By Mark Green
"Woman Hear Me Roar" says Clinton clinching nomination and making some spines tingle. But the panel sticks to Trump odds of 5-40% because he's a qualified ignorant bully and she's a qualified smart president. Can he be dumped by GOP? Only if more Curiel-like blunders and polls showing her steadily up by 10 points.
Hillary becomes presumptive nominee. When Trump last month said that Clinton was playing the woman's card, she cheekily responded, "then deal me in!" Apparently she meant it, given her remarks Tuesday night. Spine-tingling? Rich says no because, though Obama's win was historically thrilling, "he was an outsider and Clinton really has been around so long that she's the insider."
Having tied Obama in 2008 and won the nomination in 2016, would he admit that like Wagner's music, "she's better than she sounds?" Rich won't give her that, only admitting that she's "resilient, smart and winning the office by default." He concedes there will be a record gender gap while Ron agrees that there aren't enough white men to jump to Trump after Romney won 65 percent of them in 2012.
Will Sanders blow his hold'em/fold'em moment? Despite the media focus (including ours), don't we know how this Sanders-Clinton movie ends? There a consensus that, however he gets there, Sanders will end up urging his supporters to vote for Hillary after repeating his list of proposals. That's what happened with Mondale-Hart in 1984, Clinton-Obama in 2008, and, as Ron discusses, Reagan-Ford in 1976, the latter two being closer contests. Ron admits that his father "probably campaigned less than Ford wanted but more than his heart wanted."
Though Sanders lacks the usual incentives of a defeated candidate -- hope for later nomination, VP nod -- he won't do anything to indirectly help the truly radical GOP nominee. Hence his Tuesday night speech adjusting his rhetoric to emphasize "his plan to fight for racial and economic justice all the way to the Philadelphia Convention!" That is, "for...justice," not for the presidency.
Host: Conclusion -- there's unlikely to be any more from Sanders chiding Goldman speeches and the Clinton Foundation, as he gives his stump speech at Convention and wins a procedural or programmatic fight or two. (But why wouldn't she release the speech transcripts now that Sanders is effectively out?) Also, when it comes down to not "Bernie or Bust" but "Trump or Clinton," even Bern hard-liners will do the right and smart thing for the "progressive agenda."
Dump Trump? The panel ardently agree that he can't get close to the White House, especially after a week when the two ranking Republicans in the country, Ryan and McConnell, respectively said he made a "racist" statement and "didn't know much about the issues." When has anything like that happened before?
But after his very bad, really awful week, can he be dropped from the ticket at this point? Probably not says Rich, a leader of #nevertrump, but...if he made some more Curiel-level mistakes and fell behind by 10-15 points, "which won't happen -- it'll be maybe five points" -- then things could change. Nor does he think the Libertarian ticket will either make much of a difference in purple states or get into the debates, "and even then, Gary Johnson is no Mitt Romney in a debate." Also, given a ticket that's socially liberal and for open borders, it's not one that attracts his brand of conservatism.
Last: Lowry unexpectedly announces that "Trump will pick Gingrich" since it gives him some Washington cred and Newt has the verbal skills to tear Hillary's heart out. Ron sensibly then counters, "if that happens, the Dem choice should be Warren, who is a comparably strong debater and attacker."
The Host relentlessly believes that Trump -- for reasons historical, political, and demographic, as well as how he "matches up" against Clinton -- is a 'dead man walking'...As Galbraith said of Black Tuesday 1929, 'the end had come but it was not in sight.'" But he's not a fan of Warren as #2. "She has such a great self-awareness and mind that she should prefer to be a singularly influential progressive senator for a decade or two rather than a yes-woman in the White House, which is not at all her thing."
Given the activity of this past week with Trump's self-immolating comments and Clinton's capture of the nomination and well-received speeches, do Lowry, Reagan and Green stick with their estimates of Trump's odds of last month -- 40%, 10%, and 5%? Each sticks to his original predictions, with Rich saying 40% since you can't ignore the possibility of unexpected events like "losing the FBI primary, a recession or terrorist attack." (The show was taped two days before the Orlando massacre.)
But when Clinton outspends him by several hundred million and her ads highlight his incessant nastiness to the disabled/minorities/women + his business cons + his policy ignorance (nukes, abortion "punishment") + an epic weather-vane commercial + GOP-ers condemning him, she'll win by 7-10 points, at least.
The GOP is not the same as America.