Trump is definitely tapping into that Know Nothing spirit. I wonder if it makes sense to view his support as less about people who feel they might be left behind by specific and recent economic and social shifts, and more a strain that has always been there.

Imagine if they summoned Reagan's ghost in a seance and tried to explain the current state of the party. "After a convention of dark dystopia, we've been pleased that Russia now handles the technical side of opposition research… "

Surprise upset in November: Nickelback wins in a landslide.

I am listening to his speech to the AHA, and it is weird. Very quiet. He tossed out this stuff about regulations, how they're a problem, and he's going to, when he's president, that won't be a problem—apparently the audience expects somewhat more detail, and it drops like a stone. They've all had frivolous lawsuits…

You really need a theory for political disagreement other than "anyone who disagrees with me must be uninformed." It's common on the far left, and as self-limiting as the right wing "anyone who disagrees with me knows I'm right but is getting paid off by all the handouts; it's the only explanation."

I can't believe you would characterize a summit on the dangers of homosexual totalitarianism, focused on how LGBT equality endangers religious liberty, as "anti-gay."

Also fourth with 18-29 year olds.

It's good that Trump's Secret Service detail walks people he charges as the enemy mid-rally to their cars afterward. Decent folk.

By his actions, I think we are way, way past recruiting anyone outside the base.

I watched your video. Oddly it contains nothing of the sort.

I have more sympathy for the appalled-conservative theory "Maybe he's having a breakdown as losing on the world's biggest stage becomes inevitable" than I do for the appalled-conservative theory "He doesn't really want to be president… we'll offer to run things for him and he can just tweet and play gold. We give him…

In the same way it's inconvenient for Trump when he's endorsed by white supremacist groups. Not really fair to hold a candidate responsible for any crazies who endorse.

Paraphrasing NYMag: Revelations about Clinton emails today, which could be damaging except Donald Trump threatened to kill her and consumed all the airwaves.

There was one in the comments once. The guy took his "cheat, don't get caught" advice and messed up the second part. So now he was having all the conversations that he thought were "too hard" with his wife, but in the role of Lying Cheater Who Lied rather than Concerned Husband Who Broached Awkward Discussion. He now…

It's not like the glammed up look takes 5 minutes to recreate post sex and cuddling. (Plus the vertical damp spot inconvenience.)

Especially "One of you wants to be in an open relationship and one of you considers that a dealbreaker—you should break up." Old Dan would have been stuck on his "is cheating really wrong, if you feel cheating keeps you in the relationship?" schtick.

The question for all of 2016, really.

Consider how the crazy ramped up as soon as he legally had accepted the nomination and the GOP couldn't get it back.

I don't get "monogamy on exchange of phone numbers." I think it makes sense in a lot of contexts, but that one is weird.

It's very weird that his two examples involve such deliberately-chosen bad timing. I grant her reaction doesn't sound helpful, but it's in the context that he didn't try again after dinner both times, or just use examples of "I wanted to have sex after we got home Saturday" rather than an "I want you to prove you will…