Skip to content

Month: April 2016

Lasting damage to the next generation

Lasting damage to the next generation

by digby

This is awful:

Something ugly is happening inside America’s classrooms.

Headscarf-wearing Muslim girls are being called terrorists. Latinos are warned of deportation and teased about wall-building along the US-Mexico border. The N-word is making a comeback, and children younger than ever before are using it.

Although name-calling has always been a feature of playground life, teachers across the US say it has grown nastier since Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s rhetoric during the election campaign.

“I think there’s a real danger of harm taking place in all American schoolchildren,” Maureen Costello, an education expert at the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), a civil rights group, told Al Jazeera.

“We’ve seen 10 or more years of anti-bullying work get rolled back by a hostile atmosphere in many schools. Teachers describe disillusionment, depression and discouragement among kids who feel like they now know what people have thought about them all along,” Castello said.

An SPLC survey of some 2,000 US schools found that two-thirds of teachers described their vulnerable students – including blacks, Muslims, Latinos and other minorities – as affected by rhetoric in the 2016 White House race.

It shows a spike in racist bullying. For Muslims – or even some non-Muslim brown-skinned children – the acronym “ISIS” has become a stock taunt, referencing the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, which is also known as ISIS).

The bullying causes more than just upset. Some Mexican pupils now fear that Trump’s promise to deport an estimated 11 million undocumented migrants will come to pass and that they, and their loved ones, will get kicked out of the US, Costello said.

While Trump’s focus on African Americans has been limited to ejecting civil rights protesters from campaign rallies, some black youths expressed “irrational” fears that segregation or slavery will make a comeback, researchers found.

It took a very long time to wring these racist epithets out of our public culture enough that kids didn’t commonly use them.  Now it’s growing again and it’s because our leaders are stoking anger, fear and racism for political gain. I wonder how hard it’s going to be to put that genie back in the bottle.

.

Ryan isn’t running because he isn’t that dumb

Ryan isn’t running because he isn’t that dumb

by digby

I wrote the following for Salon this morning:

We’ve been noting for some time the fact that America’s sweetheart, Paul Ryan, was unlikely to be the establishment savior everyone wanted him to be. It’s understandable that people attached to the various institutions associated with the Republican Party would be desperate for white knight to ride in and rescue the party from what is shaping up to be a nuclear meltdown in Cleveland this summer but it’s not going to happen.Yesterday, Ryan crushed their forlorn hopes in no uncertain terms:

We have too much work to do in the House to allow this speculation to swirl or have my motivations questioned. Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept, the Republican nomination.So let me speak directly to the delegates on this: If no candidate has a majority on the first ballot, I believe you should only choose a person who actually participated in the primary. Count me out. I simply believe that if you want to be the nominee — to be the president — you should actually run for it. I chose not to. Therefore, I should not be considered. Period.

That’s about as close to Shermanesque as you can get without burning down Atlanta.

When Mitt Romney made his famous speech denouncing Trump there was a little boomlet in the media that had everyone thinking he might be the elder statesman who could step into the breach and save the party from itself. His gambit to stop Trump by any means necessary was seen as a self-serving way of getting himself back into the game.  Unfortunately, polling shows that he’s loathed by Republican voters who are in no mood for establishment losers sweeping in and telling them what to do. His favorability is worse than Trump’s: 23% favorable, 65% unfavorable.

Romney’s running mate Ryan sees this and is too smart to jump into this 2016 circus sideshow, no matter how much the party wants him to do it. As Steve Kornacki astutely observed on MSNBC yesterday:

I think you can make a pretty strong case that this convention the delegates who will get the ultimate say over everything at this convention are going to be anti-establishment delegates. You talk about Paul Ryan you talk about any other candidate who might come into the picture if this thing looks like chaos, you don’t have a lot of consensus between the Trump people and the Cruz people right now on much but you put a name like that out there I think you would very well have consensus not to go down that road. This would not be a convention that would turn to somebody from the establishment.

Nonetheless, Ryan’s the go-to dreamboat to whom they turn these days whenever the peasants start to revolt. This is likely because the press labors under the illusion that he’s tremendously popular with the base and that gives the establishment hope for positive coverage and a shot at winning. During the long embarrassing chase for a speaker to replace Boehner after the entire House caucus nearly imploded (an early harbinger of what’s to come?) the media treated him as more of a religious figure than a politician and it finally forced the Freedom Caucus into reluctantly accepting his leadership. Lucky for him, the presidential race overshadowed what is seen by conservative movement stalwarts as Ryan’s immediate sell-out — the passage of the Omnibus budget bill which funded the government through the end of this year.

Here’s Laura Ingraham’s assessment of his leadership after that passed:

Now we know why they were so desperate to get House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in there. He would carry forward the Boehner-Pelosi deal to increase spending by $66 billion and demand GOP fealty. Remember all our friends at National Review who urged the party to come together to support Ryan as speaker? Did they believe he’d greenlight the full funding of Planned Parenthood, executive amnesty, sanctuary cities and refugee resettlement? Did other pro-Ryan conservatives expect this? How is this conservative?
Speaker Ryan now has to be regarded as a declared enemy of the Base. 

Mark Levin tweeted:

This was the front page of the Drudge Report last December 17th.

The savior’s alleged capitulation on the omnibus bill is only one of the apostasies for which he’s been condemned. He is also on record being for comprehensive immigration reform and for the Trans Pacific Trade Deal.  He has said publicly, that we must leave the “gates open to the people who are coming in pursuit of their version of the American dream.” America, Ryan said, “is more than our borders.” Imagine the reaction of Trump and Cruz delegates at the convention, to hearing those words. You can bet that talk radio and surrogates would be blaring it all over Cleveland and Roger Stone would be slipping little oppo folders under their hotel doors. After this campaign, Ryan might as well have been caught spitting on Ronald Reagan’s grave.

The only member of the establishment who seems to know this, however, is Ryan himself. He’s actually been making these Shermanesque statements for months, ever since the terrifying prospect of a Trump or Cruz nomination began to sink in and the party poohbahs and the press began to game out various scenarios to deny the inevitable embarrassment of either one of them at the top of the ticket. But everyone seemed to think he was playing coy. (And considering his Hamlet act over the speakership last fall, it’s not completely surprising.) People also noticed him doing some things that lead one to think he’s reaching for higher office, such as producing some glossy Speaker videos promoting his agenda and giving inspirational speeches in formal settings. It turns out that the video productions were a holdover from Boehner’s reign and the speeches are part of something Ryan promised to do when he took the job. He meant it when he said he didn’t want to be president.

It’s a testament to his star power that even with his Sherman statement yesterday members of the both the left and the right simply refused to accept it:

From the left:

From the right:

Rick Lazio on MSNBC: Paul Ryan is the consensus alternative… I believe he really does not want to be a candidate. And it surely complicates his role as chairman of the convention and as speaker of the house. So I think he really does not want to do it . But in a setting where you have almost a crisis and a decision that has to be made I’m not sure they wouldn’t revisit that issue.

The dream will never die.

None of this is to say that Ryan isn’t running for president. He almost certainly is saving himself for a future election. He claims to be putting together a policy agenda for the party and that’s probably the truth. The party will be deeply damaged by this campaign regardless of who gets the nomination and out of the ashes once again the establishment will turn its lonely eyes to Paul Ryan. When the time comes he will be ready.

.

Springtime for Pat #HB2 by @BloggersRUs

Springtime for Pat
by Tom Sullivan


Downtown Raleigh, North Carolina

Oh, those Producers. It’s springtime in Raleigh. Just not for Pat McCrory. When last we saw North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory he was backpedaling on House Bill 2 (HB2).

Critics now call the so-called “bathroom bill” aimed at his gay and transgender constituents a radical Trojan Horse for eliminating anti-discrimination protections in the workplace. Since McCrory signed the bill passed during a one-day, special session Republicans called in March, prominent businesses began boycotting the state, canceling expansions and conventions there, and national performers such as Bruce Springsteen began canceling concert dates. Projected job losses number well over 1,000. Revenue losses have not been calculated. It’s almost as if … they designed HB2 to fail.

Nah.

The national and international backlash forced McCrory yesterday to sign an executive order aimed at quelling the controversy over the bill he signed just weeks ago:

McCrory said he was expanding protections for state employees, which would prevent these workers from being fired for being gay or transgender. He also said he would seek legislation restoring the right to sue for discrimination.

In his order, McCrory stopped short of altering the bill’s most high-profile provision mandating that transgender people use bathrooms that correspond only with the gender on their birth certificate.

McCrory defended the state law as being needed to respond to what he called the “government overreach” of a Charlotte city ordinance that expanded civil rights protections for people based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a videotaped message announcing the order, he said the issue had sparked what he called “selective outrage and hypocrisy.”

With his executive order, McCrory will try to position himself as the sane one in Raleigh, a rose among thorns. He faces reelection this fall.

Moral Monday leader and state NAACP president Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II called the law “Hate Bill 2” in a statement released on Monday:

The legislation has very little to do with restrooms and much to do with our need to prevent this immoral attempt to legislate a wide array of unconstitutional discrimination and hatred which we find when we read the fine print beneath these homophobic scare tactics.

Barber refers to language buried in the bill, as ProPublica explains:

… Tucked inside is language that strips North Carolina workers of the ability to sue under a state anti-discrimination law, a right that has been upheld in court since 1985. “If you were fired because of your race, fired because of your gender, fired because of your religion,” said Allan Freyer, head of the Workers’ Rights Project at the N.C. Justice Center in Raleigh, “… you no longer have a basic remedy.”

“The LGBT issues were a Trojan horse,” added Erika Wilson, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who co-directs a legal clinic for low-income plaintiffs with job and housing discrimination claims. The broader change hasn’t received much attention, she said, because “people were so caught up in [the LGBT] part of the law that this snuck under the radar.”

Conservative-leaning groups have been trying for decades to reduce the number of civil lawsuits in the states. In HB2, lawmakers accomplished this by adding a single sentence to the state’s employment discrimination law that says: “[No] person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.”

Writing for the Atlantic, David Graham ponders the political impact on McCrory:

The political effects of McCrory’s order also remain to be seen. There were indications that the governor had misgivings about the law from the start. A former mayor of Charlotte, he had previously criticized state interference in local affairs, declined to call a legislative special session, and said any state action should be narrowly tailored to reversing the Charlotte ordinance. But once the General Assembly called itself back into session, McCrory bowed to the veto-proof conservative Republican supermajority and quickly signed the law, then staunchly defended it.

The law, and the backlash to it, has become a risk to McCrory’s reelection bid, in part because it endangers his attempt to portray himself as a technocratic, pro-business moderate. He’ll face off in November against state Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, who has called for HB2’s repeal and refused to defend the law in court. The N&O speculates that McCrory’s language in the order expanding protection for sexual orientation and gender identity may be aimed at undermining Cooper’s rationale for refusing to defend the law.

The thing to remember about Republicans is they do nothing that’s not at least a twofer. HB2 looks like an attempt to a) generate a hot-button issue to drive its white bread voters to the polls, b) trap Democrats (and Cooper) into coming to the defense of an “icky” minority (as comedian John Fugelsang puts it), and c) give business patrons immunity from lawsuits for acting like jerks. It’s just too early to tell whether any or all of those efforts have backfired.

Open Carry at a Trump Rally #whatcouldgowrong?

Open Carry at a Trump Rally

by digby

This could really go sideways:

Authorities are preparing for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s visit to Pittsburgh Wednesday, bracing for major traffic congestion and protests.

Trump will first stop at Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall for a one-hour taping with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that’s scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. Doors will open at 2:30 p.m.

Following the show taping, Trump will hold a rally at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center at 7 p.m., according to his website.

Law enforcement sources told Target 11’s Rick Earle that police obtained intelligence that there could be large-scale protests at both locations at which Trump is scheduled to appear.

Sources also said plainclothes Pittsburgh police officers have been told to bring their uniforms to work with them Wednesday in case they are needed to help with crowd control.

Target 11 has also learned that Allegheny County police will be assisting city police with the security efforts.

In anticipation of the increased traffic in Oakland, Dr. Kathy Humphrey, senior vice chancellor for engagement and chief of staff at the University of Pittsburgh, sent an email to faculty and staff Tuesday night. Her email warned about a group that has expressed intentions to openly carry firearms in a demonstration of its commitment to the Second Amendment.

The full email can be read below:

“Dear University Community,

“Tomorrow, we expect a great deal of outside traffic around campus related to the appearance of a presidential candidate at Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall. We have been told to expect that there will be, in particular, individuals coming to campus to express their viewpoints and to exercise their civil rights. We have been informed that there may be a group openly carrying firearms in a demonstration of their commitment to the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania law allows open carry on public property. We expect that these demonstrators, if present, will abide by the law and remain off private property, which includes University of Pittsburgh campus areas.

“Because of traffic and parking restrictions, particularly in the vicinity of Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall, and the likely influx of citizens wishing to be a part of this event, the ordinary progress of business on our campus may slow for a few hours. Please accommodate students, staff and faculty who encounter difficulty getting to class and other activities in a timely manner. We have been informed that the entrance and exit to the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall parking garage will intermittently close for short periods of time after 5 p.m. Please plan accordingly.

“We are confident that all of our community will act in accordance with the law and exercise mutual respect and a concern for others.

“Thank you. “

Among those protesting is Democratic Pennsylvanian U.S. Senate candidate and Braddock Mayor John Fetterman. He’s holding a formal anti-Trump rally on the Roberto Clemente Bridge from 4 to 7 p.m., encouraging his supporters to “protest Trump’s disgraceful and un-American stance on immigration and human rights in this country.”

Let’s hope this stays peaceful.
.

Conspiracy a-go go

Conspiracy a-go go

by digby

Well of course he is:

Roger Stone is writing a book based on a conspiracy theory that the Clintons murdered John F. Kennedy Jr. Stone is an longtime ally and friend of Donald Trump, who has previously used the discredited operative’s research in attacks against the Clintons.

ROGER STONE: I have coming up next year a book which I make the case that John F. Kennedy Jr. was murdered. And he was murdered by the Clintons because he was in the way. Now I have extraordinary new evidence that nobody else has seen.

[Conspiracy theorist]Fetzer later told Stone that JFK Jr. was assassinated and offered to give Stone “leads” proving it. Stone responded, “That’s great to know, Jim. As you know, there’s really nobody in the researcher community that I respect more than you.”

Stone previously wrote that the Clintons did not murder JFK Jr. In The Clintons’ War on Women, Stone argued the Clintons are “plausibly responsible” for the deaths of roughly 40 people, but added, “They are not responsible for the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as some researchers have claimed”:

There is no question that some Clinton critics are excessive. There are widespread claims that the Clintons are responsible for the death of as many as eighty-three people whose knowledge stood in the way of their political ascent. Based on our investigation, the Clintons are only plausibly responsible for the deaths of half the people on this list. They are not responsible for the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as some researchers have claimed, though the number of individuals who are both knowledgeable of and pivotal to the Clintons’ grasp for power who die in plane crashes defies mathematical odds.

During a March 9 appearance on the internet-based program Caravan to Midnight, Stone said JFK Jr. was murdered and “almost everything you’ve been told about his plane crash and death is false or embellished or cooked.”

Last year, Stone tweeted that “The MURDER of JFK, Jr. will be the subject of my next book #Clintons #guilty” and “JFK Jr was planning on running for NY Senate seat @HillaryClinton wanted. Poor bastard.”

As you already know, I’m sure, Roger Stone is America’s most notorious dirty trickster and one of Donald trump’s most trusted confidants. Right now he’s busy planning Trump’s “days of rage” protests at the GOP convention. Trump has cited Stone’s work of fiction about Clinton repeatedly and many of Trump’s followers are eagerly repeating his nonsense already.

Stone’s actually late to the party. For a quarter of a century the right wing smear machine has
disseminated ludicrous stories like this. For those too young to be familiar with it, you can compare it to the ludicrous nonsense about Obama being a secret Muslim who wasn’t born in the US. Trump was all over that one too, as you’ll recall.

This is what they do. And over time it permeates the cultural subconscious and people no longer know why they have such bad feelings about someone they just do. It’s very effective stuff and Roger Stone and company have been making a profit at it since the 1970s.

.

I’m sure he’ll pay their legal bills

I’m sure he’ll pay their legal bills

by digby

The Trump Bronies are on the move: 

After expressing reservations about Donald Trump, some of Indiana’s delegates to the Republican national convention say they’ve received threatening messages from a few of the GOP front-runner’s supporters.

The emails warn that the delegates are being watched and imply they could be targeted. Some send ominous wishes to delegates’ families.

Trump’s Indiana campaign called the threats “deplorable.”

Craig Dunn, a delegate and Republican chairman of Indiana’s 4th Congressional District, was among the Trump critics who received the threatening messages.

“You sorry (expletive)!” one email said. “I hope the worst for you and yours!”

Dunn was stunned by the response.

“Little did I know that in expressing your 1st Amendment rights, that they’d come after you so hard,” he said. “It’s very disappointing. I probably received 25 to 30 hate emails, phone calls and voice mails, posts on Facebook that I deleted. Now they’re hunting down friends of mine and posting that kind of stuff on their Facebook pages.”

Dunn and several other delegates or delegate candidates were quoted criticizing Trump in a Politico article over the weekend.
[…]
One of those delegates, Kyle Babcock, said he’ll support the party’s nominee, but has doubts about Trump’s viability in the general election.

“Donald Trump talks about polls, polls, polls,” he said. “That’s been the theme of his campaign. Using that methodology, I’m looking at polls, and that leads me to believe at this point that Donald Trump can’t beat Hillary Clinton.”

Such comments earned him disdain from Trump supporters.

“Wrong side Kyle,” said one email. “Hope the families well. Your name and info was sent to me on a list that is going public. Think before you take a step down the wrong path, the American people want to have faith in your but it looks like a future in hiding is more appealing.”

The email was signed, “The American.”

Yeah, he’s an American all right. An All American thug. There are a lot of them in this country and they’re coming out of the woodwork…

.

Who gets the most hate? Guess.

Who gets the most hate? Guess.

by digby

This will come as no surprise to women and people of color, but it’s nice to know that someone did some actual analysis so the next time someone tries to gaslight you and tell you you’re crazy you can remind yourself that you don’t have to start treatment for your delusions.  Kevin Drum summarized the findings:

The Guardian decided to analyze their corpus of 70 million comments to see who gets the most abuse. The results won’t surprise you:

Although the majority of our regular opinion writers are white men, we found that those who experienced the highest levels of abuse and dismissive trolling were not. The 10 regular writers who got the most abuse were eight women (four white and four non-white) and two black men…And the 10 regular writers who got the least abuse? All men.

Of course, certain subjects invited more abuse than others:

And abuse that starts in one place can spread astonishingly quickly via social media:

Avalanches happen easily online. Anonymity disinhibits people, making some of them more likely to be abusive. Mobs can form quickly: once one abusive comment is posted, others will often pile in, competing to see who can be the most cruel. This abuse can move across platforms at great speed—from Twitter, to Facebook, to blogposts—and it can be viewed on multiple devices—the desktop at work, the mobile phone at home. To the person targeted, it can feel like the perpetrator is everywhere: at home, in the office, on the bus, in the street…This must surely have a chilling effect, silencing people who might otherwise contribute to public debates—particularly women, LGBT people and people from racial or religious minorities, who see others like themselves being racially and sexually abused.

Is that the kind of culture we want to live in?

Is that the web we want?

Not really. But it’s the way it is.

.

Lyin’ Ted really is a liar

Lyin’ Ted really is a liar

by digby

About this at least:

Last year, Sen. Ted Cruz, his father Rafael Cruz, and two of his then-rivals in the Republican presidential race attended a “religious liberty” conference in Iowa hosted by Kevin Swanson, a radical pastor who had a long record of viciously anti-gay rhetoric, which he continued at the conference itself by expounding at length about his view that the Bible commands governments to put gay people to death.

Before the conference, we publicized Swanson’s history — including his discussions of the death penalty for gay people — leading one Republican presidential candidate, Ben Carson, to drop out of the conference.

A few days before the conference, CNN’s Jake Tapper read Cruz a few of Swanson’s statements and asked him about the wisdom of appearing alongside Swanson. Cruz claimed ignorance about Swanson and then dodged the question.

He then joined Swanson for one-on-one discussion on the same stage that Swanson used to go on unhinged rants about gay people, Harry Potter and wildfires.

Immediately after the conference, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow ran a segment about Cruz’s participation. When a Des Moines Register reporter asked the Cruz campaign for a comment, she got no answer.

Then, three weeks later, Maddow ran another segment about Cruz’s participation in the conference and finally got a statement out of his campaign about it. A Cruz spokesman, in response to a video of Swanson screaming about the death penalty for gay people, told Maddow that Swanson’s calls for the execution of gay people were “not explicit” enough for the campaign to even bother commenting on or condemning him.

Then, finally, one full month after Swanson’s conference, a Cruz spokesman quietly told USA Today that “it was a mistake for Senator Cruz to appear at the event” given Swanson’s “offensive comments.”

Lyin’ Ted’s out here in California trying to drum up votes for the June primary and he went on the radio and lied about all that:

“He was an individual I didn’t know, I’d never met him,” Cruz said of Swanson. “I went to a conference on religious liberty because it is an issue I care very much about. After the conference, his comments were drawn to my attention and I denounced them at the time, I think they’re wrong, I totally disagree with them. I didn’t know this fellow and when I saw what he said, I came out publicly and said I disagree with what he’s saying.”

“We need to be bringing people together and we need to be standing up for the rights of every American, that’s what I’ve done in the Senate and that’s what I’ll do as president”

Yeah, he’s right about one thing. He did bring people together in the Senate. He brought both Democrats and Republicans together in mutual loathing for him.In these polarized times that’s quite a feat.

.

QOTD: Reince

QOTD: Reince

by digby

He’s getting punchy.

.

As California goes …

As California goes …

by digby

I wrote about the shit show that’s about to be unleashed by the Republicans on my fair state today for Salon:

Everybody’s watching New York’s GOP primary right now and it’s a lot of fun for political junkies. It’s happening in the center of the media universe where the coverage is smart and interesting, and it’s Trump’s home state so he’s reveling in the love his fans pour all over him. But even if he wins New York in a blow out he cannot possibly get to the required 1237 delegates until the big prize in California in June. So eyes are suddenly turning to the delegate-rich behemoth, where, for once, winning the primary is going to matter for the Republicans. But what an odd state for them to stage their final showdown before the convention.

There is no bluer state in the nation than California these days. But it wasn’t all that long ago that it was the spawning ground of Republican presidents. Two of the most important presidents of the 20th century, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, came from there. The Reagan revolution was hatched in California, as was the anti-tax revolt that has been destroying the nation since the late ’70s. In fact, it goes back a lot further than that, as Kathryn Olmstead wrote in her book, “Right Out of California: The 1930s and the Big Business Roots of Modern Conservatism,” which Salon excerpted here.

Olmstead traced the political and business alliance that laid the groundwork for the GOP dominance that emerged after the Roosevelt coalition finally collapsed in the wake of the civil rights movement. She writes about the special interests that backed Nixon’s anti-communist crusade that managed to cripple the left in the U.S. from the 1940s on, and makes this interesting observation about Nixon:

Along with his virulent anticommunism, Nixon’s attention to the politics of image marked him as a California product. With its weak party system, fondness for Hollywood glitz, and rootless, diverse residents, the state helped nurture a style of campaigning that emphasized appearance over substance. “What they’ve got isn’t a party,” a Democratic official told Theodore White in 1956. “It’s a star system, it’s a studio lot. They don’t run candidates—they produce them, like movie heroes.” Nixon was one of the first politicians to “embrace the new tools of political artistry” and “foster our current image-obsessed political culture,” as historian David Greenberg has said. Nixon and his public relations staff created an image of the candidate as a “populist everyman” and helped to unite the wealthy with the disaffected middle classes in a broad, successful coalition.

The trajectory of Ronald Reagan’s career from actor to labor leader to paid shill for General Electric is well known. He too flogged the anti-communist party line on behalf of his corporate master and others which had been organizing themselves since the 1930s. And he was obviously the literal realization of the California star system.

If you want to blame any one state for the dominance of the modern conservative movement of the past 30 years, California is it. But what was once an incubator of the movement is now a Democratic monolith. Last August, I wrote about how Pete Wilson and the Republicans of the mid-90s destroyed their state party with xenophobia, and have never recovered. They foolishly allowed their baser natures to take over, and activated a large, young voting constituency, sending them into the arms of the Democratic Party.

Today, California is as Democratic a state as it can be, with super majorities in the state government, a Democratic governor, Democratic mayors of the two biggest cities, two Democratic Senators and large Democratic majority of congressional seats.

But just because they are in a minority doesn’t mean Republicans don’t exist. There are, for one, a few wealthy coastal Republicans in the state, who care about the environment and aren’t hostile to immigrants, but they’re all members of the 1 percent so there just aren’t that many of them. The rest of the California GOP has been whittled down to a party as hardcore and extreme as anywhere in the country.

Recall that in the summer of 2014, when the federal government tried to bus in some child refugees from Central America, one of the ugliest anti-immigrant confrontations in years took place in Murrieta California with scenes like this all over the TV:

This is why Ted Cruz is in California this week, specifically in San Diego, which is just 60 miles from where those protests took place. Unlike his rivals, he has been working the state for months and he seems to be aware that this is a potentially fruitful state for him. The polls are close, with Cruz ahead in the very conservative central valley, Kasich with a lead in the Bay Area (but trailing badly everywhere else) while Trump dominates in Southern California beyond Los Angeles, undoubtedly because of his immigration stance.

But more importantly, the GOP delegate process in California is a byzantine maze of confusion which it is likely only Cruz’s camp fully understands right now. According to Politico, “the state gives away three delegates to the winner of each of its 53 congressional districts — ensuring there will not be a single California campaign here but dozens of smaller ones, waged district by district.” All three of the campaigns are staffing up and the independent Super PACs are moving in on behalf of both Cruz and Trump. They are planning to spend millions in advertising.

Considering the conservative ideology of most California Republicans these days, and the fight that Cruz and Trump will have to wage for those votes in the southern part of the state, it’s probable that immigration is going to be central to this campaign. It’s Trump’s calling card and Cruz can’t win if he doesn’t engage it. And every ad, every rally, every interview that either of them gives on the subject in order to persuade these hardcore conservatives to vote for them will repeat what Pete Wilson’s debacle did 20 years ago: inflame the majority and motivate it to vote against Republicans.

One of these men will win the GOP primary in California. But their ugly campaign will shrink the party further and probably wind up losing seats for their fellow Republicans down the ticket. But what choice do they have? The California Republican Party is a shadow of its former self, a rump faction that consists of a small number of moderate one percenters and a bunch of angry, frustrated extremists. The only way these presidential candidates can win is by destroying their party. And when you look at it that way, it’s clear that this problem isn’t confined to California. You can easily say the same thing about the national election.