"To see what the future looks for the average Republican, think about how Trump talks about women. ... approximately 70 percent of women voters have an unfavorable view of the presumptive GOP nominee ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Exactly right that we're better served by keeping a 'Republican' who is in no way a conservative out of office. Having both parties in favor of massive federal expansion would be a disaster.  On a separate note, it's clear that Trump is unhinged. I can't tell if he believes the conspiracy BS that he spouts, but his peddling it is a tendency wholly unfit for the President.
*  I don't give a shitt if Trump won fair or not. I won't support an immoral buffoon like Trump.  If you want to be a mindless robot, that's your business.
*  Doesn't it stand to reason that a fair percentage of those "millions" who voted for Trump were a) not Republican, b) not conservative, but in fact WERE Democrats who deliberately crossed party lines to vote for him? Now why would they do that? Because they love him? Granted, some of his positions are more liberal than Hillary's, and I think if he actually won, they'd get even MORE liberal, especially on social issues. But that's not why Dems voted for him. It's because their dream match-up is Clinton vs. Trump, with Clinton cleaning his clock.
*  You act as though being a "political uncertainty" is a benefit. I tend to look at it ias not knowing what a psychopath is going to do next.  We went from building a wall, to "the wall just got 10 feet higher," to "I'll deport them but let them come back in again and stay" all within a few weeks. Trump claims he's pro-life but thinks Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization that deserve half a billion of our tax dollars every year. We have a guy who complains about using foreign workers, yet his own record shows that he used illegal workers on his own projects. We have a guy complaining about China and Mexico beating us in trade, yet his own clothing line is produced in those two countries. The only name he specifically mentioned as a Supreme Court justice is his own sister, who's as liberal as anyone Hillary will nominate.  We have a guy who will throw out there that Rafael Cruz may have aided Lee Harvey Oswald, yet states there is no proof that Vladimir Putin murdered journalists and opposition leaders, is involved in invading Ukraine and killing civilians in Syria.  How's he going to run against Hillary? I'm pretty sure the "she's not a citizen so she can't run" nonsense isn't going to work this time.
*  There may be even less left of our country if we let the GOP be taken over by a buffoon like Trump who doesn't even understand our basic constitutional government.
*  The other issue there is, are the Trump fans going to vote in any downticket races? Or are they just going to pull the lever for the Donald and walk out? Since they consider incumbent Republicans "GOPe," "establishment," "traitors," etc., are they going to vote for them?  So the very real possibility is that even should Trump win, the Dems will take one or both houses of Congress because the clowns demanding that everyone vote for Cheeto-man won't do the same for the other candidates running, while the Dems will be out in full force voting for their candidates.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Sometimes There Is No Lesser Of Two Evils
The republic will survive. The Republican Party is a different story.
By David Harsanyi, May 4, 2016

I stole the headline from Professor Randy Barnett, whose new book “Our Republican Constitution” is a must read. And when the choice is two reprehensible, corrupt, and immoral demagogues, you can always pick the ethical way out and say none of the above. The republic will survive an election cycle.

The Republican Party is a different story, however. For those who are idealists about the Constitution–and there are probably far fewer than some of us like to imagine–there are a number of reasons to sabotage The Party of Trump, even if it ends with a Hillary presidency. The first is salvaging some of your own dignity and principles. But there are other, long-term political advantages to beating back an authoritarian populist who peddles conspiracy theories and big-government schemes and doesn’t have a freshman-level comprehension about the basic workings of American governance.

For starters, there are things just as important as the presidency. It’s better to have a minority party impeding the growth of government power—yes, often ineffectively and incompetently—than enabling two parties that embrace it. To save a party of more limited government, conservatives must 1) save Congress from Trump and 2) save the GOP from itself.

How To Lose Congress

On the same day that billionaire wins the GOP Indiana primary and secures the party’s nomination, he decides to use an National Enquirer story—the future in-flight publication of Air Force One—to accuse opponent Ted Cruz’s father of helping Lee Harvey Oswald. This was just an amuse-bouche of the utter stupidity that down-ballot GOP candidates will have to deal with, justify, rationalize, ignore, excuse, or support every day for the next six months or so. One hopes the stench of this kind of endorsement clings to them for the rest of their unprincipled and, hopefully, short political careers.

Yet, echoing something I hear every day from his fans, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial argues that a conservative challenge to Trump could cost the GOP the House:

Perhaps, but it’s more likely that dueling presidential candidates would put House and Senate Republican candidates in a perilous spot. Do they support Mr. Trump or the third-party conservative? If they are forced to choose, they could alienate enough GOP voters to ensure defeat. Consider how gingerly Mike Pence, the Indiana Governor running for re-election this year, handled his state’s GOP primary last week. He said he’s voting for Ted Cruz while also praising Mr. Trump.

The people who ensured that the most flawed GOP candidate running, the most unpopular in every demographic category, the least conservative and the most vulgar, will blame movement conservatives and their imaginary puppet masters for bringing down a hero. They already do. Trying to placate them is a waste of time.

What sort of thing will “alienate” the average voter more? Imagine how tough it will for any decent candidate in a competitive district, running in place like Colorado or Utah or Wisconsin where Trump in unpopular and movement conservatives will be in no mood to vote in the presidential, to deal with the ugly vagaries of Trumpism day after day and win an election.

To see what the future looks for the average Republican, think about how Trump talks about women. Polls show that approximately 70 percent of women voters have an unfavorable view of the presumptive GOP nominee—in a party that already struggles to attract them. Simply by using direct quotes—soundbites, as this candidate in Arkansas did—Republicans will be forced to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining why their candidate believes mocking the menstrual cycles of journalists who ask him difficult questions is acceptable behavior.

How many voters will that “alienate,” do you think?

The idea that Republicans can localize their elections and avoid the Trump phenomena is preposterous. You’re not afforded this kind of leeway in the best of years, and it won’t happen the coming media frenzy. After Trump secures the nomination, the press will finally become hyper-focused on the massive backlog of Trump’s business dealings and various other unpleasant history. Does anyone think it’s going to be easier to share a ticket?

The only way to avoid this is a concerted write-in campaign or third-party candidate—with all the caveats about getting on state ballots and having absolutely no chance of winning in the general election. A person whom candidates can support to diffuse the Trump attacks. Find a person a movement can coalesce around, or it’s just a matter of time before Hillary-hatred gets the best of people who consider themselves #NeverTrumpers.

The Next Autopsy Will Be a Real One

Trump has already exposed various pretend anti-establishmentarians, hucksters, and statists masquerading as conservatives—Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, Rick Scott, and Jon Huntsman come to immediate mind. A party without any guiding ideology or principles is a party of nothing but opportunists. This goes for party “establishment”—and that includes big donors and the RNC—which has never moved to stop Trump, although his agenda and tone stands in contrast to everything they preached in their “autopsy.”

More dangerously, it’s clear that, led by the conservative entertainment complex, many voters are willing bend their own views to match the ever-changing positions of Trump. As George Will put it recently, “quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history.” All the legitimate anger they had about failing institutions has been wasted on frauds.

It’s quite possible Reaganism is no long relevant or popular with a majority of voters on the Right. Do people believe in conservatism (widely understood) because it’s popular, or because they find some truth in it? If it’s the latter, conservatives can either chase Trump fans by attempting to make a compelling case, offer some new ideas or better arguments, or they can surrender and adopt Trumpism and reward the least classically liberal candidate in Republican Party history.

Although others on this site and elsewhere have used it, this Alexander Hamilton quote is perfect for the situation: “If we must have an enemy at the head of government let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.” A Hillary presidency, even with a Republican Congress, will be a disaster for conservatives. But it was the constitutional idealism of the Tea Party that held back Democrats and establishment GOPers from working together to expand the reach of government. A turn to white identity politics and anger is turn away from that idealism.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"It's not about winning, it's about making the other guy (or gal) lose."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I'd like to point something out. Love him or hate him, Trump gives 110% in everything he does. He will campaign 3 x's per day/ 7 days per week, speaking to 10's of 1000's of Americans. Hillary's health, combined with her inability to answer many questions that will damage her (think email, Benghazi), will paint her in the worst possible light. Trump is right. Hillary does not have the strength or stamina to even RUN against Trump, let alone be POTUS. Just my 2 cents.
   *  The guy who flys back every night to sleep in his own little bed in Trump Plaza? The guy who phones in his interviews (in his pajamas) to the news shows? The guy who can't even take the time to learn any specifics about his plans? The guy who lends his name out to every half bankrupt corporation to use because he doesn't actually want the bother of owning or running it? That's the guy who is going to work 110% 24/7......... that's rich.
   *  Just my 2 cents,,,,, and about what its worth.  Clinton ... 12 Hour GOP Congressional Inquisition ... didn't break a sweat.  Trump: complained about the length of the debates .... couldn't manage to debate for 3 hours with questions split 10 ways!
      *  Couldn't even handle ONE (1) Question from Megyn Kelly about insults he made...... and has been whining about it for 5 months.
   *  You speak of Hillary's health and don't question Delusional Donald's (mental) health...why?   ..................................................................................................................................................................
Get ready for the nastiest presidential race any of us have ever seen
By Chris Cillizza, May 4, 2016

Matt Drudge said it best.

Drudge Siren  @Drudge_Siren
TRUMP VS. CLINTON: SHOWDOWN OF CENTURY! http://plu.gd/1jr3
5:21 AM - 4 May 2016

Donald Trump's sweeping victory Tuesday in Indiana's Republican presidential primary not only puts him on a glide path to the GOP nomination, but it sets up a general-election fight between the real estate billionaire and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton that will be the nastiest, ugliest campaign in modern presidential history.

Why? Simple. Trump and Clinton will start the general-election campaign -- which, for all intents and purposes, begins Wednesday -- with historically low favorable numbers (and/or historically high unfavorable numbers) among the general electorate.

That's not to say they are equally unpopular. Trump is more unpopular. In a mid-April Washington Post-ABC News poll, just 31 percent of likely voters had a favorable view of him, while 67 percent saw him in an unfavorable light. An April NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that fewer than one in four respondents (24 percent) regarded Trump positively, while 65 percent viewed him negatively.

As Philip Bump has noted in this space, Trump's numbers make him the least popular Republican presidential nominee in the past two decades (at least).



Clinton is less unpopular than Trump, but that's not saying much. In a March Washington Post-ABC News poll, 46 percent of likely voters viewed her in a favorable light, while 52 percent regarded her unfavorably. In the April NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, her numbers were far worse: 32 percent positive and 56 percent negative.

When you have two well-known and poorly regarded candidates running against each other, it means only one thing: It's not about winning, it's about making the other guy (or gal) lose. Neither Trump nor Clinton has much of a chance -- given their unfavorable numbers -- of convincing voters to make an affirmative choice for them. Instead, the best course of action will almost certainly be a prolonged attempt to tear down the other candidate, making him (or her) so unpalatable as to be disqualified.

Both Clinton and Trump offer a target-rich environment for that sort of race-to-the-bottom campaign.

She has spent the past 24 years in the national spotlight, accruing a series of controversies and confrontations that have already turned her into the Democrat that Republicans love to hate most.  From her decision to use a private email server as secretary of state to her handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya; her reaction to her husband's infidelity to her failed push for health-care reform; as well as Travelgate: There is lots and lots of material for Trump to use.

Then there is Trump. A "narcissist." A "serial philander." A "pathological liar." And those are just the things that Ted Cruz called Trump on Tuesday. The multiple company bankruptcies. His comments about women. His plan to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country. His willingness to treat the National Enquirer as a reputable news source. His favorable comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin. And on and on and on.

Finally, neither Trump nor Clinton are shrinking violets when it comes to throwing a punch. Trump proved over and over again during his march to the Republican presidential nomination that he will say and do just about anything to win. Marco Rubio was sweaty. Jeb Bush was low energy. Ted Cruz was a liar. Ben Carson had a problem similar to that of child molesters. John Kasich ate like a pig.

And, even as he was waging political war with the Republican field, Trump gave every indication that he was itching to bring his attack-at-all-times approach to Clinton.

Donald J. Trump ✔  @realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most dishonest person to have ever run for the presidency, is also one of the all time great enablers!
6:46 AM - 29 Apr 2016

Clinton, for her part, has never shied away from dropping the hammer on her opponent. She showed during the protracted 2008 Democratic primary fight she was more than willing to savage then-Sen. Barack Obama as woefully inexperienced for the job he was seeking. In this campaign, Clinton came out aggressively against Bernie Sanders on guns and the pie-in-the-sky nature of some of his proposals, such as making college free for everyone. And, like Trump, Clinton has already signaled that she is more than ready for the general election to start.

Hillary Clinton ✔  @HillaryClinton
We don’t have time to waste on Trump's fake solutions that won’t do a thing to help your families.
12:36 PM - 3 May 2016

So, buckle up.  This is going to be nasty, brutish and very, very long.
...................................................................................................................................................................

We wish you well and good luck, Brett.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The lawsuit will probably fail, but it's a shame things have come to this. If Garland isn't qualified or is otherwise unacceptable, vote him down on the floor.
    *  He is obviously qualified, that's why they don't want a hearing
    *  Then hold the hearing and vote him out. All the Republicans are doing now is humming while they stick their fingers in their ears.
*  Americans see what a dysfunctional toilet the GOP led Senate has become. Time to flush away the tea party/freedumb caucus waste and elect congressmen who can govern.
*  Hard to see how this lawsuit could be successful, but it might be taken up by the Supreme Court in order to clarify the issue of advise and consent. It seems reasonable that the Senate could refuse to vote or hold hearings on a nominee with the intent of having the President propose a different nominee. The Republican stand of refusing to consider any nominee at all while a President of the opposing party is in office does raise a different issue. Creating the precedent that the Senate should wait until the next election before confirming Supreme Court Justices seems opposed to the effective funtioning of the Supreme Court. I expect that the court will view this as a political issue, but they may decide otherwise since it directly affects the functioning of the third branch of government and could be viewed as a separation of powers issue.
*  The president needs to stop wasting time and just make a "Recess Appointment", there are four reciss' scheduled between now and July. Yes, the Senate *could* recall the appointment but, first they would have to debate it on the senate floor and then VOTE. You know, as if they were part of a real Congress.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Lawsuit challenges Senate inaction on Garland
By Josh Gerstein, May 3, 2016

A citizen gadfly in Maryland has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Senate leaders' decision not to act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Liberal activist Brett Kimberlin filed the suit against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley late last month in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

"Defendants have waived their right to advice and consent by (a) stating publicly and on the Senate floor that they refuse to advise and consent on the nomination of Merrick Garland, (2) putting pressure on other Republicans not to advise and consent, and (3) refusing to advise and consent," the suit asserts. "Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment against Defendants stating that they have waived their right to advise and consent."

The suit seems to be a longshot, in part because courts are often reluctant to wade into disputes between Congress and the White House and in part because there is debate about whether the Constitution really does obligate the Senate to act on Obama's nominee or whether the Republicans' current refusal to act is one of the responses the Constitution contemplates.

Spokespeople for Garland and Grassley did not respond to requests for comment on the case.

The White House declined to comment, but White House Counsel Neil Eggleston has publicly endorsed one of the central contentions of the new suit: that the Senate is required by the Constitution to respond to Obama's nomination of Garland.

"It’s our view that the Constitution is worded in a way, I think, that makes it mandatory," Eggleston said at a POLITICO Playbook Breakfast last month. "I know the Republicans say it’s not mandatory and they can do whatever they want. But it says the president shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint…I read that as saying he nominates and they have an obligation to give their advice and consent."

"We think the Constitution obligates them to provide advice and consent as the language says," Eggleston added.

Asked if the Constitution similarly requires that Obama make nominations for judicial vacancies—some of which have been open for years without nominees—the White House counsel said it does.

"He’s continuing to exercise his Constitutional obligation to nominate people….The president does have an obligation, I think, to nominate," Eggleston said. He said Obama was moving forward with nominations for some of the longstanding vacancies even when the White House had been unable to obtain the customary consent of home-state senators.

Regardless of what the Constitution may require, it's far from clear whether a court can remedy any failure on either side. Even if it could, a citizen lawsuit may not be the way to do it.

The suit filed last month raises obvious questions about Kimberlin's standing: whether he has a personal stake in the membership of the Supreme Court sufficient to pursue a lawsuit. Kimberlin says he has three other federal suits pending and "has a right to have his cases considered by the full nine Justice Supreme Court." That may not be enough of a personal interest to allow the case to proceed.

Kimberlin also has a checkered and politically colorful background. In the 1980s, he was sentenced to more than 50 years in prison for a string of bombings and other crimes. He achieved national notoriety while in federal prison in 1988 after he alleged he had sold marijuana to Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle. Reagan administration officials cut off media access to Kimberlin, fueling suspicion about a cover-up.

Kimberlin was paroled in the 1990s. He now runs a non-profit group called Justice Through Music, the suit says.

The new suit has been assigned to Judge George Hazel, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Cruz "dug his own grave." Well, we won't feel bad for him, will we?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz's Rise and Fall Is Explained By a Cruel Paradox
After alienating his colleagues, few rallied to support the Texas senator's presidential bid. He dropped out on Tuesday.
By Sahil Kapur, May 3, 2016

Ted Cruz rose in the presidential race by painting Republican leaders as sellouts and insisting only he had the courage to fight a broken system. Those same elites returned the favor by snubbing him when it mattered most, refusing to rally the party behind him and all but ensuring that Donald Trump will be the nominee after winning Indiana.

"What goes around comes around in politics," said Ron Bonjean, a former senior aide to several congressional Republican leaders. "It's very clear he's dug his own grave. And he'll have to live with that. By taking a flamethrower to the Senate floor he ended up burning himself in the process."

Cruz announced he'll drop out of the race on Tuesday night. "We gave it everything we've got," he told a crowd in Indianapolis, "but the voters chose another path."

Brian Walsh, a former Republican leadership aide who worked for Senator John Cornyn, Cruz's home-state colleague, said the presidential hopeful had gone "out of his way to make so many enemies that when he needs allies they're not there."

"His own arrogance has contributed to where he is today," Walsh said. "His colleagues, especially in recent weeks, have been looking for a reason to support him despite the past history, and even now he won't meet them halfway."

Indeed, several Republican leaders have made their deepest marks on the Republican presidential race by voicing opposition to the Texas firebrand.

'Lucifer In The Flesh'

Former House Speaker John Boehner last week called Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh" and the most "miserable son of a bitch" he has ever worked with. Former Senator Judd Gregg termed Cruz a "demagogue’s demagogue" who he'd never back. Republican luminaries Trent Lott and Bob Dole have also indicated they prefer Trump over Cruz. Ex-rival Marco Rubio called Cruz "the only one" who fits his preference of nominating a conservative, though he stopped short of endorsing him after dropping out in mid-March. Vast swaths of GOP financiers never warmed up to Cruz, despite endorsements from several former presidential rivals.

"He's not a fan favorite. I don't know anyone that raves about him. There's not one person that says to me, 'You’ve gotta meet this guy, you're gonna like him,'" said Brian Ballard, a major Republican donor based in Florida who supported Jeb Bush in the primary and raised money for past nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Ballard described electability as another factor. "I just never really thought that Cruz was a viable person. I don't think he's got the type of draw to win a general election," he said. "I think he's a divider. I don't have any desire to be helpful to him."

A palpable anger overcame Cruz on Tuesday morning as he ripped into Trump as a "pathological liar," "narcissist," "bully" and a "serial philanderer," after Trump linked his father to John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, echoing a conspiracy theory that lacks evidence. America is "staring at the abyss" with a potential Trump nomination, Cruz told reporters, and "it is only Indiana that can pull us back." A CNN poll Monday found that 91 percent of Republicans believe Trump will be their nominee.

Rick Tyler, a former communications director for the Cruz campaign, had choice words for GOP establishment figures who snubbed him. "Small, petty and petulant," he said. "It's got to be personal because I don't understand which issues he's running on that they're not going to be able to work with a President Cruz on."

Cost of Breaking Out

With victories in Iowa and on Super Tuesday, Cruz solidified his standing as the only Republican competitive with Trump, disproving skeptics who likened him to past one-hit-wonders Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa and flamed out. But that has only intensified the animosity of some foes. Representative Peter King called Cruz a "fraud and a hoax" for leading an effort to defund Obamacare that culminated in the 2013 government shutdown.

The shutdown failed to make a dent in the health care law, but it turned Cruz into a national hero among conservatives. And he took advantage of it. In subsequent battles such as blocking President Barack Obama’s immigration policies and shutting the Export-Import Bank, Cruz embraced hardline positions and portrayed his colleagues as cowardly when they acquiesced to cutting a deal with Democrats to prevent disruptions to the basic functions of government.

A former congressional GOP aide who had a front-row seat to Cruz's political warfare and spoke on condition of anonymity said the Texan staked out positions he knew were impossible for the party to sustain, and sought to position himself as a conservative martyr when those fights were lost.

"In the effort to build his personal legend," the former aide said, Cruz "fanned the flames among the base" that congressional Republicans were too afraid to fight, and thereby inflated expectations of what conservatives could achieve with Obama in office.

That personal legend became the foundation of Cruz’s presidential bid, which promised to combine ideological purity with a fighting spirit to upend a corrupt establishment. It helped him with a GOP base that feels abandoned by its own leaders. The downside is the Texan is so isolated in the Senate he has trouble getting approval for routinely-granted procedural motions such as a "sufficient second" on a roll call vote. Still, he has refused to apologize for remarks such as accusing McConnell of telling "a flat-out lie" on the Senate floor in 2015.

April Nosedive

"That ain't gonna happen," Cruz said last month on CNN about the prospect of reconsidering an apology to McConnell. "And if the Washington lobbyists want to see that happen, they can hold their breath a long, long time." It revealed the Texan's paradox: maintaining enemies imposes limits on his base of support, but making nice with party leaders risks undercutting his core appeal. Cruz's attack has boomeranged on him as Trump's derisive "Lyin' Ted" moniker has stuck.

Cruz's narrow appeal left him little room for error among his base of very conservative and evangelical voters. His net favorable rating among Republicans has fallen by a whopping 52 points since January—including by 21 points in the month of April as Trump gained 12, according to Gallup's tracking poll.


A campaign that began with a house-by-house victory in Iowa couldn't prevent Trump from piercing Cruz's "Southern firewall" in the coming weeks with victories in South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia. While Cruz went on to rack up wins in smaller states, caucuses and GOP conventions, Trump's lead was never challenged, and he expanded it later in the delegate-rich Northeast, Rust Belt and states spanning Florida to Arizona.

"If you look back on it, Ted Cruz may have lost this in South Carolina as much as any place else," said Ken Goldstein, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a polling analyst for Bloomberg Politics. "If you're going to be a factional candidate—the candidate of Southern, very conservative Republicans, you better win Southern, very conservative states."

Wisconsin, the high-water mark of Cruz's campaign, indicated he could transcend his core base when party elites were behind him. Enjoying enthusiastic support from Governor Scott Walker and the state’s vibrant conservative activist and talk-radio community, Cruz swept voters there across sex, age, education attainment, income, and even won Trump's strong-suit of "somewhat conservative" voters, according to exit polls. Cruz celebrated the victory as a "turning point" that would stop Trump.

Cavalry Isn't Coming

But Indiana suggests Wisconsin was an outlier. The Hoosier State's large share of evangelical and conservative voters failed to propel Cruz to victory as he lacked a strong network to broaden support. Governor Mike Pence waited until four days before the primary to announce his support for Cruz, but the announcement was tepid and muddled as Pence also praised Trump in the same interview. Cruz received zero endorsements from Indiana’s eight-member Republican congressional delegation.

Cruz's nearly three-dozen House endorsements, many in the Texas delegation, were like-minded conservatives who lacked the ability to broaden his appeal. The House Freedom Caucus, a bloc of influential conservatives who share Cruz's ideology and goals, broadly prefers him to Trump. But the group steered clear of the race because Trump is popular in its members' deep-red districts, according to people with knowledge of its decision-making.

Cruz himself played nice with Trump early in the race, which some Republicans believe was a strategic blunder. He met and posed with Trump at Trump Tower in July; he appeared with him at a rally in Washington; in December he praised Trump as "terrific." The niceties ended in early January when Trump, polling strong nationally and hoping to leapfrog Cruz in Iowa, questioned whether Cruz's birth in Canada makes him eligible to be president.

"Damned if he doesn't wake up every morning and say 'God, why did I kiss this guy's ass for a year?' I thought it was terrible political judgment," said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based GOP strategist who has vowed never to support Trump. "I know it matters to a lot of the donor community" that Cruz didn't take him on at the time, he added.

Between his smashing defeats in New York and other Northeastern states in April, the remarkably steady Cruz began to show signs of desperation. He cut a deal with rival John Kasich in which the Ohio governor would not campaign in Indiana and Cruz would not campaign in Oregon or New Mexico (a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey found that a majority of Indiana GOP voters disapproved of it). Last Wednesday, a day after Trump's five-state sweep, Cruz made the unusual move of announcing a running mate, Carly Fiorina, amid dimming prospects.

In his Indiana concession speech, Cruz vowed to pursue his conservative agenda. 

"Our movement will continue," Cruz said. "And I give you my word that I will continue this fight with all of my strength and all of my ability."
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Trump will be the nominee. He will run a tough campaign against Hillary Clinton ..." Heavens help us all if he prevails.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  ... Calling Trump a Neo-Patriot is just plain funny! Big Joke! He's whatever he needs to be for his own benefit on any given day. A "Patriot" Trump is NOT.  Somehow, I think 'Dirty Old Man' is a more fitting label for Trump.
*  Trump is not brilliant. He's not even smart. He's just lucky. And think's he's God. I don't believe a word he says. He's saying what's expected so he can gain followers and get votes. I really tire of his promised wall, the one nobody can build. He'll claim to gain billions upon trillions of followers, I hear him every day bragging. But we all know there's a sucker born every minute, and those will join themselves to him. He's a pretty good con-man.  Yes, I've seen him called Hitler. But that crossed my mind before I saw others saying it. There are just certain sorts of man-men that can pull off their crimes seemingly without a hitch. I'm just hoping all the millions against Trump will stay strong and smart and not let him hang us all.
*  You're coming at this from the wrong direction. Instead of starting wrong - "you can't deny the damage he's done to the country" - which of course you can, since that's what the facts show, you should have said "only a mindless partisan would say something so utterly false and embarrassing as "you can't deny the damage he's done to the country."  Please, feel free to support Trump, it will keep you out of the way and irrelevant while we get on with the country's business.
*  Donald Trump is the quintessential HYPOCRITE. Just a fact. Just like his spokesman Scottie Neil Hughes just said on CNN that Trump's LYING is okay and then "whatever works" with a gleam in her wicked eye.
*  ... Trump is the great Divider. But he'll brag about being the great Unifier. Just like evil men create a crisis so they can come to the rescue with their own selfish solutions, Trump divided us so he can be the savior that will come to the rescue to unite us. But we see thru him. A con-man. And you are swallowing the Kool-Aid.
*   Trump represents the worst America has to offer. The Republican party has never put up with anything even close to being like him before. Pro-Trumpers are just bloodthirsty avengers who want people hurt, innocent or not. That fact alone now divides me from this party. I will vote for Hillary over Trump because she is less destructive than he is. If it's those two we have to choose between...America is screwed. And that's what my bumper-sticker will say..."We're Screwed".... :)
...................................................................................................................................................................
Memo to George Will, David Brooks and others: Stop being stupid on Trump
By John Feehery, May 2, 2016

The conservative intelligentsia (not necessarily a contradiction in terms) is being stupid about Donald Trump. 

And in the process, they are revealing their biases against democracy and the will of the people. 

We can get all Mencken about the American people (“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”), but the bottom line is that you either trust the democratic process or you don’t. 

Trump is winning in his presidential primary and winning big. Instead of examining why he has been so successful, the leading lights of the Republican Party continue to bash away at the real estate tycoon and his supporters. 

Here is Mike Gerson: “If the worst enemies of conservatism were to construct a Frankenstein figure that represents the worst elements of right-wing politics, Donald Trump would be it. But it is Republicans who are giving him life. And the damage is already deep.”

And George Will: “Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.”

And Ross Douthat: “That clamor is loudest from the Trumpistas and their dear leader. Donald Trump is clearly running to be an American caudillo, not the president of a constitutional republic, and his entire campaign is a cult of personality in the style of (the pro-Trump) Vladimir Putin.”

And of course, David Brooks: “Donald Trump now looks set to be the Republican presidential nominee. So for those of us appalled by this prospect — what are we supposed to do? Well, not what the leaders of the Republican Party are doing. They’re going down meekly and hoping for a quiet convention. They seem blithely unaware that this is a Joe McCarthy moment. People will be judged by where they stood at this time.”

To these so-called smart people, I say: Stop being so stupid. 

Trump will be the nominee. He will run a tough campaign against Hillary Clinton — tougher than Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush. He will scramble the map in ways we don’t quite understand. He is plenty smart, and while he might not be qualified in the conventional sense, he is more qualified than some of the other folks that our so-called smart set thought could do a good job. Remember when Bill Kristol thought Sarah Palin would make a fine president?

So why has Trump, on a relatively small budget and with a tiny campaign staff, done so well, while his competitors have failed so miserably? 

Well, first, because he is a real outsider who represents real change. 

So many voters are so completely fed up with the political class (and the conservative intelligentsia that supports them) that they saw Trump as the only candidate who could blow up the status quo.

I know many of those who voted for Trump, and they are by no means stupid, irrational, racist or anti-democratic. They are frustrated with politics as usual and they are taking their constitutional rights seriously by voting for change. 

Second, Trump says what many of us have come to believe is true: that the Iraq War was a tragic mistake that shouldn’t be replicated. He was the only candidate to be so explicit in his denunciation, and I think it helped him with a big chunk of voters.

Third, he has a clear message on the economy that resonates: The middle class is getting screwed because the political class is looking out for their interests rather than for the broader interests of the American people. From being open to increasing taxes on the very wealthy to expressing concerns about trade deals to promising to protect Social Security, Trump is stating clearly that he will change the direction of the American economy. 

I am not of the opinion that a Trump candidacy will do long-lasting damage to the party or the country. I guess that’s why I am not part of the conservative intelligentsia.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... say goodbye today to Ted, the only guy who could ever make Trump appealing." [Not quite!]

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  I am not sure which I worry about more - Cruz's lack of political savvy, or the fact that a juvenile game is more important to the citizens of Indiana than the ideological positions of a candidate for the American Presidency.
*  Cruz / Fiorina - The Incarnation of Lucifer with his Harpy standing by him.
*  Let's face it. Cruz is the most vilified candidate, and unjuśtly so, in recent presidential campaign history. The press hates him, the voters don't like him, and his own party can't stand him. Trump is an arrogant slob, a dirty fighter, and an unregenerate person, yet the press adores him, the voters flock to him, and the party is afraid of him. Politics is indeed a slimy business when it should in fact be a noble undertaking. No wonder forty percent of voters don't even go to the polls on Election Day. Who wants to be a part of such rot?
*  But Lyin Ted, you have the name, Lyin Ted. Go back to Canada you hustler. They should replace you as U.S. Senator for not being Present!
*  If people won't vote for a candidate because he missed a movie reference but would vote for trump who lies, overstates and insults every time he opens his mouth, they will get what they deserve
*  Seriously? There are people who vote based on whether a candidate says ring or hoop? Stupid people. There should be an intellelegence test to be able to vote.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Cruz fouls out in Indiana
By Mark Plotkin, May 3, 2016

There are times when a politician firmly and unmistakably puts a foot in his mouth and pays for it dearly.

Last week in Indiana, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) won the prize for a verbal infraction that was so huge, it will be cited for years to come. To properly understand the enormity of Cruz's erroneous utterance, you must be aware of the fact that no state in the union is more obsessed with basketball than Indiana. If you drive throughout the state, you will see basketball hoops in what seems every backyard.

Notably, the 1986 movie "Hoosiers" forever enshrined the roundball game in the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans. The iconic film told the story of a very small town's miraculous journey to the state high school basketball championship. The year was 1954: Bobby Plump made the last-second shot that gave the small school in the tiny town of Milan the state title. Gene Hackman played the coach and Dennis Hopper the assistant coach. If you didn't love this movie, there is something very wrong with you.

William Gildea wrote a wonderful book about the state's absolute love of the game called "Where The Game Matters Most." The Valhalla of basketball is Hinkle Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. That is where the high school championship game is played every year. (It is also the home court of Butler University). The film "Hoosiers" was actually filmed there, which gave the movie such authenticity and verve.

So what does Cruz do at this very place but in some tortured political metaphor refer to the basketball "rim" as the "ring." Cruz did not commit a mere slip of the tongue — no, this man, to the whole world, displayed a total ignorance of the game that Hoosiers feel is the official state religion. This appalling lack of knowledge and abuse of the nomenclature has been the talk of the town throughout the state, I'm sure.

It reminds everybody of John Kerry calling the home of the beloved Green Bay Packers "Lambert Field" rather than "Lambeau Field." (He barely won the Badger State in the 2004 general election.) Or George McGovern's disastrous order at a Jewish deli in Manhattan, accompanied by then-Sen. Abe Ribicoff (D-Conn.); the 1972 Democratic nominee requested a corned beef sandwich on white with mayo. Immediately, Ribicoff turned to McGovern and said, "George, you just lost New York." (And he did.) Cruz should have a glancing familiarity with the game of basketball. He went to Princeton. Does the name Bill Bradley mean anything to you?

Cruz then made his political fortunes even more dismal by naming Carly Fiorina his running mate. If there were ever a more desperate act, I can't think of one. Fiorina has no connection to Indiana and its 57 winner-take-all delegates. If this was an attempt to win the 172 delegates in the big June California Primary, Cruz also failed miserably. Yes, Fiorina was a past California U.S. Senate candidate, but she was beaten handily by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and departed the state years ago and resides now in the commonwealth of Virginia. Cruz, never viewed as likeable or charming, has finished himself off in Indiana. Couple that with the fact that there is no party registration in the Hoosier State, which enables all basketball fans to cast a vote in protest against Cruz.

Cruz's rival, Republican front-runner Donald Trump, recruited Indiana basketball god Bobby Knight to endorse him. It's just a subtle reminder to further make the point that Cruz has shot an air ball at the rim. So, say goodbye today to Ted, the only guy who could ever make Trump appealing.
...................................................................................................................................................................

What more can we say?

.................................................................................

"Asked if Trump would be harmful to America if elected, Munger responded that 'He’d be far from ideal.'"

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Trump loves himself. Words coming out of his pouted mouth includes "I'm rich, I'm smart, I have a beautiful (third) wife, I'm a successful businessman, I'm famous, I can make America great again, I have a full head of (grafted) hair, etc. God bless America, the greatest country in the world today. We do not need the Trumpster. He is always angry.
*  Trumps behavior is some sort of a sickness. That's a good way to put it.
*  Trump is an Egomaniac, sociopath to name a few
...................................................................................................................................................................
Munger: Donald Trump's behavior reflects a 'form of sickness'
By Andy Serwer, May 1, 2016

Charlie Munger, the outspoken and iconoclastic 92-year-old vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway says that Donald Trump is “A true believer. He truly believes in himself.’

Munger went on to call that behavior a “form of sickness.” Asked if Trump would be harmful to America if elected, Munger responded that “He’d be far from ideal.” As for the chances of Trump getting elected, Munger characterized them as “far above zero.”

I sat down with Munger for an interview in Omaha the day after Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting which you can watch here.

[major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................

"It’s perfectly reasonable for a lower-income person to think this is in their interests." Sad to say, there's a fool born every minute.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The people I personally know who vote Republican are the very rich, the poorly educated and those who think of themselves as being morally superior and have been manipulated into believing that this is the morally superior party. Interestingly enough, several of them (women included) subscibe to the Newt Gringrich/Donald Trump/John McCain, et. al, view of marriage. Stay committed only as long as it takes to obtain what you believe to be an upgrade. Only the very rich people I know vote Repubican because of economic policiies. 
*  No contest, the Democrats are doing better. All I have to do is remember late 2008 before Obama took office to be reminded of how much better the Democrats do managing the economy. As for wages, I don't see Republicans working to raise the minimum wage. It's the Democrats who are doing that. The Republicans don't give a rat's a$$ about middle-class incomes, let alone those of the poor and working class.
*  Some people still believe in the republican trickle down theory. The idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is simplistic in nature and people that are hurting want to believe it, but it's not going to happen.
*  There is nothing conservative about Republican economic policies. At least since Reagan, every time there is a Republican administration, the deficit soars. Every time there is a Democratic one, it plummets. Growth in government spending is also considerably higher under Republican administrations. Spending money you don't have isn't conservative.
*  Do you realize that you stated facts therefore you aren't going to get a rationale intelligent response. They are going to say this is a lie, you are a liar and your source is a liberal propaganda machine. They would only believe this if it was on FOX News!
*   Poor whites don't see themselves as such, they much prefer the "struggling middle-class" as their nomenclature. Perspective is everything. What we really have is an inequality in voter turnout. For instance; in 2008, only 41% of voters who earned less than $10,000 actually voted, whereas 78% of those with incomes over $150,000 showed up at the polls.
...................................................................................................................................................................
No, it’s not new that some working-class and poor whites vote Republican
By Andrew Gelman, May 2, 2016

A trope of political journalism is to wonder why many lower-income voters prefer the Republican Party despite its more conservative economic policies.

For example, here’s Jelani Cobb last week in the New Yorker:

Ever since Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, progressives have pondered why working-class and poor whites vote Republican, against their own interests.

It may well be that progressives have pondered this, but I have two things to say.

First, how can you be so sure it’s “against their own interests” to vote Republican? The Republican Party supports policies such as lower taxes, higher military spending and, more recently, immigration restrictions. It’s perfectly reasonable for a lower-income person to think this is in their interests.

Second, if you want to ponder this, you should realize that lots of lower-income whites have been voting Republican for a long time. Here’s a graph showing the Republican share of the two-party vote for president in each election from 1940 through 2004, looking separately at voters in the lower and upper third of income (not quite “rich” and “poor” but an easy way to summarize survey data without running out of sample size). In the early part of this series, of course, almost all these voters were white:


In the 1940s, the Republican opponents of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were getting votes from lower- as well as upper-income voters. In the 1950s and 1960, Republican candidates Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon did just about as well among lower-income voters as among those with higher incomes.

There have been changes over the years, and in the past few elections, the gap between the Republican vote share among rich and poor whites has narrowed. So it’s reasonable to ask what has changed. But don’t kid yourself. The Republican Party has had conservative economic policies for more than 100 years, and a good percentage of lower-income Americans have been voting for them.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Presidential campaigns ... are becoming staging grounds for only two types of politicians: those who eclipse everyone else with showmanship and those who are so scripted you can’t discern if any humanity remains."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Add the fact that republicans under FOX ,Rush,O'Really and hate radio have been fed a diet of hate and lies and half truths so long they are easily gullable to bullshit as the truth and conmen as the true leaders.
   *  Exactly! They actually "believe" that if they swallow some LIE or fabrication that others are being "intolerant" of their demented ravings rather than just pointing out that "Reality is NOT on your side"
*  After the damage that 8 years of "W" did to our country who would want to take a chance on another Bush ...... Not me.
*  Jeb was an empty vessel into which other people poured thoughts and ideas. He simply couldn't remember all of these other people's words. He looked like a lost soul out in public.
*  He had over 10 years to practice his answers to questions about the Iraq War, WMDs, Halliburton, 9-11 and still he seemed surprised by the questions? Please.
*  nobody wanted another Bush anywhere near the WH . That family has done enough harm to the country
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush Couldn’t ‘Fix It.’ There’s A Simple Reason Why.

It wasn’t just the Donald that did him in.

By Sam Stein, May 2, 2016

In an alternate universe, Jeb Bush would currently be preparing for the most trying half year of his life. The former governor of Florida was the favorite to be the Republican nominee for president. But his strengths — a famous last name, deep pocketed donors, and a well-regarded brand of thoughtful conservatism — were overwhelmed by other factors. It wasn’t just a bombastic billionaire who seemed hell-bent on humiliating Jeb at every turn. It was also something far simpler: his last name.

“Our whole issue was related to dynasty or this sort of tough factor,” Tim Miller, Jeb’s former communications director said. “And neither of those things are fixable.”

In the latest episode of our “Candidate Confessional” podcast, Miller, who accompanied Jeb on most of his travel and was among the inner circle of advisers, pulled back the curtain on what went wrong for the campaign. In the process, he laid bare some troubling conclusions for a Republican Party that stands on the verge of choosing that bombastic billionaire — one Donald J. Trump — as its presidential nominee.

Presidential campaigns, Miller explained, are becoming staging grounds for only two types of politicians: those who eclipse everyone else with showmanship and those who are so scripted you can’t discern if any humanity remains. Voters are left with a Hobson’s choice and candidates like Jeb — clunky, goofy and not entirely scripted — suffer.

Miller got his first whiff of this problem as a narrative developed that his boss was gaffe-prone. Some of it, admittedly, was Jeb’s own making. There was a plea to the crowd to give him applause, a promise of a wet kiss for spending cuts and a disastrous response to the question of whether he’d support, again, the invasion of Iraq.

“We knew in the moment” that that answer was a problem, Miller said of the Iraq response, though he pleaded that the question had been misinterpreted by his candidate.



But some of it was a byproduct of the modern campaign construct. Jeb had run his last race more than a dozen years prior and was unaccustomed to a click-thirsty press corps. 

“I do feel like Marco [Rubio] and Ted [Cruz] and even people who didn’t do as well like Bobby Jindal, and [Scott] Walker, they sort of grew up in this media environment where they had been burned before and they had been bitten by the sort of 24 hour media environment,” Miller said. “Whereas if Jeb made a gaffe or whatever in 2002, Adam Smith wrote a story for the Tampa Bay Times the next day and it was over. ...He didn’t build up that alligator skin like Marco has.”

Jeb’s rust was compounded by Trump, who delighted at portraying his gaffes as massive character flaws. When the businessman first entered the race, Bush made the strategic choice to ignore him. Jeb “initially was on the side of, my whole campaign is going to be consumed by Trump,” Miller said. “If I start responding to every time he says something crazy about me, I’m never gonna talk about something else.”

As the insults piled up, strategic adjustments had to be made. Not only had Trump accused Jeb of supporting immigration reform because his wife was Mexican — “You can’t let an attack on your wife go by for political reasons but also for moral reasons,” as Miller aptly explained — but his vicious portrayals of Bush were getting commercial-free coverage.

“He lands at the state fair in Iowa and he has this huge press conference. And the whole press conference was about Jeb,” Miller recalled. “I remember sitting there in my apartment … watching the livestream of it and thinking, ‘Okay, we can’t just say nothing.’ This idea that we are going to ignore him and he is going to go away is not really a choice for us.”

But Bush couldn’t muster up an effective response. Not only that, he found the need to do so utterly baffling. He “just didn’t get” being portrayed by Trump as “low energy,” Miller explained. After all, Trump was the one flying in on his private jet for a single campaign stop before heading home to his palatial apartment. Jeb was “living a life of 20-hour-days where he is sending me emails at four in the morning and sending me emails at midnight,” Miller said. “I don’t know that it even clicked with him.”

The campaign began to enter, what Miller called, a “death spiral.” Their falling poll numbers were prompting terrible news coverage, but the only way to get better news coverage was to get better poll numbers. The one move they had was to swing back at Trump, which Jeb did by consciously acting more brash during the debates.

Had the rest of the Republican field had more foresight, they might have joined along. But Jeb quickly discovered that he’d become a human shield for the other candidates in the race.

"I felt Jeb was basically a shield for some these guys on the debate stage." -- Tim Miller, Jeb Bush’s former communications director

“And I understand it,” Miller stressed. “If I was sitting in the debate prep for any other candidates, I can’t imagine that I would have suggested: ‘You know what you need to do is throw some punches against Donald Trump.’ No let Jeb handle it. He’s the one who is taking all the incoming. And you saw what happened.”

What happened was that Jeb’s candidacy kept plummeting while Trump, and his schoolyard antics, drew more voters in. By the fall, the Bush campaign was getting back poll numbers that showed this wasn’t an electorate suited for Jeb, and all but confirmed there was going to be no rosy conclusion to the campaign.

Miller recalled one survey they put into the field that October that asked, among other things, what character traits voters least liked about Jeb. Nursing a hangover from his brother’s bachelor party in New Orleans, he scrolled down to see the results. They were startling. Over 70 percent said it was something related to the last name or him being nerdy or not tough enough that gave them pause. Everything else — his support for immigration reform or common core, or even those gaffes — was barely making a difference.

“I remember looking at that and thinking: ‘I don’t know how we are going to fix this,’” Miller recalled. They couldn’t.

Listen to the podcast above or download it on iTunes.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... there are very few states that are growing increasingly Republican." Too bad, GOP, you're in deep doo-doo, and Trump is not at fault.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Amazing when you consider the blue states are regularly in much better fiscal condition than the red states; the red states per-capita require more federal aid than the blue states; the blue states attract many more talented immigrants than the red states; and not to mention, anyone in their right mind would much rather live in NY, Cali, MA, WA, or IL than Mississippi ,Alabama or West Virginia.
   *  Just look at that map and ask yourself one question: Where would you live in you had the money to live anywhere in our country? I'll tell you right now - BLUE STATES! Blue states have much, much better social systems, schools, parks, cultural venues, etc. Short of Montana, Colorado,and maybe Virginia, there isn't a red state on that map that most individuals want to call home. But the Blue States are the west coast, east coast, Great Lakes, Florida and Hawaii. The Blues have run the board.
*  lol @ conservatives relying on someone going to jail in order to have a chance. Yet their bad ideas are never to blame.
*  Good, if not groundbreaking, story. The trend is decidedly not the GOPs friend. Yet it has done zilch to broaden it's appeal. If anything, they've lessened it. They're going to get pantsed in November and it's largely their own fault. Clinton will cruise and the Senate will flip. Guessing the Repugs will rapidly reverse their stance on Garland, but will it be too late?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Analysis: Republicans have a massive electoral map problem that has nothing to do with Trump
By Chris Cillizza, May 2, 2016

If the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic nominee in each of the last six elections, here's what the electoral map would look like. 

 (The Washington Post)
Politico reported Monday on a Florida poll conducted for a business group in the state that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 13 points and Ted Cruz by nine.

Why is that important? Because if Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It's that simple.

Here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.

The Republican map - whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer - is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a hell of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes.

Many Republicans - particularly in Washington - are already preparing to blame a loss this fall, which many of them view as inevitable, on the divisiveness of Trump. That's not entirely fair to Trump, though.

While his dismal numbers among women and Hispanics, to name two groups, don't help matters and could - in a worst-case scenario - put states like Arizona and even Utah in play for Democrats, the map problems that face the GOP have very, very little to do with Trump or even Cruz.

Instead they are, largely, demographic problems centered on the GOP's inability to win any large swath of non-white voters. New Mexico, a state in which almost half the population is Latino, is the ur-example here. In 2004, George W. Bush won the Land of Enchantment in his bid for a second term. (His margin over John Kerry was 588 votes.) Eight years later, Barack Obama won the state by 10 points over Mitt Romney; neither side targeted it in any meaningful way.

What has become increasingly clear is that any state with a large or growing non-white population has become more and more difficult for Republicans to win. Virginia and North Carolina, long Republican strongholds, have moved closer and closer to Democrats of late. (Obama won both states in 2008 and carried Virginia in 2012.)

At the same time as these states have grown friendlier to Democrats, there are very few states that are growing increasingly Republican. Wisconsin and Minnesota are two but neither is moving rapidly in Republicans' favor just yet.

What you are left with then is an electoral map in which the Democratic nominee begins at a significant advantage over the Republican one. (It is the obverse of the massive Republican electoral college edge of the 1980s.) And that edge is totally distinct from any individual candidate and his/her strengths or weaknesses. Yes, Trump as the nominee is more problematic than Ryan as the nominee, but the idea that Ryan would start the general election with a coin-flip chance of being elected president is just wrong.

The Republican map problem goes deeper than Trump - or any one candidate. Blaming Trump for a loss this November not only misses the point but could ensure that Republicans are doomed to repeat history in 2020.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Does the Constitution cover someone who wasn’t actually exercising a constitutional right?"

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Has Thomas ever been on the right (left?) side of any decision?
    *  Unless Scalia told him, but then Scalia was almost never on the right side of any decision that mattered.
*  Thomas continuing the insanity without Scalia.
*  wow! the twisted logic of a conservative is mind-boggling. When it comes to justice Thomas, the rest of us await a similar fate that bestowed Scalia. The world and the USA will be much better off.
*  This actually made it to the Supreme Court? Really? Out of all the cases per year that the SC refuses to hear, they hear one about a guy getting demoted for picking up a sign?
*  Scalia, Thomas and Alito always vote against working American's civil rights. It is so predictable, I knew immediately who voted against civil rights as soon as I saw the 6 - 2 decision.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Supreme Court Rules Political Speech Is Protected Even If You Didn’t Actually Speak

What matters is the motive of those who sought to punish you.

By Cristian Farias, April 26, 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a former police officer who was demoted by his supervisors because they thought, mistakenly, that he had engaged in political activity while off duty.

The 6-2 decision in Heffernan v. City of Paterson, a dispute over the reach of the First Amendment for public employees, might seem like a no-brainer. But the justices faced the rather tricky question of whether the First Amendment shields employees who aren’t engaging in protected political conduct but are merely “perceived” by their superiors to be doing so.

Does the Constitution cover someone who wasn’t actually exercising a constitutional right?

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that it does. But to get there, he and his colleagues had to first acknowledge that neither the court’s prior decisions nor the text of the federal statute that allows citizens to sue for vindication of their civil rights is very clear on the question.

Jeffrey Heffernan, the man at the center of the case, hoped to convince the Supreme Court that it’s the motive of the employer who demoted him — not whether his activities were actually political — that matters.

In 2005, Heffernan, who was good friends with a candidate looking to unseat José “Joey” Torres, the mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, was spotted by a member of the mayor’s security detail while picking up a lawn sign at the candidate’s campaign operation. The sign wasn’t for Heffernan but for his bedridden mother, who had asked him to do her a favor.

A day later, Paterson’s chief of police, who had been appointed to his post by Torres, demoted Heffernan to foot patrol for his apparent “overt involvement” in a political campaign. Heffernan later sued.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court concluded that Heffernan’s First Amendment right didn’t rest on whether he was, in fact, engaged in constitutionally protected political activity, but whether his superiors were motivated to discourage such activity when they took action against him.

“When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment ... even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee’s behavior,” Breyer wrote.

Curiously, the court decided the constitutional question while cautioning there was a big hole in the case: whether Heffernan might have been punished not for apparently supporting the mayor’s rival but under a “neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign.” Given the lack of clarity, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Justice Clarence Thomas, continuing with a recent dissenting streak, disagreed with the majority. He would have ruled that the “factual impossibility” of suing over the violation of a right you never publicly exercised means the officer should have lost this case.

“If the facts are as Heffernan has alleged, the City’s demotion of him may be misguided or wrong. But, because Heffernan concedes that he did not exercise his First Amendment rights, he has no cause of action under” the federal statute used here, Thomas wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who heard oral arguments in the case in January, might have agreed with Thomas.

Heffernan “was associating with his mother, I suppose, in picking up the sign for her,” Scalia said at the hearing. But the justice also noted, “He was not expressing any First Amendment view whatever. I mean, he was fired for the wrong reason, but there’s no constitutional right not to be fired for the wrong reason.”

With Tuesday’s decision, it is clear that view didn’t win the day.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"That every single request is essentially approved, however, seems at least curious if not a bit off."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Of course it could be that the FBI and NSA really did their homework before making the requests... could be.. The Court had no reason to deny the requests because they were in every way, legal. Could be, but I do doubt it, as in my experience, no Government Agency is perfect.
*  Why are the judges on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court not being named in this article? If they are engaged in constitutionally authorized actions, they should be very proud of the patriotic acts they are performing and need to step up and take credit for being America's true defenders.
*  This isn't a court, it's an accomplice. Most of the requests by the NSA are unconstitutional and the secret court hides the illegality. This needs to be brought out into the open and stopped. We are losing our freedoms in America very fast.
*  Of those 1,457 requests for surveillance warrants, how many resulted in arrests or convictions? Zero! How many resulted in foiled terrorist plots? Zero! It's as if the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover is running the FBI again.
*  What condones "secret court"? Ive seen some odd behavior in even my local traffic court where cameras and recording devices are not allowed. I think all courts should be filmed and recorded to protect the public.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Can you say ‘rubber stamp?’ FBI and NSA requests never denied by secret court
By Bruce Brown, April 30, 2016

You likely don’t know much about the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Though it keeps a low profile, this is the court the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency go to when they want permission to put someone under surveillance. And they don’t get turned down, according to Reuters, citing a Justice Department memo. In 2015 the court received and approved 1,457 requests from the FBI and NSA. There were a bit fewer requests in 2014, but all of those were approved as well.

The surveillance requests are for email or telephone intercepts. If granted, which is apparently always, they generally are carried out with the assistance of Internet telecommunications service providers.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was founded in 1978 to hear requests by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on foreign suspects present in the U.S. It stands to reason that if you’re spying on spies, it’s better not to ask for permission in open court and leave a public paper trail.

The secretive court was set up to scrutinize the requests in secret, in order to ensure compliance with applicable civil rights requirements. That all makes sense. That every single request is essentially approved, however, seems at least curious if not a bit off. The government response about its perfect record of approvals is that the FBI and NSA are very careful when applying for surveillance and that the court at times modifies the requests. In 2014, 19 requests were modified, in 2015, 80 were altered.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court hears more than surveillance requests. The FBI can also file National Security Letters (NSLs), asking Internet and telecommunications providers for customer information on foreign residents and U.S. citizens. Some NSLs ask for subscriber names, addresses, and billing information only, while others also request browsing history. The majority of information requests also come with a gag order, prohibiting the companies from informing customers of the requests. No information was provided showing the number of NSLs that were approved or denied.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"'... It should be up to Congress to decide the rules for government hacking after an informed public debate.'"

...................................................................................................................................................................
SCOTUS Approves Broader Hacking Powers For FBI. What Could Go Wrong?
By Aaron Rupar, Aril 29, 2016

While conversations surrounding decryption dominate the tech news cycle, the FBI is on the cusp of drastically increasing its hacking powers.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court quietly signed off on changes to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 that one expert calls “possibly the broadest expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI’s expansion.”

The Rule 41 changes, which will go into effect December 1 unless Congress intervenes, allow judges to grant the FBI search warrants to remotely hack into computers even when their physical location cannot be determined. That means the FBI could potentially receive authorization to hack devices abroad, whereas judges currently cannot issue search warrants unless they know the computer in question is in their jurisdiction.

In a blog post about the rule changes, Joseph Hall, the chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, explains that countless internet users who aren’t necessarily up to anything nefarious could now become become subject to one of the FBI’s so-called “Network Investigative Techniques” (NIT).

"The simple fact is that there are many, many ways to intentionally or unintentionally 'conceal through technological means' a device’s location, and most of those techniques are regularly used for completely legitimate online behavior that has nothing to do with crime," Hall wrote.

NITs give investigators full remote access and control of targeted computers without the owner’s permission. This means that once the FBI gets its warrant, it not only has full access to a suspect’s data, but it also has ability to install software, upload files, and even spy on suspects using their computers’ cameras and microphone.

Another aspect of the changes would allow judges to issue search warrants in situations where multiple computers located in different locales have been "damaged" by linked forms of malware.

"The statute’s definition of 'damage' is very broad, encompassing any type of intentional damage to a computer," Hall added. "That opens this authority to be much broader than botnets, and it would in fact reach hundreds of millions of computers around the world that have been infected with garden-variety malware and viruses."

In a statement, a Department of Justice spokesperson said "the amendment makes explicit that it does not change the traditional rules governing probable cause and notice," but critics counter that ambiguities surrounding terms like "conceal through technological means" and "damage" opens the door to greater surveillance of internet users both domestically and abroad.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has already announced he'll be introducing legislation to roll back the changes. From his statement:

“These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy and the scope of the government’s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices. I plan to introduce legislation to reverse these amendments shortly, and to request details on the opaque process for the authorization and use of hacking techniques by the government...

Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once; and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime. These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting. Substantive policy changes like these are clearly a job for Congress, the American people and their elected representatives, not an obscure bureaucratic process."

Wyden's push to have Congress reverse the Rule 41 change was applauded by Amie Stepanovich, U.S. Policy Manager at Access Now, who writes, “This is a major shift. It should be up to Congress to decide the rules for government hacking after an informed public debate."

But Hall told ThinkProgress his sense is a bill along the lines of what Wyden is proposing has little chance of becoming law between now and December 1.

"It's an election year and this is pretty obscure," he said. "I don't think there's much of an appetite to do anything in Congress."

FBI surveillance has come under renewed scrutiny over the last year in the wake of reports revealing the bureau used advanced technology on airplanes to monitor protesters. Other FBI investigations reportedly utilized planes equipped with technology capable of tracking thousands of cellphones, raising privacy concerns that are only exacerbated by news the bureau's hacking capabilities are set to significantly increase.
...................................................................................................................................................................