Since it seems unlikely that Cruz can overtake Trump in the delegate count, the most favorable non-Trump scenario is that Cruz beats him on a second ballot at a convention and has enough anti-establishment credibility to take the edge off the inevitable revolt of the Trump forces. But surely Trump would do all he could to destroy Cruz and the GOP in retribution for denying him the nomination—lawsuits, innuendo and lies would all be ready and familiar tools at Trump’s disposal, even if he didn’t try to mount a late independent bid.
Trump’s implicit threat is almost certainly lose with me in a simulacrum of a normal process (and lose your integrity and principles along the way), or almost certainly lose without me in an intraparty cataclysm I will make as spectacular as possible. Either way, the GOP is now managing bad outcomes.
It’s a bitch having someone hold you hostage and threaten to blow up the whole thing unless you get your way, isn’t it? I wonder where he got the idea?
Trade has emerged as a contentious issue in both parties’ candidate debates, but majorities of both Clinton (58%) and Sanders supporters (55%) say that free trade agreements have been a good thing for the United States. Cruz supporters (48% good thing) and Kasich supporters (44%) are divided, but among Trump supporters, just 27% say trade agreements are beneficial for the U.S, while 67% say they are bad thing.
In fact, this Pew Poll is interesting in many different ways. The GOP is sharply divided on a whole host of issues, as exemplified perfectly by the three remaining candidates. The ultra-conservative extremist Cruz, the slightly more moderate Kasich and the authoritarian populist Trump. Their coalition is coming apart at the seams.
And while it may seem that the Democratic race is extremely contentious, the voters of both candidates are pretty much on the same page. Both Clinton and Sanders voters fall on the same side of the issues, with the difference being how big the majority is not that they substantially disagree. It suggests that the Democratic party will be able to find consensus on the issues while the Republicans are probably going to be fighting for some time. Not that they can’t win anyway, of course. People vote against as much as they vote for. But the days of the GOP having a coherent ideology seem to be over. The big question is where they go from here.
The Fix takes a look at why Trump hates Megyn Kelly with a burning passion, quoting her saying recently that she thinks it’s because he can’t manipulate her. In fact, he manages to manipulate the men on Fox much more easily.
But really, it’s this:
We also can’t ignore the possibility (likelihood) that Trump’s anger toward Kelly burns all the hotter because he sees her as a woman who — try as he might — he just can’t charm. A profile of Kelly in the February issue of Vanity Fair imagined the candidate’s frustration: “After all, in his mind, what beautiful woman didn’t want to go to bed with him, right?”
Trump’s habit of trying to flatter his way into the good graces of female journalists is well-documented. He tried it last week on his visit with The Washington Post editorial board, when he called Karen Attiah “beautiful.” He had used the same line three days earlier on People magazine senior editor Charlotte Triggs, whom he also invited, on a whim, to join him aboard his private jet for a flight to his next rally in Arizona. (Triggs wrote that “campaign aides quickly quash[ed] that,” citing Secret Service protocol on background checks.)
Kelly herself has said that Trump turned nasty only after his attempts to “woo” her, as she put it, failed. From the Vanity Fair piece:
In the past, she says, “he would send me press clippings about me that he would just sign ‘Donald Trump.’ And he called from time to time to compliment a segment. I didn’t know why he was doing that. And then when he announced that he was running for president, it became more clear. But I can’t be wooed. I was never going to love him, and I was never going to hate him.”
Put it all together, and it’s actually pretty clear why Trump picked Kelly as his media nemesis. It’s not just because of one tough question at a debate or because “he cannot control the editorial” on her show. It’s also because Kelly is an unattainable female quarry who bruised his ego and just so happens to anchor one of the most-watched hours in cable news — with an audience full of Republican voters Trump desperately wants to reach.
I knew that’s what was going on from the moment I saw this clip from 2011:
He’s always considered himself to be quite the swordsman.
While North Carolina’s HB2 anti-LGBT bill has received lots of press attention, it is simply the latest attack by Republican-led state legislatures against cities filled with large blocks of blue voters, the next phase of the Defund the Left strategy. Like Michigan’s 2015 “Death Star” preemption bill (HB 4052) which, as introduced, overrode “all local ordinances governing employers’ relationships with their employees,” but also “any local ordinance that controls minimum wage, benefits, sick leave, union organizing and strikes, wage disputes” and more, North Carolina’s HB2 is its kin. PR Watch looked at the trend back in February:
With Congress gridlocked and a majority of state legislatures controlled by right-wing interests, cities have become laboratories of democracy for progressive policies like a higher minimum wage, LGBTQ protections, or parental leave.
In response, corporate interests and groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have increasingly been turning to state “preemption” measures—some of them unprecedentedly aggressive—to override an array of progressive policy gains at the city or county level.
“2015 saw more efforts to undermine local control on more issues than any year in history,” said Mark Pertschuk, director of the watchdog group Preemption Watch.
Last year, state legislatures in at least 29 states introduced bills to block local control over a range of issues, from the minimum wage, to LGBTQ rights, to immigration, according to Preemption Watch. Seventeen states considered more than one preemption bill.
This is part of a long-term strategy to consolidate conservative gains made in state legislatures since the 2010 census, with a general hostility to home rule. Having control of over half of state legislatures and governorships, Republicans mean to keep it.
The Institute for Southern Studies this week examines attacks against cities in other southern states where all but six of the 20 fastest-growing metro areas lie:
Texas is also home to some of the South’s fastest-growing cities, with the four metro areas around Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio making up over 80 percent of the state’s overall growth between 2010 and 2015. Those cities have also sparred with state lawmakers in recent years over nondiscrimination ordinances and so-called “sanctuary city” policies, most recently in Dallas.
Florida cities have experienced significant growth as well, with the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach area growing by over 450,000 people between 2010 and 2015. During this time, state lawmakers have targeted policies in Miami-Dade and neighboring Borward counties, imposing a 2013 statewide ban on local living wage ordinances and attempting to ban “sanctuary city” policies, an effort that was ultimately defeated.
The rapid growth of cities is also having an impact in less populous states like Arkansas, where state officials are battling Fayetteville over local protections for the LGBT community. The city is the second-largest metro area in Arkansas, and its population has grown by over 60 percent between 2000 and 2014.
Voters there approved a referendum last year expanding nondiscrimination protections to LGBT people, but the Arkansas attorney general has challenged the move in state court for violating Act 137, a law passed last year to pre-empt local authority to expand nondiscrimination protections. A lower court ruled in favor of Fayetteville but the case is getting appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The Democrat moving into the White House next January will have little or no power over what happens in state capitols. These fights have to be fought at the local level. Which means that as much as we get caught up in presidential politics every four years, those un-sexy state House and Senate races (and governor’s races) matter a lot more to your everyday life, as citizens from Flint to Charlotte to Denton, Texas have found out. Plus, control of state legislatures after the 2020 elections and census will (in most states) determine the configuration of the U.S. House for the next decade. Please get involved in those local races. Asking for a friend in a state under siege.
To the delight of visitors to the Redondo Beach pier, a yearling Pacific gray whale stopped near the beach Wednesday during its return trip to Alaska. The whale has been spotted all week rolling around on the ocean floor, playing in the surf and snacking.
Its species migrates annually from its northern feeding grounds to Baja California lagoons, where adults mate and give birth in the warm waters.
Alisa Schulman-Janiger, director of the American Cetacean Society Los Angeles chapter’s Gray Whale Census and Behavior Project based at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center for 33 years, said this whale is probably making his first annual migration independently of his or her mother.
“They are super playful, probably rolling around and scratching in the sand,” Schulman-Janiger said. “It has lots of whale lice but it’s not in trouble, just having fun.”
The whale probably ran into some food close to shore, as they can feast on more than 90 kinds of prey. Their favorite meal is small shrimp-like amphipods in mud on the Arctic ocean floor, but they “may grab a snack at times during migration — especially juveniles,” she said.
Since December, when southbound whales begin passing Los Angeles each year, the gray whale census has documented 1,427 grays heading to Baja. They are now nearing the end of their northern migration, and the census counted 1,814 traveling north. More than 60 calves were seen among the migrating groups in what was a healthy year for the population, Schulman-Janiger said.
This is almost always true: A woman who aborts a child is operating within an emotional and spiritual context of fear, disappointment, confusion and sadness. If she receives an illegal abortion she should not be “punished” by the law. This is in line with long human tradition and is based on the simple wisdom that she has already been gravely and tragically penalized: She has lost her child, someone who was very likely going to love her, someone she very likely would have loved. The doctor who performs such an abortion on the other hand is not in turmoil, he is in business. He breaks the law and ends the life of the child with full consciousness, and for profit. He should be “punished.” He should be in jail. That we even have to discuss this is absurd. (Peggy Noonan, 3/31)
You want absurd? The idea that women who seek abortions are so addled by confusion and grief over their “lost child” (which they are seeking to abort) they aren’t even acting in “full consciousness”! Even more absurd is the idea that these mentally defective people should be forced to give birth and raise children! Indeed, the law should probably require people this deluded about the meaning of life and death and their own agency to get professional help.
I can’t convey how deeply insulting to my intelligence I find this infantilization of women. Pregnant women are not mentally disabled. They know what they’re doing and they have a right to do it.This argument is something out of the fucking dark ages.
The situation in Louisiana infuriated Mr. Trump, who threatened this week to sue the Republican National Committee over it.
But when Mr. Priebus explained that each campaign needed to be prepared to fight for delegates at each state’s convention, Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do, the people briefed on the meeting said.
Embarrassed that he didn’t know the mechanics of the nominating process he blames his staff in front of the RNC leadership. A very impressive display of leadership.
David Frum said yesterday that Trump refuses to read the briefing books his staff prepares and I’m guessing he probably paid no attention to any of this delegate math because he assumed he’d win by acclamation.
The frontrunner for the nomination couldn’t even be bothered to learn how the nominating process for president worked. And he’s supposed to be a crack businessman who knows how to “make great deals”. Really?
In case anyone’s getting it in their heads that because Trump is a cretinous barbarian, Cruz would be better, keep in mind that Ted Cruz is a far right extremist who will turn this country into the dystopian hellhole he and Donald Trump say it already is.
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said during a radio interview Thursday that he supports national “right-to-work” legislation, a type of anti-labor law that Wisconsin passed last year in an effort to cripple the state’s unions.
The Texas senator, who is currently leading in the Wisconsin polls, said in an interview on WTMJ radio in Milwaukee that such right-to-work laws are a “fundamental right,” according to the Associated Press. Right-to-work laws are designed to severely weaken unions by forcing them to provide services without payment from workers.
Cruz said during the interview that supporting a right-to-work law will show that government “sides with the working men and women of this country.” He added that Wisconsin’s law restricting unions “is exactly what we need to do in Washington.”
Yes, the Republicans have duped their people into believing that busting unions is just what’s needed to give the working men and women of this country a better deal.
Just FYI: the California $15.00 an hour minimum wage hike was accomplished through the efforts of the SEIU and activists working together for the benefit of all low wage workers, not just the union.
This one is really rich. He went on Fox and claimed that MSNBC edited his abortion comments:
You really had to hear the whole thing. I mean this was a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion and just cut it out and frankly, it was extremely — it was convoluted.
It was a long discussion but it wasn’t edited. He said what he said, clearly.
But his supporters and many others will believe him when he says MSNBC “cut it out” because they believe that’s what the “liberal media” does.
Never mind …
Here is the whole exchange:
QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?
TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I’m pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I — with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that’s my stance. Is that OK? You understand?
MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?
TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law — I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?
TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges — I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative…
MATTHEWS: I understand.
TRUMP: … this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, “what’s the law, nobody knows what’s the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.
MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.
TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.
MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.
TRUMP: Which it is.
MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?
TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.
MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
TRUMP: Look…
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a — no, no…
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, “yes, they should be punished.”
MATTHEWS: How about you?
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?
TRUMP: I’m going to say — well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you — is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?
MATTHEWS: Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?
TRUMP: I would — I am against — I am pro-life, yes.
MATTHEWS: What is ban — how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?
TRUMP: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.
MATTHEWS: Yes?
TRUMP: But you have to ban it.
MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.
TRUMP: Are you Catholic?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think…
TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?
MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues.
TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.
TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?
MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here’s my problem with it…
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?
MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.
TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny.
What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.
MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe…
TRUMP: No, but…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: Let me just tell you — I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to — I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion — I mean, you say that you’re a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this…
MATTHEWS: I didn’t say very good. I said I’m Catholic.
(LAUGHTER)
And secondly, I’m asking — you’re running for President.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m not.
TRUMP: Chris — Chris.
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
MATTHEWS: Game?
TRUMP: You have…
MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.
MATTHEWS: But they don’t control the — this isn’t Spain, the Church doesn’t control the government.
TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the…
MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Don’t ask me about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.
TRUMP: You told me that…
MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.
TRUMP: I have — I have not determined…
MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: What does that mean?
TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life.
I have not determined what the punishment would be.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.
MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because…
TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life…
MATTHEWS: OK, here’s the problem — here’s my problem with this, if you don’t have a punishment for abortion — I don’t believe in it, of course — people are going to find a way to have an abortion.
TRUMP: You don’t believe in what?
MATTHEWS: I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.
TRUMP: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible).
MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it’s a woman’s choice.
TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your Church?
MATTHEWS: I have a view — a moral view — but I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.
TRUMP: But then you are…
MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive.
TRUMP: I know but I’ve heard you speaking…
MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t able — one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.
TRUMP: But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TRUMP: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: What do you say to your Church?
MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.
TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.
MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.
By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?
TRUMP: Well, it hasn’t — it hasn’t — different feelings, different people. I would say no.
MATTHEWS: Well, they’re usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We’ll be right back.
Former presidential candidate Rand Paul said Friday he would still support Donald Trump if the controversial real estate tycoon ends up as the Republican nominee.
Paul’s statement, in response to an Enquirer reporter’s question, puts him at odds with other Republicans, including Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Donald Trump.
Those three candidates have backed off from earlier pledges to support the Republican nominee no matter what.
Paul, during a visit to Northern Kentucky Friday morning, said he will support whoever is the Republican nominee, even if it’s Donald Trump. He said it’s better than supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton.
I guess he thinks openly endorsing torture and mass deportation fits in great with his principled commitment to civil liberties.
But hey, Trump did promise to cut taxes, so it’s all good, amirite?
(And no this is not the “endorsement” he promised on twitter yesterday. That was an April Fools “joke.”)
