Interesting take: Mattis versus Trump, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by: ProPeace | May 4 2016 17:20 utc | 1

The elites must be terrified that despite a total media onslaught against Trump he not only has won the nomination, he has more delegates than both his rivals combined.

Is alternative media fatally undermining the MSM ?

Posted by: Lacilir | May 4 2016 17:26 utc | 2

There's no greater testament to the end of the "American Century" than the two choices we will apparently have in November. This really is the best we can do.

Posted by: chuckvw | May 4 2016 17:41 utc | 3

Either way, it will be a rerun of the old adage "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

I still happen to remember a frantic 'Murican electorate supporting a certain 'hope & change' presidential campaign some 8 years ago...

Posted by: LXV | May 4 2016 17:54 utc | 4

Keep in mind that the MSM are just patsies or tools of TPTB .Zbigniew Brzezinski is noted as saying the biggest threat to them (tptb) was the public becoming politically aware . To counter this ,Trump may have been their Trump card ...Just a thought but why not .We dont trust the MSM so what ever they are saying its a safe bet that the opposite is true . They dont care how they win as long as we don't .imo

Posted by: Terry | May 4 2016 18:19 utc | 5

Priceless.........

Posted by: notlurking | May 4 2016 18:24 utc | 6

Simply delicious, b.
Nick Lowe wrote a song about this, decades ago.
Cruel To Be Kind...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 4 2016 18:30 utc | 7

This is the month of May, 2016.

On the horizon someone will be yelling “Mayday, May day” as in distress:

WATCH: Trailer for ‘Clinton Cash’ Movie Premiering During Cannes Film Festival 2016
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/28/watch-trailer-clinton-cash-movie-premiering-cannes/

A Film Based on the Book the New York Times Called “The Most Feared Book of a Presidential Cycle” to Premiere at Cannes

[.]Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with $2 billion in donations to their foundation, wealth accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.[.]

~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks b.

In addition to being a newbie Barfly at MoA, I will need to get myself a teevee, become a Twitter reader. One should not miss the upcoming presidential debates or tit for tats. Best entertainment ever; before the disappointments unfold.

Posted by: likklemore | May 4 2016 18:36 utc | 8

Trump won't win. Hillary will be president.

Even MoA has been wrong.

What does this really mean?

- the punditocracy is way off

- big money is finding it hard to buy an election

- even the wise acres (like me) on blogs like MoA are flat ass wrong

- despite their best efforts, big conglomerate media has no clue

- AmeriKKKans are restless, confused, angry

- the average Joe is lashing out against the BS

BUT, there is a common thread. What the electorate seems to be asking for is simply to go back to the status quo ante ... the world of the 1950's when we lived with the illusion we were the #1 bad ass country that everyone loved (well, except for furriners, blacks, and those damned Indians that hadn't all died and thus were around to make some people, though few, sad about the AmeriKKKan holocaust).

Bernie is talking about reinstating the New Deal; Trump is talking about being 'great' again; Killary is a neo-con in drag ... dreaming the ancient AmeriKKKan dream of manifest destiny for the entire world.

And, you and me? We're obviously just full of s---!

Now, go have a 'nice' day ...

[Origin of nice
Middle English, foolish, wanton, from Anglo-French, silly, simple, from Latin nescius ignorant, from Latin nescire not to know]

Posted by: rg the lg | May 4 2016 18:45 utc | 9

"Trump will lose, or I will eat this column". Great stuff. Any reports of her actually doing it? :-)

Posted by: radiator | May 4 2016 18:59 utc | 10

Oh I see, Dana is a male name here.

Washington Post's Dana Milbank ready to eat his Trump column

Posted by: radiator | May 4 2016 19:01 utc | 11

Decades after Eisenhower's warning about the MIC, America is about to see his nightmare realized -- the election of Clinton, the absolute lackey of Wall Street and the MIC.

Posted by: chet380 | May 4 2016 19:19 utc | 12

Congratulations for your research!

Posted by: Hervé de Tréglodé | May 4 2016 19:28 utc | 13

The only candidate that can win and survive is Killery, IMO. She’s the darling of o-li-plutocracy (oil-li-pluticracy?) and therefore the CIA/Dark State. Don’t we all know what happens to an outlier (Trump or Bernie in today’s arena) that happens to gain ascendency due to backlash from the plebs? Any honest human high in the hierarchy of the establishment (or effectively influential) will inevitably meet with their demise (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X to name but a few). How will we know who is and who isn’t? Long term survival once they get there. If Trump or Bernie get there and survive we’ll know that they, as Obama, were but a shill.

Posted by: juannie | May 4 2016 19:33 utc | 14

The elites must be terrified that despite a total media onslaught against Trump he not only has won the nomination, he has more delegates than both his rivals combined. Lacilir at 2.

The elites may be terrified, but about the total media onslaught against Trump, that is incorrect (and thus shows media-Gov relations in a different light.) I don’t even live in the US but can tell that the media, specifically TV, fed on Trump, the Donald, and Trumpism. His talks, his meets, his outrageous pronoucements, provocations, rallies, protestors against, girls in flags shortie skirts or what not, spectacularly bad hair, Amerika first, and on and on. While basically completely ignoring Sanders and giving him zero air time, be it pos or neg. Why? Show time! Money, viewers, clicks, advertisers, and more moolah, a bonanza! Scandal, disruption, novelty! Love it or hate it but watch! Ratings ratings and…jobs!

Posted by: Noirette | May 4 2016 19:37 utc | 15

Re my #14,

By the way, I'm from Vermont and have been aware of and personally clashed with Bernie for many years but I'd still put money on the fact that he is what he appears to be. Honest and forthright. I support him and have sent him money. I only hope that he has good and loyal secret service if he is elected.

Posted by: juannie | May 4 2016 19:51 utc | 16

Rg the lg @ 9

[.]” Hillary will be president.”
- AmeriKKKans are restless, confused, angry
- the average Joe is lashing out against the BS

~ ~ ~ ~

The anger and BS you cited imho, are just the tip of a very large iceberg.
I suggest Clinton fatigue will factor in her defeat.
Imo, Obama was the Clinton’s third and fourth terms. Same old recycled gang.

Among the failures; Hilary Clinton, his SoS, brought us Benghazzi. And, there was the great promise of Obamacare which Clinton can’t disown.
The FBI HRC’s email server investigation aside, if no indict, will be a slap on the wrist as was with Gen. David Petraeus who was given the opportunity to avoid prison and plead a misdemeanor charge.

See Link Wapo, National Security 2016/01/25 “How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time for mishandling classified information” [I avoided the url, too long, as it will convolute the Thread]

Just before the elections, Obamacare premiums are expected to double. “Major double-digit increases in premium prices.” This will be an issue in the debates.

The Donald has stated his solution to Obamacare. What of Clinton - can she disown Obamacare?

“Obamacare To Unveil "Price Shock" One Week Before The Elections”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-02/obamacare-unveil-price-shock-one-week-elections

Posted by: likklemore | May 4 2016 19:54 utc | 17

Hillary will crush Trump among those who are satisfied with the status quo. But these are only a small minority. Unless Trump does something really stupid, he will be the next Presudent.

Posted by: Vollin | May 4 2016 20:03 utc | 18

Trump will win, he's been a birther, half a truther, and he's prepared to pick up stuff off the internet (Cruz's dad). He's bound to be aware of the Clinton's past Mena etc. let alone Benghazi so his attack arsenal is far better equipped. Hilary is past it, although her stamina so far is astounding. Trump will be presented as a family man, his employees love him, and he's "independently wealthy" and is therefore able to stand up against the machine on behalf of the people. Now more presidential in manner, more reasoned. Personally: what he said about torture writes him off.

Posted by: Nobody | May 4 2016 20:05 utc | 19

#16
Bernie polls better than hillabillie vs trump also.

Posted by: jo6pac | May 4 2016 20:09 utc | 20

Well, likklemore ... I think you misread my blog. What I was saying is that the punditocracy has been saying that Killary will be president ... as in Trump won't.

I also said there is a restlessness that few have really understood (including me). My thesis is that the restlessness is little more than hope for a return to the myopia of the 1950's.

Alas, I happen to agree with Juannie ... no one except Killary could avoid assassination. Both Bernie and Trump will have targets on their asses the day they become president. The only questions will be: 1. how long will it take to assassinate them; and, 2. who will become president once they are assassinated? If the VP isn't correct, we may see a series of assassinations, or simply a coup.

Now, please do have an especially nice day ...

Posted by: rg the lg | May 4 2016 20:09 utc | 21

endless punditry bs.. what else is new? thanks for documenting it b...

i liked rg the lgs @9 post and agree with many other posters here including @14 juannie and @15 noirette and etc... so personally as a canuck, i am thinking hilary will win and confirm @12 chet380's statement..

Posted by: james | May 4 2016 20:12 utc | 22

Bad, Bad, Donald Trump

"Trump has been anointed leader of the disaffected and given the task of neutering their threat. I expect he will be elected the next President of the United States."

Posted by: Berry Friesen | May 4 2016 20:25 utc | 23

@ rg the lg 21

Thank you for clarification; I misread your comment. Cheers!

However, my views on HRC's defeat in the general election remains. In my area, N.E. solid Democratic stronghold, I was stunned to discover that the opinion of HRC- among men and women (considered low info voters ) - is "She's a liar" adding unflattering expletives.

The status quo does not sit well. "ZIRP" "the economy has recovered and unemployment is at 5% lie" food, energy price inflation despite oil price decline and the Clinton fatigue will make interesting debates.

Posted by: likklemore | May 4 2016 20:51 utc | 24

But thes idiotic war criminal liars in the MSM have given trump far bigger coverage -BY FAR - then any other candidate. While the media morons were denying him success, they ensured his victory at the same time.

And all the racist, hateful, warmongering, torture loving speeches by Trump, no different from the policies from the status quo, just so how much spin and lies work in covering up for the evil US Empire.

I would predict A certain victory for trump against Hitlery if he wasn't such a fucking moron attacking women, saying Women who take abortions should be punished criminally etc. notice how after Trump made that despicable statement that he toned down a bit more.

And Sanders is a pathetic coward. There is no one more vulnerable to attack then truly evil and disastrous Hillary Clinton. But Sanders kept his mouth shut like the miserable status quo loving coward that he is.
Sanders was given the perfect opponent and failed awfully.
If Sanders couldn't attack Hillary Clinton, then what the hell would you do against the CIA in the Pentagon in the reserve bank While president ? A sanders vote is one of the greatest delusional throwaway votes in history. Well, not so much I guess straight after Obama, and a far grander delusion in voting for Hillary.

Posted by: tom | May 4 2016 20:57 utc | 25

I am a veteran. USN NCO E5. I'm not telling you where I reside but in the last 24 hours a heavy volume of military aircraft have been active.

So I really don't believe who wins the election matters. The point where the rubber meets the road in rapidly approaching. I feel empathy with our military people our brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins. People who will sacrifice their lives so that Multinational Corporations can meet their earnings forecasts.

Just my opinion

Posted by: ALberto | May 4 2016 21:06 utc | 26

There are three questions here: why Trump won the nomination, why the "pundit class" was so wrong, and what next.

One secret of Trumfp (Trump's triumph) is that for all "Fox and talk-show" propaganda that GOP electorate absorbed, they did not care about the issues that "everybody" assumed that they care about, like the gender or transgender of restroom visitors. (Cruz tried to capitalize on the restroom issue.) In the same time, they cared about jobs "exported to China and Mexico", and again, it was assumed that not only Trump is totally wrong on that but that GOP electorate is "free market".

It kind of boils down to the quality of jobs available in USA for those who are neither best, nor brightest, nor sufficiently connected. The pay, the lack of stability, dreadful conditions etc. Industrial jobs (and many service jobs) were outsourced abroad and domestically, increasingly given to illegal (or until recently illegal) workers. Many GOP candidates ignored the issue of illegal competition on the labor market, only Trump addressed in some fashion the loss of outsourced jobs.

With several good issues, Trump became immune to criticism. I do not watch TV, but from editorials etc. I know that the copious coverage that he got included A LOT OF CRITICISM. And most of the followers of MoA found Trump appealing on the basis of that very criticism (I still do not like him, but some articles criticizing Trump almost made me a believier). There is a huge disconnect between the ruling class and hoi polloi here. The better educated part of the public managed to understand the propaganda, but the less educated ones had only sketchy familiarity, so they relied more on their daily experience.

Why pundits got is so wrong. This is a bit complex. If David Brooks got ANYTHING right, that would be an astonishing event in itself. A number of articles explaining why Trump cannot win were transparent wishful thinking, there is a genre of "prognostication" that essentially described the world as it should be (while the world, being material, is not), in other words, it was more of a rhetorical device than a true prediction. But Nate Silver is actually in the narrowly understood forecast business, and ordinarily he was pretty good at it, so something less than usual happened.

Number one, while not obvious back in September 2015, the disconnect between the elite and hoi polloi increased in recent years. Why voters were happy with some pablum in 2010, 2012, 2014 and suddenly are less than happy? It was more an erosion than a sudden event, And the "technical analysis" assumes that if a product had really such an amazing sales potential than it would be successfully marketed already -- it is not like Trump made an amazing discovery. Lastly, what I would not predict in the Fall of 2015 is that GOP candidates would refuse to reposition their message to counter Trump, or fail to cooperate. My interpretation is that GOP leadership does not exist. There was no one who could make decisions to change message, cooperate etc. Instead, rich backers of various candidates had their pet causes and the candidates sticked to those causes as long as they were getting money. Until recently, there was leadership that had a web of contacts with so-called bundlers and with political rank and file, but after Citizens United the leadership became dispensable.

Now, the question what next. Hillary Clinton polls in match-ups about 7% below Sanders who capitalized on the core issues where elite became disconnected, while Hillary is very much at the center of that elite. However, on "points of style", Trump is unacceptable to a large sector of voters. Hillary already started to change some positions, e.g. stop advocating the newest round of "improved trade agreements". Furthermore, since Democrats are underdogs, they are more prone to strategic adjustments in their positions.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 4 2016 21:17 utc | 27

Trump or Clinton, either way Murica is screwed !!!

Posted by: Deebo | May 4 2016 21:20 utc | 28

Like I just wrote ...

Kerry repeated the United States would never accept a transition that included Assad.

"If Assad's strategy is to somehow think he's going to just carve out Aleppo and carve out a section of the country, I got news for you and for him — this war doesn't end," Kerry said.

"It is physically impossible for Assad to just carve out an area and pretend he is somehow going to make it safe while the underlying issues are unresolved in this war."

source - https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-just-told-assad-he-needs-to-start-giving-up-power-in-syria-by-august-or-else

Posted by: ALberto | May 4 2016 21:20 utc | 29

NYT, 5/4/2016
Why We Need a Foreign Policy Elite
By EVAN THOMAS
Donald Trump is wrong: America’s global security relies on its diplomatic and policy establishment.

My private joke: why American currency has "In God we Trust"? Because you surely cannot trust the Federal Reserve. Now, a question: how a citizen of Tuvalu can travel around the globe with reasonable safety in the absence of any diplomatic and policy establishment in the archipelago (there is a person responsible for selling UN votes and deciding who should be and who should not be "recognized", but this is a simple business, I suspect a flat fee of few million bucks for each vote reversal).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 4 2016 21:31 utc | 30

Trump victory in the general election, I would say. Supposed sense and Clinton doesn't sound very attractive.

Posted by: Laguerre | May 4 2016 21:34 utc | 31

as someone once said

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Posted by: Perimetr | May 4 2016 21:38 utc | 32

Media coverage good or bad seems to trump all. Happened before, (perhaps not in the US) and it will happen again.
Media coverage wins. Content does not seem to matter. Politician is a politician is a politician. What they say does not matter, because who believes what a politician says?

Posted by: Peter AU | May 4 2016 21:42 utc | 33

Good one blues,

This election is not who you voting for but against.

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 4 2016 22:07 utc | 34

As Richard Charnin, the statistician, has documented believably, Bernie was cheated out of enough primaries that he would have won the nimination, not that b*.

As someone on this site pointed out-- don't remember who-- why was there apparently no substantial primary fraud against Trump?

I find it difficult to believe that the b* can be Prez for long: Her negatives are so high that instability wd increase & fooling the people on any level wd be that much more difficult.

So keep your eye on her VP. Seems to me they've made a point of telling us about her ill health. And I continue to be surprised that Biden didn't run-- unless he had expectation of becoming Prez another way.

I have no predictions-- and I don't really think it matters which person the oligarchs pick for us via the crooked vote-counting. We're going to have to save ourslves some other way.

One more thought: Soros says the NWO w/b "socialism". I wd guess pie-in-the-sky promises, in which people own nothing, have no independence, privacy or permitted personal objectives-- w digital money of course-- perhaps the most pre-eminent controller.

Posted by: Penelope | May 4 2016 22:07 utc | 35

The USA deserves a president like Trump, someone all the world leaders do not take seriously. Anyway he can't be worse than Bush.

Posted by: virgile | May 4 2016 22:11 utc | 36

Thank you Piotr @ 27. That was an interesting round-up. I'm not sure I'd agree w your very last point, though. What makes you think Democrats are underdogs? We've had a lot of Democrat presidents recently. Also Richard Charnin says that one-third of those who vote are minority & vote 83% Dem. Unless & until Rep's change their appeal to minorities I'd say Reps are the underdog.

Posted by: Penelope | May 4 2016 22:24 utc | 37

29 what will us do if Assad refuses US demands? Bomb? But ultra modern Russisn AA defenses make this s very risky option. Kerry almost certainly bluffing.

Posted by: Vollin | May 4 2016 22:32 utc | 38

Likkelmore @ 17,

Wouldn't it be something if Obama doubled the price of ObamaCare, AND went to war against Assad before the election. Is it me, or do the blows seem to be coming faster?

Posted by: Penelope | May 4 2016 22:38 utc | 39

Hah! No kidding, even the NYT hyping an anti-Clinton book?

First our disgusting oligarchy scheduled a disaster drill on Haitii the day before the earthquake so they could be there to take control.

Then they gave Bill the job of dispensing the donations and other aid, so he would be there to take the money. Last I checked I think he'd put up ONE building.

It IS disgusting to see civilization brought low by a ruling class of such moronic morality.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-haiti-disaster-relief-scenario-was-envisaged-by-the-us-military-one-day-before-the-earthquake/17122

Posted by: Penelope | May 4 2016 23:04 utc | 40

If the TPP and TTIP and the other one passes, corporations will rule over nations; privatization of everything will occur. The burden of proof will be on the consumer to prove he was poisoned. Hillary was for these until she was against them.

Obama's last assignment is to ram these thru. He must fail. Only Trump or Bernie present the chance to stop these draconian corporate measures.

Posted by: fast freddy | May 4 2016 23:14 utc | 41

Jill Stein would make a great President, but she hasn't much of a chance. I will vote for her, if that vote will not help Hillary.

Posted by: fast freddy | May 4 2016 23:18 utc | 42

I'd say Reps are the underdog.

Posted by: Penelope | May 4, 2016 6:24:56 PM | 37

GOP holds the House and the Senate, and on sub-Presidential races, GOP enjoys a very large money advantage. And while politicians are slow on the uptake, the fact that for a number of months Sanders polls about 7% better than Clinton is something that they notice. I would need to dig for links, but somewhere I have seen that Clinton already lost enthusiasm for trade deals.

However, I was not precise enough. Politicians stick to positions for two possible reasons: to get votes or to get money. When there is discrepancy between the two the trick is to gain votes with positions that the donors do not care much about. Given that, what passes for "leadership" became "money primary". Here where under-dog/top-dog dynamics is at play. As the majority of fat cats with millions to spare on politics support GOP, they have/had the luxury of making strict demands on the beneficiaries and the latter were inflexible. In part, they were recruited (almost bread) to be like that. Democratic donors, being under-dogs within their own class, would be inclined to be more flexible. And pretty much for the same reasons, liberal politicians are more flexible.

If I were Democratic behind-the-scene mastermind, I would already compile a list of "nicer gentler versions of Bernie Sanders" and some "courageous stands" that Democratic politicians should take in 2016.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 4 2016 23:56 utc | 43

@Penelope 39

my Posted link 17

Re Obamacare; Price increase will be before the election.
[.] “Tavenner who oversaw the rollout of Obamacare and the disastrous implementation of HealthCare.gov and who is now an insurance lobbyist, said she sees big jumps in Obamacare insurance premiums.”

He He He! The big boys, who wrote the law (that Roberts of SC declared a tax) said with pile up in losses, double digit increases can’t be avoided.

Re Going to war against Assad; Not gonna happen. U.S. fiasco in Syria and NATO’s provocations on Russia’s border were answered. The U.S. will cooperate. Watch what they do.

In Syria this was announced today
“US, Russia agree to include Aleppo in Syrian ceasefire deal - does not apply to terrorists IS and Al-Nusra Front – US State Dept”
https://www.rt.com/news/341844-syria-ceasefire-aleppo-truce/

In response to NATO’s 4,000 troops being positioned to Russia’s border, Russia’s response - “we will not be passive observers”
3 new divisions to be deployed - each division to have 10,000 personnel
http://tass.ru/en/defense/873755
more here
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-04/well-respond-totally-asymmetrically-russia-answers-nato-three-new-deployments

Posted by: likklemore | May 5 2016 0:00 utc | 44

Tee hee hee. Thats why they're called pundits, originally from Sanskrit (pandit - modern day vedic astrologers). They'd also be accurately described as panditammanya - FANCYING oneself leanered or clever, an ignorant and conceited person.

Posted by: Andy V | May 5 2016 0:04 utc | 45

1.
GOPers: any group stupid enough to elect Bush 2x is too stupid to nominate person most likely to beat HRC. Kasich was the only GOP candidate to consistently beat HRC by double-digits in the national polls. Kasich gave HRC a gift by throwing in the towel while there was still a mathematical possibility. (Not sure there was. Who would have gotten Cruz and Rubio delegates?)

2.
May is going to be the wildest month in American politics since Bobby Kennedy was killed. Remember this one word: Biden. No, seriously. . . Biden.

3.
If Comey and/or Lynch punt on the Clinton indictment, Trump & Co. will absolutely wipe the floor with the crooked Democrats and then see that she gets indicted when he takes office.

4.
HRC lost Indiana b/c they have all but given up. They know what's coming by now and how HRC and everyone w/in her circle could end up as defendants, including Chelsea. Gotta' be a distraction and depressing.

Posted by: Denis | May 5 2016 0:06 utc | 46

I called Trump getting the Republican nom from the start. He played a brilliant game against the party, its members, and a hostile press. Despite the constant claims, he's certainly not an idiot.

Hillary is a totally different beast however. I think Hillary will catch more crossover votes than Trump will. The fact is that he alienates many. African Americans that I know, for instance, are almost wholly against him.

I think the election is Hillary's to lose. Right now her team and the democratic party heads + advisers are hard at work developing a campaign to undermine Trump. It's going to get very ugly, because that's what can marginalize Trump the most. Associating his brand with riots and scenes of extreme situations will scare voters away imho

Posted by: aaaa | May 5 2016 0:25 utc | 47

Gee, who woulda thunk that in On-Line America, Humanity's Temple to Media & Mammon, that a vulgar media-savvy real estate huckster coulda been a contender? Why didn't it happen sooner? He's Perot with 'tude. Not a man on a white horse, a mogul with a black balance sheet.

I had Thom Hartman's RT program on in the bkgd., he notes Trump is basically playing from Nixon & Atawater's "Southern Strategy" playbook. He's a Reaganesque figure -- but where Reagan got his training shilling for Big Business, the only product that Trump promotes is himself.

Why didn't the elite see it? Well, they're the elite. They don't mix with us commoners, so don't understand us, yet they imagine we love and respect them. When evidence to contrary appears, denial sets in. "Why can't you see that shipping your manufacturing job overseas is good for the country? Stop complaining and get some training."

If the elite is truly afraid, they will craft a way to deal with The Donald. He is after all one of them, no? Certainly a section of his class finds him useful.

Conventional wisdom on the Republican primary was proved wrong. This might be due to the very crowded field; the veteran performer Trump was able to overshadow the rest, and his appeal to the lumpen-proletariat (which would be, sadly, most of it these days) clearly resonated.

But I see no reason to doubt conventional wisdom about the general election, at this time. Lower negatives win.

Were Trump to win, look for a version of the obstructionism practiced vs. the current office-holder by the Rethuglicans as a means of restraining him.

I am totally pumped for "Apprentice: Cabinet Edition"! Wonder who gets fired first? Coming soon on Fox! "We distort, you decide."

juannie at 16 --

I lived elsewhere in New England but was active in left politics in the 80-90's, so I knew of Sanders as social-democratic mayor and Representative. I later acquired a sister-in-law who lived near Burlington. I would agree with what seems to be a consensus across the political spectrum. One may dislike or disagree with Sanders' principles, but he does stand by them.

Posted by: rufus magister | May 5 2016 0:32 utc | 48

BF @ 23: "Trump has been anointed leader of the disaffected and given the task of neutering their threat."

Yep, just like Obama.

LXV @ 4: "Either way, it will be a rerun of the old adage "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

True I'm afraid. Who'll win the "election"? Doesn't matter.

Posted by: ben | May 5 2016 0:44 utc | 49

P.S.--I know who won't win. THE WORKING CLASSES!

Posted by: ben | May 5 2016 0:46 utc | 50

Bad, Bad, Donald Trump
"Donald Trump is like ISIS, launched into leadership by the very people who flamboyantly claim to oppose him."

Posted by: Berry Friesen | May 5 2016 1:16 utc | 51

I will say again that only Killary is assassination proof. Someone referred to Rethuglicans (an apt play on words) but I doubt the party will be responsible for an assassination. The (extremely dim) dimocrats won't be responsible either.

Who will?

My best bet is the same gang who did in JFK, RFK, King and others who appeared to pose a threat to the empire. The empire is over two-hundred years old (read Jefferson, not ABOUT Jefferson, rather what he really wrote; carefully read the so-called Federalist Papers to see I'm only partially full of it). Threats to the empire always result in careful attention to who is a threat. The Civil War was NOT about slavery ... it was about the right to secede. The South learned the hard way that the empire takes no prisoners. It never has and never will.

So, being repetitive, only those who support the empire and never truly challenge it are left ... that means that IF Bernie or Donald mean what they say, they won't last. Killary would IF it (erm, she) is 'elected.'

Regarding the republican drop-outs ... Trump was just mouthing what that party has done for years - the other candidates tried to pretend it wasn't really them, so Trump won by out republicaning the republicans.

Meanwhile Bernie tapped into the same dreamy drivel that brought the 'hope filled' POTUS to sit in the imperial throne. He'll get no where with his agenda. The game is rigged and if elected he won't last unless he is another Obama.

In conclusion, we either end up with Killary, or its' (oops, her) clone.

I'd give anything to hear what those idiots who taught history and civics and all that rot to me back in high school and college have to say. No doubt some garbage about the sacred right to vote in a democracy. Well, I would ... but there is absolutely no point in voting in an empire.

Is there?

Posted by: rg the lg | May 5 2016 1:46 utc | 52

@3 chuckvw, 'This really is the best we can do.'

I agree. This is the best our current system can do.

@4 LXV, 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

I agree. Meet the new boss ... 2008, 2016, ...

@27 pb, 'after Citizens United the leadership became dispensable.'

Yes!

@28 dbo, 'Trump or Clinton, either way Murica is screwed '

Yes, either way we're screwed .... and it's been that way for how many years?

@32 perimetr. 'hose who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything'

Yes, they'll be flipping the switches in all the 'vote counting' gear come November.

@35 pen, 'We're going to have to save ourslves some other way.'

amen

@42 ff 'Obama's last assignment is to ram these [TTP, TTIP, and the other one] thru.'

The US Congress will pass them in a midnight omnibus heartbeat - our hopes lie witht he countries on the other ens.

@45 denis.

On Kasich ... he's going to be Trump's VP ? Maybe the assassination 'artists' will make him prez, that's the kind 'smarts' the GOP specializes in.

On HRC ... who knows, Biden seems in good position if HRC is 'assassinated' by the Justice Department. Don't really see the motivation for it though.

We can either continue to laugh and snark as we all circle the drain or we can act.

I suggest write-in elections. Open to alternatives.

Posted by: jfl | May 5 2016 2:25 utc | 53

Beware the Ides of October..

Posted by: Lozion | May 5 2016 2:27 utc | 54

It would be interesting to see an election between Trump and Sanders for the "educational" value but it looks unlikely unless Clinton II is taken out by factors above our pay-grade to know.

I see Trump as the "Don't throw me in the briarpatch" candidate for the global plutocrats. Usually they install dictators like Trump in more backwards countries but they have certainly created a rabid following for him in the US. If elected/annointed, he will speed the move towards a military run world. All your freedoms will only exist in your head until they can find them there.

Pundits are a dime a dozen. It takes honor to speak truth to power like b does. We need to continually appreciate that and be motivated by his example.

I will likely vote for Jill Stein as I could not vote for either Trump nor Clinton II

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 5 2016 4:05 utc | 55

“If you ever hear of a group forming to stop X, put your money on X,” Nixon

Posted by: bT | May 5 2016 5:40 utc | 56

in re 51 --

Let's not be disingenuous. Why are the states exercising their "right" to secede? To exercise their "right" to own human beings without Federal "interference."

Posted by: rufus magister | May 5 2016 6:44 utc | 57

Sycophantic pundits and a clueless establishment underestimated people's anger. Is anyone surprised?

As the anti-politician, Trump tapped into this anger like no other.

Bernie's campaign also did better then expected. But Bernie is a populist, not a progressive. Black Agenda Report pegged him as sheepdog when he first entered the race. And this was confirmed by Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary (and Obama) when it mattered most (contrast Trump and Lincoln Chafee).

The battleground is the fringes and the middle:

Independents
Half of the electorate. A large number of these say that they distrust Hillary. But Trump also has "high negatives" that Hillary will try to exploit.

Conservatives
The neocon establishment's NEVER TRUMP campaign may throw their support behind a third-party conservative candidate.

Bernie supporters
About 25% say they will not vote for Hillary but there is also a large number that are undecided.

This election will be divisive. The divisions are as deep as those of the 1930's and the 1960's. The turmoil of those earlier times resulted in fundamental restructuring of social obligations that would be enforced by government. IMO the fundamental issue at stake now is the structure of the Empire:

Trump: Traditional (Roman-like)
A privileged core ("America First") managing sovereign vassals. Less belligerent but 'core' advantages cause friction. Stability depends on skillful management. Sovereign nations guard the rights and dignity of their citizens.

Hillary: Feudal
Neolibcon NWO of trans-national, cronyist oligarchs (Aristocrats) and their technocratic lackeys ruling over a divided, impoverished populace. A constant, enduring push to expand the empire and eliminate 'threats' (notably, BRICS opposition).

Hillary is perfectly positioned to represent the rapacious trans-national elite after Bill's work with the Clinton Global Initiative (influence peddling) and Hillary's Secretary of State gig.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 5 2016 6:48 utc | 58

This article reminds me of the similar and amusing timeline of events
which chronicled Napoleon Bonapartes escape from exile on island of Elba
to his eventual arrival in Paris.

"The following is a list of Paris newspaper headlines reporting the journey of Napoleon across France, on his return from exile on Elba, March 9 to March 22, 1815:

March 9
THE ANTHROPOPHAGUS HAS QUITTED HIS DEN

March 10
THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN

March 11
THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP

March 12
THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE

March 13
THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THOUGH LYONS

March 14
THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON

March 18
BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL

He has been fortunate enough to escape his pursuers

March 19
BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS

March 20
NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS

March 21
THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINEBLEAU

March 22
HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY arrived yesterday evening at the Tuileries, amid the joyful acclamation of his devoted and faithful subjects.

source(http://wrathfuldove.org/2010/01/29/telling-and-amusing-headline-progression/)
courtesy Paris newspapers 1815

Posted by: chris m | May 5 2016 9:42 utc | 59

"Hmm, all the reasons given for why Trump could NEVER win the nomination are now being used to explain why he’ll NEVER win the presidency"

Winning the GOP nomination is an entirely different matter than winning a general election. The modern GOP has been taken over by ideologues and fanatics. They want rhetoric, posturing, bigotry, xenophobia and threats, that is their view of what makes a great leader. Trump gave them raw meat, and they pounced on it and demanded more.

But in playing to that audience, Trump has alienated himself from blacks, Latinos and most women. They will all play a big role in deciding the election against him.

Posted by: ralphieboy | May 5 2016 10:08 utc | 60

Which world leaders can be taken seriously? Merkel?, Cameron? Hollande? Just like Obama, Clintons, the Bush Criminals, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson these are also clowns.

Trump is a greater joke - a cartoon in the flesh. He trumps the others. You're fired!

Posted by: fast freddy | May 5 2016 11:04 utc | 61

Cartoon Trump stole that concept from the cartoon "The Jetsons". Mr. Sprocket: Jetson, you're FIRED!

Posted by: fast freddy | May 5 2016 11:07 utc | 62

Tulsi Gubbard will be the VP pick for many reasons.

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 11:36 utc | 63

Here's the military vet who detests Clinton to boot.

It's why she endorsed Bernie Sanders - one of the few Democrats in Congress with the guts to do so.

Trump would be wise to pick her.

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 11:38 utc | 64

That was supposed to be a pick.

Trying again.

Tulsi Gubbard

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 11:39 utc | 65

LXV, post #4:

"I still happen to remember a frantic 'Murican electorate supporting a certain 'hope & change' presidential campaign some 8 years ago..."

Sorry it's 'Merkin, not 'Murican: as in "Merkin Muffley, President of the United States" ("Dr. Strangelove", 1964)

Posted by: rackstraw | May 5 2016 12:04 utc | 66

Trump doesn't have to rely on unreliable Secret Service protection, as JFK did. He has hired his own security.

Posted by: lysias | May 5 2016 12:14 utc | 67

People who support Trump will be afraid to admit it to pollsters. Trump is likely to do considerably better than the polls show.

Posted by: lysias | May 5 2016 12:17 utc | 68

Here's the dream ticket. Trump teaming up with an anti-establishment Democrat anti-Neo Con Terrorist (ISIS) Hawk (work with Russia, not against them).

Trump-Gabbard 2016.

www.trump-gabbard.com.

Spread it around.

Cheers.

Suggestions welcome.

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 12:36 utc | 69

Sorry agin, let me hyperlink that properly.

Trump-Gabbard 2016.

www.trump-gabbard.com

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 12:37 utc | 70

Let's try agin on that.

Trump-Gabbard 2016

www.trump-gabbard.com

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 12:38 utc | 71

Strange.

One more time.

Trump-Gabbard

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 12:40 utc | 72

Sorry, not sure why it keeps adding in moonofalabama.org etc. into the hyperlink.

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 12:41 utc | 73

Tulsi Gabbard fully supports Bernie Sanders, Jules, so that won't happen.

Has anyone bothered to stop by Cannonfire lately? Joe has totally lost his shit and is constantly yelling at all the damn kids to get off his lawn. Of course, this type of behavior is expected from anyone who's had to twist their values into a goddamn Gordian knot in order to justify supporting Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 5 2016 12:49 utc | 74

Is this what you are trying to link to Jules?

I agree Tulsi is a breath of fresh air even compared to Bernie.

Posted by: juannie | May 5 2016 12:55 utc | 75

Re: Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 5, 2016 8:49:48 AM | 72

Yes she does, perhaps it is a bit early. But Bernie will not be the nominee. He can't get the delegates. Even if Hillary falls in a heap someone like Biden will get it.

Why does she support Bernie? That is an interesting question I'm not quite sure we really know why that is.

I suspect a large part of that support is based upon Bernie being the anti-Clinton. Ie, the anti-NeoCon WarHawk nutcase.

That being the case, if Bernie falls by the wayside, who becomes the anti-NeoCon WarHawk nutcase?

Who has also said the US should make common cause with Russia and destroy ISIS together rather than get into a new Cold War?

Fairly clear I'd suggest.

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 13:04 utc | 76

Re: Posted by: juannie | May 5, 2016 8:55:27 AM | 73

Thanks for trying, same problem!

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 13:05 utc | 77

Pure comedy.Trump won because we,the American people,are tired of being manipulated by Zionism,and all its poison.
The coverage by the MSM was totally negative,they must of thought he was Howard Dean of the scream,but the more they attacked Trump,the more support he got.
World leaders?Outside of China and Russia,the world leaders are shite.
America first!Yeah.
And he will tear the hell bitch a new asshole.
All I pray is that he continues on this course,and hopefully he won't suck Ziodick like the HB,who sucks it so hard,she has it coming out her ass.

Posted by: dahoit | May 5 2016 13:10 utc | 78

One possibility I see on the horizon (and I don't see a lot of discussion about it) is the distinct possibility that Obama will declare state of emergency and initiate continuity of government measures to ensure the survival of the nation. This election could very well tear the nation apart and Obama would only have to initiate a decree to keep it from happening. With him retaining the office until such time as is good for the nation to once again have a choice in whom they wish to serve in that capacity. Would this scenario be any worse that the current choice between Trump and Hillbillery?

Posted by: thecelticwithinme | May 5 2016 13:15 utc | 79

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-case-against-hillary-clinton/5523536
By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, May 05, 2016

Posted by: okie farmer | May 5 2016 13:15 utc | 80

Jules;Give it a rest.Gabbard is obviously a ambitious Hindu.and is anti Muslim,and probably too young Constitutionally for VP.And Jill stein?A Jewish female?The most out of touch with reality humans in America?sheesh.
And B Friesen says;The Zionists really wanted Trump in the first place.Hahahaha.No they want the hell bitch.
I just hope Trump is as radical as he appears,Russia,the world and US need it.

Posted by: dahoit | May 5 2016 13:27 utc | 81

Trump’s victory: A dangerous turning point in American politics

The emergence of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee marks a dangerous watershed for US and world politics. The selection of a fascistic demagogue as the candidate of one of the two major capitalist parties is indisputable proof of the advanced stage of the putrefaction of American democracy. The impending nomination of Trump means that a substantial section of the American ruling class has concluded that the defense of its interests requires massive political repression within the United States and war against competitors and enemies beyond its borders.

And whichever one of these demented counterfeits is elected will be followed in 2020 or 2024 by an even more extreme, demented counterfeit, if the one or the other of this lot hasn't plunge the world into nuclear war, or the US into a military coup by then. Just as sure a Bush followed Clinton and Obama followed Bush. And there were people projecting 'good things' upon Bush when he ran and won in 2000. Same as Obama. Same as Trump. I don't think there are people projecting good things onto Hillary, but there are people ready to vote for her.

There's always a tomorrow, no matter how bleak. The longer we sit on our hands the bleaker it will be. I have a plan. If you don't like mine, create your own and follow it. Share it with us. We need to do something.

Posted by: jfl | May 5 2016 13:41 utc | 82

Proven Track Record from Hell.

Six reasons not to vote for Zionist Hellory Clinton: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

"The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there." - Eric Zuesse

Posted by: fastfreddy | May 5 2016 13:44 utc | 83

For the record, Tulsi Gabbard is 35.

35 is the legal age for US President or VP.

Posted by: fastfreddy | May 5 2016 13:48 utc | 84

Re: Posted by: dahoit | May 5, 2016 9:27:35 AM | 79

In the United States, a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S. Constitution. Most states in the U.S. also have age requirements for the offices of Governor, State Senator, and State Representative.[28] Some states have a minimum age requirement to hold any elected office (usually 21 or 18).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

For the record Tulsi is 35 (born April 1981), so she is definitely eligible.

As an interesting aside, if she were to be elected as VP to Trump later this year and serve two terms as Trump's VP Gabbard could then stand for the Presidency in 2024 potentially.

If she were to do that and be elected, at the 2025 inauguration Gabbard would be almost exactly 1 month older than John F Kennedy at his inauguration in 1961. 43 years and 250 odd days.

Posted by: Jules | May 5 2016 13:49 utc | 85

BM @ 72: Agreed.

jfl @ 80: Your plan has merit, but you assume the "election" process is real. With e-voting

a reality in the U$A, who knows?

Posted by: ben | May 5 2016 14:05 utc | 86

We could start by banning e-voting, but how do we crack the MSM ban on even discussing it?

Posted by: ben | May 5 2016 14:10 utc | 87

The unfortunate and unspoken reality in the United States is that the people haven't really had a say in their government since the deep state eliminated JFK. Bi- and quadrennial dog-and-pony shows are conducted to prevent the proles from realizing their predicament, but the uniform nature of policy (more war and defense spending coupled with reductions in social services and civil rights) belies the myth of competing political agendas between the two dominant corporate parties.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 5 2016 14:55 utc | 88

Imo, Obama was the Clinton’s third and fourth terms. Same old recycled gang.

-- likklemore at 17

Right on. The gang being the Dem. apparatus, which is now broken, by Sanders (left-er-wing popular contender as opposed to some stand-in bozo in it for visibility, status, money, say) - thru Killary being despised as a neo-con in new garb - and indirectly by Trump.

The two-party system has shattered and many are floundering as their lives (jobs, status, influence) and will be seriously affected. That includes Repubs. and not just Dems.

Looking further into media-Trump, re. total media onslaught against Trump (Lacilir at 2) I found this article, a surprise for me.

(re Trump): " Here is how much was spent to stop him winning the nomination. "

msm money

In such a situation, bad publicity is equivalent to publicity, which is all great, as Trump certainly knows. E.g. having a petition signed to ban him from England for excluding new entrant muslims to the US is a ... triumph.

Piotr at 27: My interpretation is that GOP leadership does not exist. There was no one who could make decisions to change message, cooperate etc. Instead, rich backers of various candidates had their pet causes .. That is about right I reckon. They tried hard after Obama was elected but got nowhere, all their proposals, position papers, etc. were ridiculous.

Posted by: Noirette | May 5 2016 14:56 utc | 89

Further likklemore @17's sentiment's regarding Obama representing an extension of Clinton's presidency, I would expand upon that to say that every president is simply an extension of ruling class, i.e. deep state, policies.

By synthesizing the appearance of conflict and opposition between two corporate-controlled parties with a media-driven split of the electorate into nearly evenly-sized camps of D's and R's, the establishment is able to continue enacting its true agenda while blaming the inability to satisfy the needs and wants of average citizens to things like partisan gridlock.

It's a system, not a bug. Divide and conquer is as old as Empire itself, and until such time as people are able to throw off the shackles of artificial division based on wedge issues, we will continue to watch our collective standard of living diminish due to parasitical behavior on the part of the elites.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 5 2016 15:21 utc | 90

Denis 45 yeah polling showed Kasich could beat Mrs Clinton but primary election results showed some pretty mixed results for him and could an unheard of republican apparatchik really could do any better than Romney or McCain? I don't think so.

if Mrs Clinton can't be the Democratic candidate then write off the democrats chances as it won't just be Biden, it will be Sanders, the Clinton rump candidate, Warren, the Obama faction candidate etc, etc any number of people.

As for Trump, I still can't see the Republican apparatchiks accepting him, may just quietly let his campaign wither since its a bit obvious if they toss him out at the Convention and return to battle after 4 years of Mrs Clinton with one of their own.

Posted by: heath | May 5 2016 15:24 utc | 91

Penelope mentioned this the other day. It's more starkly apparent - now that Trump has clinched the nom. (according to RNC Chair Rinse Prius):

It appears (see tons of money at Noirette 57) that the R Party was incapable of rigging the system - delegates, et al. - against Trump. This is very suspicious. Well, they did screw him on delegates a few times. Cruz just recently, but they couldn't shake him in spite of all that money against him, they didn't have the system controls in place to knock him out.

By contrast, The D Party apparatus has been handily screwing Sanders at will at nearly every turn. Like a well-oiled machine.

Posted by: fastfreddy | May 5 2016 15:54 utc | 92

There are several issues that Sanders refused to use to attack Clinton as a corrupt and hateful person.
1. The massive explicit corruption of the clinton foundation
2. The decade jail sentence for commoners for mishandling classified information
2a. The info in those e-mails, like her friends directly benefitting from the destruction of Libya
3. The money laundering or fraud of her the clinton victory fund
4. War mongering in Syria, which would have directly benefitted al qaeda and

Trump will attack her constantly, and will make it a good show. There's also the possibility of her stroking out and Bernie becoming the default nominee, an outcome we can all pray for.

Posted by: Cresty | May 5 2016 16:00 utc | 93

OT
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-political-freefall-after-news-davutoglu-set-resign-2099501738
Turkey's ruling AKP party has announced an extraordinary congress for May 22, amid reports Ahmet Davutoglu was to step down as prime minister.The announcement of a congress on Thursday was made after talks between Davutoglu and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. - See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-political-freefall-after-news-davutoglu-set-resign-2099501738#sthash.Fsjz8ks7.dpuf

Posted by: okie farmer | May 5 2016 16:21 utc | 94

@ Noirette 87 and Bruno Marz @ 88– thanks for expanding

Imho, this is a high recommend read;

Gary Leupp, Professor of History at Tufts University, has compiled this sobering reference piece:

Hillary R. Clinton’s Resume from age 17 - includes Foreign Policy achievements and 2016 Campaign branding

What the record shows:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-resume-what-the-record-shows/5523276

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It was a challenge to select from the paragraphs of golden nuggets. I leave it to readers' selections.
In 1,000 years of Sundays, you can't make this stuff up!

Posted by: likklemore | May 5 2016 17:18 utc | 95

1.
“if Mrs Clinton can't be the Democratic candidate then write off the democrats chances as it won't just be Biden,”

You need to find the YT of Biden’s speech at the California Democratic Convention in late Feb. I think you’ll agree that Biden has never been out of this race. It was as much a campaign speech as any given in this cycle. On Mar31 I gave a point-by-point inventory of his self-serving, vote-for-me comments in the speech. Here

This year’s Demo convention could very well play out like 1968 when Bobby was suddenly taken out of the race, leaving an establishment vacuum, which VP Huber Humphrey stepped in to fill, thereby flushing the ideological elements of the party down the loo. Biden would make mincemeat out of Trump. It would be 60% - 40% in the general election. Besides, the Clinton camp knows that Biden being president is probably Hil’s best chance of staying out of prison. I would not be surprised if she stepped aside and endorsed Biden before the convention in return for a back-room promise of a preemptive pardon a little further down the trail.

2.
“As for Trump, I still can't see the Republican apparatchiks accepting him,”

I agree 100%, but the Republican apparatchiks probably don’t have anything to do with it at this point. The analysis comes down to RNC convention rules as much as people’s opinions of who they want to run. With no one else in the race, Trump has > 50% of the pledged delegates he needs to win the first ballot, making him the de facto nominee. If you are aware of rules that would prevent his nomination, would love to hear them. Like, what happens to the delegates previously pledged to Cruz, Kaisch, Fiorina, Rubio?

Also, Ryan, who will likely chair the rules committee, has already said publicly that no one who is not actively in the race should be permitted to be nominee, thereby cutting off a white knight nominee. IOW, ya’ got only one duck still standing – Donald Duck.

I’m not a Biden fan; I’m not a Kaisch fan; Trump disgusts me even more than most American politicians, if that's possible. I’m just trying to figure out the most likely outcomes, as we all are.

Posted by: Denis | May 5 2016 17:43 utc | 96

@94

"...what happens to the delegates previously pledged to Cruz, Kaisch, Fiorina, Rubio?"

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe this helps.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-will-happen-to-ted-cruzs-562-delegates/

Posted by: dh | May 5 2016 17:49 utc | 97

Sorry . . . my last comment was directed to heath | May 5, 2016 11:24:29 AM | 89

Posted by: Denis | May 5 2016 17:59 utc | 98

When it becomes Trump against Clinton I expect that some Wall Street guys will be so friendly to help Trump by disclosing details of Clinton's Wall Street speeches.

Posted by: WWWyning | May 5 2016 18:39 utc | 99

So it looks like the two major party candidates offered up for "selection" are a) a racist con with no experience starting wars or killing innocents and b) a neo-liberal-con psychopath with plenty of experience starting wars and killing innocents.

I will not vote for either of these two "selections". I will be voting for a woman who shares my values: Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. I know she has little chance of being elected, but at least I won't have to live with choosing an evil monster offered by the corporate parties.

Posted by: Vietnam Vet | May 5 2016 19:29 utc | 100