I strongly suspect that the elites will help defeat him -- and if not, I assume elite-funded politicians will largely contain him if he's president. It may be a horrorshow for us, but they'll get what they want. They always do.

Sunday, May 01, 2016


Fox's Todd Starnes didn't like the conclusion of Larry Wilmore's monologue at last night's White House Correspondents Dinner:
Fox host Todd Starnes had a problem with comedian Larry Wilmore telling President Barack Obama, on his time as the nation’s first African-American president, “Yo Barry, you did it, my n***a.”

The president responded by smiling and embracing Wilmore. While the term is used as one of endearment among members of the black community, it didn’t stop Starnes, who is white, from posting wrathful tweets about it.

The use of the n-word came at the end of a heartfelt thank-you to the president:
“When I was a kid, I lived in a country where people couldn’t accept a black quarterback. Now think about that. A black man was thought by his mere color not good enough to lead a football team — and now, to live in your time, Mr. President, when a black man can lead the entire free world. Words alone do me no justice. So, Mr. President, if i’m going to keep it 100: Yo, Barry, you did it, my n---. You did it.”
Yet Starnes was still outraged.

Funny thing -- Starnes wasn't nearly as upset in August 2015 at a very deliberate use of multiple epithets intended as racial slurs. In fact, he was angry because others were upset:
All it took was 140 characters for Texas Christian University to suspend a conservative student who posted a series of social networking posts that insulted the Islamic State, the Baltimore rioters and Mexicans....

On April 29 TCU sent Harry [Vincent] a letter accusing him of violating the university’s code of student conduct....

The charges stemmed from a half dozen tweets he had posted online referencing radical Islam along with a Facebook message about the Baltimore riots.

“These hoodrat criminals in Baltimore need to be shipped off and exiled to the sahara desert,” he wrote. “Maybe then they’ll realize how much we provide for them (welfare, college tuition, Obama phone’s, medicare, etc.”

In regards to Islam he wrote, “This is clearly not a religion of peace.”
Vincent also wrote:
“#Baltimore in 4 words: poor uneducated druggy hoodrats”
Responding to someone who complained about his comments, he responded: “When I said you would be reincarnated as a beaner I was being generous”
Starnes called this use of "beaner" an "unintentional Mexican slur," apparently because Vincent, like so many racists after their words are brought to light, claimed he had no idea he was offending anyone.
“I did not know that word was such a hurtful word,” [Vincent] said. “I do regret that one because I do realize that could have caused harm to some people.”
Vincent also posted this, which he apparently didn't regret afterward:

You can question the disciplinary actions TCU took, but the school is a private institution that attempts to balance free speech and, in the words of its student handbook, "respect [for] the rights of all individuals." But Starnes not only expressed outrage at the discipline, he wouldn't acknowledge the racism at all:
It sounds to me like Harry Vincent is guilty of being a Christian Conservative white guy -- and on a university campus that’s a crime worthy of death penalty.
So, to Starnes, Larry Wilmore's language needed policing. Harry Vincent's didn't.

Ellen Brodsky of NewsHounds adds:
If you are suspicious about the nature of Starnes’ racial sensitivity, you should be. This is a guy who has made a Fox News career out of bigotry. He has accused the Obama administration of “orchestrating” civil unrest in Ferguson, called him the “Race-Baiter in Chief,” and complained that a woman of Indian descent was not American enough to be Miss America in 2013.

Oh, and here's a video of the remark that offended Starnes so much last night:


We all know the drill with Maureen Dowd -- all Democratic men are women and all Democratic women are men -- but Donald Trump is a Republican, so I was surprised to see her trying to fit him into this template:
Just as Barack Obama seemed the more feminized candidate in 2008 because of his talk-it-out management style, his antiwar platform and his delicate eating habits, always watching his figure, so now, in some ways, Trump seems less macho than Hillary.

He has a tender ego, pouty tweets, needy temperament and obsession with hand sanitizer, whereas she is so tough and combat-hardened, she’s known by her staff as “the Warrior.”
Scott Lemieux is right:
The idea that a “tender ego” and “needy temperament” (or, for that matter, “obsession with hand sanitizer”) are inconsistent with masculine bluster is hilarious.
But it would be naive to think Dowd understands that.

In any case, this characterization of Trump comes a few paragraphs after Dowd asserts that he and his advisers "seem like a latter-day Rat Pack, having a gas with tomatoes, twirls and ring-a-ding-ding." So Trump is a delicate woman and a boorish man?

Why, yes:
... Hillary never expected to meet this mix of dove, hawk and isolationist. She thought she would face Marco Rubio, a more traditional conservative who would out-hawk her. Instead, she’s meeting Trump, who is “a sheep in wolf’s clothing,” as Axelrod put it. Like a free-swinging asymmetric boxer, Trump can keep Hillary off balance by punching from both the left and the right.
I Googled "asymmetric boxer," wondering if it was a reference to a martial art I wasn't aware of. What I found instead was this:

I'm going to assume that's not what Dowd's referring to here.

What she means is this:
You can actually envision a foreign policy debate between Trump and Clinton that sounds oddly like the one Obama and Clinton had in 2008, with Trump playing Obama, preening about his good judgment on Iraq, wanting an end to nation-building and thinking he could have a reset with Russia.
Right -- the same guy whose Facebook page now prominently features Bobby Knight praising Trump for being willing to go nuclear:

The column ends in a mess of contradictions:
Despite gossip when [Clinton] was first lady that she did not like people in uniform, the truth is the reverse: She gravitates toward “nail-eaters” ... and loves the gruff, Irish, bearlike demeanor of Jack Keane, a retired four-star general and the resident hawk on Fox News who helped define her views on military issues and is still in touch.

As secretary of state, she hit it off with Gen. Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus. And she loved to have a stiff drink with Bob Gates and John McCain.

She has a weakness for big, swaggering, rascally he-men.

Like Donald Trump.
So, relative to Clinton, Trump is a woman, and relative to Trump, Clinton is a man, which we can see from the fact that Clinton cozies up to real men like ... Trump, the woman?

I'm confused. Even Ann Althouse is confused. ("Loving he-men -- is that not feminine? There's quite a jam-up of gender stereotypes here.")

I think Dowd is the real asymmetric boxer, in both senses of the term: like the pugilist she's imagining, she flails at Clinton from every direction, and like the item of intimate wear pictured above, she's trying to be clever and sexy and is an embarrassing failure at both.

Saturday, April 30, 2016


Mike Bloomberg thinks he performed a public service by denouncing demagoguery in his commencement address at the University of Michigan, but what he really did was enable the true demagogues by saying this:
Democracy and citizenship will always require constant vigilance against those who fan the flames of partisanship in ways that consume us and lead to, in Washington’s words, “the ruins of public liberty.”

We have certainly seen such figures before, in both parties. In the 1930s, there was the despotic Huey Long in Louisiana and Father Coughlin in Michigan, who blamed “Jewish conspirators” for America’s troubles. Then came Charles Lindbergh in the ’40s, Joe McCarthy in the ’50s, George Wallace in the ’60s and Pat Buchanan in the ’90s. Every generation has had to confront its own demagogues. And every generation has stood up and kept them away from the White House. At least so far.

In this year’s presidential election, we’ve seen more demagoguery from both parties than I can remember in my lifetime. Our country is facing serious and difficult challenges. But rather than offering realistic solutions, candidates in both parties are blaming our problems on easy targets who breed resentment. For Republicans, it’s Mexicans here illegally and Muslims. And for Democrats, it’s the wealthy and Wall Street. The truth is: We cannot solve the problems we face by blaming anyone.
Bloomberg has always harbored the dream of winning the presidency as an independent, and this fantasy has made him stupid. Long, Coughlin, and the rest of the people he names certainly were demagogues, but their problem wasn't partisanship, if you define that as excessive loyalty to a political party. Coughlin and Long were Democrats who opposed Roosevelt. Wallace also attacked fellow Democrats. The targets of McCarthy and Buchanan included fellow Republicans.

But Bloomberg has to put the problem of demagoguery in these terms, because he's determined to demonstrate that Both Sides Do It (but those in the "sensible center" don't). He tells us that "candidates in both parties are blaming our problems on easy targets who breed resentment. For Republicans, it’s Mexicans here illegally and Muslims. And for Democrats, it’s the wealthy and Wall Street." Yes, but Bernie Sanders doesn't want to shut down Wall Street or deport all rich people. He wants to turn America into Denmark, not Democratic Kampuchea. By contrast, it's not crazy to think that Donald Trump really does want to turn America into Putin's Russia.

Bloomberg says, "We cannot solve the problems we face by blaming anyone." But we also can't solve the problems we face by blaming everyone indiscriminately. Some people are more responsible than others. When we grade on a curve to ensure that we ascribe demagoguery equally to each party, we lose the ability to tell which are the politicians who are genuinely endangering democracy and which are just the passionate defenders of ideas that are a bit outside the bounds of "respectable" politics. Bernie Sanders is in the latter category. Donald Trump is in the former. And Bloomberg is trying to make us unable to see the difference.

Bloomberg passionately defends the superrich, but I know the other issues he cares about: climate change, gun violence, infrastructure spending. Why does Bloomberg think we can't act on these issues? Preposterously, he blames social media:
Today, elected officials who decide to support a controversial policy don’t just get angry letters, phone calls and faxes. They also get millions of angry tweets and Facebook posts denouncing them in the harshest possible terms. This is democracy in action. But this kind of instant condemnation also makes elected officials afraid to do things that, in their heart of hearts, they know are right.
I don't know of very many Democrats who are afraid to act on climate change or infrastructure. Many are emboldened to act on gun violence. And I keep hearing that there are Republicans who understand the seriousness of these problems.

Do those Republicans, assuming they exist, fear angry tweets? No -- they fear primary challenges from candidates further to their right. They fear the wrath of organizations funded by Republican billionaires. Remember how Barney Frank described the Republicans in Congress a few years back: "Half of them are Michele Bachmann. The other half are afraid of losing a primary to Michele Bachmann."

Donald Trump is a businessman who's picked up a lot of terrible ideas from the right-wing media. Mike Bloomberg is a businessman who's picked up a lot of terrible ideas from the centrist media. Trump is a lot more dangerous and a lot more ignorant. But Bloomberg is nearly as much of a know-nothing on this subject as Trump is on every subject.


Wall Street Journal headline:

New York Times headline:

Yup, same speech.

Here's the Journal version:
Republican front-runner Donald Trump, campaigning in California following fresh primary victories, called for party unity during an address at the state’s GOP convention....

“We have to get together as a party because it is a tougher road to the presidency for the Republicans,” Mr. Trump said. “And you really have to pick somebody that knows what is happening, that is really, really good. I accept the position.”
Here's the more believable Times version:
... Mr. Trump spoke little of California or its June 7 primary. Rather, he wrestled with whether he wanted to begin healing the fractured party he was seeking to lead. Mr. Trump, the Republican front-runner in the presidential race, mocked his conservative critics and his current and former rivals as dumb, “disgusting” and losers. He claimed at least twice that he could win even if the party did not come together. And with some conservatives still uneasy about his beliefs, he breezily dismissed questions about his principles.

“Folks, I’m a conservative, but at this point, who cares? We got to straighten out the country,” he said at a subdued luncheon of party activists who seemed more curious about seeing a celebrity than enthusiastic about their potential presidential nominee.

During the same speech, though, he called for party unity to defeat Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic standard-bearer.

Mr. Trump’s remarks offered a vivid illustration of the current state of his campaign: As he edges closer to the nomination, he is under pressure to curb his hard-edged language and exude a more statesmanlike demeanor. But the continuing attacks from other Republicans plainly rankle him, and he appears to have little appetite to make peace with his critics.

“Ideally we’re going to be together,” he said. But then he said: “I think we’re going to win even if we’re not together. There are some people I honestly don’t want their endorsement.”
The Journal story does tell us that Trump "derided attempts by some in the party to deny him the nomination" and "mocked attempts by rivals Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich to form an alliance against him." But the conclusion is that he sincerely wants peace.

Well, I guess what they want to believe at the Journal -- cross your fingers and hope this isn't a debacle for our dear, dear Republican Party. Me, I'm sticking with the Times story.

Friday, April 29, 2016


I've argued in the past that there might not be much unrest at the Republican convention in the event of a convention challenge to Donald Trump -- I don't think the pro-Trump forces, as tough as they think they are, want to mix it up with riot cops using military-grade weapons. On the other hand, I could imagine foolishly riot-minded (but unarmed) anti-Trump lefties showing up in Cleveland with mayhem on their minds. In that case, the pro-Trump tough guys might have foes they don't fear.

I say that after reading this:
Hundreds of demonstrators filled the street outside the Orange County [California] amphitheater where Donald Trump held a rally Thursday night, stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to the Republican presidential candidate.

Traffic came to a halt as a boisterous crowd walked in the roadway, some waving American and Mexican flags. Protesters smashed a window on at least one police cruiser, punctured the tires of a police sport utility vehicle, and at one point tried to flip a police car.

One Costa Mesa police officer was struck in the head by a rock thrown by a protestor, authorities said. The officer wasn't injured because he was protected from by his riot helmet.
And this:
When Chris Cox rolls into Cleveland in mid-July with other motorcycle-riding supporters of Donald Trump, he plans to celebrate the billionaire's coronation as the Republican presidential nominee. He also counts on joining protests if a battle over the nomination ensues....

Bikers For Trump is part of a diverse array of groups coordinating to hold thousands-strong protests and marches if the real-estate mogul is denied outright victory at the Republican Party’s nominating convention in Cleveland.

The risks of confrontation and violence surrounding Trump events were highlighted again on Thursday, when around 20 people were arrested following clashes between anti-Trump protesters and police outside a rally for the candidate in California....

Citizens for Trump co-founder Tim Selaty says he will have activists filming events inside the convention center and broadcasting them live on social media "to document every move." ...

Truckers for Trump says it has 4,000 members and that more than 1,000 are committed to driving their big rigs to Cleveland.

The pro-Trump groups say they are not seeking confrontation but fear that opponents of their candidate might start trouble.
I don't get the point of anti-Trump riots. Even top officials of Trump's own party think he's going to lose the general election. Protest him, sure -- but is violence necessary? Make your point and let him lose.

If anything, unrest makes his voters more inclined to turn out for him:
Monmouth University was polling Republicans in Florida as the events in Chicago unfolded, and so they added a question to their survey. “As you may know, Donald Trump cancelled a rally in Chicago Friday night where protesters and his supporters got into confrontations,” Monmouth asked. “Does what happened there and Trump’s response to it make you more likely or less likely to support Trump, or does it have no impact on your vote for the Republican nomination?”

The responses? Eighty-eight percent of those who replied said it either made no difference or made them support Trump more.
And the general public is somewhat more likely to blame the anti-Trump side than Trump himself, as a March CBS poll noted:
Most registered voters overall have heard a lot about these incidents of violence, and they are more likely to blame the protesters and Trump supporters equally. Forty-three percent of registered voters blame both sides, while 29 percent of voters think it's the protesters who are mostly to blame for these incidents and 23 percent mostly blame Donald Trump's supporters.
The public is wary of Trump, so he'll share the blame for any unrest. But violence doesn't help the anti-Trump side -- at best, the public feels disgust at both sides. Oh, and also: You're taking your life in your hand and putting others, possibly including innocent people, at risk. So what's the point?


The decline of America and the rise of Donald Trump fill David Brooks with despair:
According to a Pew Research poll, 75 percent of Trump voters say that life has gotten worse for people like them over the last half century.

... The suicide rate has surged to a 30-year high.... A record number of Americans believe the American dream is out of reach. And for millennials, social trust is at historic lows.

Trump’s success grew out of that pain, but he is not the right response to it. The job for the rest of us is to figure out the right response.
So what does Brooks plan to do?
That means first it’s necessary to go out into the pain. I was surprised by Trump’s success because I’ve slipped into a bad pattern, spending large chunks of my life in the bourgeois strata -- in professional circles with people with similar status and demographics to my own. It takes an act of will to rip yourself out of that and go where you feel least comfortable. But this column is going to try to do that over the next months and years. We all have some responsibility to do one activity that leaps across the chasms of segmentation that afflict this country.
In other words, this:

That's not going to end well. It's probably not going to end up with Brooks on a chain gang, amusing as that might be. More likely it'll resemble a project Brooks praises in his column:
James Fallows had a story in The Atlantic recently noting that while we’re dysfunctional at the national level you see local renaissances dotted across the country. Fallows went around asking, “Who makes this town go?” and found local patriots creating radical schools, arts festivals, public-private partnerships that give, say, high school dropouts computer skills.
I respect Fallows more than I do Brooks, but what Fallows did was literally drop from the sky onto struggling communities, much in the manner of Donald Trump, but with a smaller private aircraft:
This article appears in the March print edition alongside the cover story, “Can America Put Itself Back Together?” -- a summation of James and Deb Fallows’s 54,000-mile journey around America in a single-engine plane.
Fallows celebrates such interventions as this:
In Holland, Michigan, the family-owned Padnos scrap-recycling company works with a local ministry called 70x7 Life Recovery to hire ex-prisoners who would otherwise have trouble reentering the workforce.
That sounds like a way to stop the bleeding in a struggling community; it doesn't sound like a way to nurse a community back to robust health.

But at least Fallows is talking about changes that are concrete. There's one thing you can count on with Brooks, and this won't change even if he boards a Greyhound in Pittsburgh to look for America: his "solutions" will always be gaseous abstractions.
We’ll probably need a new national story. Up until now, America’s story has been some version of the rags-to-riches story, the lone individual who rises from the bottom through pluck and work. But that story isn’t working for people anymore, especially for people who think the system is rigged.
Of course, that's not true for a lot of Americans, who trace their roots in this country back to forebears who were passionate union members, and sometimes actual socialists. In any case, what was driving them wasn't a "story" as much as it was a concrete desire to feed their families. Maybe they came over here believing a tale of streets paved with gold, but they were disabused of that notion right away. But at least there were jobs -- and good jobs are what's missing now, not some sort of common national myth.

We’ll also need to rebuild the sense that we’re all in this together. The author R. R. Reno has argued that what we’re really facing these days is a “crisis of solidarity.” Many people, as the writers David and Amber Lapp note, feel pervasively betrayed: by for-profit job-training outfits that left them awash in debt, by spouses and stepparents, by people who collect federal benefits but don’t work. They’ve stopped even expecting loyalty from their employers. The big flashing lights say: NO TRUST. That leads to an everyone-out-for-himself mentality and Trump’s politics of suspicion. We’ll need a communitarianism.
Notice what's missing here? An assessment of blame. The problem, according to Brooks, is dispersed evenly: we're all inadequately communitarian. The problem isn't that people with jobs to offer screw their workers over, or that people who claim they'll train you for a job just take your money and leave you in the lurch. It's all just a general malaise, and your annoying spouse is just as much to blame as the company that shipped all the local jobs overseas.

Brooks can't make sense of this because his conservatism prevents him from blaming people with power more than people who don't have any. So he falls back on states of mind and ascribes them to everyone in society equally. Blaming everyone means blaming no one -- there's just a miasma, and we're all breathing it.

That's not right. Someone's winning right now, and doing so by wielding power to the detriment of the people who are losing. Brooks will be exposed to that fact on his travels to the Real America -- but he'll refuse to see it.

Thursday, April 28, 2016


(UPDATE: Will Ferrell now says he won't be involved in this project.)

I'm still angry at what Ronald Reagan did to this country, but I'm not amused by this:
Sources tell Variety [that Will] Ferrell is attached to star as President Reagan in ... “Reagan.”

Penned by Mike Rosolio, the story begins at the start of the then-president’s second term when he falls into dementia and an ambitious intern is tasked with convincing the commander-in-chief that he is an actor playing the president in a movie....

Ferrell is no stranger to political humor having portrayed former President Bush several times over the years on “Saturday Night Live.” ...
Reagan has the first signs of Alzheimer's, and that's supposed to be funny? In my twenties, sure, I joked about Reagan being a simpleton -- but real dementia isn't amusing. It's miserable and it impossible awful burdens on caregivers -- and the fact that Ronnie's principal caregiver was Nancy Reagan, a woman I didn't think much of either, doesn't change how I feel.

If you're having trouble understanding why I've gone softhearted on this, imagine a film in which the source of humor is the mental impairment of Gabby Giffords after she's been shot in the head. I'd be outraged at that. I'd be outraged at people who treated it as light entertainment.

And Hot Air's Allahpundit has a point:
Frankly, if they’re going to milk it for laughs, I hope they’re savage about it. No mercy. The worst would be if they spend 100 minutes having Reagan drooling on himself and then give Ferrell some poignant humanizing Oscar-bait-ish scene in the final 10 about struggling with memories so that critics will walk out pulling their chins about the “surprising empathy” the film showed.
Really, just don't do this.


On the other hand, I think Sonny Bunch of the Washington Free Beacon misses the point with these "Four Political Comedy Pitches to Help Hollywood Prove Conservatives Wrong" ("wrong" referring to the belief that Hollywood is always reverent toward liberals and Democrats and contemptuous of conservatives and Republicans):
Our nation’s horniest ex-president and his billionaire buddy, Jeffrey Epstein, hop on board the famed Lolita Express in order to settle a bet: who can seduce a supermodel on every inhabited continent first? Whacky hijinks ensue....

Long before he became president, Barack Obama was a member of the most powerful teen troop in all Hawaii: THE CHOOM GANG. After a night of ‘sweet-sticky Hawaiian buds’ and ‘green bottle beer,’ Obama and his pals can’t remember where they left the future president’s grandma’s sweet-ass El Camino. Turns out they didn’t lose it: It was stolen by a rival gang, one that will stop at nothing to discover the source of the Choom Gang’s powerful weed! ...

After eight long years of Gen. Squares McDork in the White House, the Kennedy Bros are finally going to Make The White House Fun Again. Unfortunately, all is not well between Jack, Bobby, and Teddy: They’re fighting over women again! ...

A president beset by crises at home and abroad comes face to face with a truly unstoppable foe: a rabbit that can swim. And he’s out for blood! ...
Hasn't Hollywood already gone there with Clinton, in Primary Colors? And haven't there been a thousand books and miniseries that portrayed the Kennedy brothers as sex addicts? As for Obama, well, there's this:

A Choom Gang feature film? I say bring it on. Maybe Kal Penn should do it.

Hollywood may not make a lot of feature films poking fun at Democrats, but high-level Democrats have never been spared by liberal comics. Prior to the current GOP civil war, I don't think that was ever true about right-wing comics and Republican politicians. We my not be nice to the opposition, but we're not reverent toward our own.


When all you have is an outdated NASCAR strategy, everything looks like a Bubba:
Democratic strategist Dave “Mudcat” Saunders believes Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton like a “baby seal,” and that working class whites who haven’t already left the Democratic Party for cultural reasons will due so now for economic ones.

“I know a ton of Democrats -- male, female, black and white -- here [in southern Virginia] who are going to vote for Trump. It’s all because of economic reasons. It’s because of his populist message,” Mudcat told The Daily Caller Wednesday.

Saunders has experience working with Jim Webb, helping getting him elected to the U.S Senate in 2006 and advised his failed bid for the presidency in 2016. Saunders was also an advisor to John Edwards in his 2008 presidential bid. The Democrat strategist is renowned for connecting politicians to “Bubbas” -- white, working class Southerners.
So now it's a baby seal? The simile has changed since Politico talked to Saunders in early March, but otherwise the talking point seems just as phony and canned:
“I think Trump could beat her like a tied-up billy goat,” said Mudcat Saunders, a rural Democratic strategist who’s supporting Bernie Sanders. “There are many areas in key swing states like Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that look like Sherman went through and didn’t burn anything. Empty factories, empty buildings, few opportunities for young people. It’s sad. It should be no surprise to anybody that voters in those areas are gravitating to Trump.”
The economic argument here isn't off base, as I'll explain later, but before we start wringing our hands and assuming Saunders is right about the political strategy, let's recall the Saunders schtick and track record:
Webb's longtime strategist, Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, is an even more ardent fan and defender of the Confederacy. As the New Yorker reported in 2008, Saunders "sleeps under a Rebel-flag quilt, and when challenged on such matters he has invited his inquisitors to 'kiss my Rebel ass' -- his way of making the point that when Democrats are drawn into culture battles by prissy liberal sensitivities they usually lose the larger war."
In 2006, Saunders thought the following was a winning message when an anti-gay marriage amendment was on the Virginia ballot:
"I'm pretty sure I ain't a queer. And I've never had queer thoughts, but I do have several queer buddies who called me and asked me to help. I think it's blasphemy to put this on the ballot and try to divide God's children for political gain. God loves them queers every bit that he loves the Republicans."
The amendment Saunders opposed passed 57%-43%, so trying to fight it via gay-baiting wasn't particularly effective. (His presidential candidates -- Edwards and Webb -- haven't set the world on fire, either.)

Oh, and did I mention the fact that Saunders endorsed Republican Ken Cuccinelli for governor in 2013 over Democrat Terry McAuliffe, based on the belief that the Koch-affiliated Cuccinelli wasn't a corporatist?

Saunders has one idea: that if Democrats prostrate themselves before rural whites and offer to lick their hip waders, electoral success will follow. Never mind the fact that in the last two presidential elections a citified, urbane black Democrat won two convincing victories -- Saunders is still out there flogging this idea.

I'll admit that I thought Hillary Clinton would talk more about (and to) the white working class in this race. I remember her connecting with whites in blue-collar bars in her 2008 race against Obama, and I assumed that she was going to try to add the Obama coalition to this base of support rather than focusing as much as she has on non-white voters and women. I don't see why she can't do both, and maybe in the general election campaign she will.

But if not, it's quite possible that it won't matter. Saunders says he knows a lot of Democrats in southern Virginia who back Trump? I'm guessing that those same voters, regardless of party affiliation, have been voting Republican for a while -- Saunders is from Roanoke, and while Obama beat Mitt Romney 59%-38% in Roanoke City, he lost to Romney 62%-36% in nearby Roanoke County. In fact, he lost a lot of southern Virginia:

Yet he won more populous and urbane counties, and won the state overall by 3 points.

You know the size of Clinton's lead over Trump in Virginia? It's 13 points, according to the Real Clear Politics average. It's 7.4 in Pennsylvania, which Obama won in 2012 by a bit more than 5. It's 2 points in North Carolina, which Obama lost by 2. Shall I go on?

Saunders has a strategy built for the 1990s. It doesn't apply anymore. It's certainly unlikely to apply in a race against Trump, who's alienating Hispanics, young people, and women (including suburban Republican women) much more effectively than Clinton is alienating Bubba.


Donald Trump gave a foreign policy speech yesterday that repeatedly contradicted itself and was generally incoherent. It was, of course, praised by such pro-Trump media outlets as Breitbart and the New York Post. The surprise -- at least for me, because I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were unabashed, chest-thumping warmongers and hated sandal-wearing dirty hippie peaceniks -- is that these publications praised Trump for realism and restraint.

The Post:
Donald Trump gave his first foreign-policy speech on Wednesday, attacking President Obama and Hillary Clinton for their “reckless, rudderless and aimless” strategies while vowing, if elected, to take a more ­restrained, non-interventionist ­approach....

Setting up a November showdown with Clinton — who is more hawkish than Obama — Trump sought to portray himself as a disciplined leader who would steer clear of nation-building at the expense of US interests.
Hmmm -- I could have sworn that somewhere along the line I read one or two New York Post articles praising the ultimate wannabe nation-builder, George W. Bush. Is this a faulty memory?
He pledged his presidency would focus on “regional stability -- not radical change” -- in the Middle East.
So we're basically comfy with all the regimes in the Middle East now? I wish the right would include us on these memos.

The Breitbart piece is even more shockingly non-bloodthirsty:
[Trump's] ideas were cheering to a younger generation, weary of the endless wars-for-democracy of the Bush 43 administration, as well as the foolishly sovereignty-smiting policies of the Clinton and Obama administrations....

In his 38-minute address, Trump got right down to it: “It’s time to shake the rust off America’s foreign policy. It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold, something we have to do.”

That is, indeed, the sort of new broom that the voters have been looking for; it has animated not only the Trump campaign but also, we can observe, the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) campaign.
And apparently Nixon and Kissinger are cool again on the rabid right:
Trump’s speech today to the Center for the National Interest (CFTNI), an old-line “realist” think tank in DC, was well received. CFTNI was once known as the Nixon Center, as in, the 37th president, and it still includes on its board such legendary Nixon foreign-policy hands as Henry Kissinger.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s hard-nosed policy ideas were a tonic to grizzled Nixonian realpolitikers.
To angry rightists, that, apparently, is now a good thing.

I suppose Trump is trying to do what Nixon did in 1968. Like Nixon, he wants to portray the Democratic Party as a party of weakness while simultaneously attacking unpopular Democratic foreign policy interventions from the left. The result seems as insincere as Nixon's 1968 claim of a secret plan to end the Vietnam War -- but maybe centrists and the generally war-weary will hear what they want to hear in Trump's message, while voters with bloodlust focus on the calls for torture and the claim (also heard in this speech) that ISIS will be swiftly and brutally eradicated ("they’re going to be gone. And soon").

You see the doubletalk in Trump's appearance this morning on the Today show: He might nuke ISIS, he says, but in the nicest possible way:
"I don't want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons," the Republican presidential front-runner told NBC's "Today" at the end of a telephone interview. "It's a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has. It's not global warming, like our president said. It's the power of weapons, in particular nuclear."

Trump continued, "I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be."

"I will be the last," he said. "But I will never, ever rule it out."
Yeah, he might nuke 'em, but the idea horrifies him:

Is this going to be enough red meat for the angry Trumpers? Is it too much red meat for swing voters -- or maybe not enough? Are Bernie-or-Bust thinkpiece writers at Salon going to start telling us that Trump is the war skeptic who'll take up the Sanders banner against Hillary D. Ripper? We'll see.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016


Ted Cruz is on course to lose the Republican nomination, but he's making a big, almost certainly futile effort to change the narrative with this stunt:
Ted Cruz announced Wednesday that Carly Fiorina will be his vice presidential nominee if he’s the Republican Party’s pick for president.

If nominated, "I will run on a ticket with my vice-presidential nominee, Carly Fiorina," the Texas senator said at an Indiana rally before the crowd began chanting "Carly."

The two appeared together in an hour-long event in Indianapolis....
Aaron Goldstein of The American Spectator makes an obvious point:
What I love about this impending decision is how much it will bug Donald Trump....

It is only a matter of time before Trump makes another disparaging remark about Fiorina. When he does, watch Trump's numbers crater in Indiana and Nebraska. Then California really comes into play. After all, Fiorina is a familiar face with Republicans in California for her efforts against Barbara Boxer in 2010.

Trump can't help himself. He views women as sex objects, not as people with any intellectual capability or character. Ask Megyn Kelly. Or Heidi Cruz.
All that is true -- except, of course, the part about Trump's numbers cratering and California coming into play. Trump will still be riding high no matter what awful, sexist things he says about Fiorina, because a large percentage of Republican voters either approve of Trump's sexism or shrug it off.

But that's not true of the rest of the electorate. Whatever Trump says about Fiorina will reinforce Hillary Clinton's message that a vote for Trump is a vote for misogyny. Cruz and Fiorina, in other words, are setting up to Trump to provide embarrassing Trump footage for Clinton attack ads.

What else can you say in response to that? Hey, thanks, you two!


A lot of people believe that Donald Trump is refusing to transform himself into a plausible general-election candidate, but I think he believes this is precisely how he's going to make the transition:
At the very end of a news conference commemorating his absurdly dominant Tuesday night performance, Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton of playing “the women’s card” and said, “If [she] were a man, I don’t think she’d get five percent of the vote.”

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe [today], Trump was asked about Clinton’s comment during her own Tuesday night victory speech that “if fighting for women’s health care and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in!”

Trump responded by trotting out the sexist “shouting” trope that is often deployed against Clinton.

“I haven’t quite recovered, it’s early in the morning, from her shouting that message,” Trump said. “And I know a lot of people would say you can’t say that about a woman because, of course, a woman doesn’t shout, but the way she shouted that message was not -- ooh. I just, that’s the way she said it.”

On ABC’s Good Morning America, Trump recycled another sexist line from his Tuesday night speech -- that if Clinton were a man, she wouldn’t be doing as well as she is.

“It’s not sexist, it’s true,” he said. “It’s a very, very true statement. If she were a man, she’d get five percent.”

Finally, on CNN’s New Day, Trump offered up this doozy -- “When I came out, I was competing against 17 very capable people… and a woman.”
I don't think this is Trump simply refusing to adjust his tone even though he knows he has to make changes as a general-election candidate. I think he thinks he is making changes -- but in target rather than in tone. If I'm right, his idea of a "pivot to the general" involves a ratcheting up of sexism, directed particularly at Clinton. I think his belief is that establishment types are wrong to think this won't work -- after all, they're the ones who said he couldn't get away with describing Mexican immigrants as rapists or calling for a ban on Muslims. Trump, I suspect, thinks talk like this is taboo only because of "political correctness," not because it actually is politically counterproductive.

“I haven’t even started on [Clinton] yet," Trump told Jimmy Fallon back in January. In March, he said the same thing on Fox & Friends: "I haven't started on Hillary yet. That will be interesting." Last week on Fox & Friends, Trump's son Eric said of his father and Clinton, "He’s going to go after her in a way that no one has gone after her before.”

Trump thinks the vast majority of us hate Hillary Clinton, and hate her in a sexist way -- we just won't say in public that we think she's a hag and a shrew and has an annoying laugh and a shouty voice, at least until he breaks the taboo and says it all for us. (Also: Benghazi! Monica! Emails!) I don't know at what point he's going to realize that "political incorrectness" works best in all-Republican environments. I hope that doesn't dawn on him until the night of November 8, 2016.


Bernie Sanders joined the presidential race last year with a critique of politics across the board -- but as the race has gone on, his campaign has increasingly seemed like a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, who, in his rhetoric, becomes more of a representative of politics as usual than the Republicans he'd have to beat in November.

Ted Cruz and John Kasich entered the race arguing for the superiority of somewhat different strains of Republican politics -- but they've largely become focused on the goal of stopping Donald Trump.

Sanders, Cruz, and Kasich got blown out yesterday. The big winners were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who have plenty of negative things to say about their primary challengers -- Trump in particular (to put it mildly) -- but who have made it clear for some time now that they're gearing up for a fight with each other:
Looking past their fading rivals, the two even taunted each other in dueling election-night events. Mrs. Clinton chided the Republican’s penchant for harsh language by saying that “love trumps hate.” Mr. Trump was more bluntly dismissive of Mrs. Clinton, saying her appeal boiled down to her gender.

“Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said.
I know that Sanders, Kasich, and Cruz define themselves as more electable than the people they're challenging in their own parties. To that extent, they're focused on the fall. But the main Sanders selling point right now is that he's purer than Hillary Clinton, not that he's better than Trump or the other Republicans. And Cruz and Kasich just seem to be vehicles for the GOP establishment's desperate efforts to derail Trump rather than Clinton.

Voters who wanted to stop the party front-runner lost yesterday. Voters who want the party front-runner to take the battle to November won.