Psychologists explain Trump: He's literally a narcissistic psychopath

By M. David
Counter Current News

The horrifying Donald Trump © Wonkette

 

As his presidential campaign marches on, with seemingly no scandal or gaff harming him in the least, millions of sane Americans have been asking, in the words of Henry Alford of Vanity Fair: "What exactly is wrong with this strange individual?"

Now, science has finally answered that question...

While there is no official clinical diagnosis of psychopathy, the textbook traits of it and related Anti Social Personality disorders like Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Sociopathy, are somewhat easy to spot once you know the signs.

The failure for there to be an official way to diagnose these disorders is due more to the fact that the individuals who have these traits are adept at masking them, or giving the answers to questions that psychologists "want" to hear.

Donald Trump is "remarkably narcissistic," according developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education.

"Textbook narcissistic personality disorder," clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis explained.

The Mayo Clinic explains "Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism." They add that "a narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life." The sufferer "may be generally unhappy and disappointed when you're not given the special favors or admiration you believe you deserve."

Clinical psychologist George Simon said that Trump is "so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example of his characteristics." He conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior exhibited by narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths - all related Anti Social Personality Disorders. "Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."

The Raw Story makes the following poignant observations:

Trump's shortage of empathy can be seen clearly by his stances on topics like immigration. Instead of recognizing that the data shows that most Mexican immigrants are not violent, but instead people simply looking for a place where actual opportunity exists, with a broad brush he claims that they are "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." 

In a similar vein, Trump has vowed to ban all Muslims from entering the country should he be elected. It appears that his lack of empathy has distorted his mind's ability to grasp the fact that the refugees he speaks of are actually seeking safety from the same murderous maniacs that he wants to keep out. Perhaps if Trump had relatives in countries like Syria and Iraq, he might understand the constant fear that most live under, and in turn become more willing to welcome them with open arms rather than leaving them to be slaughtered.

But a lack of empathy is just one part of narcissistic personality disorder. Just beneath the surface layer of overwhelming arrogance lies a delicate self-esteem that is easily injured by any form of criticism. We have all seen Trump unjustifiably lash out at a number of people with harsh and often extremely odd personal attacks. When he thought he had been treated unfairly by Fox News host and Republican debate moderator Megyn Kelly, he responded by calling her a "bimbo" and later saying that she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." In response to the strange, misogynistic comments Kelly said that she "may have overestimated his anger management skills." If the news host would have pegged him as a bona fide narcissist from the beginning she might have expected such shamelessly flagrant behavior.

Narcissism, Psychopath and Sociopathy used to be lumped together synonymously, under the banner of Anti Social Personality Disorder. But today the disorders are divided in subtle, nuanced, but very similar ways. There is a lot of overlap - in fact more overlap than not.

Carol Caldwell notes, in D.J. Trump, Psychopath, that "it's been attested to by psychologists and neurobiologists who study psycho- and sociopaths that the deadly syndrome can be seen in their eyes."

She observes that "the eyes are described as affect-less, what we would call cold, or eerily blank in one-on-one or televised exchanges. The sociopath is described as charming, out-going, intelligent, cunning, winning without warmth, but adaptable to whatever human kindness you telegraph to them. 

 

As we well know, many of them ascend to top positions in major industries, I might mention Wall Street and banking, heads of Hollywood studios, and members of Congress. On the street levels of everyday life, they work their wiles into all kinds of jobs, by falsifying resumes to fit the careers they are after. One area of human endeavor they seem less adaptable to is refined senses of humor."

Dr. Robert Klitzman, a professor of psychiatry and the director of the master's of bioethics program at Columbia University notes that the American Psychiatric Association says that it is unethical for psychiatrists to comment on an someone's mental state without having examining them personally. But as Alford notes, "you don't need to have met Donald Trump to feel like you know him; even the smallest exposure can make you feel like you've just crossed a large body of water in a small boat with him." "He's very easy to diagnose," psychotherapist Charlotte Prozan explained. "In the first debate, he talked over people and was domineering. "He'll do anything to demean others, like tell Carly Fiorina he doesn't like her looks," Alford explains.

Trump's characteristic "You're fired!" catchphrase highlights his brutal lack of empathy, as does his hyper-willingness to deport immigrants, even though two of his wives have been immigrants.

Mr. Trump's bullying nature—taunting Senator John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, or saying Jeb Bush has "low energy"—is in keeping with the narcissistic profile. "In the field we use clusters of personality disorders," Michaelis said. 

"Narcissism is in cluster B, which means it has similarities with histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. There are similarities between them. Regardless of how you feel about John McCain, the man served—and suffered. Narcissism is an extreme defense against one's own feelings of worthlessness. To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it's antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That's what he's doing."

Wendy Terrie Behary, the author of Disarming the Narcissist: Surviving and Thriving with the Self-Absorbed, says that, "Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth. The truth means the potential to feel ashamed. If all they have to show the world as a source of feeling acceptable is their success and performance, be it in business or sports or celebrity, then the risk of people seeing them fail or squander their success is so difficult to their self-esteem that they feel ashamed. We call it the narcissistic injury. They're uncomfortable with their own limitations. It's not that they're cut out to lie, it's just that they can't handle what's real."

Comment: Narcissists are not capable of feeling shame. Their sense of grandiosity is always present. Read "A Structural Theory of Narcissism and Psychopathy" to get an idea of the physiological framework behind narcissism and psychopathy.

Michaelis explains that Trump is "applying for the greatest job in the land, the greatest task of which is to serve, but there's nothing about the man that is service-oriented. He's only serving himself."

Prozan notes that Trump "keeps saying he could negotiate with Putin because he's good at deals. But diplomacy involves a back and forth between equals."

Dr. Klitzman added, "I have never met Donald Trump and so cannot comment on his psychological state. However, I think that, in general, many candidates who run for president are driven in large part by ego. I hope that does not preclude their motivation to govern with the best interests of the public as a whole in mind. Yet for some candidates, that may, alas, be a threat."

Could Trump be helped by clinical treatment?

"I'd be shocked if he walked in my door," Behary said. "Most narcissists don't seek treatment unless there's someone threatening to take something away from them. There'd have to be some kind of meaningful consequence for him to come in."

Gardner added that "for me, the compelling question is the psychological state of his supporters. They are unable or unwilling to make a connection between the challenges faced by any president and the knowledge and behavior of Donald Trump. In a democracy, that is disastrous."

With someone who is so clearly a Narcissistic Psychopath holding the reigns of power, there are numerous issues of concern for the American people. Just this week, Trump said that he would make it illegal for the media to harshly criticize him. He has similarly advocated for illegal and unconstitutional "ID badges" for Muslim Americans, as well as banning Muslims from immigrating to the United States.

Having a man like this seize control of the nation's policies, police, and military is something that endangers us all. Help SPREAD THE WORD because our future, freedom and maybe even lives depend on making sure Donald Trump doesn't get into office and carry out the fascist policies he has promised to!

The entire world needs to hear this

A Lesson to the World by Woody Harrelson.

A Democrat Wants To Cut Social Security?

By Colonel Rainsborough  

Just today, I read a story about a clueless California Republican who declared that Social Security was a bad idea.  After laughing about how hopeless the Republicans have become, I read this:

theintercept.com/...
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., called on an audience of business and political elites earlier this week to respond to populist anger by lobbying harder for a deficit-reduction package that would reduce corporate tax rates and cut public retirement programs such as Social Security.

As the children would say, “DaFuq?”

Although a dominant populist sentiment is that the system is already rigged in favor of the rich, Warner suggested that the “business community” needs to get more involved in politics or face unpleasant repercussions.

“If you don’t think the frustration of Americans with our overall system, — not just our political system, but our business system, our tax code — is at the boiling point, then Katy bar the door!,” he said. “The walls that are gonna have to be built, may not be at borders, they may be around neighborhoods the way they are in many Third World countries around the world,” Warner warned.

The cure for corrupting corporate power is MORE corporate influence?  I am not making this up.  While the panelists acknowledged that the public is angry about inequality, the proposed cure is more inequality.

I especially like the idea that Warner anticipates that rich people will have to live in walled communities to protect themselves from angry, unwashed peasants.  Oh, wait…Most of them already do…

Wait, I think I misinterpreted his idea.  He wants to build the walls around OUR neighborhoods.  Palestine, after all, is such a successful community planning experiment.

Warner was speaking on Monday at the Milken Institute’s 2016 Global Conference. 

Yeah, that Milken — the guy who was convicted in 1990 of securities fraud and tax evasion.  Perhaps in the near future, there will be a conference named after Bernie Madoff.

Apparently, Sen. Warner was unhappy that the awful Simpson-Bowles “Grand Bargain”plan was not accepted.

The commission put together a plan that called for corporate tax reform focused on cutting the corporate tax rate and entitlement reform based on policies such as raising the Social Security retirement age. Obama never embraced the plan, but a group of lawmakers, including Warner, known as the “Gang of Six” put forth legislation that mirrored its recommendations.

“We’d have gotten 70 votes if the establishments on both sides had not shot down our effort,” Warner complained on Monday.

We would have gotten away with it if it had not been for those lousy…

Christians Can't Wait For God To Punish 'Wicked' America With Trump — And Usher In The Apocalypse

By Lorraine Berry

For some, Donald Trump's ascendancy heralds the beginning of the end times.

 

Christians who claimed months ago that Donald Trump was foretold in Biblical prophecy must be feeling prescient today. Worrying in 2015 that Trump would be a major party nominee was treated as being about as likely as the 5000-1 odds that bookies gave Leicester City at the beginning of the 2015-16 season.

But this week, as both unlikely predictions came to pass, it seems prudent to take a look at just what it is that those eschatologists claim to see.

Historical lists of those who have predicted either that God would destroy the world as punishment for collective sins or those who have used formulae to predict that people should circle specific days on their calendar is far too long to list here. (Wikipedia has one such list.)

Specific individuals who were seen as catalysts for the end have included Ronald Reagan, various popes, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Barack Obama–although even Richard the Lionheart was implicated back in the 13th century by Joachim of Fiore.

Joachim is often credited as being the first eschatologist to cause major upset in Christendom with his predictions. Joachim used a complex formula that counted the number of generations in the Bible before and after the birth of Christ, combined them with the detailing of three ages of history until the end of the world, and came up with the period 1200 to 1260 CE as containing the fateful year.

And while counting generations is just one of the methods of predicting the end of the world, other “prophets” have observed the chaos of the world around them and declared that God must be coming: what else could explain the horror and sin surrounding them?

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Karl Marx on some of the source texts for Marxism, profiled the remarkable story of Thomas Muntzer, the common man who led thousands of German peasants to rebel in what is known as The Peasants War of 1525 by historians. Muntzer was among the estimated 75,000-100,000 peasants who were killed by German princes, who were not happy at being defied on the basis of someone reading the Bible.

Muntzer warned the princes in published pamphlets that they were about to incur the wrath of God unless they changed the way they governed. Luckily for the princes, Martin Luther threw his considerable weight around to discredit Muntzer, but not before the two had engaged in a war of words that took no prisoners.

The idea that Donald Trump may herald the beginning of the end times can be seen as contained within a long and storied tradition of this type of thing. But, the writings implicating Trump are remarkable in their own right. Last year, one such Biblical interpreter claimed that God told him:

“So have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election. You must listen to the trumpet very closely for he will sound the alarm and many will be blessed because of his compassion and mercy. Though many see the outward pride and arrogance, I have given him the tender heart of a father that wants to lend a helping hand to the poor and the needy, to the foreigner and the stranger.”

After a “firestorm” blew up  among conservative Christians, the owner of the vision defended himself on Facebook, saying that he would he would publicly repent if he was proven to be wrong.

Another article drew parallels between Trump and events, which pointed toward an apocalyptic future. The article cites article after article about Trump, and verses of the Bible that he finds relevant. After a long, protracted presenting of both sides of the argument, eleven reasons are presented as to why Donald Trump is “apocalyptic.” As one of these eleven reasons, Trump’s statements against Apple are cited, which “suggest an environment of loss of privacy and favoring unlimited government control. This type of thing will be exploited by 666 of Revelation 13:16-18.”

Perhaps the most virulent of the “Trump = End Times” predictions is contained at a website called “Now the End Begins.” There a mean-faced Trump stares out at the reader while text, in bold, all caps, and italics–depending on the point being made–hammers home that

“DONALD TRUMP IS THE ANSWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THE REPUBLICAN POLITICAL MACHINE, AND GOD’S ANSWER TO A WICKED NATION”

Christian conservatives have agitated for decades for the election of a “Godly” man who will help to reform America and bring it in line with Christian values. No one sees Donald Trump as that man.

But, Trump’s “immorality” is not why Christians should vote for Trump. They should vote for Trump because he’s going to bring Christ back to earth a lot faster than he is currently on track to get here.

Just as God brought Hitler to do the “good work” of creating Israel, so too has he brought forth Trump to take Christians to higher ground.

God raised up the ungodly King Nebuchadnezzar to shake and enslave Israel for 70 years, and He used the ungodly King Cyrus to allow construction of a new Jewish Temple. He allowed the ungodly Pharaoh to enslave His people the Hebrews for over 400 years, and He allowed the Roman emperor Titus to burn Israel to the ground in 70 AD. Furthermore, God allowed the demonic Adolf Hitler to create the Holocaust in order that Israel might be regathered in 1948 according to prophecy in the last days.

Seth Meyers Definitively Proves Trump Is 'No Fluke' Given Recent GOP History

By Kali Holloway

If you've been watching, none of this has been a surprise.

Seth Meyers, in an attempt to make sense of the fact that Trump is the GOP presidential nominee, took a closer look at the events leading to where we are now to get a sense of how we ended up here.

Through hilarious clips from the campaign trail, Meyers reviewed Cruz’s various recent flubs, from getting heckled by a 12 year old (who summed up his disdain in two words: “You suck!”) to being oblivious when running mate Carly Fiorina “fell flat, literally,” to a failed street-side heart-to-heart with sign-holding Trump supporters (let’s just say it really didn’t go well).

Then of course there were Trump’s contributions, including his wacky insistence that Rafael Cruz—Ted’s dad—was in on the Kennedy assassination. 

“This should be a serious moment of introspection for Republicans. How did they get to the point where they’re handing their nomination to a race-bating, xenophobic, serial liar, who peddles conspiracy theories and thinks the National Enquirer is a real newspaper. The answer? This is no accident. It is not a fluke. The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump and has been for years.”

From there, Meyers does a look back at the GOP over the near-decade, looking at how the fostered and embraced xenophobia, racism and Islamophobia, particularly when it was hurled at our current president. It’s a great remembrance of who the Republican Party is and has long been.

Republicans closing checkbooks to Trump, chaos ensues

By apnu

Republican donors want nothing to do with Donald Trump.

On Wednesday morning, the presumptive GOP nominee, who has largely self-financed his presidential bid so far, announced that he would be soliciting checks from small contributors and would soon make a decision about whether to accept big contributions from the ranks of Republican megadonors.

But in interviews with more than a dozen major GOP funders, not one on Wednesday would commit to donating to Trump. Some raised the possibility that they would focus solely on giving to House or Senate candidates.

Others went further in expressing their discontent: Representatives of Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who helped to bankroll the rise of the tea party, warned the brothers could sit out the presidential campaign entirely — or even back Hillary Clinton.

With so many of the GOP’s funders closing their checkbooks, battles over money are breaking out behind closed doors. And as concern grows that Republicans will suffer a shortfall that could stymie candidates up and down the ballot, some foresee looming cash fights pitting Trump against congressional Republicans who are anxious to preserve their hard-won majorities.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-megadonors-koch-22282

What A Trump Presidency Would Mean For Black America, Explained

By Damon Young

As ugly as the racist and sexist vitriol has been among his supporters, he’s merely exposing a side of the country with which black people are already familiar.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, speaks in New York City on May 3, 2016, following his primary victory in Indiana. JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

Who is Ted Cruz?

Ted Cruz is a senator from Texas who was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president of the United States until dropping out of the race Tuesday. He is also maybe (probably) a Komodo dragon wearing a human’s skin suit and maybe (probably) a serial killer.

Really?

Yes, he really dropped out of the race Tuesday.

No, I was asking about the other stuff. Is he really a 6-foot lizard in a human skin suit and a probable murderer?

Let me put it this way: Do I know, with 100 percent certainty, that he murdered three people in a Applebee’s bathroom in 2011, left a note that said, “This wasn’t clean. I’ll be better next time,” and sat down and finished his three-cheese chicken cavatappi? No, I do not. But I do not know, with 100 percent certainty, that he didn’t do that, either. All I know is that this motherf--ker probably has a history of violence.

With Cruz dropping out, doesn’t that mean Donald Trump is now the presumptive nominee?

It does.

Are you planning on moving to Canada as many others have threatened to do if Trump is elected?

I would definitely move to Canada. Toronto is one of my three favorite cities. It’s basically a smaller, safer and kinder New York City with 80 percent less smells and 640 percent less roaches. It’s the Lupita Nyong’o of North American cities.

But I wouldn’t be moving there because of Trump.

So you’re not frightened by the idea of him being president?

I am not.

So you don’t care if he’s president?

Oh, I definitely do care. Hillary Clinton, who will probably be the Democratic nominee, seems to be as authentic and trustworthy as Chipotle grits, but I’d vote for her 137,879,892 times before I voted for Trump. S--t, I’d vote for the Chipotle grits before Trump. At least you could use them to cauterize wounds.

You care, but you don’t seem to be all that concerned. At least not concerned enough to be frightened or to move to another country.

This is true.

Why aren’t you frightened or scared enough to move?

I don’t believe he’s actually going to win. But even if he does, well ... let me say this.

Remember when author Terry McMillan married Jonathan Plummer? And everyone was like, “Hmm ... um ... are we sure he’s, you know?” And then, years later, he came out the closet, to the surprise of exactly zero people? (NTTAWWT, of course.)

Well, I feel the same way with Donald Trump. Not that he’s going to come out the closet as a Bornean orangutan. (Although that’s still on the table.) Just that I’m not at all surprised that someone like him could receive such support and advance so far. As ugly as the racist, sexist, jingoistic and tribalist vitriol spewed by his supporters happens to be, he’s merely exposing a side of America with which we (black people) are very familiar. Perhaps the depths of the ignorance and hate are still somewhat unnerving, but that it actually exists? We’d be more shocked if it didn’t. You call it a “Trump rally.” We call it “Tuesday at work.”

Trump winning would tell me absolutely nothing about America that I didn’t already know.

You sound quite pessimistic about America.

I wouldn’t call it pessimism. I do love many things about this country, including, but not limited to, the audacity of a nation that still says, “Nah, I’m good” to the metric system just because we feel like it.

But a benefit of existing as a black person here is that you’re granted the privilege of perfect vision. There are no rose-colored glasses; no mirrors reflecting unrealistically flattering angles. The reality of our condition has made us see America for what it actually is, not what it wants to convince us it is.

Even if the hate and the ignorance aren’t easily seen, they’re always felt and respected. Like gravity.

And, like gravity, forgetting for even one moment that it’s always there, with rules and regulations that need to be acknowledged and adhered to, can kill you.

Perhaps some people see Trump and see a sea change. I see the same water. Just in a glass now—exposed and open—instead of a bottle.

So you won’t be moving to Canada?

No. But you might catch me at Caribana this year. Gotta get all the passport stamps I can before President Trump closes every border.

Damon Young is the editor-in-chief of VerySmartBrothas.com. He is also a contributing editor at Ebony.com. He lives in Pittsburgh and he really likes pancakes. You can reach him at damon@verysmartbrothas.com.

New York Daily News Funeral For The Republican Party

By Karoli Kuns

It isn't dead. It's just different.

Republicans have nominated a fascist. They will circle their wagons around a fascist. They will campaign with and for a fascist.

And they will lose. Everything.

After they lose everything, they'll turn right around and double down on their fascism. Fox News and hate radio will be there to backstop and justify their existence.

Donald Trump thanked three people in his victory speech tonight: Jeff Sessions, Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Sarah Palin. Those are the only three people he thanked.

But give him time, and the entire Republican establishment will be lined up behind him. Even Charles Krauthammer.

Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Primary

By Zach Cartwright

Bernie Sanders has officially been declared the victor of the Indiana Democratic primary, as Sanders holds a 5-point margin over Hillary Clinton with 94% of precincts reporting. Sanders currently holds 52.5% of the vote to Clinton’s 47.5%.

Sanders has been crisscrossing Indiana in the past week, bringing out thousands for rallies in college towns like South Bend, home of the University of Notre Dame, and in West Lafayette, which houses Purdue University. Sanders also attracted a massive crowd at Indiana University last Wednesday:

A few photos from today's visit from @SenSanders pic.twitter.com/BLbmVPVxCZ

— IndianaMemorialUnion (@OfficialIMU) April 28, 2016

The former First Lady also campaigned fiercely, with former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea stumping for her throughout Indiana. Senator Sanders spent $2 million of his campaign war chest in the Hoosier State, as he was in desperate need of a win after considerable losses in five of the last six primaries after a seven-victory streak.

Indiana’s Democratic process is an open primary, making it more favorable to the Sanders campaign, as he takes in an overwhelming number of independent votes when compared to Hillary Clinton.

The victory in Indiana will give Sanders much-needed momentum heading into next week’s Guam caucus and West Virginia primary, where Sanders is favored to win most of the 36 combined pledged delegates available in the two upcoming contests. While down in pledged delegates, Sanders has vowed to stay in the contest until every state and territory has voted, ensuring a contested Democratic National Convention in July if he continues to stack up wins in the remaining primaries and caucuses.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump won the night with an overwhelming margin over Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Cruz ended his presidential campaign after losing Indiana, making Kasich the only remaining challenger to Trump.

Zach Cartwright is an activist and author from Richmond, Virginia. He enjoys writing about politics, government, and the media. Send him an email: zachcartwright88@gmail.com

Ted Cruz Drops Out Of Campaign To Spend More Time Being Hated By Own Family

By Doktor Zoom

We won’t have Ted Cruz’s lip booger to kick around anymore

Following his loss in the Indiana primary, Ted Cruz announced he is suspending his campaign.

Donald Trump is now pretty much the nominee, unless the GOP establishment can figure out a way to travel through a time warp and convince the young Donald to pursue a career selling DeLorean motorcars.

“We left it all on the field in Indiana. We gave it everything we’ve got but the voters chose another path,” Cruz said. “So with a heavy heart but with boundless optimism for the long-term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign.”

Cruz also said a lot of stuff about the need to keep fighting against the evil Democrats and their socialist agenda. CNN, apparently preparing ahead like the New York Times obituary writers, had a postmortem of Cruz’s campaign ready to go in minutes. Nerd God Wil Wheaton offered a more trenchant analysis:

Also, GOP chair Reince Priebus choked back an unknown quantity of bile and tweeted this sweaty fore headed message of (*gasp*) party unity:

The idiots on MSNBC are already talking about Cruz’s coming 2020 campaign. Enjoy the End Times, kids!

[CNN]

Don't Worry, Andrew Sullivan. Americans Are Too Lazy to Support a Tyrant

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/05/dont-worry-andrew-sullivan-americans.html

America Has Never Been So Ripe For Tyranny

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

How America’s Worst Governor And An Ultra Conservative Ideology Wrecked An Entire State

GOP zealots, enthralled by a fictitious fantasy of tax cuts and free-market nonsense, turned Kansas upside down.

 

By Marcel Harmon

It’s safe to say that if Kansas’s Gov. Sam Brownback or any of the state’s ultraconservative legislators had been in fictional astronaut Mark Watney’s place (“The Martian“), they would have never survived the 543 sols that Watney spent stranded on Mars before being rescued. It’s doubtful they would have even made it back to the Hab in the first place after inadvertently being left for dead in the middle of the fateful sandstorm that drove the crew to abandon their mission. Survival depended on logically assessing the situation at hand and subsequently deciding on a course of action based on empirical evidence, sound scientific, engineering and even economic principles, and best practices.

These aren’t key strengths of Brownback or ultraconservative legislators.

And in this case they would have essentially been responsible for creating the sandstorm that forced the astronaut team to flee Mars to begin with. Kansas is experiencing a massive “lack of revenue” storm created by the income tax cuts of 2012 and 2013, seriously jeopardizing the state’s future and quality of life for Kansans across the state. Everything from transportation infrastructure to public education are struggling to stay upright in the gale-force winds of the income tax cuts. Some Kansans are fleeing the state as if having been given the order to abandon the mission, though most fight to survive in this increasingly hostile environment.

For Kansas, a better protagonist would be the Kansas Center for Economic Growth (KCEG), a nonpartisan organization with a much better grasp of economics and the use of empirical evidence to guide their policy recommendations. Executive director Annie McKay, senior fellow Duane Goossen and others at the KCEG are far better prepared to “science the shit out of this,” rescuing themselves and the rest of us from the desolation of the Kansas economic landscape being wrought by the “lack of revenue” storm.

In their recent report, “Kansas Public Education: The Foundation for Economic Growth,” the KCEG effectively demonstrates a) the short- and long-term benefits of a strong public education system (everything from reduced public healthcare costs to the attraction and retention of workers/businesses), b) that K-12 education is an economic driver in Kansas with a significant return on investment and c) that K-12 public education is currently underfunded (and under threat) in the state of Kansas.

To address this, KCEG makes the following two policy recommendations to provide better support for Kansas public education and subsequently provide broader economic prosperity across the state:

• Repeal the unaffordable income tax changes to generate revenue and invest in schools.
• Replace the inadequate block grant with an equitable school funding formula that accounts for what it actually costs to educate and prepare students for life after high school.

KCEG’s report and policy recommendations are based on solid economic and education third-party research, their own data analyses (conducted by qualified individuals in an objective manner) and conversations with business, community and school leaders from across the state. Contrast this with the ideological zealotry of the Brownback administration, their ultraconservative legislative allies and organizations like the Kansas Policy Institute (KPI), who’ve been standing firm on the tax cuts, regardless of what the short- and long-term impacts on public services and Kansans will be.

Of course if one assumes the goal is to significantly reduce the role and size of state government, and to correspondingly increase a) the burden on the individual (subscribing to the myth of the self-made “man”) as well as b) privatization, particularly for public education which composes the majority of the state’s budget, then the tax cuts are working. Unfortunately, they’ll eventually turn Kansas’s economy into a something resembling the desolate Martian landscape.

KCEG’s report partially demonstrates from one economic perspective why such a view of the world, when actualized into public policy, doesn’t work, except for those at the top of the financial food chain. KCEG rightly points out that the tax revenues devoted to state-provided services, such as transportation infrastructure, public education and healthcare, to name a few, are in actuality investments in some very “powerful economic development tools” available to Kansas (and other states).

Looking just at public education, according to KCEG’s analysis, “[e]ach dollar invested in public schools reaps a $2.62 return…” that benefits all Kansans in terms of the quality of our workforce, the earning (and spending) power of graduates, reduced healthcare costs, reduced crime control costs and reduced welfare costs. The return on investment we all receive from the taxes that generate these much-needed revenues, regardless of whether one receives a direct or indirect benefit (i.e., people without children or who were home-schooled also benefit from a well-educated citizenry) doesn’t fit the ultraconservative narrative of a free market utopia with little government involvement and individuals solely responsible for their successes and misfortunes.

And the wealthy do typically gain more than everyone else under such a system – they keep more of their wealth with reduced taxes and are able to supplement with their own resources any reduction in government services, such as sending their kids to private schools. They often benefit from the increased privatization that occurs if they are financially involved in the private entities who provide the services. Those investments relative to business growth are also focused on their own interests, and therefore the greater economic benefits are more localized and smaller relative to the benefits and services that were displaced through shrinking government. Trickle-down is an apt term – it typically is just a trickle (if that) relative to the population at large.

Research in other disciplines strongly support this as well. Continuing with the theme of wanting to “science the shit out of this,” let’s take a look at what research from the intersection of biology, behavior, economics and the social sciences have to say (see “Evolution: This View of Life” as well as the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Special Issue on Evolution as a General Theoretical Framework for Economics and Public Policy for a jumping-off point into this research).

Free market principals and associated economic models are built in part around the view of humans as Homo economicus, making “rational” decisions based on a narrow, relatively short-term cost/benefit analysis and pursuing their self-interests relentlessly at the near exclusion of all other factors. While it’s true such “selfish” behavior (selfish relative to other individuals or the groups one is a part of) exists and manifests under a variety of conditions, it by no means fully defines human behavior.

Our evolutionary history has also designed us to be extremely social creatures who love to congregate. In contrast to selfish behavior, “pro-social” actions benefit the larger, encompassing groups one is a part of (sometimes at the expense of the individual or smaller group). Selfish behaviors tend to be locally advantageous, particularly for the individual or smaller group conducting the behavior, and more relevant in the short term, while pro-social behaviors tend to be globally advantageous to the larger encompassing group and society, and more relevant in the long term.

Pro-social behaviors also tend to enhance cooperation among group members. And our social/cultural norms act as a kind of “glue,” binding together unrelated individuals within larger groups and providing a measure of uniformity in their behavior. From an evolutionary perspective, cooperation and a measure of uniformity are hallmarks of successful groups.

And so individual decisions often are made to conform with social/cultural norms and rules of interaction, typically benefiting the larger group as much as or more than the individual. There also is the potential for such decisions and actions to be a detriment to the individual relative to other group members. Paying taxes benefits the larger group structures themselves – the institutions of the state and subsequent services provided; it also benefits individual citizens to varying degrees relative to the “services” provided by the state. It may benefit the individual paying the taxes directly and immediately or it may be an indirect benefit in that group longevity, stability and prosperity are all contributed to by payment of taxes.

Individuals (and businesses) who avoid paying their fair share of taxes (selfish behavior relative to the larger group), either illegally or through legal loopholes, put themselves at an advantage compared to their fellow group members who pro-socially pay their fair share. And wealthier individuals (and businesses) who support drastically reducing or eliminating taxes also put themselves at a benefit relative to their fellow citizens who depend to varying degrees on state services. Such actions in effect shift the level of selection from the larger group down to the level of individuals and smaller groups (including communities and businesses), creating more intragroup competition and decreasing group uniformity and cooperation.

Our pro-social and selfish natures, and their differing manifestations relative to the dominant level of selection, developed over the course of our evolutionary history spent as hunter-gatherers living in more egalitarian groups. Social/cultural mechanisms and processes, such as transparency of behavior, public shaming, gossiping and ostracizing evolved to minimize selfish behaviors and maximize pro-social behaviors in groups that are smaller and less complex than the ones we live in today.

Those same social/cultural mechanisms and processes can be effective in modern society. However, the much greater number of individuals and subgroups, often competing and cooperating on different levels at the same time and often hierarchically nested within each other, require additional social mechanisms to help maintain the level of selection primarily at the larger group level. Formal laws, regulations and governing structures, including those requiring taxes be paid to adequately fund services provided by the state, are examples of such mechanisms. A few years ago, David Sloan Wilson, Elinor Ostrom and Michael E. Cox provided a more detailed overview of the application of these mechanisms in modern society.

This was a simplified discussion of the literature, but it summarizes some of the limitations of Homo economicus as the only important aspect of human behavior to consider in economic models as well as the fallacy of a free market utopia where individual freedoms and responsibility reign supreme. It also ends in the same place as the conclusions of KCEG’s report: public services, including a strong, equitable public education system, benefit us all and therefore require adequate and fair taxation as a source of revenue.

Despite all of the evidence against the governor and ultraconservative legislators clinging to a free market utopia, despite being put on a credit watch by Standard and Poor’s, despite many previous ultraconservative legislative allies now jumping ship as the fall elections approach, the governor is standing by the tax cuts. And he continues to receive support (and likely pressure) from the Kansas Policy Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and other similar groups as they persist in whipping up a sandstorm of misinformation and spin.

As David Sloan Wilson, SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University, has previously stated, “[Ideological] zealots are famously immune to experience, scientific evidence, logic and common sense… Perverse [policies] with ruinous consequences make sense to the economic true believer. If they fail, then the solution is to practice them even more assiduously. The only solution to this problem is to break the spell by changing the story to one that is more in tune with reality.”

And that’s what I’ve tried to do here (as well as KCEG and others elsewhere), but I’ve little hope it will break the free market spell holding sway over the governor. Nor should Kansans be fooled by those ultraconservative legislators now calling for some degree of tax cut repeal. A term-limited governor who continuously threatens to veto any legislation repealing or reducing the tax cuts serves as great cover for those ultraconservative legislators with the same goals, who are also seeking re-election.

Ultimately, the real hero in this story will be Kansas voters if they recognize what it takes to “science the shit out of this” and use their voting power to change the legislative landscape this fall.

The Forever Campaign

Ring of Fire: Jane Sanders: “We Are Not Spoiling The Democratic Race”

By Sydney Robinson

During an interview this week, Senator Bernie Sanders’ wife Jane Sanders made an appearance to defend the senator’s continued presence in the race in the face of a changing tide which is shifting toward Clinton.

Jane dismissed the idea that Sanders’ continued presence in the race was damaging to the Democratic party, saying that Sanders’ campaign wants every person who supports him to be able to cast a vote in his favor. Mrs. Sanders told the reporter that the Sanders campaign intends to stay in the race and allow the remaining states to vote for the candidate, and agenda, they believe is best.

Jane also said this week that even if Sanders doesn’t become president, the truth of his “revolution” will fight on, and that we won’t have seen the last of Sanders or his message.

Unreal Engine 4.11.2 Hotfix/4.12 Preview 1

Start your journey into game development or take it to the next level with Unreal Engine.

The Blacklist - The Artax Network S3 E20

Reeling with grief, the task force hunts the organization behind Liz's failed abduction - who is Solomon working for and why was Liz the target? Meanwhile, Red confronts a man from his past. Brian Dennehy guest stars.

Dear Democrats: Stop Bullying Sanders Supporters Into Backing Hillary Clinton

By Tom Cahill

Democrats are setting themselves up for a crushing loss in November unless Clinton backers stop bullying Bernie Sanders supporters. Here’s why.

Neither candidate will clinch the nomination before the convention

After losing four out of five primaries on Tuesday, the overwhelming question from Hillary Clinton supporters is whether or not the legions of voters backing Bernie Sanders will fall in line, accept Clinton’s inevitable coronation, and vote for her to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.

This is an unfair and illegitimate question, and completely ignores why Sanders was able to activate so many people across the country and persuade nearly 9 million people thus far to vote for him.

That question of whether or not Bernie Sanders’ voters will support Clinton ignores the fact that out of the remaining 1,016 pledged delegates, neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders will reach 2,383 pledged delegates before the Democratic National Convention in July. Almost half of those delegates will come from California alone.

This is significant, as Sanders is steadily closing in on Clinton’s polling edge in the state, cutting her lead down from double digits to just two points. As such, he has a very good chance of winning the state, given that California’s primary allows independent voters to vote in the Democratic primary. In terms of pledged delegates, Sanders may very well be within two percentage points of Clinton at the DNC if he wins 60 percent of the remaining pledged delegates. This is not an unlikely scenario, given the favorable outlook of the remaining states.

In other words, Hillary Clinton will only be the Democratic nominee if super-delegates tip the scales for her on the first ballot. Assuming Clinton already has the nomination locked up, with over 1,000 pledged delegates still at play in states mostly favorable to Sanders, is unrealistic and naive. Democrats’ bullying of Sen. Sanders supporters to betray their candidate and vote for his rival is premature and divisive.

The Democratic Party desperately needs new blood

By attempting to turn the Democratic primary into a coronation for Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party leaders have shown they aren’t interested in cultivating new leaders or increasing engagement among younger voters. The fact that the Democratic establishment’s only choice to lead the party in 2016 is the candidate who lost the last contested primary eight years ago speaks volumes.

Establishment Democrats have a bad habit of running loser candidates. In Wisconsin, moderate Democrat Tom Barrett, who lost by 5 points to Scott Walker in the 2010 gubernatorial election, was the state party’s top choice to run against Gov. Walker after activists successfully triggered a recall election. Despite Barrett’s establishment endorsements from Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, he lost by an even wider margin to Walker in the recall election.

In fact, aside from re-electing President Obama in 2012, Democrats have been losing badly across the nation for six consecutive years. There are only 18 Democratic governors currently in office, the fewest in over a century. Only 43 percent of all state legislators across the United States are Democrats while 56 percent are Republicans — a trend of waning Democratic power at the state level continuing unabated since 2012. If anything, Democrats should be welcoming Sanders’ supporters and their ideas into the party if they’re interested in having any hope for future elections.

Current Democratic Party leaders are fresh out of ideas

Democrats currently holding office have shown little in the way of strategy for how to enact progressive policy victories. As US Uncut reported earlier this week, leading Democrats in Congress, like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are actually aligning with the pharmaceutical industry to fight their own president’s efforts to lower prescription drug prices. And even though they’re bending over backwards to elect Hillary Clinton, Congressional Democrats have no strategy or will to retake the House of Representatives.

Even if Hillary Clinton, who is running as a “progressive who likes to get things done” is elected, how does she plan to get things done with Republican majorities in the House and Senate? And if the Democratic Party’s leader in the House is already scheming against a Democratic president, how does Clinton plan to even rally her own party to pass meaningful legislation?

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has brought new blood and new ideas to the Democratic Party, and manages to fill arenas full of supporters and break voter turnout records in many of the states he’s won. Sanders is the first Democrat to bring New Deal policies back to the Democratic Party since the Clinton-led corporate takeover of the Democratic Party in the nineties.

These policies — like tuition-free public universities, universal healthcare as a human right, and a massive investment in millions of new public sector jobs — motivate young people and independent voters to register as Democrats and vote for Sanders. If Democrats want to keep the White House in November, they should push Hillary Clinton to adopt as many as possible.

Hillary Clinton and the DNC have no interest in bringing in new blood or new ideas

As The Hill reported on Friday, Hillary Clinton is already promising to resist the pressure to adopt Sanders’ policies as her own if she wins the nomination. This will undoubtedly turn off the millions of voters who showed up for Sen. Sanders throughout the primary process from voting for Clinton in the general election. In addition, Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already stacked the deck in Clinton’s favor by rigging the party’s national convention process.

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that the heads of the two most important standing committees at the DNC are Clinton superdelegates. Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy is co-chair of the platform committee, where policies Democrats will run on for the next four years are adopted. The other co-chair is Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, who is a senior advisor for Ready for Hillary.

Former Congressman Barney Frank (who is very vocally anti-Sanders) is heading the rules committee, which decides the convention procedures, along with former Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, who endorsed Clinton and stumped for her on the campaign trail.

Several months ago, Schultz also made sure the members of these committees were favorable to Clinton:

In January, the party chairwoman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, appointed dozens of Clinton supporters and advisers to the three standing committees of the Democratic Party convention. Of 45 potential members submitted by Mr. Sanders, she appointed just three, according to Mr. Sanders’s campaign.

Even if Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders enter the convention with a 51-49 split in pledged delegates, party bosses could rig the process to make sure Sanders won’t be the nominee. Barney Frank has the power as rules committee chairman to schedule Bernie Sanders’ speech to delegates for 10 AM on a Friday morning, or make sure the DNC’s first ballot vote, in which super-delegates can give Clinton a plurality, happens before Sanders has a chance to address delegates.

Bullying #BernieOrBust voters won’t help Hillary Clinton

Nearly one-third of Sanders’ supporters are pledging to not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election, and some have pledged to not support her even if Sanders stumps for her.

In recent months, Sanders supporters have endured constant bullying, having been labeled sexists and “Bernie Bros” more times than can be counted; they’ve been told by Clinton herself that they don’t do their own research; they’ve been called “unrealistic” in pushing for progressive reforms despite massive victories in the fight for a higher minimum wage; they’ve even been told there’s a “special place in hell” for women not supporting Clinton. What’s unrealistic is expecting Sanders supporters to put their feelings aside and vote for the candidate who has directly insulted them.

If Clinton secures the nomination, she will lose unless Bernie Sanders and his supporters are lifted up by the party, and the ideals they uphold are taken seriously and adopted into the Democratic platform.
Anything less would ensure at least four years of Donald Trump as president.

Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact him via email at tom.v.cahill@gmail.com.

Why Bernie Will, Should And Must Stay In The Race

By Jim Hightower

 

The Democratic race is closer than the mainstream media would like to admit. 

 

 

 

Surprisingly, this week's prize for Stupidest Political Comment in the Presidential Race doesn't go to Donnie Trump or Ted Cruz. Rather, the honor goes to the clueless cognoscenti of conventional political wisdom. These pundits and professional campaign operatives have made a unilateral decision that Bernie Sanders must now quit the race for the Democratic nomination. Why? Because, they say, he can't win.

Actually, he already has.

Sanders' vivid populist vision, unabashed idealism and big ideas for restoring America to its own people have jerked the presidential debate out of the hands of status quo corporatists, revitalized the class consciousness and relevance of the Democratic Party, energized millions of young people to get involved, and proven to the Democratic establishment that they don't have to sell out to big corporate donors to raise the money they need to run for office.

Bernie has substantively—even profoundly—changed American politics for the better, which is why he's gaining more and more support and keeps winning delegates. From the start, he said, "This campaign is not about me"—it's a chance for voters who have been disregarded and discarded to forge a new political revolution that will continue to grow beyond this election and create a true people's government.

From coast to coast, millions of voters have been "Feeling the Bern." That's the campaign slogan grassroots supporters created to express their passion for the unconventional presidential run being made by Bernie Sanders.

Yes, passion—an outpouring of genuine excitement that is (as we say in Texas) "hotter than high school love." All this for a 74 year old democratic socialist who is openly taking on the corporate plutocracy that's been knocking down the middle class and holding down the poor. Sanders is the oldest candidate in the race—yet politically, he's the youngest candidate, exuberantly putting forth an FDR-sized vision and agenda to lift up America's workaday majority. And guess what? It turns out that workaday Americans really value democracy over plutocracy, so that's where his passionate support comes from.

Need I mention that the moneyed powers—and the politicians hooked on their money—hate this affront to their cozy politics-as-usual/ business-as-usual system? Especially shocking to them is that Sanders' supporters have found their way around the usual Wall of Big Money that the establishment always throws us to thwart populist campaigns. This time, though, a counter-force of common folks has created a widely successful campaign fund of their own to support their Bernie rebellion. How successful? A whopping $182 million has been raised in millions of small donations that average $27 each.

That's a revolution, right there! Every revolution needs a slogan, so here's one that used to be on the marquee of a vintage, locally owned motel just down the street from where I live in Austin: "No additives, no preservatives, corporate-free since 1938." That perfectly sums up the unique people's campaign that Bernie-people have forged for themselves.

The keepers of the Established Order fear this grassroots uprising by no-name "outsiders," and they know that this year's Democratic nomination is still very much up for grabs, so they're stupidly trying to shove Sanders out before other states can vote. But Bernie and the mass movement he's fostering aren't about to quit—they'll organize in every primary still to come, be a major force at the Democratic convention, and keep pushing their ideals and policies in the general election and beyond.

As Sanders puts it: "I run not to oppose any man or woman, but to propose new and far-reaching policies to deal with the crisis of our times... It may be too late to stop the billionaire class from trying to buy the presidency and Congress... But we owe it to our children and grandchildren to try...We need to face up to the reality of where we are as a nation, and we need a mass movement of people to fight for change."

That's what real politics should be—not merely a vacuous campaign to elect a personality, but a momentous democratic movement fighting for the common good.

How Winning The Nomination Could Be Trump’s Worst Nightmare

By Adele M. Stan

The blustery billionaire could lose the biggest game of his life—to a woman.

(Photo: AP/Julie Jacobson)

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a news conference Tuesday, April 26.

We had been promised something of a new candidate, one more “presidential” in demeanor than we’re accustomed to seeing in the ostentatious settings at which he stages his post-primary speeches.

But when Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front runner, stepped up to the mic in Manhattan’s Trump Tower to celebrate of his epic sweep of Tuesday night’s GOP nominating contests in all five of the states in play, what we saw was a Trump more subdued in tone but as misogynist in substance as ever.

After declaring himself to be “like, a very smart person,” Donald J. Trump made an astonishing claim: If Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton—who won four of Tuesday’s five Democratic primaries—were a man, he said, “she’d be at 5 percent” in the polls. As if being a woman granted the female politician some great advantage. Were that the case, each chamber of Congress, one might assume, would be a body in which women represented 80 percent of the membership, rather than the other way around. Surely, given such great gender privilege, the 50 states might muster more than a grand total of six female governors among them.

Trump appeared to be grasping at some explanation for why, in general election match-up polls, he trails behind a woman. (It must be because she’s a woman! The system is rigged!)

“I’ve always been very good at math,” Trump told us, though apparently that prowess ended before the probability exam began.

The only thing that Clinton had going for her, Trump said, was “the women's card,” perhaps failing to notice that in the 2012 presidential election, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, 71.4 percent of women reported voting, while only 61.6 percent of men did. Add in the fact that there are more eligible female voters than male voters, one might see that very card maligned by Trump as something of a trump in and of itself.

“Women don’t like her,” Trump said of Clinton, apparently not aware of the fact that in all but three states since the beginning of the presidential campaign season, Clinton has won the majority of the women’s vote. Meanwhile, Gallup reports, 7 in 10 women have an unfavorable view of Trump.

The ancient Greek philosophers saw misogyny as evidence of fear of women. Whatever the original roots of the showman’s misogyny, the polls would indicate he has good reason to fear women in November—those, at least, who turn up at the voting booth. Which may explain Trump’s urging, in his latest victory speech, of Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s flagging Democratic challenger, to run as an independent in the general election. An independent progressive would presumably peel off votes that would have otherwise gone to the Democrat.

But then Trump went on to echo Sanders’s allegation that Clinton is “unqualified” for the presidency, an attack that many women, including this writer, heard as distinctly gendered in nature. (Sanders has since walked back that claim, which he said was based on the fact that, while serving in the Senate, Clinton had voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq during the presidency of George W. Bush.) But given Trump’s free-associative invocation of that particular Sanders attack on Clinton, coupled with the Bernie Bro phenomenon and Sanders’s dismissal of Planned Parenthood as an “establishment” organization, one could wonder whether an independent Sanders candidacy might just peel off misogynist voters from Trump.

Before the night’s end, the Sanders campaign issued a statement that suggested the U.S. senator from Vermont was no longer in it to win it, but would instead stay in the contest in the hope of injecting his campaign’s driving issues—income inequality and the break-up of big banks—into the Democratic Party platform at the national convention in Philadelphia.

Meanwhile, pundits were once again using such words as “unstoppable” to describe Trump’s march to his party’s nomination, what with the establishment types who had once seemed so vehemently opposed to him on moral ground now submitting, between sighs, to what suddenly seemed inevitable.

(Both U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Ohio Governor John Kasich fared poorly in Tuesday’s contests—in the Eastern states of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland—and the non-aggression pact they had forged for next week’s contests unraveled soon after it was announced.)

As Clinton’s nomination became all but sealed on Tuesday night, the pundits barely seemed to register the historic nature of it. For the first time, a woman was almost certain to be the standard-bearer of one of the two major political parties in a presidential election. But Donald Trump surely noticed.

With his male challengers falling away, Trump is now faced with two outcomes he likely once deemed improbable, if not impossible: that he could win the nomination of the Party of Lincoln, and that he could lose the biggest game of his life—to a woman.