A Crazy Kind of Tuesday, March 22 2016 Kind Of Day

It's something the Horde picks up on, how Tuesdays as a work day can be.

It's a crazy day around here for certain.

My library has events today to cope with this week being Spring Break for the county schools. So our children's librarian invited in a local farmer who raises Angora Wabbits for their fur, and will display some woven items and let the kids pet a bunny or two.

Meanwhile, our Friends of the Library are hosting a three-day book sale for used children's books to promote our Friends group, their ongoing book sales, and the library in general. I just want to ask the seven readers of this blog to Support Your Local Libraries all the time, please and thank you.

In the rest of the world, the ongoing primary slog travels west to Arizona and Utah I believe, maybe Idaho.

There's tragic news coming out of Brussels and Belgium of a series of terror attacks. Wish this crap would just end, but there's enough bastards out there who want war and who want to hurt others and until we get rid of that hate this violence is not going to end...

There's more hopeful news about Obama's current diplomatic visit to Cuba. No major announcements yet, but usually a trip like this garners some kind of financial or political exchange of promises.

And we're rooting for the Tampa Bay Rays to win today in their game against the National Cuban squad.

So, busy day, scary day, hopeful day.

Update: Rays Win!

Trying to embed video of the game:


Busy day, scary day, hopeful day.

The Mysterious Case of Trump Losing Utah

That recent map generator from RealClearPolitics I used to project the demographics of the 2016 election - and how it could be a nightmare for the Republicans - isn't perfect.

For starters, it's merely a projection of how the numbers and balloting played out in 2012. The situation this year in 2016 can be vastly different in terms of actual turnout, actual demographic shifts (will the Hispanic voting bloc reject Trump by huge numbers? Likely, but not absolute), and actual voter mood.

There's a noticeable glitch in the generator, for example. And I noticed it the first time I messed with the numbers on the White Non-Hispanic percentage supporting Republicans: as I dropped the 60 percent down to 49 percent to reflect Trump's current polling in that demographic, one state remained solidly Red as many others - Texas in particular - switched Blue.

Utah.

Thing is, under normal circumstances Utah would be a solidly conservative, utterly Republican state. The majority of the population leans that way, is hugely White in its demographics, and shares many traits of the Conservative/Libertarian mindset with other Western states.

However, Utah is a little different with one thing.

Mormons.

A uniquely Americanized off-shoot of Christianity, Mormons dominate Utah like few other churches dominate at the state level. They're also decidedly social and fiscal Conservative to the point they are reliably Republican. It's probably why the RCP website designed that map generator to automatically keep Utah Red even in the most dire circumstances under a Trump candidacy.

However, the Real World isn't working that way.

Trump is getting his ass (pardon me, Mormons) kicked in Utah. RealClearPolitics' own poll tracking shows Trump in worst-for-him Third Place behind Cruz and Kasich.

And the reports coming out of Utah are that if Trump wins the Republican nomination, most of the state will happily vote Democratic (even for Hillary) in that situation. Hell Heck the Mormons might even sing a jaunty tune on the way to the polls in November to do so. Per the Deseret News site:

If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Party's nominee, Utahns would vote for a Democrat for president in November for the first time in more than 50 years, according to a new Deseret News/KSL poll.

"I believe Donald Trump could lose Utah. If you lose Utah as a Republican, there is no hope," said former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top campaign adviser to the GOP's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney.

The poll found that may well be true. Utah voters said they would reject Trump, the GOP frontrunner, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate on the general election ballot.

While Clinton was only slightly ahead of Trump — 38 percent to 36 percent — Sanders, a self-declared Democratic socialist, holds a substantial lead — 48 percent to 37 percent over the billionaire businessman and reality TV star among likely Utah voters...

...Also surprising is the number of Utahns who said they wouldn't vote if Trump were on the ballot. Sixteen percent said they'd skip the election if Trump and Clinton were their ballot choices, while 9 percent said they wouldn't vote if it was a Trump-Sanders matchup...

The article doesn't go into the exact reasons why many in Utah will turn against Trump. There are several I can guess at and be reasonably certain I'm right. One is that Trump's openly vulgar lifestyle offends a good number of Mormons who prefer a more modest, personally comfortable existence. There's a lot of successful Mormon businessmen - hi, Mitt! - so it's not the riches that bother them, it's the showing off.

But I guarantee you the biggest reason Mormons are angry at Trump - and will get angry at Republicans if Trump becomes the nominee - is that Trump's direct campaign against immigration - and the insulting and crass way he's gone on to describe Mexicans and Central/South American immigrants - goes against a lot of work that the Mormons have been doing the last few decades of missionary work in Mexico and other nations.

Say what you will about Mormons' religious beliefs, but they are genuinely sincere about their outreach to Hispanic communities. They have reasons to build up such rapport and have been reasonably successful doing so (in some ways better than their missionary work within the United States itself).

This is where Trump's virulent anti-Immigrant and especially anti-Mexican message gets knocked off the rails. Mormons do not care for Trump's open racism on this issue.

I kind of wondered about Utah ever since last year, ever since I heard Trump's opening salvo in his campaign railing against Mexicans and about "building a huge wall". I knew the Mormons wouldn't react well, and the report from Deseret News proves it.

Utah alone isn't going to be a major speed bump in Trump's juggernaut towards Cleveland. There's not enough delegates to make it meaningful for the primaries. However, Utah is of importance in the General election: having the Electoral and Popular votes switch to Hillary/Bernie and the Democrats would be a huge deal.

That news report also brings up a troubling side effect: voter turnout will affect the down-ticket races like the US Senate race for incumbent Mike Lee. If enough voters refuse to show in November - or else show up to vote Democrat across the board out of spite - that would be a major blow to the Republicans' ability to retain control of the Senate (and would get rid of one of the more extremist Senators).

So do pay attention to how Trump does in Utah. And Real Clear Politics may want to revise their map calculator to reflect the mood in Utah (what's the XML code for "pissed"?)

Very Good Reasons To NEVER Vote For Trump

Just to clarify, for all the times I've commented on Trump's con artist ways, and just overall status as evil ignorant half-wit, I need to spell out EXACTLY why Trump is a disaster, has always been a disaster, and will be a disaster if anyone's foolish enough to vote for him.

The most obvious starting point is his failure as a businessman. He keeps promoting himself as this genius deal-maker, but his genius deals involve talking his way out of bankruptcy court with his ass still in one piece while everyone else pays for his follies. He's done this at least four times, with countless other broken deals in his wake.

His failures as a casino owner in Atlantic City contributed to that city's decline and ongoing economic malaise.

Here at home - Tampa Bay - Trump dirtied his hands with a contemptible condo scheme from the early 2000s where he scooped up people's deposits and fled with barely a skeleton frame of the building in place.

Don't forget: Trump f-cking killed off an entire sports league. The USFL was an upstart football league looking to compete with the NFL, and had done so by playing in a different part of the calendar (late spring) and in more diverse markets. Like all start-ups, the budding league had its financial woes but had established some strong market places and good teams. Trump had bought the New Jersey team from its Oklahoma-based owner and worked his way into the ownership group, arguing that the new league should compete directly with the NFL in the fall months. When one of his rivals arguing against it got sick from brain cancer, Trump gained control and pushed the move. It immediately killed off teams that couldn't share the same stadiums with the NFL, and they basically had to suspend operations while the owners pushed an antitrust lawsuit.

Combined with that lawsuit, the expectation was that the bigger league would cave and deal, bringing in the more successful USFL owners/teams into an expanded super-league much in the way they did with the AFL in the 1960s (It's near-common knowledge among the people involved that Trump was trying to bully the NFL into taking him as an owner). But the antitrust lawsuit fell apart: the jury found the NFL was behaving like a monopoly, but Trump's moving the USFL to the fall schedule was a self-inflicted punishment and the jury dumped the award down to a single dollar. By law, antitrust fines are tripled. The final check to the USFL ended up being $3.76. Ironically, the check itself - never cashed - is worth hundreds of thousands as a collectible.

The USFL never played another game. Good teams in mid-sized markets disappeared. Just on this alone, we need to avenge the Tampa Bay Bandits, by God...

Oh, and there's RIGHT NOW an ongoing story about another of Trump's failures, the so-called Trump University that is the centerpiece of a major fraud court case.

And that's just his past as a businessman. As his potential future as our highest executive officer...

Trump's lack of foreign policy experience is one thing. The more horrifying thing is his seeming unwillingness to learn or take it serious. As President, it's going to be his key job as Chief of State to represent the United States to the world and work as our primary receiver of ambassadors, foreign leaders, allies and enemies alike. Trump's campaigning attitude seems to be one of "bully now, bully later, bully always".

Trump is a dangerous departure for any campaign front-runner or potential President we've seen in the modern era. At least candidates like Romney in 2012 and Obama in 2008, who were inexperienced in foreign policy matters, make serious efforts to earn and learn towards the job (other candidates like McCain and Kerry and Gore in recent times had the foreign policy gravitas to make it moot points).

For the most part, Trump is going to be one of the most willfully ignorant Presidential hopefuls we've had run for office since William Jennings Bryan (I was going to say Bush the Lesser, but even Bush wasn't this willful. Dubya's ignorance as a candidate was sincere, and in some ways forgivable...). He'd be the most dangerously politically illiterate Presidents in office since Andrew Johnson.

The possibility of Trump being the Commander-in-Chief has already sounded a lot of DEFCON 1 notices among the military observers and insiders. There's been Twitter comments about how the Joint Chiefs are trying to figure out ways of keeping Trump away from the nuclear football, and those comments are not in jest...

The last point to make about Trump and foreign policy is how our own allies are going to react to having Trump as our political leader. There's already been a debate on the floor of Parliament - our staunchest ally - about banning Trump from visiting due to Trump's open racism. This has never happened before in my lifetime, and I'm uncertain if this had ever happened (probably during the early days of US vs. UK tensions). Even Sarah Palin never got this treatment.

In terms of personality, I've already tagged Trump as a clear Active-Negative character based on Professor Barber's model. I've heard there are other personality charting methods for Presidents, and I'm looking for one now. What I am finding are articles and reports from psychologists and therapists conceding that Trump shows the traits of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, From what I'm finding about NPD, it's a fear-driven psychosis that affects decision-making in a way that would be troubling in the person whose decisions impacts upon the lives of the entire planet.

That's all I pretty much want to say about Trump. He's not the successful businessman he claims to be, he promises to be a massive disaster at foreign policy and military leadership, and his personality puts him at the emotional extremes of the likes of Nixon, LBJ, and a whole history book's worth of bad Presidents.

For all that is holy America, for the love of our children and their future, please no. Not Trump. Not one vote more. Please.

Breaking News: OBAMAS IN CUBA.

HISTORIC

EPIC

I hope he brings back a peace treaty, arrangements for open elections, an end to dissident arrests, and some good lunch recipes so he can open up a Cuban / Crafted Beer restaurant in DuPont Circle after 2017.

That's Not How the Electoral College Works

That's not how The Force works! - Han Solo to rookie hero Finn in The Force Awakens

And remember kids, Han was the Skeptic in the original trilogy.

I'm just quoting this because one of the less sane proposals floating out there by the Far Right media hacks - currently terrified that a Trump candidacy will kill the GOP in the general election - is the idea that a Third Party campaign by a "more sincere movement conservative" would split enough votes between Trump, likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE that it would send the results into the House of Representatives for Congress to settle who wins.

That's how the election works, by the by. It's not by Popular count, it's by who wins which states, and the states send Electors depending on the number of Congresspersons (varies) and Senators (+2) they have. Wyoming sends 3 Electors, Florida sends 29, California sends 55. Whomever gets the majority of Electors (divide the total by two, then add 1, that's (538 / 2) = 269 +1 = 270, hence 270towin.com ) wins outright. If no one crosses 270 total, it goes to the House and the House chooses between the top three Electoral getters.

That means the third-party person HAS to win a state to get considered. That's something to bring up later.

You see, there's still that key point of "who wins each state." Because the people - like Erick Erickson, hello again - floating this third-party savior idea do not seem to understand how that is going to play out in a three-way race.

The Third Party Republican Rescue Squad (or TPRRS) seem to think that they can split the existing Red States between Trump and their INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE. And that somehow in the process they can take away enough Blue States from Hillary, even though she'll be campaigning most likely on Obama's legacy and HE won those states with majority counts.

(This is probably because Erickson and his ilk are convinced Trump will take away liberal/moderate voters from Hillary. After all, they're still convinced that Trump is No True Conservative.)

So, just to even start this conversation, we have to ignore the fact that Obama won a majority of states (29 of them) in 2012, and that he won them in head-to-head voter turnouts by getting more voters in each state to show for him instead of Romney. We have to ignore the fact that all Hillary (or Bernie) has to do to win in 2016 is win the same states Obama won in 2012 (which is likely) and it doesn't even matter if Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE splits the remaining Red States. We have to ignore the fact that Obama in 2012 got 332 Electoral votes, easily clearing the 270 hurdle and avoiding the House of Representatives altogether.

This is how insane Erickson and the TPRRS plan already is.

If we go in to examine the evidence a little closer, let's for example look at how Florida in 2012 voted. Obama got 4,235,000-plus votes: Romney got 4,162,000-plus votes. Let's assume that Hillary will get the same voters as Obama (4.2 million roughly), but here comes Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE fighting over the 4.1 million Romney got. Let's figure Trump gets the 45 percent of the Republican primary voters he got just now, so INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE get the 55 percent
(let's figure in the independent NPA voters who will vote Republican into this mix at 50-50 to keep things simple). Thing is, these two candidates will be fighting over a PERCENTAGE of the Romney vote, which in toto was STILL LESS than Obama's (and likely Hillary's). 55 percent of 4.1 million is 2.25 million voters for INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE and Trump gets the remaining 1.8 million.

Here's the thing: HILLARY STILL WINS FLORIDA with her 4.2 million votes over INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE's 2.25 million. And it's Winner-Take-All for Electoral College: Hillary gets all 29 Electors.

Now that's in the Blue States that Obama won. By this math, it's obvious that Hillary's going to win Obama's states. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE ELECTION RIGHT THERE. We don't even have to see what happens in the Red States. But just for sh-ts and giggles, let's take a look.

For example, North Carolina. It was a close race there with Romney getting 50 percent of the voters at 2.2 million and Obama getting 48 percent at 2.1 million. So Hillary can come in and get the same 2.1 million. But now here comes Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE splitting up Mitt's results. Trump got 40 percent of the primary voters, but considering this is a state with his voting base in force (poor White males lacking college education) so let's give him the Cruz vote (37 percent) for a 77 percent total... OF ROMNEY'S NUMBERS. That gives Trump 1.69 million... while Hillary gets that 2.1 million. Guess who wins ALL of North Carolina's Electors in this scenario? Two hints: It won't be Trump, and it won't be INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE. Hillary will actually increase her Electoral College win with this move.

Let's bring in Texas. This is the state that Erickson's pining his hopes on that the INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE can win and thus send the Electoral College into overtime at the House. In 2012 that was a huge win for Romney getting 57 percent turnout at 4.5 million-plus over Obama's 41 percent with 3.3 million. The GOP primary there this 2016 decisively went against Trump (who got 26 percent) while Ted Cruz (whom Erickson does not view as the GOP SAVIOR) got 43 percent. So let's keep Trump at 26 percent while INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE gets 74 percent of Romney's total. That's just over 3.4 million voters... which DOES clear the count that Hillary would get from Obama's voters at 3.3 million. The GOP SAVIOR wins Texas... but there's no guarantee he'll win the other Red States that had decisive Romney wins (anything over 55 percent of the total turnout), because Trump can garner half of those (like Tennessee and West Virginia and South Carolina).

And don't forget, Hillary's still winning all the Obama Blue States from 2012 in any three-way race like this. Which means this is STILL a moot point because she'll be pretty much winning the whole kit and caboodle. It won't matter if a Third Party candidate wins a state away from Trump, because as long as Hillary wins what Obama won this will never get to the House.

A three-way race is not going to guarantee the Electors get thrown to the House to resolve anything: the only way that happens is if Trump AND the INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE both take away the voting numbers from Hillary. But how likely is that?

If you can picture Trump taking away voters from the Democrats using his anti-Immigrant, anti-government stances, you're crazier than I am. If you can picture Trump taking away moderate voters from Democrats on the simple fact he's a Total Newb at politics, you're crazier than that. If you can picture Erick Erickson's GOP SAVIOR (the "movement conservative" whoever that will be) working that same twisted magic to win away the necessary votes, you're the Mayor of Crazytown.

As Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog points out - via Josh Marshall - there is no real difference between Trump and the projected INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE when it comes to the issues. As Marshall noted:

It would be one thing if there were a moderate or establishment independent bid (though it is a dubious proposition that the 'establishment' is really 'moderate', even in the context of the GOP politics). That would provide a very clear contrast with Trump. But if you run a 'movement conservative' against Trump, it gets pretty hard to see where you can find any real points of contrast on any significant issues.

So, hardline on illegal immigration? No real difference.
Hardline on terrorism, needing to say "Islamic terrorism", creeping Sharia or any of the rest. No real difference.
Huge, huge tax cut? Same.
Obamacare terrible? Same.
Generalized opposition to 'political correctness'? Check.
Abortion? Check.
Hating on Obama as feckless, exotic loser? Check...

Marshall notes only one major difference between Trump and the Republican Establishment, and that's on trade. Granted, there may be a significant number of Far Left Democrats who might - might! - switch to Trump on that issue alone. But Trump is so offensive on so many other issues that most self-respecting Progressive Dems will not take that risk (they certainly won't switch to a "movement conservative" whose trade positions are equal or worse than Hillary's).

Essentially, there's no sane reason ANYONE who voted for Obama will switch to either Trump or Erickson's unicorn "movement conservative". You'll get just Hillary standing there holding Obama's legacy while Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE fight over chicken bones. Those two will just be hammering each other into tiny little pieces.

This is essentially a rehash of the 1992 Election, when Bush the Elder running as the Establishment Republican candidate contended more with the upstart proto-Populist Right-leaning Ross Perot, and split votes with him while Bill Clinton (nowhere near 50 percent Popular vote) kept enough Democratic/Left votes to win enough states and the Electoral College.

Now, granted, we're basing this all on 2012 numbers and turnouts. For all we know, the numbers will be different this November. But the polling so far does not suggest any significant switches from Obama's 2012 states over to the Republicans' side. Given the way a three-way race works out - 1992, 1968, 1912 - the winner is going to be the one who stands on the sidelines and lets the two big bulls pummel each other into cow meat.

And the thing is, both bulls this 2016 cycle are not that big to begin with. Both Trump and INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE are both fighting over Second Place behind Hillary at this point. All that will be at stake in the end is who avoids being in Third.

And just what does Erickson think is going to happen if the miracle occurs, if he and his TPRRS people throw enough states to their Third Party INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE to force it to the House?

It's not going to be pretty.

The math currently points to the Democratic candidate getting the Popular vote, which may still happen in a contested Electoral College count. Trump's Popular vote will likely put him in Second Place in that scenario, with the INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE sitting at Third. If the GOP-lead House opts to put the Third Place guy over both Popular vote winners, it will be a huge insult to a vast majority of voters both Left and Right. Think Democrats are still sore about Dubya winning in 2000 with fewer Popular votes all because of a contested Electoral count for Florida? This will be a thousand times more sickening to them.

And that's not the biggest fallout from that possible move. The Republican Party will split forever (I normally won't argue that point as I believe our system favors two parties, but this is Serious Business).

The Trump faction will NEVER forgive the Republican Establishment for their betrayal. The Democrats will be pissed as well, but the end result is going to be brutal for the Republicans in 2018 when the midterms roll around. Trump's voters will clearly refuse to vote for ANY Republican candidate at any level - and may well run successful Third Party candidates of their own (did anyone hold onto Perot's Reform Party trademarks?).

It probably won't even be 2018 when the damage strikes. If Erickson and the Establishment prop up any third party challenger to Trump this summer, those voters will know right now that the Republican Party bigwigs are setting them up to fall. Betrayed right here and now, Trump's voters will have NO REASON to vote for ANY Republican candidate. Out of sheer spite, they could sit out the key Senate races and even refuse to vote for the Republican House candidates. If Erickson's TPRRS do pull off the House maneuver, it's going to be with a Lame-Duck Republican House in December 2016 that can likely go to the Democrats (even against the massive gerrymandering that favors the GOP right now) the following January 2017... meaning that Erickson's INSERT GOP SAVIOR HERE is going to be sitting in the White House all alone against a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. And even though they are Democrats who believe in a working government, they are NOT going to be in a forgiving mood.

It's still a a Lose-Lose scenario for Erickson. Then again, that happens to him a lot for what I've seen how he works...

Poll: Coming Up With an Appropriate Derogatory Nickname For Trumpaphiles...

So I'm in a bit of disagreement with Infidel753 about what to nickname Trump Supporters. So I went and created a Survey so we can make this an open and shared decision among the seven readers of this blog.

Create your own user feedback survey

Please scroll through.

I'm not sure if this survey has a timer to it, but the sooner you put in your responses the quicker we'll get to sorting this all out.

Thank ye.

And GO RAYS.

What's This About MY BOYS the Tampa Bay Rays Playing In Cuba

So yeah, I'm a bit of a sports nut.

So yeah, I'm from the Tampa Bay area and I root for my homeboys. GO BUCS! GO BOLTS! GO... uh, we don't have a basketball team. Oh, and GO RAYS!

So yeah, I'm a little stoked that my baseball team THE TAMPA BAY RAYS are going to travel to Cuba this week and play an exhibition game against the Cuban National team. It's the first trip since 1999 by a major league franchise to the country that produces a ton of pro-caliber baseball talent and yet due to our political divisions we have no official contact with them.

But this trip is a little different. This time the Rays are playing to a Cuban crowd at a time our American-set sanctions are lifting one by one to free up travel and communication between the U.S. and Cuba. The relationship between our two nations have been at their best ever since 1960.

And this is a huge game because President Barack Obama - the President whose foreign policy efforts toward diplomacy allowed this thaw to occur, the President who has bucked forty-plus years of hardline policy that never resolved matters - will be in attendance. Obama is traveling to Cuba this week as part of an attempt to further open relations, make more arrangements and deals to bring to an end more than five decades of Cold-War hostility between two nations separated by 90 miles of Caribbean waters.

What will it be like for the Rays to be there during a potentially historic week? A week where Obama could finalize deals with Cuba to establish open elections, end the arrests of political dissidents, normalize business ties and resolve reparations of lost properties from the 1950s? Where Obama could bring back to DC a major peace treaty that even the most hardline obstructionist Republican Senators know they can't shut down without killing themselves?

Okay, maybe that doesn't all happen. But isn't it pretty to think so?

The game is going to be on Tuesday March 22 during the afternoon, I gotta work that day but I'm going to do what I can to listen in or view via the Intertubes.

This is an historic event.

I hope the Rays win.

Playing With the Demographics On The Electoral College Map: March 2016 Edition (Updated)

You probably notice I like messing with interactive maps.

There's a fun one on 270towin.com where you can predict which state goes Red or Blue for 2016, and can see which states the polling experts still view as toss-ups.

Well, Jamelle Bouie from Slate has been tweeting a bit about Trump's lack of popularity among the demographics of the projected 2016 voters, and he's pointing to another map generator, this time created on RealClearPolitics that goes by the actual voter turnout nationwide from 2012, and how those votes configured into the Electoral wins by state.

This generator seems to go by how the ethnic votes were split between the major parties, with the Republican percentages up for adjustment with the Democratic percentages auto-correcting (this might not reflect the real-world percent sharing).

So this map allows you to alter two things: the shared percentage by ethnic voting bloc, and also by actual voter turnout by that bloc: over 66 percent of Whites, 64 percent of Blacks, 48 percent for Hispanics and 49 percent Asians.

Some trends you need to consider for the election going into 2016:

• Voter turnout for Whites is projected to drop due to simple demographic fact of dying and aging voters from that bloc.
• Hispanic voter enrollment is expected to go up, not just because of the demographic shift but due to political activism in response to Trump's anti-Mexican anti-Immigrant rants.
• Voter turnout by minorities and college-age youth - which favors the Democrats - may take a hit from anti-voter suppression efforts in roughly 22 states - which, guess what, are run by Republicans - that can see a minor yet significant drop to those demographics.

So how would things look for Republican voters vs. Democratic voters in the general election for the Presidency?

If Trump's current polling numbers are correct then he's getting about 49 percent of the White voting bloc (to Hillary's projected 40 percent).

Remember, Mitt Romney got about 59-60 percent of Whites in 2012... and still lost.

If we apply that to the RCP map generator, we should get this:

The map also adjusts the projected turnout by state, and that's if voter turnout remains the same (sans any voter suppression of non-Whites).

Dear God, look at those numbers.

The Democrats will absolutely crush it with the Popular vote getting 60 percent of the turnout at 79.4 million voters. Hillary will get 40 states plus DC to Trump getting 10. Hillary will win states that Democrats haven't naturally won in decades: Mississippi, South Carolina, Nebraska, Arizona and Georgia and Missouri and Kentucky and Tennessee will go Blue. TEXAS for the Love of God, Trump can lose Texas to the Dems.

And that's if voter turnout by the non-Whites stay the same. Given the insults Trump is throwing at Mexicans and Asians, I doubt the Republicans will see any love by those blocs.

Let's say the Republicans drop among Hispanics to 20 percent support - and this is being generous, there's every likelihood the Hispanic vote could drop to single digits like Blacks have done - and 25 percent support for Asians. The map is going to look like this with the same voter turnout as 2012:

Popular vote turnout for Dems go up to 81 million. Trump LOSES ALASKA in this. I'm surprised Kansas lasted this long before flipping.

This is a legitimate interpretation of that Washington Post poll, which shows Hillary and the Dems getting 79 percent of the minority voting blocs (mixing in Blacks, Hispanics and Asians together). So this could be a genuine result this November.

This is why the Republican Establishment is committing public ritual suicide as we speak.

This is why not only are the Republican party leaders planning and praying for a Third Party intervention (which really won't work the way they hope), this is why there's going to be some very nasty voter suppression efforts where the Republicans can pull it off. And why the civil rights groups defending voters need a ton of support to stop those suppression efforts.

Because if the Republicans do force the turnout by minorities down, with the voter turnout the way the polling suggests now. Say for example the voter suppression efforts knock Black turnout down from 66 percent to 60, and Hispanic turnout to 40 percent and Asians to 45 percent...

Wow. They're still losing Texas. Republicans do get back South Carolina and Mississippi, but without Texas' massive Electoral count the GOP is still screwed.

So that voter suppression has to really kick in - let's say forcing voter turnout among all Non-Whites down to 10 percent for each group, and knocking a few percents off for Whites who could be college-age and blocked by the lack of ID - for the Republicans to see any advantage:

Actually, wait, that won't work either. Hillary still wins the Popular vote by 49 million to Trump's 43 million... and wins the Electoral College with 352 Electors. It is entirely possible the percentage of voter turnout by state may not actually reflect this via suppression efforts: however, given that there's no legal way the Republicans will suppress minority voter turnout to THAT degree we shouldn't expect the result to be this GOOD for Republicans. Which, of course, it isn't.

Wow. Republicans really are screwed this Presidential cycle.

The only thing that could throw this whole thing to the Republicans now would be the anti-Hillary voters among the Bernie supporters in the Democratic primaries. The ones who are opining that they'd rather stay home than vote for Hillary (or worse, vote for Trump).

This is now the time for sane and responsible persons reading this blog to calmly sit down with Bernie supporters and remind them that FOR THE LOVE OF F-CKING GOD GET THE GODDAMN VOTE OUT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THIS NOVEMBER. Thank you.

Update: After a night of thinking about it, I realized I need to see how the demographic generator could project what level of turnout the Republicans DID need in order to win enough states for the Electoral counts. So I went back in and messed with the numbers some more.

I decided to keep the Republican White Non-Hispanic numbers close to where Romney had it in 2012 (around 60 percent). Even though Trump is showing signs he'll never reach that level, let's just give them to them as their best-case scenario.

I dropped the voter turnout for the Non-Whites (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians) to reflect the voter suppression efforts that are bound to work. I didn't go as severe as 10 percent across the board, because even THAT would be too obvious a rigged election, and unlikely to happen. There still has to be an aggressive amount of blocked voters for this math to work...

I did go with keeping Black support for Republicans at 6 percent, and I did drop Hispanic to 20 percent for Republicans because Trump's anti-immigrant platform has made the party toxic to that group (I'm still being generous: there's every likelihood Hispanic support will drop to single digits). I dropped Asians to 29 percent as part of the response to the GOP's anti-immigrant hostility (of course the percentage can easily drop like Blacks and Hispanics into single digits).

With all that set, I started adjusting the one thing that could boost a Republican win: overall White voter turnout. Currently at 66 percent, I wanted to see how high it had to go for the Republicans to see a win.

I got to 83 percent before the Electoral count shifts from Democrat to Republican.

And that's with me being generous on the minority voting blocs not going into full Rejection mode against the GOP (and noting that voter suppression won't deny every minority voter who shows).

There's one little problem with this, and the Republican leadership likely knows it: the current public mood against politics - thanks to decades of mudslinging and partisanship - has killed off interest from potential voters to register and turn out. Getting White voter turnout to swing UPWARD against a demographic shift that has them going down down down defies not only the laws of logic but the laws of physics (gravity is a harsh mistress). There is no sane way Republicans can get White voter turnout to jump up from 66 to 83 percent.

Outside of massive nationwide vote rigging (likely, but risky due to any one miscue blowing it all up), there does not look to be any sane way the Republicans are going to win in 2016 despite all their hopes. And Trump is dumping on those hopes with one big heaping pile of dung that can't get shoveled away.

Which is probably why the Republican elites are clinging to the insane ways, as though a three-party run can split enough Electoral states to throw the results into a Republican-controlled House.

Just to be on the safe side, America; get the damn vote out for ALL the demographics, and for the Love of GOD vote Democrat.

So What Exactly Is It About Trump That Terrifies The Republican Party?

So, as the freakout about a publicly-known con artist like Donald Trump becoming the likely nominee for President drives the Republican Party into open displays of panic and fear, a question is bound to come up.

Just WHY are the Republicans so terrified of Trump?

After all, Trump is doing absolutely everything expected of a Republican front-runner: he's bashing liberals as weak, Obama as evil, his opponents as failures. He's pandering to the GOP base on exactly the issues the Republicans have raised - illegal immigration, political correctness run amok, a broken bureaucracy, the conservative desire to punch hippies in the face - since the Clinton years. He's pushing a massive tax cut program that favors the rich. He's the buzz: everyone's talking about him. Even in politics, bad news is good PR if you spin it the right way.

But the Republicans - the "Establishment" faction as it were, the pro-Business "slightly saner" faction that tried over the last forty years to herd the religious and financial and social conservatives into a Reagan Big Tent juggernaut - are absolutely scared of Trump being the front-runner. They didn't want him, they wanted the likes of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Chris Christie (and now John Kasich as the Last Best Hope).

Because the Republican Establishment - which had those three as well as many of the other would-be candidates for the White House - knew they could control those candidates and keep them in line.

Most of the would-be candidates, even Jeb, all are career politicians. Campaigning and making speeches and posing for photo ops is what they do for a living. They've paid their dues into the Republican social club, and they each owe the party a little something - their respect, their continued support, their fealty - for all that the party had done keeping them on the gravy train (and out of jail).

Trump is different in that he doesn't owe anybody anything within the Republican Party. He came in on his own, hell he was chased after for campaign funds and public endorsements and whatnot for years before today. In some respects there are enough players within the party ranks who owe him to a point where he can own them.

Trump doesn't have a career in politics to worry about. He can go back to being a bankrupt landlord and media gloryhound if he wants. This jump at the Presidency is a one-shot deal (it's one reason why he never ran for a lesser office to prove himself: any proof that he can't be effective in an elected job would have killed his shot at the Big Chair), and he's acting like he knows it by the way he's bulldozing down every form of civil behavior most politicians hold themselves to because they're thinking about the next job.

Trump doesn't have to worry about money in terms of fund-raising and sucking up to the party deep-pockets. He's even losing money doing all this, when you consider the lost deals and broken contracts in the wake of his insults and racist campaigning... all because he knows he can still con his way into similar deals down the line. That was one of the early signs that the RNC wasn't going to control him.

Just on those points alone there's a good reason why the GOP Establishment types are worried. The growing terror about Trump right now is coming from how Trump is shattering the illusions that enveloped the Republican leadership for the last thirty years. (This includes the mainstream media enablers of the Far Right who think they have influence within the halls of politics)

The panic is coming from people - not just the likes of the RNC leadership like Prince Rebus, uh Reince Priebus (I shouldn't rib him about that, I've got people misspeeling my name all the tyme...) or Mitt Romney, but also the self-proclaimed wise men of the columns like David Brooks and the National Review editor board - who suddenly discover that Trump is stirring up anger and rage among the Far Right voting base that no longer responds to the elites' attempts to control that voting base.

Despite the well-organized structure and singular agenda of the Republican Party, and despite the twenty-year push to purge the moderates and progressive forces of the GOP, there are still factions within the voting base itself that have to cooperate and get along for the party to win at the national level. While there's overlap between the pro-business tax-cuts-forever faction, the pro-fetus / evangelical faction, and the pro-bomb-our-enemies neocon faction, those are usually distinct groups with pet issues that need pandering in different ways.

Trump has disrupted all of that. He's wrangled out of those three factions a relatively new fourth: the Nativist / Populist faction, which cherry-picked the issues between all three existing factions and cast aside the issues that doesn't interest them. Trump's faction is openly racist in a way that the Republicans tried to ignore or excuse away through their use of dog-whistles, it's openly anti-trade and disdainful of the global economy in ways that scare the business leaders, and it's openly dismissive of abortion as a priority even as the faction expresses disdain towards women's health and women's issues. Mix in with all that the fact Trump's faction is violent and operates with a hair-trigger mob mentality, and the Republican Establishment is looking at a hostile, uncontrollable group they can neither wrangle back into their ranks nor ship out into exile.

And it's a faction that has grown larger than the existing factions within the ranks, meaning they can't overwhelm the Trump-ites by sheer numbers.

The Establishment leaders - reflected by the increasingly insane reactions and denials from their media cohorts - are showing signs of anxiety bordering on open fear. They're coping with a party that they no longer recognize, even though they've spent decades building the Republicans to be exactly what the party is today. It's like they didn't realize that forty years of demonizing everything that wasn't Rich White Male would create an army of racists.

This is what decades of self-fulfilling reality-warping does to a group of detached oligarchs. We saw smaller versions of this back in 2012, when Karl Rove and Mitt Romney and a lot of others in the GOP ranks convinced themselves they were beating Obama in the polls. That epic collapse of self-delusion on live television - when Rove had to be trout-slapped back into the real world over the Ohio ballot count going for Obama - was just a harbinger. The Epistemic Closure of the Republican leadership - by their media handlers, by their elected leaders in Congress and governors' offices, by their lobbyist buddies and deep-pocket funders buying up as much influence as they wanted - simply never paid any damn attention to what was happening in the Reality-Based Community they so easily dismissed during the Bush the Lesser years.

They've kept themselves in their boardroom meetings and country club golf courses and their television studio green rooms, isolated from their own base on the Far Right as much as they isolated themselves from the despised Far Left. They knew they were stirring up fear and anger among the masses: they just didn't care to know what the consequences would be.

That's why they're panicking now. It's about as much to do with the possibility of Trump leading their party to electoral disaster in November as it is about the possibility the Republican Establishment has lost a huge chunk of their voting base.

It's getting to the point where their "respectable voices" among their ranks are openly talking about forcing a Third Party run despite the fact that will clearly split the Right for the foreseeable future, perhaps decades. They may already be realizing it's too late, and they need to destroy the Beltway Village now in order to save it.

This would be tons of enjoyable schadenfreude, except for the fact that con artist Trump is still menacing the countryside like a monster run amok.

It's up to the Democrats to clean up after the f-cking Republicans. Again.

Some Thoughts On Obama Doing His Job and The Republican Senate NOT Doing Theirs

As noted earlier, Obama went ahead in spite of the open obstruction of the Republican-led Senate and nominated someone to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court caused by the sudden passing of Antonin Scalia.

Obama tapped Merrick Garland of the DC Appellate Court to fill the position. Garland has been serving as a federal judge since 1997, two years after he'd been nominated because back then the Republican-controlled Senate was arguing over whether to fill any of Clinton's judicial vacancies at all. Yeah, we've been there... 

So of course, Obama fulfilled his Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies as established in Article II Section 2 of the highest law in the land. Above that, he fulfilled his obligation to the American people to nominate a candidate with excellent credentials in Garland: a federal-level judge with over 18 years of experience and a record of jurisprudence that impresses a good number of legal experts. 

And as expected, the Republicans are being total d-cks about it.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell is refusing to meet with Garland at all, and the party leadership in that branch of Congress is likely to shut the doors to the committee rooms for even a hearing on this.

It's their own damn fault. They decided seven years ago to hold a line against Obama regardless of what Obama does. The Republicans went full obstructionist to deny him any possible victory, first to try and make him a One-Termer President, and then to make history view him as a Failed President.

And it hasn't really worked, has it? For all the failures Obama did endure thanks to that obstruction, the Republicans repeatedly caused more damage to themselves, hurting their own party leadership - hi, Castor! hi, Boehner! hi, Mitt! hi, Jeb? - and creating a toxic environment that's led to the Far Right wingnut base in near-revolt against their own party.

Yet the Republicans are screwed if they DIDN'T do this, when you consider this is an election year, and 20-some of the Republicans are up for re-election (I know Rubio dropped to run for the Presidency - HA! - so his seat is open, I'm not sure if there are others). And some of those Senators are facing primary challengers who are further to the Right than they are... and some of them are already losing. They can't afford to give anything to Obama now, having tried all these years to deny him. It'll kill them in the Primaries... just as much as this obstruction can kill them with Moderate voters in the General elections. 

They've really caught themselves in a kind of lose-lose scenario.

As I noted over on Balloon-Juice:

1) It puts the Senate on the defensive in that there’s nothing legally objectionable to Garland. He’s served on the appellate court for more than a decade with few if any complaints. If they still refuse to even meet with him, it clearly puts the Republicans in a bad light during an election year, going against the polls that clearly show a majority – Republican voters included – who want the Senate to at least do their damn job to advise and consent.

2) It still shifts the dynamic of the Court (that is, if he actually gets approved). While Garland’s no liberal, he’s more aligned left-center than Kennedy (the current measuring stick of a Moderate justice). More 5-4 decisions will favor the Left over the Right.

3) Garland is not young, granted. If it was someone younger, the GOP would have an even bigger conniption knowing full well that would be a guy on the bench for 20+ years, not 10-15 years. There may be a few Senators who can convince themselves “this isn’t going to kill us a decade from now.”

4) Obama likely asked his candidates how many were willing to risk a year of waiting for the nomination. The younger ones likely begged out to wait for a better shot.

5) While Obama could have gone full “NO F-CKS TO GIVE”, he played it steady, reviewed the options, and presented a sane, respectable choice. This is still a “F-CK YOU” move on his part, though, because clearly the Republicans are going to go batsh-t insane no matter what he did (as I said elsewhere, that's the beauty of it. Obama stays cool, but the Republicans are going to view this as a F-CK YOU move and over-react. And they have...). At least this way he can’t be accused of intentionally messing with their heads by going for a Gay Asian Public Defender still six months away from a Law Degree from Berkeley Hippie Central who’s six months pregnant with a Muslim.

And then on a separate post:

This time might be different. Holding a SCOTUS vacancy hostage like this during an election year exposes too many Senators up for re-election. They can’t rely on gerrymandered safety: their entire state votes, and in Blue and Purple states the moderate and centrist voters are not going to be thrilled that ONE branch of government – CONGRESS – isn’t doing their job.

They can’t blame Obama for being in the wrong here, because he’s done everything by the book and nominated a candidate with genuine experience and legal gravitas (this isn’t a Meirs debacle, nor a Bork extremist). Meanwhile, it’s the Senate refusing to do their job and coming up with lame excuses – the “Biden rule?” the “Lame Duck” excuse? – that the majority of voters will not buy.

I hope to God the Democrats are running candidates in every Senate race this year. They might even win in a few solid Red states – both because of Trump killing the down-ticket and because of this – and regain control of the Senate with a Cloture-proof majority.

Please tell me every Senate seat is gonna be contested this year. Every single one, I hope to God the Democrats win all 34. Not just because of Trump but because enough voters across all our states wake up to which Party (Republicans) are in the wrong here.

Blogging Update on the Florida Primary Night: As We're Waiting for the End of the World

I'm actually going to bug out at some point tonight, as there's a project I'm working on that needs to be done after nightfall and I'll be unable to blog during then. But I will likely have my Twitter going at @PaulWartenberg so you can track me there if need be.

Otherwise, considering all the polling for Florida it's already looking like a good night for Trump (AUGH), a bad night for Rubio (HAHA) and Cruz (AUGH) and Kasich (Meh) on the Republican side, and a good night for Hillary (Ehhhh, Okay) and a not-so-good night for Bernie (Son, you gotta learn not to talk to women that way).

I'll provide a link to a news site that you can follow in the meantime, and I'll add other sites that may liveblog or at least keep a running commentary...

Update: I've got the NBC News tracker linked here for Florida.

Balloon Juice's link finally has a thread going.

The Atlantic has a liveblog link here.

I will see about others.

Be right back.

UPDATE 7:20 PM EDT: The early polls for Florida are in. Trump is decisively beating Rubio and Hillary is decisively beating Bernie. However, the state's Panhandle will be coming in late due to their being in the Central Time Zone, so they won't close until 8:00 PM or so. There's also the possibility of the South Florida turnout swamping the ballot count, so there may be a delay there as well.

I want to see what the overall voter turnout is like. If the Republicans are substantially turning out in higher numbers than the Democrats, I will be worried. One thing I hate about Florida is the terrible voter turnout among Democrats when they're unimpressed with their candidates. If the numbers are within norms - that is, accounting for their being more Republican candidates to vote for - then I'll feel okay. But this is what's going to bother me most tonight.

UPDATE 7:35 PM EDT: Ohio and North Carolina polls are starting to close. We're not going to see serious numbers on them yet, but we'll see. Ohio is a huge state for Hillary to win or lose, because if Sanders wins there that hurts her momentum. Illinois is another potential speed bump, but Ohio is as much a key for her as Florida.

UPDATE 7:43 PM EDT: The number of voters so far are polling within reason, at least in my opinion, between the Republicans and the Democrats. Right about now, Trump has 590,000 or so voters to Hillary's 640,000 or so, with Bernie at 313,000 or so compared to Rubio's 350,000 or so. Where the numbers add up more are for the remaining two Repubicans, with Cruz in Third at 207,000 and Kasich at around 70,000. Carson is out of the race but still polling with 14,000 (likely holdovers from Early Voting and Absentees).

UPDATE 7:45 PM EDT: Alright, I'm going to bug out in a few minutes to run my errand, and I'll be right back. Add comments if you'd like, send me a Tweet at my @PaulWartenberg account.

Be right back!

UPDATE 9:25 PM EDT: Okay, I'm back from my errand..

SO OF COURSE MARCO RUBIO SUSPENDS HIS CAMPAIGN WHILE I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

Losing your home state in a primary run is about as painful as you can get in politics. Losing your state in the general election is a blow, but you can always excuse it by noting the overall political bent of your state was never really in your favor. When it's a Closed Primary and your state DOES bend your way, then you were never really as well-liked as you thought you were...

UPDATE 9:52 PM EDT: I may wrap this up since the Florida stuff is pretty much done for the night and I have other projects to work on.

The big news will be of course the end of the Rubio campaign, which whimpered into the night by failing to win his own state. On the other side of the "Will He Drop Out" question, Kasich won his home state of Ohio, which gives him momentum for the next week or so before Trump humiliates the hell out of him. Cruz is still Cruz, probably in this all the way to the end as need be until he gets a deal he likes.

As for the voter turnout, right now it's looking a little disappointing in terms of overall turnout. There's about 4 million Republicans and 4.9 million Democrats, and yet both parties are totaling up to around a quarter of their registered numbers. There's looking to be about 1.7 million total for the Democrats (with Hillary winning about 1 million), and over 2.1 million for the Republicans (with Trump getting about 1 million himself with Rubio getting over 600,000 and Cruz at 300,000).

What matters is the Winner-Take-All nature of Florida's delegate counts: Trump is now building a serious lead, with Kasich's win the only minor speedbump he's facing tonight. Trump's likely to increase that lead with a win in Illinois, and it's down to North Carolina's final numbers to see if Cruz ekes out a win there to hamper Trump's numbers.

On the Democratic side, Sanders could win Missouri tonight, and maybe Illinois, but Hillary's wins in Florida and North Carolina and now Ohio give her a huge boost in delegate counts as well. I'm not sure if the Winner-Takes-All rules apply to the Democratic side, but still this is a good night for Hillary.

I might check in one more time before midnight, just for another recap or last second thought.

UPDATE 11:39 PM EDT: It bothers me a little bit that Twitter is now chatting up Hillary's likely Veep choices. Settle down, folks. It's still a few months before worrying about that.

There's still buzz - coming out of Politico - that there are a few Republican movers and shakers arguing for a Third Party run against Trump... as though they were even able to beat Trump within their own ranks. It's still a part of the Denial they're facing that their own party has turned against their interests. I doubt it'll go very far. There are few people with any stature who would sign off for this suicide mission.

This is pretty much it for tonight. I'll post something else in the week about my thoughts and fears about the Trumpocalypse. G'night kids.

UPDATE 11:40 PM EDT: At least DUNK CITY won tonight. :)

UPDATE MARCH 16: It's the morning after.

It turns out Hillary won all five states on Tuesday and built a larger delegate lead. Sanders is now talking about trying to rally the Superdelegates to him, but that's unlikely because they're more focused on protecting the party and let's face it Sanders is just a Democrat for this Presidential race (he has little cred within the organization itself). The optics of the Democratic race is now all on Hillary. The best Sanders can do is run an honest race and keep Hillary focused on the key issues.

As for the Republicans... Trump is getting worse. He's making it very clear and very public that he wants his convention and his nomination and he's threatening riots in the streets if he doesn't.

More on this later. There's other news: Obama is announcing his SCOTUS pick to replace Scalia today. The Republican response is going to be such an epic fail, you can tell even before this happens, they've dug themselves into such a deep hole on their obstruction that they're stuck...

Beware The Ides of March Madness Florida Primary Or Whatever

Man, this day sure is packed.

We're sitting on the anniversary of Julius Caesar finding out that Roman togas have enough pocket room to hold long knives.

You know, if they had cell phones back in 44 BC, they could have video-captured the death and uploaded it to YouTube for Twitter comments before Marc Antony could say a damn thing about it.

I mean, after all, the Romans brought us the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, they could have brought us telephone technology 2000 years before we really did get that tech, and we'd be that much closer to hoverboards and warp drives am I right?

Anyway, THIS March 15th is huge because there's a series of primaries in five key states, of which Florida is one. The even bigger story in that is how Florida is a Winner-Take-All state, meaning whoever wins the overall - and if they win decisively - gets a huge boost in the delegate count.

According to the polling, that's Trump.

We're screwed.

At least there's college men's basketball to distract us in Florida as Dunk City AKA Florida Gulf Coast holds a play-in game against another 16 seed for the right to upset North Carolina in the 2016 East Region. Here's hoping.

I'll blog later today about all this.

In the immortal words of the Soothsayer, Day Ain't Over Yet.

Will The Republican Party Really Split?

There's been some talk about the modern Republican Party.

About how it's on the verge of utter collapse.

Oh, I wrote earlier that for all intents the Republican Party as we knew it was dead. It was no longer a party of serious conservative thought having replaced all that with reckless fearmongering and race-baiting, that it had kicked out its moderate and progressive elements ages ago, and was now essentially the Southern Slaveholder Party of 1865 Reborn in all but name.

I am not the only one claiming that, by the by.

It's now so common-place a thought within the mainstream/conventional wisdom that there are actual questions as to HOW the potential break-up of the Republicans is going to be like. The Washington Post is taking it serious and even asking serious historians like Eric Foner about it:

FONER: Well, it depends what you mean by a "fracture." If you mean events that totally destroyed a major party and created a new one, the last time that happened would have been in the 1850s. Before that, the country had two major political parties: the Democrats and the Whigs. Since then, we have had basically two major parties -- the Democratic and Republican Parties -- with some short-lived breakaway and one-election-cycle movements that sometimes deeply influenced election outcomes. But we have not seen an actual party die or a new one born and continue since 1854...

...Well there are actually quite a few of these moments in American history. We have generally had a two-party system, even though there's nothing requiring that in the Constitution. But we've certainly seen splinters. Then, those third parties have merged or fallen apart again and again...

On the one hand, like Foner I'm not a firm believer in certainties when it comes to predicting the future. Anything can happen, something could conceivably force the factions within the GOP to re-unite. Who knows, maybe sheer spite of the tree-hugging dirty hippie libruls might do it. If only both sides can agree on who's not coddling said libruls when the other side's not looking.

On the other hand, this dynamic clearly can no longer exist. The people in control of the Republican Party - the financial donors, the seasoned consultants, the elected veterans of too many Congressional terms - are no longer in sync with their actual voting base of low-education poor White Males. It turns out all the fearmongering and Establishment-bashing the party elites kept telling their followers via the Far Right news channels and websites made those followers fear and hate their own self-entitled party bosses. It's all leading up to the near certainty of a thin-skinned, narcissistic con artist pitching the basest form of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by the name of Trump winning enough delegates this week to clinch a commanding lead for the Republican nomination for President.

This is the kind of personal betrayal in a relationship that ends up with both sides in tears.

This isn't like a relationship breakup though. We're not talking about the uber-rich power brokers of the Establishment getting to keep the beach house in the Bahamas while the Populists hold onto the condo in Manhattan. We're talking about who gets to retain the controls of a national political party at all levels of government.

There's been other talk about how the Establishment now has two choices: deny Trump the nomination at the July convention and risk him fleeing to a Third Party run that kills their chances at the White House, or flee themselves from the GOP - taking all their billionaire backers with them - and try their own Third Party bid... which still kills their chances at the White House. Either move can risk their down-ticket races for the Senate and some state-level elections as well (it's unlikely the House is at risk due to massive gerrymandering).

There is, of course, a third option: openly embrace the Dark Side, accept Trump's campaign of immigrant-bashing that appeals to their loudest and angriest voting base, and hope that they've got enough voter suppression efforts in enough states to diminish the anti-Trump vote and eke out a corrupt win in November. But that move would essentially kill the lie the party has been telling itself that it's never really this racist and hateful. It would certainly kill off any hope the Republicans have of surviving the coming demographic change in the next decade, which is real and inevitable.

There are not a lot of smart options for the Republicans right now, at least for the ones who care about being smart. The ones who are willfully ignorant, they're likely thrilled they're finally playing this game the way they want to.

All said and done though, I doubt the GOP really blows apart. Neither side of this potential break-up will last long outside of the existing organizational charts. Starting up your own Third Party is too much trouble... and the rules - especially when it comes to winning elections - are stacked against you. There's a reason - as Foner himself notes - why most Third Parties throughout history - most of them just vanity projects to begin with - don't last past two election cycles before getting consumed by the duolithic tag-team of Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Democrats and Federalists/Whigs/Know-Nothings/Republicans. There's a reason why the deep-pocket extremists like the Koch Brothers decided to get rich and buy the GOP instead of building their own political machine.

This won't be the Van Halen/David Lee Roth split. It's not like they'll be two parties in 2018 running as "The Real Republicans" and "The Really Real Republicans, We Mean It" against the Democrats.

What will likely happen is what usually happens to a political party that got too reflexive and stubborn for its own good: a massive realignment of who runs Bartertown uh the party itself.

There's a real likelihood with Trump as the candidate that the Republicans lose - and lose big - to Hillary and the Democrats this November. When/IF that happens, the denialists within their ranks are going to have to face reality that Trump's message and the hard drum beats of racial demagoguery just aren't working anymore. There would be a real push to fix the message delivery, which means Roger Ailes - the guy at Fox Not News who allowed all this to happen - to face a very brutal retirement push out the door. It could well signal a loss of prestige and power among the leaders of the Far Right Noise Machine - hi, Rush! - to where they get the boot as well (Limbaugh in particular has become a very expensive albatross to his media company). There could be additional - and genuine - reforms by the deep-pocket backers sick of throwing money into a pit that gives them little return on investment.

The risk is that Trump wins - more out of terrible turnout by the Democrats (either intentional voter suppression or self-inflicted spite to not vote) than by Trump's salesmanship - in which case the opposite happens: the denialists get full control up and down the party command... and implode on their own due to their failure to handle the real world, in which case the Republicans have to clean out the rot anyway. But this way will be messier and more likely to take a lot of innocent lives with the effort.

As I said earlier, the Republican Party as we knew it is dead. It's more the Party of John C. Calhoun than of Lincoln or Teddy or Ike or even Reagan.

The question is, what kind of Party will rise to take its place?

It all depends on how brutal Hillary beats Trump in November. Personally, I'm hoping for 45 states plus DC going for Hillary at 59 percent of the popular vote, but that's just wishful thinking. It's really wishful thinking, because we all have to f-cking get out the vote and stop Trump from winning, period. Even a 51-49 percent win for Hillary with 272 of the Electoral College will suffice.

All that matters is stopping Trump, and getting the Republicans to wake the hell up and fix themselves.

The Jokers of the Republican Candidates Are Scary. What They Want To Do To America Is Worse.

This week saw what I think is supposed to be the final intra-party debate for the Republicans... yup, just checked, it is... so this is going to be it seeing all of the surviving blowhards begging for attention on the same stage. From now on, whomever's left - Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump - will do so from their individual rallies and town halls.

The way things are polling for this coming March Madness primary - where large-delegate states with Winner-Take-All results (Hi FLORIDA) can break the field - it's likely going to be Cruz and Trump the rest of the way.

This is still not a good situation for the United States.

Looking back on this blog, you might notice I've railed against most of the GOP candidates as Active-Negative disasters in the making. Even the ones I damned with faint praise - Lindsey Graham and John Kasich - were viewed with skepticism and dismay.

That was because - even for the ones who respected the federalist system of government, of the checks and balances - all of those candidates were arguing in defense of a political agenda that will re-create the economic (domestic) and diplomatic (international) policies of 2001-2009 that led to a massive global recession - that we STILL have not recovered from - and two costly wars/occupations that continue to destabilize half the planet to this day.

During that debate - transcript linked here - all four candidates sold their similar-sing-song platforms of tax cuts, tax cuts, deregulation, spending cuts to everything not military or CEO-related, tax cuts, wars, and more tax cuts. And on a lot of their arguments, the candidates were outright lying or failed on the facts.


Digby noted in her official column over at Salon how the candidates were mostly unified on the issues, just offering different ways in which they'd shred Social Security, handle foreign trade, arrest all illegals, and charge blindly into war zones in Syria and Ukraine.

Where the Democrats have a distinct split on the issues between a Socialist-Left take by Bernie Sanders and a Centrist-Moderate take by Hillary Clinton, there are no distinctive splits among the Republicans. All that distinguishes them from each other is the hair-splitting specifics.

There's a reason why the south Florida paper Sun-Sentinel refused to endorse any of the four remaining GOP candidates. Actually, they had several, but they all boiled down to the same thing, even for Kasich: they are all pushing the same platform, and that platform is dangerous.

Just like Mitt in 2012, all four are keen on a massive tax cut that would wreck everything for everyone not in the .01 Percent bracket.

They're pushing for putting ground troops into Syria, a move that will easily go sour and re-establish an occupation regime that already ruined much of Iraq and would wreck any diplomatic standing among our own allies.

They want to shred Social Security and every other social safety net from schools up to Medicare, as though cutting back on funding somehow creates the "reforms" necessary to actually make things work.

It doesn't matter if it ends up being Cruz or Trump or Kasich or even Rubio if he somehow pulls off a rigged ballot pulls off a miracle rally.

These are the Jokers to the Right of us: dangerous in their disdain for Constitutional norms, fervent in their dogma for tax cuts and deregulation and privatization, proudly ignorant of their view of the real world. Their personalities and arrogance may distract voters as entertainment for mockery or dismissal, but they are each covering up for a political war on rights and governance that's been waging for the last 30 years that could well devastate the U.S. if any of them make it into the Oval Office.

These Jokers are deadlier than the comic book version.

Don't laugh at these guys. Recoil in horror. And get the damn vote out for Democrats to make sure they don't win this November.

Face It, RNC: Rubio's Not Going to Happen

Just even saying that Marco Rubio is having a bad night doesn't really highlight how bad it is. If I could demonstrate with an animated cartoon of a wily coyote falling fifty-thousand feet off a cliff with an anvil dropped on his head with an ACME nuclear bomb for good measure, that STILL would not convey how bad a night he's having tonight.

There's two key primaries this Tuesday, one in Michigan and one in Mississippi, and while Trump has handily won both - much to Kasich's chagrin over Michigan who was hoping for a lead-in win before trying to secure his home state of Ohio next week - the big news has been how BADLY Rubio is failing in both.

In Mississippi, Rubio is not even breaking the five percent mark, hovering around 4.7 percent. Granted, we're talking about a state so Conservative that even South Carolina makes jokes about them being too Far Right. Still, there should be respect for the "sensible Establishment Republican" that the party leadership in-state would give Rubio more to work with. There is no damn way Rubio can go on camera tonight and claim even a moral victory here. C'mon. KASICH is in Third Place at double Rubio's count at 8 percent, and Kasich is the freaking token MODERATE - comparatively speaking - in this race.

In Michigan, hmm, let's see... Here, Rubio is STILL in Fourth Place behind Trump, Kasich and then Cruz. And whereas the top three are in double-digits, Rubio's becoming the pinata at 9 percent.

I can't even rightly joke about Rubio being the THIRD PLACE guy tonight. That's how bad he's losing.

This is the moment in the Primary cycle where the really delusional candidate - the one who'd been propped up by party and media elites as "Our Guy" and the one who Can Save Us From Trump, and has kept crowing about "winning" when he keeps showing up as a runner-up with too few delegates to show for it - is going to have to face facts.

Right now, Marco Rubio's not winning in Florida where the polling has Trump in the lead by at LEAST 8 points and in most polls by double-digits. All the momentum is for Trump: all the organization as the anti-Trump choice seems to be in Cruz's favor. Kasich isn't long for this campaign either, and he's got a better chance of winning Ohio - which can keep him afloat for one more week - than Rubio has of winning the Sunshine State.

Right now, Rubio's not winning a damn thing. If he thinks he's going to be in any position to force a contested, brokered GOP convention in Cleveland, he's crazier than I am. I know, being from Florida does explain for a lot of the blinkered thinking in the Rubio camp, but at some point sanity has to prevail.

I doubt Rubio will drop this week, although getting out before he can get humiliated in Florida is the smart play. He needs that vindication, something and anything to be able to come back for the next election cycle to say "I almost did it before, and I can do better this time in 2020."

Rubio's got few options left in a political career. Due to the vagaries of state law, Rubio had to drop out of running for re-election as a Senator this year in order to run for President. His disdain for actual service is going to make it hard to run for another elected office, even for the Governor's seat that's opening up in 2018. Being the Mayor of Loserville is going to stink up his vitae. His only option is to pray for a Republican Presidential win - OH GOD NO - and beg for a Cabinet position (and if it's Trump winning - GOD HELP US NO - a lot of begging in front of television cameras will be the thing).

His next career is likely going to a think tank or lobbyist firm to earn a fat paycheck telling billionaire donors all the fantasy stories of what could have been if only Rubio won it all. It's the least those billionaires can do for Rubio, after all...

And so, here's one more screenshot of the Honest Bumper Sticker I've been so proud of making this election year:

Early Voting Florida - Primary 2016

I have neglected a duty as a Florida blogger to report that Early Voting for the 2016 Presidential campaigns is already underway. We're coming up to the weekend part of the Early Voting where the single Sunday the polls will be open to vote before the official day of March 15.

Your county Supervisors of Elections should have listings of the nearest Early Voting polls. As I am in Polk County I will list ours.

Remember, Florida is one of the repressive states, so they'll need Photo ID as well as your Voter ID (and maybe DNA samples so bring a vial of blood just in case).

Florida is also a Closed Primary: you gotta be with a Party hosting a ballot to vote for it. So if you're like me - NPA No Party Affiliate - you've got nobody for the Presidential race to vote for. HOWEVER, be aware some cities and towns will host local votes for their own officials during this (most others will do so April 15th, so stay tuned for that) vote, so pay attention! Local elections matter too (Bartow in particular has one candidate who keeps running every election because he wants to go in and close every city office - from Parks to Libraries to Fire Department - down).

On the Primary day itself - March 15th! - be prepared to find your local precinct to vote, because the rules are strict about it: you gotta poll where they tell you to poll (Early Voting and Absentee Ballot Mail-Ins are exempt).

And so the seven readers of this blog are likely to ask "Gee Paul, I'm still kinda in the dark about who to vote for, so what's the sane choices for each party?"

You're asking ME (always sober, never sane) for tips? Aheh. I know up front the Republican/Conservative readers trolling this blog - hi, older brother! - will call me out on my hyperbolic conniption over how bad the remaining GOP field is, and I also know I'll get critics from the Democratic/Liberal readers if I don't back their horse 100 percent. Still, I will try to explain my arguments as clear and effective as possible.

For the Democratic ballot, there's the choice between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley (he had filed before dropping out). So there's always a possibility of an O'Malley upset (stop hitting me). Seriously, there is a choice here between the Centrist Hillary and the Socialist Bernie. The fighting between the two factions backing both have gotten heated, so I'm bound to offend when I say: If I had to, I would vote for Hillary.

My arguments for Hillary come around to these points. She is experienced as both a legislator - twice elected Senator - and as administrator - serving as Secretary of State. For all the horror stories and hatred she receives - regarding her secrecy, her ambitions for higher office - I think her years of service have mellowed her. While I've cataloged her as an Active-Negative personality, that Aggressive side of her world-view to get things done may be key to breaking any Congressional opposition if the Republicans retain control of that branch (Obama's greatest flaw has been - until this last year when he no longer needs to deal - too sincere a need to get bipartisan work done, which allowed far too much obstruction to stall our public sector).

The Bernie backers - if any show up here - are likely going to rip me apart for ignoring Sanders' True Leftist bona fides. Please remember, I view myself at heart a Moderate: my Progressive leanings only lean so far. I respect Sanders' arguments against the Big Banks and I know damn well income inequality is a serious problem. And I know Universal Health Care is where our nation needs to go for our basic health care spending and costs to be better controlled. However, I worry about Sanders' numbers regarding his health care proposal: the math isn't working. There's every likelihood implementing such a massive shift in policy and costs will raise taxes higher than most Americans are willing to pay. And a sudden shift from one system to another will be difficult to pull off, creating more costs and damage to the health care infrastructure our nation can't afford at the moment. We just started ObamaCare, and need to give it a few more years of reducing the costs and increasing insured enrollees - and getting Red States to swallow their pride and accept Medicaid funding - to show that a regulated market system can be effective and expanded upon.

I know there's one big argument against Hillary: her controversies. A good number of Bernie supporters - and far too many fence-sitters - are worried about Hillary being a big target for scandals that could hurt her in the general election. Here's the thing: many of those "scandals" are mythical BS stories that have been dumped on her for 20-plus years by a proven faction of Far Right wingnuts who fear her more than even her husband Bill (and he's been President). Even the current "big" scandals surrounding Benghazi and her private email server... are turning out to be overblown, manufactured affairs.

Here's the thing: that damn Far Right Noise Machine is going to screech and throw fits at the Democratic nominee no matter who it is: Look at how they shredded John Kerry with BS stories. The wingnuts are going to attack Bernie for being a Secret Commie traitor as much as they'll go after Hillary for being a witch (NI!). I don't even count the possibility of a breaking scandal to hit or hurt Hillary in any way. Hell, I view it as a plus now: If Hillary has truly been this evil, this manipulative, all these years with a body count to rival Stalin's... and her attackers STILL haven't found any evidence that will stick in a court of law, then she's got the competency and Machiavellian skills to lead our nation.

Now, to the other side.

For the Republican ballot, it's still stuffed with the names of most of the candidates from January, meaning a lot of dropped candidates to disregard. Unless, if you like, you want to vote for Lindsey Graham bwhahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :) Ahem. Okay. As of right now, the serious names to consider are Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump (Ben Carson has suspended his campaign but not officially ended it, but he's pretty much done).

I admit I am not a fan of any of them. My apostasy for the current mindset of the Republicans has me in a foul mood towards the whole party, so I know I'd be making a bad decision no matter what. If I had a choice on the ballot I'd fill in None of the Above on a blank space. If you put a gun to my head and demanded I make a choice... I still wouldn't, because you're making me choose either a quick death or slow death.

There are degrees of unlikable factors for me regarding each candidate.

Topping the list is Trump. I've got it as a Label hashtag: Trump Is a Con Artist. Of the remaining candidates, he is the one lacking any elective or political experience at all. To me as a Moderate that alone is a disqualifier: I want someone with experience and competency. Making him even worse has been his blatant racism against Mexicans, Muslims, Mandarins, and other Minorities. His statements are disprovable to the point of being lies. His attitude and willful ignorance are horrifying to see in someone positioning himself to represent this nation to the rest of the world. He's a bankrupting opportunist who cuts and runs the second he's not making any money on anything. Trump IS a con artist, whose con is selling himself and nothing else. In all seriousness, for the Love of God, DO NOT VOTE TRUMP.

The next scarier candidate for me is Rubio, in that he's the hometown "favorite son". Florida is his home base - as it was for Jeb? - and Rubio has got to be counting a lot on the local voters keen on having a Florida boy win the nomination. I know my brother - having lost Christie to support - was in a toss-up between Jeb and Marco a few weeks ago and with Jeb dropped out it likely means my kin is voting Rubio.

I wouldn't. Not on sentiment, and certainly not on Rubio's (lack of a) resume.

Whatever charm Rubio has to make the Beltway mainstream media treat him like a winner, he doesn't have it when it comes time to impress voters. He's flat, bland, or at worst robotic: Getting caught mimicking his speech cues as debate answers was a devastating blow to him. There's a reason Rubio is THIRD PLACE, people...

As for his record, his state legislative history is one of a hard-core Far Right Republican with little of a moderating, bipartisan stance. He won the Senate seat in a three-way race where the Democrat and Independent knocked each other out instead of him. And as a Senator, he did more grandstanding than he did any actual work. The one piece of legislation he IS known for - trying to set an Immigration Reform package that his own party quickly scuttled because their own wingnut base HATED IT - is one he dropped like a hot potato and fled from in horror, which doesn't impress a damn soul. He lacked the courage of any conviction there, save for his own future plans to run for President.

Anyone who thinks Rubio can appeal to a general electorate is overlooking the facts that Rubio has no solid record that moderates would respect, that Rubio is fully on-board with a Republican platform that is far more extreme Right than anything pitched since 2000 2004 2008 2012, and that Rubio's speeches cover a lot of talk about revamping the Constitution itself by purging the amendments most Americans view as vital to our civil liberties.

If any thought comforts me, it's the knowledge that if Rubio can't win Florida - which is Winner-Take-All - he's doomed to lose the delegate count. The polling tells us Rubio is almost half the percentages behind Trump, which is good except for the fact that Trump is leading WHICH IS BAD.

And then there's Ted Cruz.

No. Just. No. THAT. Should not happen.

That leaves Kasich as the fourth and final option, and pretty much the only one I would - if I really really really REALLY had to - check on the ballot. And this is me damning him with the faintest praise I can muster.

Where Kasich impresses me is the fact he has the solid resume of experience across the board: years in Congress as well as serving as Governor of a large state of Ohio. He has shown signs of brain activity. Of the remaining Republican candidates, he's the one most likely to actually respect the Federalist system of national governance with its checks and balances, and one who might - maybe - pursue a bipartisan approach to his administration if he ever gets to the White House. Essentially, he's the least-scary guy on the GOP hit list.

This doesn't excuse the scary things about him, though. Kasich is openly anti-abortion, a stance which centrists/moderates view with dismay. He's anti-Union to the point where you can't trust him to push a Jobs Bill agenda this nation STILL sorely needs. And he's still a full backer of the Republican platform of cutting taxes, cutting regulations, and cutting everybody off at the knees who's not already in the One-Percent Club.

So, there's my suggestions for the Closed Primary balloting. Hillary for the Democrats, Kasich for the Republicans, a night-time supply of crafted microbrews for everyone else watching the election results on the eve of March 15th. Oy.