Bernie for President 2020

This is not a joke. I'm completely serious: I'm endorsing Bernie Sanders for President in 2020, and I'm doing it now, before the primaries even start.

I've said many times on this blog that I hate Bernie Sanders, and I meant it. And I still hate him. I've blamed him for Trump being elected, and I stand by that. I said back in 2015 that Bernie was the only man who could get Donald Trump elected President, and by God, Bernie did it. I said that the math was clear back in March 2016 that Hillary had it sewed up, just like Rachel Maddow and Barack Obama, and we were right, and I'm not going to discuss it because I can do math, but I don't know how to teach math. And also because most of the people who say they want to debate this don't want to debate, or learn, a goddam thing.

I'm endorsing Bernie this time because I believe that if we don't nominate him this time, he will get Donald Trump re-elected. Because he has a hard core of fanatical, hard-core, unreasonable followers. When Bernie and the Bernie Bros didn't get what they wanted in 2016, they behaved like spoiled babies and wrecked everything.

I do not see the slightest sign that they learned a goddam thing from the experience.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about the majority of people who voted for Bernie in the 2016 primaries. I'm not talking about the majority of people who put Bernie bumper stickers on their cars. Most of those people were reasonable enough to get behind Hillary before Bernie did, and in a much, much more enthusiastic and meaningful way than Bernie ever did, even though many of them hate her intensely. Even most of the people left of center who hated Hillary still understood that the differences between Hillary and Bernie were tiny compared to the differences between any Democratic candidate and Trump. They were able to grasp the concept of party unity. And the vast majority of people who are supporting Bernie now are going to vote for any Democratic candidate rather than Trump.

I'm talking about the more than 1 million people who wrote Bernie in. I'm talking about the Bernie Bros who didn't vote in November 2016, or voted for Stein or Johnson or Trump, and I'm talking about Bernie, who either can't do the math, or pretended that he couldn't, and honestly, which would be worse?

I'm talking about people who can't be reasoned with.

It will be much more effective to just give these idiots what they want, and unite around Bernie, than it would be to nominate anybody else, and try to get the Bernie Bros to unite around them, and to get support from Bernie himself which would be more than half-assed.

Bernie is far and away the strongest candidate we have for President in 2020, because he has that hard core of idiots who will screw it up for anybody else, exactly the same way they screwed it up for Hillary in 2016, and none of the other candidates has a hard core like that. And he has a hard core like that because he's like that. But he still will be a far, far better President than Trump. Biden or Bloomberg would be much worse presidents than Bernie, and they would still be much, much better Presidents than Trump. Almost any Republican Senator, Congressperson, governor or mayor in the US would be a far, far better President than Trump, but it looks like they're going to nominate Trump for a 2nd term, so this is no time to fuck around. Bernie is the best bet to stop Trump, so I'm 100% behind Bernie. And if I'm in a place where a lot of swing voters can hear me, I'll wear my very best shit-eating grin and pretend to love Bernie, because this is no time to fuck around. (The readership of this blog is very close to 100% Leftist.)

It's easier, it's smarter, to just give Bernie and his Bros want they want. They don't understand the concept of party unity, but enough of the rest of us do. Yeah, it's sort of paradoxical and ironic. Try to enjoy the irony, if you hate Bernie too.

And again, just to be perfectly clear: when I say "the rest of us," I'm including the great majority of people who support Bernie, the great majority of people for whom Bernie would be the first choice. I'm talking about the vast majority of people to the left of center, who understand how important it is that Donald Trump not be re-elected.

They Still Can't Do Math

The problem with Bernie Sanders' fans, in a nutshell, is that they're idiots. In an election post-mortem started yesterday, one of them stated, "The 3rd-party votes weren't enough to make a difference in any states, even if all of them had gone for Hillary." This got a lot of applause and no contradiction at all from other Bernie People. In other words, they're still not even close to being able to do the math. They are impaired.

Trump carried 30 states and won 304 electoral votes; Hillary carried 20 states plus the District of Columbia, and won 227 electoral votes.

Of the 30 states Trump won:

* He got 1,252,401 votes in Arizona and Hillary got 1,161,167, a difference of 91,234, less than the 106,327 Johnson got.

* He got 4,617,886 votes in Florida and Hillary got 4,504,975, a difference of 112,911, barely half of Johnson's 207,043.

* He got 2,279,543 votes in Michigan and Hillary got 2,268,839, a difference of 10,704, about 1/5 of Stein's 51,463.

* He got 2,970,733 votes in Pennsylvania and Hillary got 2,926,441, a difference of 44,292, less than Stein's 49,941.

* He got 1,405,284 votes in Wisconsin and Hillary got 1,382,536, a difference of 22,748, less than Stein's 31,072.

In none of those 5 states did I even need to consider both Johnson's votes or Stein's. One or the other was greater than Trump's margin of victory over Hillary. All together, those 5 states have 86 electoral votes, meaning that if Hillary had taken them all, she would have had 313 electoral votes to Trump's 218, and we would be busy working toward Hillary's goal of 500 million solar panels nationwide within a few years and strengthening the social safety net and pushing harder for equal pay for women and ethnic minorities, instead of wondering when enough Republican lawmakers will finally find a bit of decency and/or shame and/or sanity within themselves, so that we can impeach Trump and remove him from office. I also didn't need to consider the 111,850 people nationwide who wrote in Bernie, the 731,788 votes for Evan McMullin, the 203,010 for Darrell Castle, the 74,392 for Gloria La Riva or the 763,419 votes for others. If all of the 3rd party votes had gone for Hillary, it might well have swung more than 5 states.

And then there are the approximately 110 million people who had the right to vote but didn't. That's something to look into as well, those 110 million folks.

At least 2 things are abundantly clear: 1), in the 2016 Presidential election, 3rd-party and independent candidates most certainly did make a difference; and 2), the idiots who think they didn't make a difference in any states won't be convinced otherwise by this blog post.

Okay: maybe out of all of those millions of idiots, a handful might actually suddenly understand, because of this post. It's possible. By and large, however, they are math-proof. Concepts which seem so elementary to some of us -- such as that in a winner-take-all system, in an election where 2 candidates are far, far ahead of all of the others, you should vote for 1 of the 2 leading candidates if you can see any difference at all between them, because if you don't might get stuck with the one you like less, and that there is a huge difference between our horrendous mess of an election system and the system of proportional representation most countries are fortunate enough to have, where not voting for one of the 2 leading candidates actually does not always equal throwing your vote away, and where the Green Party is not a horrible joke -- concepts like that are beyond them. Over their dear pointy heads.

We're not going to get the votes of people who can't do math, with math. We're going to have to get their votes some other way.

Maybe if we consult psychologists who deal with infants and toddlers for a living. Ask them how the tykes are best persuaded to stop throwing their poop. Other than that, right now I got nothing.

I Don't Understand Jill Stein's Recount Effort

Is Jill Stein raising all this money and going to all of this effort to have recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania because she doesn't want Trump to be President?

If so -- is she really so dumb that she doesn't realize that Hillary might very well have been elected if she, Stein, had dropped out of the election and endorsed Hillary?

What about all of the people donating money to Stein's recount campaign -- how many of them have noticed things such as that the number of votes Stein got in Michigan is several times as large as the difference in votes between Trump and Hillary?

How many of these people, if I were face-to-face with them and saying such things, would honestly have no idea what I'm talking about?

Maybe Stein's recount crusade actually has nothing at all to do with preferring one candidate over another. Maybe she really believes that Hillary would make just as bad a President as Trump, and for her this is just all about correctly counting every single vote, and she could give a flying squirrel about the end result of the election.

All I know for sure is that I think that Jill Stein is a huge moron. There's no possible explanation for her current behavior which doesn't leave her looking like an idiot in my eyes: 1) If she really believes that Hillary would not be a better President than Trump, she's an idiot. 2) If she wants the recount because she sees that Trump will be a terrible President, but she's only grasped that since the election, she's an idiot.

3) If she's thought all along that Hillary would be a much better President than Trump, and honestly can't understand how her candidacy helped Trump, then she's an incredible idiot.

There's no doubt at all that there are many idiots in all of those three categories among Stein's voters.

I hope that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all flip and that Hillary is elected President. If that happens because of Jill Stein, I'm still going to think she's an incredible idiot. But I'll still take it, very happily.

Having Hillary take office rather than Trump would be a huge big deal for me. It would be much, much more significant than anything to do with Jill Stein.

Nevertheless, I'm very curious, and very puzzled, about Jill Stein's behavior.

And also, I'm puzzled as to why I'm not seeing a great number of news stories expressing the very same puzzlement.

Is this our old friend, "objective journalism," once again? Is my reaction to Jill Stein very much the same as the personal reaction of nearly every political journalist on Earth, but they're avoiding saying it publicly because that would violate this imaginary "objectivity" which they prize above all other things?

Great Big Fat Guy Voted Today (Great Big Fat Guy, Day 374)

The polls opened in Michigan at 7AM. (Michigan has no early voting, and heavy restrictions on absentee voting.) A few minutes before 7AM, I set off on foot for my polling place, which is about a half-mile away. I walked because it was still dark and I don't like to drive at night anymore.

At the polling place, I got into the longest line I've ever seen up close and personal at a polling place. I went early thinking I might beat the rush, and then on the way I thought, But what about the people showing up to vote before they go to work? That might account for some of it. But I'm also pretty sure I heard an election official saying on the phone that he'd never seen lines like these.

I stood in line for about an hour, voted a straight Democratic ticket, and walked home. Michigan has a Republican governor who signed a bill into law abolishing the straight party ticket option on Michigan's ballots, but a Federal judge overturned that law. Now if we Michiganders could just get into the habit of voting more often than every 4 years, and vote these Republicans bums out of office, and vote in a majority of some people in the state and local offices -- Democrats, that is -- who actually want to encourage voting instead of making it more difficult!

I did not see any Trump thugs attempting to intimidate voters. I've still only seen one Trump sign in town, in my next-door neighbor's front lawn. This, and the voting history of our town through the decades, made me hope that maybe the big turnout meant a nice result for Hillary. It seemed that most of the people in line were women.

I saw only one clear indication of someone's political sympathies: a women in line ahead of me was wearing a Hillary button.

If you've read all of my Great Big Fat Guy posts you might think I go out walking every day, which would lead to my not being so huge anymore. And it very likely would. The thing is that I don't go out walking every day. It seems that after I've come back home from a long walk I feel like writing a Great Big Fat Guy post. Probably because I know that walking is a very healthy thing for me to do.

I haven't written a Great Big Fat Guy post every single time I've taken a walk. But close enough, unfortunately.

Still doing the push-ups and crunches every day, and attempting a bridge (see photo) every day.

I'm continuing to have the same result with the bridge every day: every day, starting from lying on my back with my legs bent and my hands on the floor under my head, I get everything but my hands and feet off of the ground, and keep it off of the ground for a while, but fail to straighten out my arms and extend the bridge fully.

Your turn, Katy:

Hillary Could Win Texas

Stunning Texas Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Is Close To Turning Lone Star State Blue, reads a headline at Pliticus USA, and the story proceeds: "The bedrock Republican state of Texas could go for Hillary Clinton as Donald Trump's Lone Star state lead has shrunk to within the margin of error [...]"

Back in 2013 in my blog post Texas Is Purple, I tried to spread the word that Texas is not as solidly Republican as many people outside of Texas believe it is. So although I'm very happy that Hillary is now making it close in Texas, I'm not nearly as stunned as some people are.

Besides the fact this story may help to correct the widespread erroneous assumption that Texas is a deep-red Republican stronghold, I'm very happy about it because Texas has 38 electoral votes, and because, of its 36 US Representatives up for re-election next month, 25 are Republicans, and it would be nice to flip a lot of those House seats.

I first became aware of this story today, not from news headlines, but because every day I take a look at a few websites with electoral-vote maps, and today, on one of those sites, , I saw that Texas had gone from pink, "Likely GOP," to white outlined in pink, "Barely GOP." Red means "Strongly GOP," and ElectoralVote has just 81 electoral votes marked red right now. Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Utah and Alaska are currently pink on their map, and besides Texas, the states in white outlined in pink, "Barely GOP," are Iowa, South Carolina and Mississippi.

I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, and put those 38 electoral votes from Texas, or the 6 each from Iowa or Mississippi or the 9 from South Carolina, into Hillary's column prematurely. The most I can say, objectively, is that, right now, Trump's support is plummeting all across the country.

Evan McMullin

Utah has not gone to a non-Republican Presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964, when Barry Goldwater won South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and his home state of Arizona, and Johnson won everything else. But a poll of likely Utah voters released today shows Trump and Hillary tied at 26% each.

You're right, 26% each leaves 48 more percent. So could someone else win Utah? Yep, maybe, if this poll isn't a fluke. Gary Johnson? Well, he has 14% in this poll, which doesn't look too shabby compared to 26%. But Evan McMullin has 22%. Read all about it in this CNN article.

What's that? You say you don't even know who this McMullin guy is? Me neither. Let me do some research. Be right back.

Okay: shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that McMullen is a Mormon from Utah. He used to work for the CIA, he used to be a counsel for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, he used to be the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, a position he resigned only shortly before declaring his candidacy for President 2 months ago. His candidacy is supported by some prominent Never Trump Republicans.

Nationwide, he's polling around 2%, having pulled slightly ahead of Jill Stein. He doesn't seem to be making a really big splash anywhere other than Utah.

The last time a third-party candidate wan any electoral votes was in 1968, when George Wallace, running a pro-segregation campaign for the American Independent party, won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and 1 of North Carolina's 13 electoral votes.

So, anyway, this McMullin character is definitely bad news for Trump in Utah. More bad new for Trump in Utah: the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah's largest newspaper, endorsed Hillary today. Oh, but that might not actually be such a shock to the Trump campaign: the Tribune also endorsed Barack in 2008 and 2012, and Barack still got trounced in Utah by John and Mitt. Seems the Tribune may have occasionally been just a smidge to the Left of Utah's voters in generally.

So, back to Trump 26%, Hillary 26%, Evan 22% and Gary 14% in Utah in today's poll: what does it mean? I don't know. It's just one poll. Up until now Trump had been way out in front in Utah, and maybe he still is and this one poll is a fluke. Or maybe Trump is through in Utah, and today's poll is just beginning of how bad it's going to get for him there. Or maybe it's somewhere in the middle. We'll see.

Utah has 6 electoral votes, and the latest projections show Hillary ahead by over 150 electoral votes even if Trump wins Utah, so none of this seems crucial right now to the outcome of the election for President. Still, the first loss of Utah by a Republican Presidential candidate since 1964 would be striking. If the Republican candidate actually ends up coming in 3rd in Utah, that would be extremely striking.

And if this poll is both not a fluke, if it's indicative of Trump's share of the vote plummeting not just in Utah but generally -- okay, that's me getting way ahead of myself. Never mind. There's no need for anyone to picture the happy dance I'm doing as I write this post.

America, This is Our Chance To Elect Just The 3,047th Female Head Of State In The History Of The World!

Am I exaggerrating? Maybe. By much? Maybe not! Take a look:

17.12.1917-09.03.1918 Acting Head of the Government Evheniya Bohdanivna Bosch, Ukraine. 06.04.1940-11.10.1944 Head of State Khertek Anchimaa-Toka, People's Republic of Tannu Tuva. 21.07.1960-27.03.1965, 29.05.1970-23.07.1977, 14.11.1994-10.8.2000 Prime Minister Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka. 19.01.1966-24.03.1977, 14.01.1980-31.10.1984 (†), Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India. 31.10.1968-24.02.1972 Acting Head of State Song Qingling, China. 17.03.1969-10.04.1974 Minister President Golda Meïr, Israel. 01.07.1974- 24.03.1976 Executive President Maria Estella Martínez de Perón, Argentina. 03.01.1975-07.04.1976 Premierministre Élisabeth Domitién, Central African Republic. 08-1977-09.1977 Minister President Lucinda E. da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws, The Netherlands Antilles. 03.05.1979-22.11.1990 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, United Kingdom of Great Britain. 01.08.1979-3.01.1980 President of the Council of Ministers Dr. Maria de Lourdes Ruivo da Silva Pintasilgo, Portugal. 17.11.1979-18.07.1980 Interim Executive President Lidia Gueiler Tejada, Bolivia. 21.07.1980-14.06.1995 Prime Minister Dame M. Eugenia Charles, Dominica. 01.08.1980-01.08.1996 President Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Iceland. 04.02.1981-14.10.1981, 09.05.1986-16.10.1989, 30.11.1990-25.10.1996, Minister of State Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway. 01.04.1981-01.10.1981 Captain Regent Maria Lea Pedini Angelini, San Marino. 21.09.1981-17.011.1993 Governor General Dame Elmira Minita Gordon, Belize. 15.02.1982-15.02.1987 President Agatha Barbara, Malta. 24.03.1982-25.03.1985 President of the Government Lucette Michaux-Chevry, Guadalupe. 15.05.1982-15.05.1986 Chairperson of the Council of Ministers Milka Planinc, Yugoslavia. 01.04.1984-01.10.1984 Captain Regent Gloriana Ranocchini, San Marino. 14.05.1984-29.01.1990 Governor General The Rt. Hon. Jeanne Sauvé, Canada. 14.05-16.05.1984 Acting Head of State Carmen Pereira, Guinea Bissau. 18.09.1984-01.01.1986, 17.051988-25.12.1993 Minister President Maria Ph. Liberia-Peters, Nederlandse Antillen. 25.2.1986-30.06.1992 Executive President Maria Corazon Sumulong Cojuangco Aquino, The Philippines. 05.10.1987-30.12.1987 Prime Minister Princess Stella Margaret Nomzamo Sigcau, Transkei. 02.12.1988-06.08.1990, 19.10.1993-05.11.1996 Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan. 13.03.1990-07.02.1991 Acting President Ertha Pascal-Trouillot, Haiti. 17.03.1990-10.01.1991 Minister President Kasimiera Prunskienė, Lithuania. 05.04.1990-02.10.1990 Acting Head of State Dr. Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, East-Germany. 25.04.1990-10.01.1997 Executive President Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, Nicaragua. 20.11.1990-21.03.1996 Governor General Dame Catherine Tizard, New Zealand. 03.12.1990-12.09.1997 President Mary Robinson, Ireland. 20.03.1991-30.03.1996, 01.09.2001-29.10.2006 Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh. 01.10.1991-01.04.1992 Captain Regent Edda Ceccoli, San Marino. 15.05.1991-02.04.1992 Premier Ministre Edith Cresson, France. 08.07.1992-26.10.1993 Minister President Hanna Suchocka, Poland. 25.01.1993-15.09.1994 Premier Marita Petersen, The Faeroe Islands. 01.04.1993-01.10.1993 Captain Regent Patrizia Busignani, San Marino. 25.06.1993-07.03.1996 Minister President Tansu Çiller, Turkey. 25.06.1993-04.11.1993 Prime Minister A. Kim Campbell, Canada. 10.07.1993-11.02.1994 Premier Ministre Sylvie Kinigi, Burundi. 18.07.1993-07.05.1994 (†) Premier Ministre Agathe Uwilingiymana, Rwanda. 25.12.1993-28.12.1993 Minister President Suzanne Camelia-Römer, Nederlandse Antillen. 19.8.1994-14.11.1994 Prime Minister Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Sri Lanka, 14.11.1994-19.11.2005 Executive President. 16.10.1994-25.01.1995 Interim Minister President Reneta Ivanova Indzhova, Bulgaria. 06.06.1990-19.12.1995 (†) Governor General Dame Nita Barrow, Barbados. 07.11.1995-27.02.1996 Premier Minister Claudette Werleigh, Haïti. 23.06.1996-15.7.2001, 06.01.2009- Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, Bangladesh. 19.07.1996-04.11.1998 President Biljana Plavsic, Republic of Srpska. 03.09.1996-02.08.1997 Chairperson of the Council of State Ruth Sando Perry, Liberia. 09.02.1997-11.02.1997 Acting Executive President Rosalia Arteaga Serrano de Fernández de Córdova, Ecuador. 17.03.1997-22.12.1997 Prime Minister Janet Jagan, Guyana, 19.12.1997-11.08.99 Executive President. 17.09.1997- Governor General Dame C. Pearlette Louisy, St. Lucia. 11.11.1997-11.11.2011 President Mary McAleese, Ireland. 08.12.1997-10.12.1999 Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, New Zealand.

Aaaarggghh! I'm sorry, ladies, I really am, but we're only up to 1997 and I have other things to do. 6 women assumed office as head of state in 1997, 10 did so in 2105, 5 have so far in 2016.

That makes a total of... Let's see... 1, 2 3... every country on Earth except the US and the Vatican.

So it's not just congratulations to Hillary, it's congratulations and about freakin' time! Let's join the human race, America!

Idiots And Democracy

An idiot holds up a sign reading, "Not Hillary, Not Trump," illustrating one of the most exasperating aspects of politics, one for which I thus far have shown no talent: dealing with idiots. It's not just that some people are too dumb to see a difference between Trump and Hillary big enough to justify voting for one or the other, which is already pretty damn dumb. Beyond that, a significant number of people actually believe that Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Bernie Sanders actually has a chance to win. (Who knows how many idiots didn't believe that, until they read the last sentence and completely misunderstood it, and have now switched from campaigning for Hillary or Trump to campaigning for Stein or Johnson or Sanders.)

Pollsters are saying that up to 20% of registered voters now plan to vote for Stein or Johnson, with about 40% each left over for Hillary and Trump. That means that, although in reality perhaps every election is completely about winning the idiot vote, there's no doubt that this Presidential election is.

Of course, beyond the 20% Stein-or-Johnson-no-doubt-they're-idiots-bloc, some of the Trump and Hillary supporters are idiots too. It's harder to tell how big this voting bloc is, and it may also be much harder to campaign to this bloc, because who knows many idiots are voting for either Trump or Hillary only because they completely misunderstand where the candidate stands on the issues about which they care most? For example, people supporting Trump because they think he's pro-union, or supporting Hillary because they think she's against a woman's right to choose. I think it's pretty safe to say that the percentage of voters who are that confused or worse about every Presidential campaign is bigger than that of those who voted for Nader in 2004, and possibly comparable to those who voted for him in 2000.

In any case, the number is too high to be safely ignored.

So how do we deal with those voters, how do we lure as many as possible over to the Democratic side?

Like I said at the beginning of this post: I have no flippin' idea. I have no practical suggestions to offer, other than to urge those of you who are skilled at persuading idiots to keep in mind that there are a huge number of them out there, and to do whatever you can. Thank you.

Anyhow: although it's very, very early, the first post-Democratic-Convention polls are encouraging. One poll says that Missouri has gone from safely in Trump's column to a tossup. Wouldn't it be sweet if that poll turns out to be accurate, not an outlier, and if it stays that way, and we win Missouri? Don't laugh: it was awfully close in 2008. McCain only won by 3903 votes, 1,445,814 to 1,441,911

And I'd really like to win Texas too. I know everybody considers Texas to be deep-red Presidentially, but I look at the same data that's out there for everybody else to see, and it looks kinda purple to me. (And I'm way above average at math.)

I repeat: it's early. Almost every Presidential candidate gets a post-convention bump, we shouldn't overvalue Trump's bump, too many people have been panicking about that. And we shouldn't get carried away if Hillary gets a big bump too.

But it would be so nice if we just mopped the floor with those suckers this time...

"We're Going To Lose The South Anyway," Sez Bernie. Oh Really?

Bernie's response to Hillary's beating him like a gong in one Southern primary after another is, "We're going to lose the South anyway."

Bernie, maybe YOU would lose the South to Trump. I'm not so sure that Hillary would. There are lots of female and black and Latino voters in the South, and if ever there was a Presidential candidate guaranteed to lose hard in all demographics other than white males, it's Trump. Obama won Virginia and Florida in both 2008 and 2012, he also won North Carolina in 2008 and came close in 2012, and he came close in a few other Southern states both times. The South is changing. It's gradually changing from red to blue.

And Bernie's not going to get the nomination. Maybe my ability to do math in my head really is autisitically-freakish, maybe those of Bernie's supporters who are actually jubilant about yesterday's results are a little behind the curve in math skills, maybe there's a little bit of both involved here, but let me lay some math on you. And when I do please keep in mind that Nate Silver wasn't the only person predicting 365 electoral votes for Obama in 2008, just the most famous one; and that while my 2012 prediction of 350+ electoral vote for Obama was over-optimistic (he got 332), my assurance to every Democrat I met in the run-up to the 2012 who was worried that Romney might win, my assurance that Obama would be re-elected and that it wouldn't be close, was not over-optimistic.

Before yesterday's primaries Bernie said that if he gets 55% percent of the delegates from here on in, he's got the nomination. But that will be the case only if he gets 55% of the pledged delegates from here on in, and if a great number of superdelegates currently committed Hillary jump ship and join him. If the superdelegates who are now with Hillary stay with her, that means that Bernie needs to win 68% of the delegates left. But there's no reason to think he can even do as well as 55%. They're still counting yesterday's results, but it looks like Bernie got about 45% of the delegates for the day. He lost the day. How many days has Bernie lost to Hillary so far? All of them except two: the day when New Hampshire and no other state had a primary, and the day when Maine and no other state had a primary. On those two days combined, Bernie won a total of 4 more delgates then Hillary. Other than that, every single day when there have been Democratic primaries, Hillary's lead in delegates over Bernie has gotten larger.

According to CNN, Hillary currently has 1711 delegates and Bernie has 939 -- with a dozen or so still to be awarded. 2383 is a majority, 2383 wins the nomination. Hillary needs 672 more, Bernie needs 1444 more. If Bernie's results improve to the point that he gets 50% of the delegates in the primaries yet to come, Hillary will have a majority of delegates before the California primary on June 7. California has by far the largest population of any state, a total of 475 delegates are at state in its Democratic primary.

Hillary will have the nomination before the California primary, assuming that she gets 50% or better of the votes in the primaries between now and then, and assuming that the superdelegates currently pledged to her stay with her.

Those are two very safe assumptions.

Bernie says he wants to be absolutely sure that Trump isn't elected President. Hillary beating Trump is about as sure as Hillary beating Bernie for the nomination. One thing which isn't at all sure is how many Southern states Hillary will win. The more states Hillary wins, the more Democrats are likely to win in other elections in November, elections for the Senate and the House and for Governorships and state legislatures, elections for mayors and city councils and so forth. Democrats badly need to win more of these other elections besides just the elections for President. If Bernie gets his supporters strongly behind Hillary, there's a chance for a huge Democratic landslide in all of those elections. The sooner he drops out of the race, the easier it will be for him to get his supporters behind Hillary.

Hillary has 1711 delegates, Bernie has 939, 2383 wins the nomination. That's not difficult math. This thing has been over for a while already. The earlier Bernie does the right thing, the greater the chances for a huge Democratic landslide in November. That's not difficult math either.

Is American Anti-Intellectualism Growing?

I don't know. And I don't think you do either.

And I can't think of any good reason to start regarding Psychology Today as a valuable source of insight into America's intellect.

We know that anti-intellectualism has always been strong in the United States -- now, wait a minute. Do we actually know that? We know that it has been a popular assertion for a long time, but is anti-intellectualism actually stronger in the US than in other places? Again, I don't know. I don't even know what the assertion means.

Is anti-intellectualism stronger now in the US than it was in the mid-19th century? Back then, Herman Melville, after having started his career by writing 3 bestselling novels in a row, published Moby Dick in 1851 -- and it received unanimously negative reviews, and although Melville wrote several more novels, from a business standpoint, his career as a novelist was over. In 1955, William Gaddis published his first novel, The Recognitions, and the nearly-unanimously-negative reviews it received were eerily reminiscent of the strange case of Moby Dick, and resulted in very low sales for the novel for a least a decade. (jack green collected these reviews and published them along with some intelligent commentary, in what is now the book entitled fire the bastards! It's a great book, but its title, a to-the-point suggestion about what should be done with such book reviewers, misses the point in my opinion. The real problem here is the people who hired the reviewers who trashed Melville and Gaddis.)

But while Melville's career never recovered from the critical reaction to Moby Dick, which did not become widely regarded as a classic until long after Melville died in 1891, in the 1970's Gaddis won a National Book Award, in the 1980's he received a MacArthur Foundation genius grant and was elected to the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, and in the 1990's he won another National Book Award. I've heard that Gaddis even started to make some appearances on bestseller lists in the 1980's (back when bestseller lists only went down to #10 or in a few cases all the way down to #20, not like today's Amazon Sales Rank which goes down to #7,592,613 or so), although that's just hearsay, I haven't been able to confirm it yet.

You might well respond that the cases of 2 individual writers don't say much about American culture as a whole. On the other hand, these days, unlike the mid-19th century, things like the genius grants exist.

On the 3rd hand, even mighty things such as the genius grants are a puny substitute for state support of intellectuals, just as even the mightiest charities (thousand points a light goin round an round) are a puny substitute for a government social safety net. There's no doubt that state support of the arts, humanities and sciences is much stronger in some Western European countries than in the US. And I absolutely do believe, with no if's, and's or but's, that those countries are much more sensible and fortunate than we are in that regard. University attendance should be free, painters and sculptors and poets should get government grants as a matter of course, orchestras shouldn't need to go groveling to corporations for funding. If the lack of such things means anti-intellectualism, then game over, the US is anti-intellectual, period.

But I don't think that the lack of such things in the US, or, for example, the climate-change skepticism of many of our elected officials, reflect a hostility to learning and good sense on the part of the US population as a whole. I think they have been imposed upon us by corporations led by MBA's who don't care about either the opinions or the well-being of the entire populace.

The hero, result and major role model of those same asshole MBA's is currently running for President. If he's elected, or if he even comes close, then I think that would prove that anti-intellectualism has grown since W's administration.

But lest we forget, in the last 2 Presidential elections, a man who was about as different from W as a man can be, a bona-fide intellectual, has won by wide margins. W was the poster boy for anti-intellectualism, the Tea Party is now its locus and Donald Chump is their man -- but is the Tea Party growing? If it is, then I think you could say that anti-intellectualism in the US is growing. Yes, the Tea Party did very well in the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms, but that's the fault of Democratic voters who act as if they don't know that there are elections in the US oftener than every 4 years, and of Republican leaders who should have known better, but "followed the base" rather than leading. They have "followed the base" -- the fringe, actually, not the base -- all the way to the Trump campaign, and now, finally, some of them are beginning to see their mistake and to do something about it.

I don't know whether anti-intellectualism is growing in the US or not. I don't know whether there is a meaningful way to measure such things. In my opinion, the latest wave of American anti-intellectualism peaked when W was re-elected over John Kerry, a bona-fide intellectual. Today, even Republicans tend to be embarrassed by W, and even Republicans are speaking out against Trump. I think that the Tea Party (synonymous with the Trump campaign in my opinion), although there's no doubt that it's very loud right now, is getting weaker. Louder doesn't always equal stronger. More and more non-fringe Republicans are jumping ship. I think that the anybody-but-Trump voting bloc is bigger than Trump's block.

But whether I'm right or wrong, whether American anti-intellectualism is growing or declining, whether Trump will be elected President or cause a Democratic landslide, or neither, I think that pro-intellectual people should do very much the same things: speak up for intellect and learning, vote for better schools and for no tuition and for well-funded artists and scientists and for fact-based environmental and energy policies. Speak up (loudly), vote, campaign, petition, agitate, fight back against the bozos, whether we're a minority or a majority.

Donald Trump: 'I Love The Poorly-Educated'

This guy is a joke that writes himself. And he's not funny.

Of course he loves the poorly-educated. Of course he loves stupid people. Of course he loves chumps. His entire career has been about taking advantage of people, beating people, getting over, exploiting people. He's a very, very bad man. It's a terrible thing that he has so much power, and the more he gets the worse it will be.

The media should start doing their damn jobs: warning people. I know, some reporters are doing this. But many others are just marveling about how well Trump's been doing in the Republican primaries, without mentioning how he's been succeeding: with lies and hate. This guy is a fascist, and over on MSNBC -- with a few exceptions, like 8 to 10 PM weeknights, Hayes, Maddow and O'Donnell -- they're just sitting around and shaking their heads and laughing about it.

Alex Wagner, Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, Steve Kornacki, Mark Halperin, John Heilemann: what's so funny about any of this? You aren't doing your jobs. In the name of "journalistic objectivity," which doesn't exist, you're not sharing your insights about the current and future leaders of the world, about whom you know more than anyone else, because you spend all day every day with them for a living.

Over and over, you mention that people don't trust Hillary Clinton. And you leave out the important part: you neglect to mention that they have no rational reasons for this mistrust.

You know that "social democrat" is just an exotic-sounding name for what is known in the US as a liberal Democrat. You know that in most of Europe, the politicians who correspond to the US Democratic Party are in the Social Democratic parties. You know that Bernie doesn't vote any differently than other liberal Democrats -- except that some liberal Democrats are actually further to the Left than he is. You know that Bernie's success has much more to due with hipster-doofus 'tude than with policy. Point such things out now and then. Let people actually benefit from your knowledge.

One thing you're certainly not is poorly-educated about politics. But in the name of this huge mistake you call "journalistic objectivity," you act as if you were poorly-educated about it, as long as the cameras are rolling, or whenever you write anything for public consumption. The only time we actually learn anything from one of you is when you don't realize you're near a hot mike, and you let slip what you really know and how you really feel about it. When you accidentally say what you should be saying full-time into the cameras, and writing full-time in your news stories and columns.

You're not doing your jobs. Stop following public opinion and lead it. Make your experience and insight actually count for something for once, and educate your audience.

Don't just lean back and watch while fascist idiots like Trump take over, and laugh about it. There's nothing funny about this.

PS, 7:17 PM: Just now on Hardball, Chris Matthews, Susan Paige and Sam Stein have concluded that Trump is unstoppable. They're laughing and laughing. Matthews sums up: "So what are we doing for a living now?" Big laugh from all 3. Good question, Chris! You open for suggestions about what you should do for a living now? Start speculating as concretely as you can about what a Trump administration would look like. By the way, Chris, WHAT'S SO FUNNY?!

"Trump Slams The Pope: 'He's Disgraceful!'"

Yeah, I think the Donald has peaked, and that people will look back to him slamming the Pope as being around the time it started to fall apart for him, the time when it became clearer that he actually couldn't get away with everything. I can only hope that he goes 3rd-party (claiming that he doesn't need to stick to his promise that he wouldn't do so because "the GOP cheated. The GOP went back on their word to me. It's disgraceful. The GOP is a bunch of clowns. They're real losers," yada yada yada...), taking the votes of millions of yahoos away from either Cruz or Rubio or Bush or Kasich and handing the Democrats a real landslide.

That'd be yuge.

People turn to leaders promising radical change in times of crisis. Late 1932 was a time of great crisis in Germany and the US. The US was lucky: the big political fish on the scene promising sweeping change was FDR. In Germany it was You-Know-Who.

Now, you may be asking: What great crisis? And that's just it: to most of us in the US, things seem to be going fairly well. But imagine how you'd feel if you were convinced that unemployment was several times higher than the official government figures, that millions of rapists and murderers were swarming completely unhindered over the borders into our country, and that the President was secretly working for ISIL. That might well feel to you like a time of crisis.

An imaginary time of crisis has been enough to keep Trump in front for the race for the GOP nomination because for years the GOP leadership has been following the right-wing fringe instead of trying to -- you know: lead. Trump is the monster they made. He may very well rip the GOP to shreds. I don't think he has a freaky orange snowball's chance in Hell of being elected President.

November Election Questions

Constantly pundits -- true: not all of them -- opine that Trump will not be the Republican Presidential nominee, and it seems more and more that they're simply unwilling to think that it's possible because the possibility appalls them, and not because they have crystal balls.

But if the GOP does nominate Trump, how many Republicans will vote for the Democratic nominee? And how many would vote for Hillary but not Bernie, or vice-versa?

There's been plenty of speculation about Trump running 3rd-party, but how about the other way around, if Trump is the GOP nominee and a more mainstream Republican runs 3rd party? Such a 3rd-party run would be a way for Republicans to stop Trump without explicitly admitting that they were handing the Presidency to Hillary or Bernie.

I don't like Bernie. I think the distance he is to the left of Hillary is greatly exaggerated for some reason. I think that distance is pretty much imaginary, as is Hillary's lack of liberal credentials. Who's done the most to extend health insurance coverage to more people in the US? No, not Barack -- Hillary. Who's been the most powerful advocate for women, minorities, the disabled? Hillary. All she does is actually get stuff done.

It seems to me that the only way a Republican can win the White House in November will be if Bernie turns out to be even more stupidly egotistical and destructive than he seems to me to be, and runs 3rd-party. The average voter doesn't see that a 3rd-party vote is in effect a vote for the candidate you like least. A 3rd-party vote for Bernie could be a vote for Trump. Such considerations are incredibly clear and simple to me, but, frustrating as it is, they apparently are beyond the average voter. Many of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 are both too stupid to do the math it takes to see that they cost Gore the Presidency, and too stupid to grasp how much better a Gore Presidency would've been than what we got with W, which is truly too fucking stupid to pour piss out of a boot, but what are you going to do, people are stupid.

It would be unforgivable if these considerations turn out to be beyond a US Senator who caucuses with Democrats like Bernie, or unimportant to him. I would never be able to forgive Bernie if his ego turns to be more important to him than stopping the damage that Trump would do as President. If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, and I think she will, and a good damn thing too, then what Bernie does will be extremely important -- not just in terms of not doing what he has said he won't do, the nuclear option: a 3rd-party run -- but also how soon he drops out and how energetically he campaigns for Hillary. Now and very very energetically would be just fine with me, Bernie, you schmuck!