2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Whiskeyjack]

Here's The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty with an article titled "Donald Trump dominated New York. This changes nothing."

In New York on Tuesday, Donald Trump scored his first truly "yuge" primary win, finally pocketing a majority of a state's votes (60.5 percent, in this case), rather than just a plurality. The New York native also swept nearly all of the Empire State's delegates, giving him a seemingly insurmountable lead of about 300 delegates over Ted Cruz in the race to 1,237. (Trump now has more than 840.) And to boot, Cruz was humiliated in New York. He proved, once again, that he is a candidate with extremely limited appeal.

The percentage of remaining delegates that Trump needs to secure the nomination before the Republican convention is plummeting, and it will continue to fall next week, when 100 or so delegates could come his way in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and the mid-Atlantic states. So, yes, Trump can win the nomination ahead of the convention. But it will be tough. It depends on running up wins throughout California's 53 congressional districts, and persuading the substantial portion of Pennsylvania's unbound delegates to vote for the candidate who won the state.

Regardless, the basic dynamic of the election is set. Nothing that happened in New York suggests that Trump has made a giant leap out of the tar pit into which his candidacy has sunk. A real frontrunner would be planning his convention, and getting his donors to max out in preparation for the national campaign. Trump is not racking up real endorsements. Nobody is putting pressure on his rivals to drop out and endorse him. He is limping to the finish line. He may cross it. Hey may come so close that the party just gives him a pity-shove over it. He may fail just enough for Cruz to make a convention play. In any case, absent a white knight, the party will nominate Trump or Cruz, both of whom are unpopular sure-losers.

Trump doesn't seem to have anything up his sleeve to change this dynamic. Earlier in the primaries, when it seemed like media or voter attention was drifting away from Trump, he simply announced a more extreme position on immigration or trade. It allowed him to seize the initiative, and the press. He would occasionally hint that some of this was just for the rubes voting for him. He said that, as president, he could become politically correct.

Whatever his sincerity, Trump doesn't seem likely to try it again. Either he genuinely is out of populist tricks or he thinks that any more attempts would harm him in the general election. On a talk radio appearance before the New York votes came in, Trump was asked if he would change anything from the beginning of his campaign. He replied, "I guess I could have toned a couple of words down or thoughts down, would have been nice." Regrets, he has a few.

Trump also hasn't done anything to unite himself with the parts of the party that have opposed him so far. He announced a plan to list a number of judges from which he would select Supreme Court nominees. Social conservatives remain unmoved. His announcement of his foreign policy advisory team was as reassuring as entering into the most important meeting of his life with a joy-buzzer and a can of nuts filled with a gag-snake ready to pop out. Trump has quite literally spent more time trying to reconcile with Megyn Kelly of Fox News than with the party that he is dividing and maybe-sorta-almost-not-quite conquering.

Given that Trump seems tired and genuinely uninterested in shaking up his message in a way that would seal the campaign for him before the convention, it's hard not to think that deep down, his preferred outcome is to have the nomination pulled away from him at a contested convention. He would be immediately relieved of the responsibility of having to run a campaign, or of being president. He would be free to launch rhetorical grenades at a doomed Republican nominee. He'd get to be a victim of the political system and he'd get to say "I told you so" when the GOP nominee almost inevitably loses to Hillary Clinton. That's the best deal on the table for him. He'd probably take it.

In other words, New York changed nothing and confirmed everything worth knowing about this election: The Republican Party is doomed.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Understood. I just have a problem with the entire system and think it should be addressed somehow. Maybe my ideas were crap. I'm sure there are better ideas out there.

I didn't mean to come across so snarky, and there's nothing wrong with discussing how things could be improved. But when "reforms" start getting proposed that would require amending the Constitution, it's important to realize that we're probably entering the realm of fantasy.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Here's The Week's Michael Brendan Dougherty with an article titled "Donald Trump dominated New York. This changes nothing."

I agree with this.

I also think that the Dem drama is flying under the radar because of Trump. I think Nate Silvers put out an article the other day saying that HRC doesn't necessarily have the magic number locked up. Bernie has every intention of staying in the race until the convention, which means he's going to be playing defense the whole time trying to keep delegates away from HRC. If the DNC uses it's super delegates to push HRC through, they could stir up a problem among the populists. Bernie, while he may not win, has opened the floodgates for a progressive movement. One that doesn't fully back HRC. Things could get interesting for the Dems as well. *All this despite some sort of wild hypothetical scenario where HRC could be indicted. Oh my, the drama if that happens prior to the convention or during the general election.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I didn't mean to come across so snarky, and there's nothing wrong with discussing how things could be improved. But when "reforms" start getting proposed that would require amending the Constitution, it's important to realize that we're probably entering the realm of fantasy.

Isn't the Constitution set up for such amendments? Seems like every generation gets something amended in their lifetime. Wolf-PAC is currently going on right now across the country trying to get amendments in place to get money out of politics (and they've already won some states). I'm not an expert, clearly. Honest question.

 

[Legacy]

Democracy by its very nature is supposed to be representative. What about letting say... The state of California by itself... say about representative leadership? It's not more democratic, it's completely the opposite of that in fact.

Democracy is the opposite of what has happened with control of state legislatures and subsequent redrawing of state districts to suit their purposes - gerrymandering.

In 2010, a millionaire invested $30 million in state legislative battles. With control of 12 more legislatures, Republicans redrew the district lines. After the 2012 election, the House of Representatives was 237-201 Republican majority despite the fact Democratic House candidates got 1.4 million more votes than Republican candidates.

For 2020, the Republicans are launching RedMap 2020 and aiming to invest $125 million to expand their majority in the statehouses and redraw the nation's electoral lines. Democrats have launched Advantage 2020 last year, a super PAC that hopes to raise $70 million in states those states where redistricting is on the line.

In 2012, House Republicans won only 49 percent of Pennsylvania's popular vote, they won 72 percent of its House seats (13 of 18). In New York, Dems won 66% of the vote and 77% of the House seats (21 of 27). In North Carolina, the popular vote would give seven House seats to the Dems. They got four due to gerrymandering.

Arizona established an independent commission to draw district lines, which triggered a lawsuit by the Republicans to have it overturned. The Supreme Court upheld Arizona's right to have that independent commission.

What's democratic about this? The alternative - what's in your wallet.

 

[irishfan]

Trump's real magic number is less than 1,237 - POLITICO

Gets pretty interesting with the unbound delegates.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Isn't the Constitution set up for such amendments? Seems like every generation gets something amended in their lifetime. Wolf-PAC is currently going on right now across the country trying to get amendments in place to get money out of politics (and they've already won some states). I'm not an expert, clearly. Honest question.

Yes, but getting 35 state legislatures or 2/3 of all Congressmen and Senators to ratify a Constitutional Amendment is a very tall order, and it becomes increasingly unlikely as our politics becomes more and more polarized.

 

[woolybug25]

Democracy is the opposite of what has happened with control of state legislatures and subsequent redrawing of state districts to suit their purposes - gerrymandering.

In 2010, a millionaire invested $30 million in state legislative battles. With control of 12 more legislatures, Republicans redrew the district lines. After the 2012 election, the House of Representatives was 237-201 Republican majority despite the fact Democratic House candidates got 1.4 million more votes than Republican candidates.

For 2020, the Republicans are launching RedMap 2020 and aiming to invest $125 million to expand their majority in the statehouses and redraw the nation's electoral lines. Democrats have launched Advantage 2020 last year, a super PAC that hopes to raise $70 million in states those states where redistricting is on the line.

In 2012, House Republicans won only 49 percent of Pennsylvania's popular vote, they won 72 percent of its House seats (13 of 18). In New York, Dems won 66% of the vote and 77% of the House seats (21 of 27). In North Carolina, the popular vote would give seven House seats to the Dems. They got four due to gerrymandering.

Arizona established an independent commission to draw district lines, which triggered a lawsuit by the Republicans to have it overturned. The Supreme Court upheld Arizona's right to have that independent commission.

What's democratic about this? The alternative - what's in your wallet.

It beats letting LA decide entire elections. Do you really think that there is a system that is both fair and something politicians won't try to abuse? Again, basic civics tells us why popular votes are neither representative nor fair.

 

[Legacy]

You keep answering your own questions. If voter turnout is continuously low, then electorate is the only option that representative voting to the populus. It makes it fair in the sense that all areas of the country, all views, are represented regardless of small fluctuations in voting. For instance, a candidate cannot simply go into LA, drive up voter turnout to 90% promising no taxes for LA, and win the vote despite not getting a majority in any single state.

This is all pretty basic civics, man.

I'll respond to your points only. You continue to take the static view. You can take a look at my gerrymandering post above for the "representative voting" point. Voters don't like the results, there will be higher voting turnout. Don't assume it will remain the same, especially if an increase in candidate's views means more people are represented. An LA vote is the same as a Mississippi vote. Nothing is more democratic - unless you are partisan.

The House would be representative of the popular vote in each state's district. An independent commission would draw the lines. The Senate voting would stay the same - majority of popular vote. Novel, eh?

Basic civics? Right. I talk principles and the exercise of power. I recognize the differences between us.

This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see
How to steal an election: a visual guide

This is actually what America would look like without gerrymandering

Supreme Court upholds Arizona's independent redistricting commission, dealing blow to Republicans --- Checks and Balances...

 

[NDFAN420]

Nothing is more democratic - unless you are partisan.

Exactly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

 

[Irish YJ]

How would you go about abolishing political parties? I'd argue that whatever you did, they'd immediately pop up again under a different guise. Factionalism is part of the human condition.

Sure, but it's just like any other thing in that you can create rules around and police. Just like gangs, monopolies, and a slew of other things. You'll never completely get rid of them but you can diminish their ability to impact.

 

[pkt77242]

What Donald Trump Would Yell at Every 'Game of Thrones' Character | GQ

Jon Snow - “The deal with the wildlings was a bad deal. Should have never made that deal. You can’t trust wildlings. I’ve never seen something so incompetently negotiated. And I mean never. Alliser Thorne could have made a better deal and he has ZERO CREDIBILITY.”

Tyrion Lannister - “Little Tyrion is an embarrassment. A low class slob. Not a fan! A low class slob.”

Joffrey Baratheon - “When the thugs of Flea Bottom started rioting in King’s Landing, Joffrey almost blew it. He was vicious, he was horrible, but he put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”

Tommen Baratheon - “A dope. Incompetent. Would never call out radical Islam. We’re supposed to respect this king? WRONG!”

Melisandre - “The Westerosi should ban all followers of R’hllor until we can figure out what is going on. ”

Ser Davos Seaworth - “You can’t be soft on crime or this is what happens. A smuggler as Hand of the King. And speaking of hands, look at his fingers. So short! My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”

Bran Stark - “I’m sorry he’s a cripple but he shouldn’t have been spying on the Queen. I’m not saying he got what he deserved, but you know maybe he did. Maybe he did, I don’t know.”

Sandor Clegane, the Hound - “I love the poorly educated and he’s as dumb as a pile of burned up bricks. He’s just very, very dumb, and so what! Good for him!”

Margaery Tyrell - “Margaery is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husbands died—they made a good decision.”

Oberyn Martell, the Red Viper - “When Dorne sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing poison. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”

Ned Stark - “Low energy. He couldn’t even outsmart the Small Council and believe me, those guys are a bunch of bought and paid for morons. BAD!”

Robb Stark - “Too horny. Sad!”

Stannis Baratheon - “I think even the haters know I would never burn Ivanka alive. Pathetic!”

Jaime Lannister - “The Kingslayer should not take back Cersei. She cheated on him like a dog and will do it again! He can do much better!”

Cersei Lannister - “I’ve made my feelings about Cersei clear. She’s a bimbo. Shame! Shame!”

The Brotherhood Without Banners - “Really bad people!”

Grand Maester Pycelle - “Should be fired!”

Arya Stark - “Look, I hate to say this, because I was pulling for her, but Arya is a loser, okay? She ran away from her trouble and abandoned her dog, her friends, her family. She is in a cult and unhappy. And now blind? Sad!”

Sansa Stark - “Look, she had a rough time, a very rough time, but when you are dealing with terrorists like the (the Starks) you have to take out their families. That’s the only way to beat them.”

 

[ACamp1900]

Margaery Tyrell - “Margaery is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husbands died—they made a good decision.”

LOLOLOL... although, even he wouldn't say that actress is unattractive... she is fine as HELL.

 

[Legacy]

Yes, but getting 35 state legislatures or 2/3 of all Congressmen and Senators to ratify a Constitutional Amendment is a very tall order, and it becomes increasingly unlikely as our politics becomes more and more polarized.

The way our current system works for the voter - as opposed to the 1800s when we would have more than two parties - is a narrowing of choices, maximization of the influence of money, and exercising a majority to slant results in one party's direction. The emphasis is not on the voters' opinions. A government functions best when decisions are made representing a wider base rather than narrowing it. When Congress is controlled by one party which is controlled by one faction and drives out its moderates, politics becomes increasingly polarized. It will continue that way until there is incentive or disincentive to change. Without that, government acts to obstruct the process, acts against overwhelming public opinion in some cases, and generates general distrust.

Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government
Broad criticism, but positive performance ratings in many areas (Pew Research Center)

It's too hard, long and expensive now for a Trump or a Sanders to fight for views that many Americans see representing them. Each exposes divisions within parties, which only exist as they are due to the concentration of power and disenfranchisement of the American voter. The attraction of the Trump phenomenon is the potential for a mass walkout and permanent fracture in the Party. The attraction of the Sanders phenomenon is the populist movement financing his campaign. Arguably, this year's election process has also worked to exclude a Bloomberg, Biden or Ryan.

Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S.
Just 38% of GOP voters say party would ‘solidly unite’ behind Trump (Pew)

 

[Irish YJ]

Harriet Tubman will be face of the $20 - Apr. 20, 2016

 

[GATTACA!]

LOLOLOL... although, even he wouldn't say that actress is unattractive... she is fine as HELL.

Give me Daenerys every day of the week.

 

[NDFAN420]

Sure, but it's just like any other thing in that you can create rules around and police. Just like gangs, monopolies, and a slew of other things. You'll never completely get rid of them but you can diminish their ability to impact.

But then you have to deal with the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

 

[pkt77242]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ted-cruz-gave-terrible-new-york-concession-speech-innuendo-article-1.2608169

“You may have been knocked down, but America has always been best when she is lying down with her back on the mat

 

[Irish#1]

Harriet Tubman will be face of the $20 - Apr. 20, 2016

I can see a huge uproar with the PC police complaining that some of these ladies pics are on the back and not the front of some bills.

 

[ACamp1900]

Give me Daenerys every day of the week.

... you've never been known for your intelligence...

 

[ND NYC]

drop that thing in the SOIAF/GOT threads too-they will enjoy it

 

[irishfan]

Pennsylvania Republicans have a weird primary. Here's how it works. - The Boston Globe

such a weird state

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Donald Trump Comes Out Against North Carolina’s ‘Very Strong’ Bathroom Bill

This man irks me to no end.

On whether he believes we should raise taxes on the wealthy: “I do. I do. Including [on] myself.”

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Don't worry, I'll help you. Trump just said he thinks we should raise taxes on the wealthy, yet his actual tax plan lowers taxes and gives the wealthiest people in this country MASSIVE cuts.

Oh, and he opposes the NC Bathroom Bill, thankfully (because it's fucking stupid). But that's not exactly a position I'm sure the people in his base would like him to take. Hmmm, is he a Repub? Is he a Dem? Ask me tomorrow, it'll be something different.

 

[irishfan]

Donald Trump Comes Out Against North Carolina’s ‘Very Strong’ Bathroom Bill

This man irks me to no end.



https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Don't worry, I'll help you. Trump just said he thinks we should raise taxes on the wealthy, yet his actual tax plan lowers taxes and gives the wealthiest people in this country MASSIVE cuts.

Oh, and he opposes the NC Bathroom Bill, thankfully (because it's fucking stupid). But that's not exactly a position I'm sure the people in his base would like him to take. Hmmm, is he a Repub? Is he a Dem? Ask me tomorrow, it'll be something different.

Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Tough on immigration. Said forever ago in this thread he would beat Hillary and I still think it's true. He's going to pivot to the center and win over a lot of independents while letting his Wall talk keep his base engaged.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Tough on immigration. Said forever ago in this thread he would beat Hillary and I still think it's true. He's going to pivot to the center and win over a lot of independents while letting his Wall talk keep his base engaged.

He flip-flops way too much (not that HRC doesn't) for anyone to take him seriously. I mean, how in the hell do you know which Trump you're going to get as POTUS when he's constantly changing his tune? In HRC's defense, you should already know what your'e going to get with her. She's been pandering to the left to compete with Bernie. When he's out of the picture, everyone knows she'll move more center-right/center-left (depending on the issue) per her entire past records.

 

[irishfan]

He flip-flops way too much (not that HRC doesn't) for anyone to take him seriously. I mean, how in the hell do you know which Trump you're going to get as POTUS when he's constantly changing his tune? In HRC's defense, you should already know what your'e going to get with her. She's been pandering to the left to compete with Bernie. When he's out of the picture, everyone knows she'll move more center-right/center-left (depending on the issue) per her entire past records.

Oh, I agree. And I think she is the safer pick. I just think he's going to win. He has a new team coaching him, and I think the flip-flops will be done once it's the general election and everyone is paying full attention. I just think he's going to hammer away at the "crooked" image he wants for Hillary. He's not going to be polite like Bernie. He'll go over the top attacking of her large donor money and will say he donated to her in the past and she came to his wedding and sell it that she'll do anything her donors tell her to do and blah blah blah. One of the things he's been consistent about is less U.S. involvement in the Middle East and that's one area where he can really attack her well. I just think he's going to have a lot of ammo to work with to sell people on the idea that Hillary isn't the champion of the middle and lower class like she tries to be.

 

[GoIrish41]

Oh, I agree. And I think she is the safer pick. I just think he's going to win. He has a new team coaching him, and I think the flip-flops will be done once it's the general election and everyone is paying full attention. I just think he's going to hammer away at the "crooked" image he wants for Hillary. He's not going to be polite like Bernie. He'll go over the top attacking of her large donor money and will say he donated to her in the past and she came to his wedding and sell it that she'll do anything her donors tell her to do and blah blah blah. One of the things he's been consistent about is less U.S. involvement in the Middle East and that's one area where he can really attack her well. I just think he's going to have a lot of ammo to work with to sell people on the idea that Hillary isn't the champion of the middle and lower class like she tries to be.

He'd better count on historically low voter turnout, and get a whole crap load of white men to vote for him. Most women, African Americans and Latinos are not going to vote for him no matter what. He can moderate his position all he wants. I think at this point, it will fall on deaf ears to large portions of the country. And it could cost the GOP more than the White House ... Trump's unpopularity could put GOP House control In danger | MSNBC

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Oh, I agree. And I think she is the safer pick. I just think he's going to win. He has a new team coaching him, and I think the flip-flops will be done once it's the general election and everyone is paying full attention. I just think he's going to hammer away at the "crooked" image he wants for Hillary. He's not going to be polite like Bernie. He'll go over the top attacking of her large donor money and will say he donated to her in the past and she came to his wedding and sell it that she'll do anything her donors tell her to do and blah blah blah. One of the things he's been consistent about is less U.S. involvement in the Middle East and that's one area where he can really attack her well. I just think he's going to have a lot of ammo to work with to sell people on the idea that Hillary isn't the champion of the middle and lower class like she tries to be.

I won't agree that Trump will win.

But I completely agree with the rest of your post. Clinton has basically perched herself on a tee and Trump can let her rip at any time he pleases. I think this is why national polling suggests that HRC's lead over Trump is closer than Bernie's. Like him or not, he'd crush Trump because Trump wouldn't have anywhere near the ammo. Hell their main platform of being anti-establishment and not taking money is the exact same.

I've been digging deep lately with Trump vs HRC. I have more problems with Trump than I do Hillary. But here's a recent thought: What if Trump has been trolling the GOP on purpose? The crazier you are, the more support you get from the right, etc. He's received loads of media time. He rose to the top. What if he was batshit crazy racist on purpose in order to win the Repub nomination, only to turn around in the general and go back to being a more moderate candidate? How crazy is it that on some issues, Trump is more left than HRC and HRC is more right than Trump? You've already pointed out the wars in the middle east as an example. Looking at past records, HRC was conservative on gay rights and Trump was liberal. Now they're flipped. Who believes what at this point? Edit: Maybe I'm wrong on Trump as it pertains to gay rights. I must have been misinformed.

One thing is for certain, it won't lack entertainment.

 

[wizards8507]

I won't agree that Trump will win.

But I completely agree with the rest of your post. Clinton has basically perched herself on a tee and Trump can let her rip at any time he pleases. I think this is why national polling suggests that HRC's lead over Trump is closer than Bernie's. Like him or not, he'd crush Trump because Trump wouldn't have anywhere near the ammo. Hell their main platform of being anti-establishment and not taking money is the exact same.

I've been digging deep lately with Trump vs HRC. I have more problems with Trump than I do Hillary. But here's a recent thought: What if Trump has been trolling the GOP on purpose? The crazier you are, the more support you get from the right, etc. He's received loads of media time. He rose to the top. What if he was batshit crazy racist on purpose in order to win the Repub nomination, only to turn around in the general and go back to being a more moderate candidate? How crazy is it that on some issues, Trump is more left than HRC and HRC is more right than Trump? You've already pointed out the wars in the middle east as an example. Looking at past records, HRC was conservative on gay rights and Trump was liberal. Now they're flipped. Who believes what at this point? Edit: Maybe I'm wrong on Trump as it pertains to gay rights. I must have been misinformed.

One thing is for certain, it won't lack entertainment.

I want to push back on your implication that being a "batshit crazy racist" is a normal way to win the Republican nomination, because in any normal year it would never work. It was really a perfect storm for Trump this year because the field was so huge. If the field had started smaller or narrowed sooner, he would have lost the nomination in a landslide to every single other Republican candidate in the race. He was able to ride a plurality of 35% in a field of far too many candidates by doing the batshit crazy things you describe and appealing to his batshit crazy constituents. The prevalence of batshit craziness in the GOP wouldn't have been enough to win the nomination in a two-person race, though it might be at this point now that he's developed an air of inevitability.

As a point of comparison, imagine the Democrat field if it had started with ten candidates and eventually got down to Sanders, Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer. The establishment would have splintered and Sanders would have been able to do what Trump is doing as a front-runner with less than a majority support. The difference betwen Trump and Sanders is that Trump's opponents have been unable to unify while Bernie's opponents are consolidated behind Clinton.

 

[EddytoNow]

I want to push back on your implication that being a "batshit crazy racist" is a normal way to win the Republican nomination, because in any normal year it would never work. It was really a perfect storm for Trump this year because the field was so huge. If the field had started smaller or narrowed sooner, he would have lost the nomination in a landslide to every single other Republican candidate in the race. He was able to ride a plurality of 35% in a field of far too many candidates by doing the batshit crazy things you describe and appealing to his batshit crazy constituents. The prevalence of batshit craziness in the GOP wouldn't have been enough to win the nomination in a two-person race, though it might be at this point now that he's developed an air of inevitability.

As a point of comparison, imagine the Democrat field if it had started with ten candidates and eventually got down to Sanders, Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer. The establishment would have splintered and Sanders would have been able to do what Trump is doing as a front-runner with less than a majority support. The difference betwen Trump and Sanders is that Trump's opponents have been unable to unify while Bernie's opponents are consolidated behind Clinton.

Hillary has taken it really easy on Sanders, because she needs a large turnout in the general election and doesn't want to risk turning off any of the far left. Bernie has benefited from the small field, because he is trying to portray himself as an outsider. If the field were larger, one of the other candidates would have called out Bernie on his 30+ year political career and the fact that he only declared himself a Democrat so he could run for president. He knew an independent or third-party bid would go nowhere. He has benefited from the Republican obsession with bringing down the Clintons. The Republicans don't consider Bernie a serious candidate in a general election. If Bernie is the candidate, they will portray him as a Communist by using Socialism and Communism interchangeably.

Hillary is a known commodity. That's why her unfavorables are so high. But she has nowhere to go but up. The dirt has already been thrown. Bernie, however, has yet to face the Republican smear campaign. It worked against John Kerry, and Bernie can expect to see a misinformation campaign beyond the scope of anything that has been seen to date. Donald Trump is the master of the smear campaign. He portrayed Jeb Bush's quiet calm demeanor as being tired and worn out. He just kept repeating it until voters began to believe it. He has called Cruz "Lyin' Ted" so many times that most Repulicans believe Cruz to be an habitual liar. He kept calling Rubio "Little Marco" until voters believed Marco wasn't up to the job.

If the media had done its job, Trump would no longer be a factor. But the media is content to haul in the dollars from the Trump circus rather than ask him to explain his lack of policy. There is so much contradiction in his own words, a diligent media could expose his lack of conviction for anything he has been saying. Does anyone really see Trump as a man that can bring the country together?

When the general election gets underway, will the media rehash all the old (and unproven) charges against Hillary or will it finally take a close look at Trump or Cruz and conduct a thorough investigation into what Trump and/or Cruz has been saying and doing for the last 30 years?