Scott Clement:
The potential for the 2016 election to widen America's racial voting chasm even further is nothing new. But Washington Post-ABC News polls have also identified a related dynamic: White Americans are splintering along education and gender lines at rates not seen in at least three decades.
These contours are well-known among political watchers; whites without four-year college degrees and men tend to be more Republican than women and college grads. But while these cleavages are seen across elections, it’s easy to forget that the gaps are typically not all that large — at least in comparison to this year.
Politico:
Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and an income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by overvaluing properties and ignoring his expenses.
POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen financial experts and Trump’s fellow multimillionaires about the presumptive Republican nominee’s financial statement. Their conclusion: The real estate magnate’s bottom line — what he actually puts in his own pocket — could be much lower than he suggests. Some financial analysts said this, and a very low tax rate, is why Trump won’t release his tax returns.
What’s he hiding in his taxes? His wealth. His donations. His shell games. The truth. You name it, he’s hiding it.
CNN:
The ads for his university were classic Donald Trump -- Trump stares into the camera and proclaims:
"We're going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific people, terrific brains, successful. We are going to have the best of the best... and these are people that are handpicked by me."
But a CNN investigation finds that Trump and others involved in the school admitted under oath that some promises made to students just didn't happen.
In Trump's own deposition this past December, Trump failed to recognize the name of a single presenter or teacher at his real estate seminars. He also confirmed he had nothing to do with the selection process of instructors who taught at the school's events or mentors for the school's "Gold Elite" programs.
David Frum:
Here’s the part of the 2016 story that will be hardest to explain after it’s all over: Trump did not deceive anyone. Unlike, say, Sarah Palin in 2008, Trump appeared before the electorate in his own clothes, speaking his own words. When he issued a promise, he instantly contradicted it. If you chose to accept the promise anyway, you did so with abundant notice of its worthlessness. For all the times Trump said believe me and trust me in his salesman patter, he communicated constantly and in every medium that there was only thing you could believe and trust: If you voted for Donald Trump, you’d get Donald Trump, in all his Trumpery and Trumpiness.
Jonathan Bernstein:
For several senators up for re-election this year, a significant problem is that no one in their home states knows who they are. This is a consequence, as the Washington Post’s Paul Kane points out, of the collapse of local newspapers:
Overall, there are more reporters covering Congress than ever, except they increasingly write for inside Washington publications whose readers are lawmakers, lobbyists and Wall Street investors. A Pew Research Center study released earlier this year found that at least 21 states do not have a single dedicated reporter covering Congress.
It isn't clear yet what that means for elections, although it’s not going to bother most people if incumbents have less of an advantage than they once had.
What’s important is the potential impact on Congress.
Philip Bump:
Twenty-four years after he bitterly fought Bill Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) endorsed Hillary Clinton for president Monday morning.
In a statement posted to his campaign website on Tuesday morning, Brown had words of praise for Bernie Sanders who "has driven home the message that the top one percent has unfairly captured way too much of America’s wealth." "In 1992," Brown adds, "I attempted a similar campaign."
So why is he backing Clinton? Simple. She will be the party's nominee.
Charlie Cook:
The Trump-Clinton Race Is Not As Close As It Looks
With its nomination settled, the GOP has been healing its wounds, but Democratic feelings are still raw because of the ongoing fight between Clinton and Sanders.
Many establishment figures, who I never thought would come to terms with Trump as the GOP nominee, have now moved to healing and closure, if somewhat reluctantly. They are quick to point out that Trump wasn’t their first choice, but, when the bugle sounded, they and other party war horses got in line. Sometimes it was more a matter of lining up against Clinton rather than behind Trump, and some even found it difficult to endorse Trump by name. One former Republican senator compared Trump to the villainous Harry Potter character Lord Voldemort, “he who must not be named.” Even so, most partisans ultimately get behind their candidate, for better or worse, and so it is with today’s Republicans.
By contrast, many of Bernie Sanders’s supporters still seem to be in the denial and anger stages. Feelings are still raw, and the healing process has not yet begun. But after the last round of primaries on June 7, most of them will also move from depression to acceptance. …
It is exceedingly unlikely that Clinton will beat Trump by a wide margin because of her high negatives and the intense partisanship that has gripped the nation, but the probabilities still are in her favor. We are approaching a moment similar to the one in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy told her dog Toto that “we’re not in Kansas anymore.” No longer are we looking at a Republican nomination fight with an electorate dominated by the tea party. We are beginning to focus on a November electorate that is broader, more diverse, and considerably more moderate, in both ideology and temperament, than the one that selected Donald Trump. Chances are high that these voters will behave much differently than the ones in the GOP primaries.
Upshot:
Bernie Sanders and Rigged Elections: Sometimes You Just Lose
Toni Bernie Sanders has benefited from the caucus system; it’s a major reason he has been competitive. If Hillary Clinton had dominated caucuses instead of primaries, I suspect that he would have complained that caucuses were flawed — that they were less democratic than primaries and less accessible to the working class.
And if Sanders had dominated with Democrats and lost among independents, instead of the other way around, I suspect we wouldn’t be hearing calls from him to open more primaries to independents.
That’s just standard politics — any other candidate would have behaved the same way. And Sanders is far less of a finger-in-the-wind politician than many. But it goes against this general idea that his side is trying to convey: that he’s pure, that he’s above politics.
Nate I think there’s some truth to that. Along those same lines, I remember back in 2008 that Barack Obama’s support in red states was supposed to be a sign of his strength. Now Sanders supporters dismiss Clinton’s wins in red states as if they’re somehow illegitimate.
Conservative writer Erica Grieder on how to turn Texas blue:
If Trump loses the general election, of course, that would almost certainly mean that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, will win it. That being the case, I’ve had a number of conversations with Republicans, since the Indiana primary, who are experiencing various degrees of distress over the choice now facing the nation, and grappling with whether they would rather be poisoned or shot. They’re still coming to terms with the fact, I think, that keeping Texas red isn’t an option at the moment; our state can turn blue this year, or it can turn orange. But I’ll address their concerns about Clinton more fully tomorrow. For today I’d like to explain why I think it’s possible that Texas could turn blue in 2016.
Douglas Schoen with your morning laugh:
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.
How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.
Don’t forget “Democrats” Pat Caddell and Schoen suggested Obama not run for a second term (One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012). I wonder if he can collaborate in future with noted strategist Bill Kristol. America needs their insight.