Wondering on Wednesday 1/25/23

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight, I'm wondering how many lawyers out there are experienced with classified documents, and how many of them have been retained by current or former government officials? I mean, even former President Jimmy Carter had classified documents found in his house once - and if it can happen to him, is anyone really in the clear?

According to the Associated Press, 

It turns out former officials from all levels of government discover they are in possession of classified material(s) and turn them over to the authorities at least several times a year, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of classified documents.

And sometimes, the folks in charge of handling them correctly are guilty of allowing the documents to be mishandled, which leads me to wonder which group should be under investigation: the handlers or the mishandlers? 

One thing I don't have to wonder about? Whether the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability will be asking for Mike Pence's visitor logs. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen - but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they asked for Jimmy Carter's. 

I will never stop wondering about mass shootings - they've become a familiar fixture here (and only here.) We've had school shootings, Walmart shootings, and house of worship shootings. We've had medical office shootings, entertainment venue shootings, and grocery store shootings. And this month alone, California has seen three mass shootings, with nearly 30 dead. 

You probably didn't hear much about the third one; it was likely gang- or drug-related, which means, you know, "it was their own damn fault" that young mom and her baby were executed along with several other family members. I wonder why the media doesn't talk about that kind of mass shooting so much? Is it because they wouldn't have time to tell us about storms headed for the I-95 corridor?

I also wonder why Democrats rarely mention that kind of shooting? They're very quick to mention 'hate' and 'racism' whenever a shooting involves people of color, even before details are available. Some did that with the Monterey Park shooting; there were no retractions after we learned the shooter was a septuagenarian Asian man. I'm sure they were tempted to do the same with the Half Moon Bay shooting, where another Asian man was behind the killing of Hispanic and Asian farm workers.

Republicans will always mention Chicago when they're in front of microphones, as Rep. Mike McCaul did on CNN's State of the Union, suggesting that red flag laws and strict gun laws aren't the solution. Why don't Dems mention Chicago more, I wonder?

One last thing on guns and another part of my wonderment on all of this. The Virginia teacher who was shot by her six-year-old student is planning on suing the school district for its failure to act on multiple concerns raised, by teachers and staff, that the child who did have a gun might have had a gun.

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (AP) — Concerned staff warned administrators at a Virginia elementary school three times that a 6-year-old boy had a gun and was threatening other students in the hours before he shot and wounded a teacher, but the administration “was paralyzed by apathy” and didn't call the police, remove the boy from class, or lock down the school, the wounded teacher's lawyer said Wednesday.

“On that day, over the course of a few hours, three different times — three times — school administration was warned by concerned teachers and employees that the boy had a gun on him at the school and was threatening people. But the administration could not be bothered,” Toscano said.

Among the reasons the warnings were ignored? He had little pockets, presumably too small to hold a gun, and it was almost the end of the school day, so there was no need to look harder for the weapon - even though he had threatened another child on the playground. I wonder why, and how, after Uvalde, any school district employee could have such a dismissive attitude about this.

Finally, we learned Pope Francis said that "being homosexual is not a crime" even though "Catholic teaching holds that homosexual acts are a sin." He said the Church "should work to put an end to" laws criminalizing homosexuality. Importantly, he also

stressed the need to distinguish between the two, and said, for example, that lack of charity with one another is also a sin. 

I can't help wondering if anyone will take that part to heart. 

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 7/10/22: Extra Credit

For Sunday School, we heard from Vice President Kamala Harris. Her videotaped interview with Robert Costa was featured on Face the Nation, the Spotlight Classroom this week.

Now, let's hear from Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA), and see if he did a better job answering questions than Madam Veep.

Costa asked Youngkin if he agreed with Harris, who said you don't need to abandon your faith to believe in a woman's right to choose. To me, a reasonable answer would start with, or at least include, either 'yes' or 'no.'

Youngkin said he's pro-life and life begins at conception; he agrees with the Supreme Court decision that it should be up to the states; he asked the legislature to craft a bipartisan "15-week pain threshold bill;" and said

I think this is what it's all about is, this is a moment for our country to have a discussion around this. And each state will decide something different. And I think that's the -- that's the real value of the Supreme Court's decision.

Um, the "real value" of the SCOTUS decision is separate but unequal classes of pregnant women? And that's somehow "our country" having a discussion?

Costa asked, twice, if he'd change his 15-week proposal to a full ban; given Youngkin's "reality" of having a split legislature, I don't see a full ban without a unified legislature. That said, he believes his job" is to get something done," and he thinks the 15-week bill is what's going to fly. 

Costa brought up Youngkin's ban on teaching "inherently divisive concepts," and asked for an example. Youngkin alluded to Critical Race Theory, without using those words. It's not about forgetting history, he said.

But we shouldn't... play 'privilege bingo' with children. We shouldn't teach children that they should judge one another, and one group is privileged and another group is going to find it hard in life necessarily. And we shouldn't blame someone and have them form a view that they're inherently racist... 

Costa asked what Youngkin would do if the Board of Education came to him and said the term 'Civil War' is too divisive and they want to use 'war between the states' instead. First Youngkin said he didn't think that would happen, then he said he didn't believe they will do something like that. And then, he said

...I think what we all recognize is that slavery was an absolute -- was an absolute black spot in our history. I mean, it is so, so abhorrent. We have to teach it.

Not the question he was asked, but if he can't answer a simple example like this, what's he going to do with a hard one? 

Because it was a long interview, here are Youngkin's answers from the second half.

• Judges in Virginia are "adequately" protected; he's got state resources on it, and he's called on AG Merrick Garland to do more, apparently assuming that protests are intended to "influence" judges, rather than to express anger. At the same time, he said, "Broadly speaking, this is about democracy."

• Asked if he'd codify same-sex marriage in Virginia, he said the Dobbs decision protecting the rights of lawmakers to legislate is "consistent with what we know the Constitution stands for." When pressed, he said "we actually do protect same-sex marriage... that's the law in Virginia." However, it's only protected if Obergefell stands; the state struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in 2020, but did not codify a right to have one. 

• He had "really great fun" visiting Nebraska, which had literally nothing to do with what he was asked: whether Donald Trump should stop saying the 2020 election was stolen. Nor did his "this is not a 'or' moment but an 'and' moment..." ramble. Nor did his "this is the Republicans who - that can win." Nor did his talk about 5,000 volunteers at elections. I'm sighing bigly, here, I am.

• Virginians don't want to talk about January 6th, they want to talk about "run-away inflation, gas prices... crime in their communities...education and the rights of parents to be engaged in their kids' schools." He also said," while I think it's important to the media, is really not what voters are focused on." He also said Trump's going to do whatever he's going to do.

• As to how he'll spend his 'political capital' as a "rising star," he wants to focus on electing GOP representatives; he thinks "the road to the majority in the House... comes through Virginia." After that, there are gubernatorial races where he thinks he "can make a difference." He refused to answer whether he'll support election deniers like Doug Mastriano in PA, even though Costa asked him twice.

Finally, on whether he and his family are open to a run for president in 2024, he's "hugely humbled" and

the reality, of course, is, I think it's based on the fact that I won in a state that was blue and we turned it red. I ran on a platform that we're delivering. And I often find it shocking that people are surprised that a person runs for office and then goes to work to deliver on what they promised they were going to do. And so, I think my job is to be a great governor in Virginia.

Cost asked again if he's open to the idea,

That's not a decision that we have even begun to undertake. The reality, of course, is I've been in - I've been governor of Virginia for six months. We've got an extraordinary amount done. $4 billion tax cuts. A record budget for education. $400 million in to law enforcement to raise salaries and keep our communities safe. This is where I'm focused.

Am I the only one seeing those comments as foundational to his '24 campaign bio? And does everyone agree he answered fewer questions than Harris?

See you around campus. 

Dear Democrats: Can We Talk?

You might not remember me, but I was one of you for decades, up until 2019. If you're interested, here's why I left you. And even if you don't care about me anymore, I still care about you - and I have to say this:

You will officially, completely screw things up 

if you don't get your heads out of the clouds, 

out of the sand, out of the weeds, and out of your caucus,

 and start paying attention. 

Here are some things I think you need to understand, from a person who always votes - but not always for you.

1. Joe Biden won the election, and you hold the majorities in DC, but you've never had a mandate. Biden got more votes not because of his policies, but because so many people who voted for him did so because they despised Donald Trump. I'd guess maybe as much as 30% of his votes came from us - yep, I'm one of them. 

Whether you remember this or not, we remember that Joe Biden was the nominee because the other candidates could not beat Trump. We were sick of Trump, and voted accordingly. But we also remember that the progressives were not hitting it out of the park in the primaries, because most people are not as progressive as you wanted us to be. 

Successfully denying Trump a second term while holding less than 51% of both the House and the Senate do not a legislative mandate make. Any thinking to the contrary is both foolish and foolhardy.

2. You act like a presidential term lasts only from Inauguration Day to Veterans Day. As a result, you prioritize everything equally, which means you prioritize nothing. 

To you, everything is an existential threat. Child Care. Universal pre-k. Climate. Broadband. Voting rights. Billionaires. Health insurance. Student loan debt. Drug prices. Corporate profits. Defunding the Police. Free college. You name it, it's an existential threat - except maybe immigration. You seem to have forgotten about that. 

But are these really threats to our very existence as a country? Are these really threats to the continuation of humanity? Arguably, the only one that meets that level is climate change; the others do not. That doesn't mean they aren't all important - but thinking you must solve all of them at once, coupled with your inability to prioritize them, is ridiculous. 

3.You throw everything you can think of into every bill. We are sick of that, frankly, whether it's you or the other guys doing it. Not to mention, it jeopardizes your chances of getting anything passed. 

Look, I get it. The tent is big, and everyone's got lofty goals and good intentions - but that's a foolish way to legislate.  Need an example? How's this one: what do a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices, requiring candidates for House, Senate, and the Presidency to release ten years of income tax returns, and public financing of campaigns have to do with my right to cast a ballot? Absolutely nothing.

We are not stupid. We know, and you do too, that those provisions were drafted because you wanted to stick it to Trump for not releasing his taxes, because you're mad about how blatantly chummy and political some of the Supremes are, and because you've long wanted to get the other guy's money out of the mix. 

We also know those things will make it nearly impossible to get a voting rights bill passed and signed.

4. You think all elections are a reflection of national politics, and you try and make them so. 

• Look at this ad the Virginia Dems ran against Glenn Youngkin. Why even mention Trump at all?  

• Or, this mailer placed by the New York State Dems against my mayor in Syracuse. No one's ever accused him of any affinity or affiliation with the Proud Boys - no one, until the Dems did. What the actual hell were they thinking?

Where do the state parties get those ideas? Are they getting them from the national parties, or from the various campaign committees? Even if they pull this stuff out of thin air, it's got to stop. 

5. You don't treat voters - particularly your own voters - with respect.

There've long been complaints that you only care about voters when you need them, not when they need you - particularly Black voters. And, you treat us as if we can't possibly understand how important your work is, and that our frustration with your inaction is unfounded. 

You're wrong on both counts. We never asked you for perfection, and we don't have the luxury of waiting for you to craft something perfect. We all need something, and we don't have the luxury of watching you accomplish nothing. You will lose us. You're already losing us. 

6. This cannot be overstated: you are horrible messengers.

• You are comfortable talking about what you're against, but not what you're for.
• You're miserable at marketing. Did you really think Defund the Police could hold a candle to Make America Great Again? Do you think it's helpful to hobnob with the rich while wearing a dress emblazoned with "tax the rich" - when the dress is worth more than a year's salary for someone earning $15/hour?
• You're either uncapable of fighting - or unwilling to fight - the lies told by the other side. Critical Race Theory and immigration are perfect examples. Need another? Election fraud, like the allegations in the VA gubernatorial race. 
• You're great at infighting. Progressives, in particular, are adept at attacking moderates and at making it nearly impossible to accomplish anything. The only people who think that's helpful are your GOP counterparts.
• You still haven't found anyone able and willing to get in front of microphones and in the faces of the talking heads and sell me and everyone else that your really understand what matters to us, what you stand for, how that'll help us, and how you're going to accomplish it. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: you need That Democrat, and you needed them way before yesterday.

In closing, I'd like to let you know that I just sent a thank you note to my Republican congressman; it's the second time I've done that in the past couple of months. I let him know that I'll be voting for him in the midterms next year. 

I didn't want to keep that last part from you, because I know I'm not the only one who's going to do that. I'll continue voting for people who understand what matters, regardless of their party affiliation. 

If you want me to vote for you again, I hope you'll take my advice to heart. 

Thanks. 

Wondering on Wednesday 11/3/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I'm wondering untraditionally this week. Instead of entertaining or antagonizing you with my own ramblings, I'm sharing the ramblings of the experts, who are looking in their rear-view mirrors at yesterday's elections.

Biden arrives back in Washington to a political nightmare

Returning to the White House in the dark, Biden declined to answer questions about the race, which he'd incorrectly predicted Democrats would win eight hours earlier. The results had been called a half-hour before Biden touched down at Joint Base Andrews. Aboard Air Force One, people familiar with the matter said the mood was grim as a weary team returned to what has become a swirl of recrimination and second-guessing…

But, Biden said, there's not much that could have been done given historical trends and enthusiasm among Republican voters.

"I think it should have passed before Election Day," Biden said of his legislative agenda, "but I'm not sure that I would have been able to change the number of very conservative folks who turned out in red districts who were (former President Donald) Trump voters. But, maybe. Maybe."

Are the Democrats doomed? 

Even if Democrats regain their footing and recover some lost ground, it is hard to be optimistic. Given the GOP's structural advantage in the U.S. Senate, Democrats would need to win by at least four points nationally just to retain their slim majority next year. And if democracy reforms like national non-partisan redistricting remain stalled in the Senate's legislative mausoleum, Republicans are likely to win the House unless Democrats have the best midterm for either party since George W. Bush's Republicans defied history in 2002. It's hard to see how that happens given what transpired Tuesday. 

Democrats: This is no time to panic 

So if I were a Democratic political strategist, I would recommend three things: One, pass the Biden agenda in the best possible form — hopefully with some of the economic capacity elements included to cut down on inflation — and as soon as possible. This would get some kind of accomplishment on the board and end the humiliating media coverage. (If the party flips out, passes nothing, and spends the next year hiding under the bed, defeat is guaranteed.) 

Two, pass voting rights protections to make Republican cheating harder.  

Finally, pray to every god in the book that the party gets lucky. Campaigns are important, and Democrats should do as much as they can. But the results in Virginia and New Jersey demonstrate no candidate can compensate for wretched conditions on the ground.

Reeling Democrats see threat to House and Senate control as Republicans crack their 2020 coalition

Democratic officials and strategists said that to counteract what unfolded in Virginia — strong anti-Democratic and anti-Biden energy driving the conservative base and suburban independents to vote Republican — the party needs to significantly improve its economic pitch, engage with young voters, voters of color and women under 50 far earlier and more aggressively than they have this year and renew efforts to recruit a more diverse slate of candidates. 

Republicans broke through in Virginia, but not for the usual reasons.

Glenn Youngkin, the Republican candidate for governor, won by making broad gains over Democrats in every part of the state and, apparently, across every demographic group. He gained in the cities, the suburbs and rural areas. He gained in the east and west. He made inroads in precincts with both white and nonwhite voters...

The broad shift to the right could indicate widespread revulsion against Democrats, or it could simply be a sign that longstanding trends have finally run their course. Or perhaps it’s because Mr. Youngkin adopted a message that appealed to the kinds of voters who have gradually been fleeing the Republican Party.

An electoral thumping boosts Democrats' urgency to pass Biden's agenda

"We can never run on just anti-Trump," Jayapal said. "We have to run on the things we do." Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher said the election result should "put a sense of urgency and a fire under" the goal of passing Biden's agenda. "If you look at how upset Americans broadly are about what they see as a dysfunction in Washington, and if you're a rational Democrat, you have to understand we've got to do something, we got to start delivering for the people," he said. 

Democrats misjudge anti-Trump vote in suburban setbacks: The Note 

It means that President Joe Biden is back on American soil Wednesday trying to pick up the pieces of a stalled agenda in addition to a freshly battered party. Biden himself has experience in running against -- and defeating -- Trump. But in Virginia, Biden turned out to be about as unpopular as Trump among voters overall. (There were no exit polls in New Jersey)...

Trump is already claiming full credit, but Youngkin won by keeping some distance between himself and the former president; Democrats were more eager than Republicans to talk about Trump in this year's key races...

For months, Democrats have heard from strategists, analysts and even members of Congress worried that their party has drifted from relevance to people's lives. A similar message has now been delivered from many of the same suburbs that gave them majorities and the presidency. 

What do you think? Are the Dems doomed? Do they have a clue about what voters want? Do they even know why people who voted for them last year did so? Does the rest of the country actually care what happened in Virginia? 

Chime in, if you're so inclined. I'll be sharing my thoughts on this tomorrow.

Wondering on Wednesday (v189)

Where should we start the wondering tonight, I wonder..."

Let's start with the impeachment thing and get that out of the way:

• I wonder how successful "shooting the messenger" will be as a defense for the president? The whistleblower wasn't even there, the Rs used to say, and so not the report is not even credible. And then, it was the whistleblower was partisan, so completely not credible. 

• And now that there is credible evidence from people who were there, it's escalated to "the whistleblower used to work for Biden and therefore is a material witness" (to something that happened before Trump was elected and is not germane to whether Trump did or did not commit an impeachable offence)after taking office), but now, we need the whistleblower exposed IMMEDIATELY and WE NEED TESTIMONY! LOTS OF TESTIMONY! 

• Silly me -- the defense is not "shoot the messenger", it's DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!!  

• Honestly, if the Senate wants to waste everyone's time and not do the job we sent them there to do and go after Joe Biden and his son, that's fine, but that's the exact same argument they're using to suggest that the impeachment is the wrong thing to do -- and so, I wonder if we can get this impeachment thing out of the way first?

• Little Donny Trump has tweeted the identity of the alleged whistleblower, and allegedly so have Little Donny's Daddy's Russian friends. And he apparently denies any coordination with the White House on this -- as if he'd do anything like that, he suggested. He's his own man and all. But I have to wonder, do you think he told Daddy he was going to do that, or if it was a surprise? 

• And which one of them, I wonder, told Russia, "Hey, if you're reading Don Jr's tweets, there something there you could publish if you want..."

Moving on to yesterday's election results: Virginia turned blue last night, for the first time in a generation. and the lady who flipped Trump off won a seat. Not because she flipped him off, mind you, but because her message resonated with voters and because she worked her fanny off. In Pennsylvania, Republicans lost in Delaware County where they've held seats since the Civil War; Democrats flipped several seats in Central Ohio, and may have narrowly won the Kentucky gubernatorial contest, although a re-canvass has been requested by the Republican incumbent Matt Bevin.

So - does all of that, or any of it, have anything to do with what can be expected in 2020, I wonder? Does it have anything to do with impeachment/ With bad trade deals? Leaving the Paris Climate Accord? The Iran nuclear deal?

Or, does it really only mean that people at the state and local level are unhappy with what's going on where they live?

I wonder...

Five Lessons from The Cantor Defeat

Steve Helber photo/AP

Now that Virginia Republican and (lame duck) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has gone down to defeat in his primary, everyone’s doing some head scratching, trying to figure out how they missed this one as being a seat at risk.

Most in the punditry and and the Wild World of Talking Heads are pointing to Cantor’s position on immigration including the impression that he supported amnesty for illegals. Although he denied this was his position, his opponent, Randolph-Macon College economics professor David Brat, did touch on this issue and it’s an easy one to hang a hat on. Some others are reporting that it was Cantor’s heavy hand in Virginia Republican politics, and his actions as someone who clearly thought he was not in danger in the primary, that did him in. According to a report on PBS, he spent part of election day in Washington, not in the district, which is a quite a slap in the face to the voters.

Regardless of who wins the ‘why did this happen’ sweepstakes, I think there are several things we can learn from this

(1) The power of the incumbency is not unlimited.   This is a good thing, I think, and a refreshing change in the right direction – that an entrenched, leadership incumbent is not untouchable is not a bad thing.  It may not be a good thing who won, but that's a different discussion.  For those of us who would love to see something other than the do-nothing Congress we have today, we have to face facts that, in the House since the lowest re-election rate for incumbents (since 1964)  has been 85%,  in 1970 and again in 2010. In the Senate there’s more fluctuation and the rates are lower, but it’s still over 80% for all but three election cycles since 1982.  We insist that we don’t like them but we keep re-electing them -- in part because of the next point.

(2) Voter turnout is the most critical aspect of any election.  I’m convinced this is partly why the incumbents stay in office – we hate them, sure, and we want to get rid of all of them, but we don’t care enough to vote them out. For those of you who don’t live in voter-restriction states, complaining that it’s too hard to get to the polls, or takes too much time, or any of the other myriad excuses we hear, this is proof positive that is does matter and that your vote can make a difference. Otherwise, the small percentage of the people who do care, or who do understand that voting is the single most important responsibility a citizen has in a democracy (particularly important in primaries), will make the decision for you.

Part b of the voter turnout issue: Open primaries can be dangerous to a candidate's future. In Virginia, anyone who registers on time can vote in the primary, even if it's not for your party.  In the Cantor vs. The Professor battle, there were some 17,000 to 20,000 more votes this time than in Cantor's last race, and there's at least some speculation that it could have been Dems showing up to vote Cantor out.

(3) Money talks but sometimes people actually don’t listen.  Cantor outspent The Professor by something like 20 -1: over $5 million (on some 1000 ads, and this fun attack website)  to around $200,000. And lost by 12 points or so.  His opponent apparently didn't have the benefit of a lot of outside money, because the Tea Party didn't think this was a good investment for them.  He did however, have the conservative shrills  – Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter – in his corner. Regular readers know I have long been a complainer about the influence of money in politics, particularly money that comes from outside the district that’s up for grabs, and money that comes from the kinds of people (and by that I mean unions and corporations and PACS) that don’t actually have a pulse.  Seems that wasn't the tipping point in this election, and I think that’s also actually a good thing.  

(4) Never underestimate the power of an angry candidate, or an angry voter.  Brat was angry, not

Steve Helber Photo/AP 

particularly at Eric Cantor, he’s said, but at things in general.

This isn't a personal race. I'm not running against Eric. I'm just running on the founding principles that Adam Smith and free markets - they made us the greatest nation on the Earth. All right? It's no mystery. Our rights, tradition, along with free markets and the Judeo-Christian tradition all together made us the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. I think we're veering off course a little bit and I want to get us back on that course that brought us to greatness. 

Others were more specific on why they were voting. Here are a couple of comments from Henrico County, the home of both candidates, as captured by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.  Said Jim Rhodes:

I'm out here for one reason, and one reason only: To vote against Eric Cantor. He looks out for himself, and doesn't look out for his constituents.

Another voter, Nancy Harper expressed her "outrage" at the open primary system, and also that Cantor had been around long enough.

They get in there, and they go the way of all flesh.

Other voices surely have made themselves heard in various media reports, or will, but none were so loud and clear as the vote itself.

(5) All bets are off. We will need to re-do the maps on our political future, I think.  People are already positioning themselves to replace Cantor as Majority Leader, as he's announced he'll step down by the end of July, and it remains to be seen whether the next Leader will be more mainstream or more extreme.

Moreover:

• Crying John Boehner, who has himself chastised the Tea Partiers in his caucus for being a little too extreme and a little too unwilling to go along in order to get along, may be in danger of losing the Speakership to the more extreme members of his party.
• Any chance of an 'agenda' that President Obama had is likely completely out of the picture, unless he plans on continuing to use the power of the pen instead of the power of the legislative process to get things done.  That in and of itself, is a problem. 
• Democrats who are sitting back rubbing their hands with glee, thinking that this will open the country's collective eyes and cause a shift away from extremism, are likely in for a sorry surprise. Yes, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the Tea Party may have taken over the Republican party, but keep in mind the R's  - many of whom are proudly Tea Party affiliated - control the vast majority of the statehouses. Their numbers are already strong, and this shocking victory will likely do more to embolden them than it will to rally the notoriously lazy Dems.
• Elected officials, who already seem to think first of their next election and somewhat later of what they were elected to do, will sharpen even more their laser-like focus on not making waves, on not following the leadership, on making sure they stand out by standing right in the middle of the crowd that is the flavor of the day. Afraid of losing? Be anti-immigration. Deny climate change. Be anti-regulation. Be anti-compromise. Whatever you do, don't play to the middle, and don't reach across the aisle. 

It will be interesting to see the lasting effects, if any, of this race on the mid-term Congressional races, and also on the 2016 Presidential vote. Will extremist candidates win more races this fall? And will the Dems take a hard turn to the left in response? Who will still be in the game at the end of the year? Is this enough of a turn to the right to keep Hillary out?  And will this finally prove the value in voting?  

On that last question, one can only hope.