Links to, and excerpts from, a wide range of commentary and analysis on the first actual voting of the 2016 presidential primary season. (Every linked text is to a different article and/or source of data, FYI.)
Context and results
Last night, as Phillip Bump at the Washington Post put into perspective, “19 percent of 1 percent of the country” turned out to caucus for a Republican or a Democratic candidate for president. Here are the results, as of Tuesday morning:
GOP: Cruz 27.6%, Trump 24.3%, Rubio 23.1%, Carson 9.3%, Paul 4.5%, Bush 2.8%, and the rest did not score high enough to win a delegate. The previous two winners of the Iowa GOP caucus, Mike Huckabee (2008) and Rick Santorum (2012), won a combined 2.8% of the vote. 😹
Dem: Clinton 49.9%, Sanders 49.6%, and O’Malley with 0.6%. O’Malley has since dropped out of the race, but if you are one of his six supporters you can grieve together by reading Ruth Graham’s elegy for his candidacy.
Before getting into the links and excerpts from various places, here is my hot take on the whole thing: Beware of simple narratives. A very small and unrepresentative group of Americans just caucused in Iowa and they delivered an unclarifying result.
On the Democratic side, Bernie did better than originally expected and his supporters (and many commentators) will call it a win, but skeptics will (rightly) point out that Bernie just failed to win an outright victory in a state that, demographically speaking, should have been his for the taking. Hillary Clinton has just done something neither she nor Bill Clinton have previously done, which is finish first in a contested Iowa caucus… …but winning by 0.3% before heading into an almost-inevitable defeat in New Hampshire means that she will be suffering at least a few more weeks of stories about her electability, how she underestimated Sanders, and all of that horse race stuff isn’t good for her campaign.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump slightly underperformed while Senators Cruz and Rubio both overperformed (Rubio moreso than Cruz). Rubio delivered a victorious concession speech and as I will link below, many are proclaiming this as a victory for the GOP establishment. Some folks, who already have a zero-out-of-eighty-five record of predicting the demise of Trump’s candidacy, have decided to have another go at saying the Donald’s end draws nigh. Make no mistake: Someone named Trump, Cruz, or Carson pulled 61% of the support in a record turnout of GOP voters in Iowa, while Rubio and all other establishment candidates combined pulled under 30%. This suggests that it is the base, and not the establishment, of the GOP that will grow stronger as the field of candidates narrows.
It could be that in a little over a month, Clinton will be sailing to victory after victory while Ted Cruz and Donald Trump continue to duke it out for the GOP nod, or maybe Rubio will emerge from New Hampshire and start cleaning up in the more establishment South and moderate west/midwest while Bernie continues to build more and more support and begins winning surprising victories in states that were thought safe for Clinton. The data from Iowa supports all and none of these theories. So just pick one you like, or make up your own. Like these people…
It was an upset.
Despite leading in the polls, billionaire tycoon turned reality show host turned politician Donald Trump did not pull out the win in Iowa Monday night. Instead the top spot went to Texas Tea Party conservative Ted Cruz, beating out Trump 28 percent to 24 percent with 99 percent of Iowa’s precincts reporting.
Cruz, in his winning speech said that his victory was one for “courageous conservatives across Iowa” and “all across the nation,” adding that the Republican nominee and next president of the United States “will not be chosen by the media, will not be chose by the Washington establishment. Will not be chosen by the lobbyists, but will be chosen by the most incredibly powerful force, where all sovereignty resides in our nation – we the people, the American people.”
The Iowa caucuses do not determine the race but they do clarify it. The odds that the Republican nominee will be a conservative have just increased.
National Review writers Tim Alberta and Eliana Johnson have a story about the Cruz’s long road to last night’s caucus victory:
Today, one can easily trace Cruz’s path from that March 23 announcement in Virginia to his February 1 victory in Iowa. For one thing, the dicey decision to rush Cruz’s takeoff yielded a media windfall: He enjoyed two weeks of what his campaign called “clean air,” the uninterrupted coverage that came with being first out of the gate.
Of course there are now many candidates and much else for the media to cover, even on the night of Cruz’s victory. The air Cruz can get is now decidedly less than two weeks and, as Dara Lind at Vox describes, less even than the time it takes the Senator to say “thank you:”
“Morning is coming,” said Ted Cruz as he took the stage in Iowa to declare victory in the 2016 Republican caucus.
He wasn’t referring to how long his victory speech went — even though it was so long that by the end no TV network was covering it. It was a deliberate callback to Republican hero Ronald Reagan, whose slogan in 1984, “Morning in America,” has become a slogan of a conservative golden age.
Getting his Reagan on from time to time, and establishing and early presence in Iowa, aren’t Senator Cruz’s only decisions that helped him win a plurality of Iowa caucusgoers. the Senator’s homophobia is also a big help. Trudy Ring at The Advocate notes (accurately) that Cruz’s support among “evangelicals” is what won him the night:
Cruz, who has a strong antigay record (and was named The Advocate‘s Phobie of the Year in 2014), apparently won over enough of Iowa’s evangelicals to beat businessman Donald Trump, who has been the national front-runner through most of the campaign. At press time, Cruz had won 28 percent of the vote, Trump 24 percent, and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida 23 percent. Iowa’s 30 Republican delegates will be distributed proportionally among the leading candidates. NBC News reports this means six for Cruz, five each for Rubio and Trump five, and one for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who received 9 percent of the vote.
John Gallagher at Queerty has even more details (and links) about Cruz’s homophobic campaign, including the twist that the campaign is both anti-gay powered and partly gay funded:
Cruz was running a very smart — and very homophobic — campaign in Iowa. He counted on the support of the state’s evangelicals, who turned out in record numbers for him. In his stump speech, Cruz called his supporters “the body of Christ,” which apparently resonated in a way that the rhetoric of a thrice-married casino magnate from New York could not.
Cruz also had the backing of the fringiest of the right wing fringe, amassing an impressive number of homophobes to back his campaign. Right up to the last minute, Cruz was playing on his antigay credentials, appearing at a rally with Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, who blasted marriage equality as “evil.”
Notably absent from his campaign so far is gay PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel, who bankrolled Cruz’s Senate race. Thiel has been sitting out the current election cycle, preferring to focus on initiatives to revive nuclear power and detect bad steaks.
Who else won?
But enough about Ted Cruz. Surely somebody else did some winning last night, maybe on the Democrat side?
Yes, the Democrats actually had two winners last night: Hillary Clinton, who won in the traditional sense of having the most votes and delegates; and Bernie Sanders, who won in the sense of beating expectations, very nearly tying Clinton, and only getting one less delegate as a result. Having two winners is good news for the Democrats because it means we are going to get the 2016 version of Lincoln-Douglass style debates – and more of them than we thought – but over issues like pragmatism vs. radicalism as a means to advancing American progressivism, criminal justice reform, foreign policy, and gun safety. 🙀😻 These debate can be like a showcase for the Democrats to show that theirs is the big tent party for reality-based political discourse, if we/they don’t fuck it up (…). But I digress.
Jamelle Bouie is seeing what I’m seeing, writing at Slate:
…if you are a Democrat who wants to win the White House for a third term—or a progressive who just wants to minimize the damage to your priorities—you should relish the upcoming combat. Why? Because a competitive primary will energize the Democratic Party and prime it for a tough and grueling general election.
In Iowa, for example, returns suggest turnout that either meets or exceeds the record from 2008. Across the state, caucus rooms were teeming with people eager to vote for either Clinton or Sanders. People who had never participated in their lives—from college students to retirees—were canvassing, volunteering, and otherwise giving their energy to the candidates. And we should expect something similar in New Hampshire, where both campaigns are fighting to to find and activate supporters.
At The Advocate, Sunnivie Brydum describes how the photo finish lead to everybody declaring victory:
Clinton’s campaign had declared victory by 9:30 p.m. local time, though each major network was still reporting the race between Clinton and Sanders as too close to call. MSNBC reports that a concrete count of Iowa’s Democratic caucus may not be be available until Tuesday morning.
Taking the stage roughly a half hour after Clinton, Sanders gave what out MSNBC Rachel Maddow called the “fourth victory speech of the night,” referencing Clinton’s speech, as well as Republicans Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s optimistic speeches to supporters.
Sanders’ claim to victory is a lot less figurative than Rubio’s, when you consider just how close the Democratic caucus results actually were:
You could measure it in terms of the results: with 98 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton had an estimated 689 state convention delegates to Sanders’s 686 — giving them an even 21 national convention delegates apiece.
Or you could look at it this way: on a precinct-by-precinct basis, Democratic voters were so evenly split between Sanders and Clinton that at least four different caucuses were decided by coin toss.
That article, another by Dara Lind at Vox, goes on to explain that Clinton’s victory was not based on a coin toss, even if some folks want to think of it that way, concluding:
The fact that so many caucuses came down to coin tosses isn’t necessarily an indication that the entire race could have gone one way or the other if not for a bit of luck — although that’s certainly possible. What it definitely is, however, is an indication of just how evenly divided Democratic caucus-goers throughout Iowa were. In precinct after precinct, Iowa Democrats got together and found out that equal numbers of them supported Sanders and Clinton.
Of course some folks are not bothered by facts, or the definitions that go with words like “literally,” as is the case with the Olivia Nuzzi, Betsy Woodruff, and Jackie Kucinich authored Bernerbait at The Daily Beast this morning:
As she exited the podium, waving and shaking hands with supporters, her fate was still uncertain. But it was already obvious that it wasn’t a victory. Not in the literal sense, because as of press time she was still neck and neck with her rival Bernie Sanders, at 49.8 to 49.6 percent. This race was never supposed to be close at all. She was supposed to sail to a win this time. The socialist Senator was supposed to be a blip. He’d won the expectations game.
Wow, that’s a lot to unpack. Let’s see: When she left the podium, Clinton was certain of victory in the Iowa caucus, which is the fate she was speaking of at that particular podium; this fate was certain because Clinton had achieved victory, very specifically in the literal sense, by getting more votes than her opponent. The claim that the race should never have been closed is based on, well, on not reading the rest of their own article (e.g. noting that Clinton has been hit with negative ads and attacks from the GOP in Iowa for a whole year now) and on the common-among-Berners affliction of not understanding that white, liberal, educated Iowa should have been a home run for Senator Sanders, not a near-tie.
Of course barely defeating Sanders on turf very favorable to the Senator and his movement is a “disaster” in the eyes of some, like Michael Tomasky (also at The Daily Beast), who believes that Clinton’s Iowa victory should prompt the kind of strategic rethink that usually follows a defeat:
I always thought her closing argument in Iowa wasn’t very compelling. These people poll the crap out of these things, so I suppose they were doing what they were doing for a reason, but “the other guy is selling you pie in the sky” isn’t exactly inspirational. She’s going to need to switch gears. General election voters may want to hear about experience and pragmatism. Primary voters want some pie in the sky. Especially at the very beginning of the process.
Last summer and fall, Clinton came out with a pretty solid stream of very progressive proposals. Nobody paid any attention because it was Benghazi-email time. And now she’s sort of stopped. And Bernie’s out there saying “free health care!” She needs to say something that captures the liberal imagination.
Clinton is being challenged exactly on her Achilles Heel. Her weakest point as a pol has always been her caution. So what does God send her? A guy who’s literally the most incautious candidate in recent Democratic primary history. “I’m the realist” isn’t going to win her this. She has to peddle a little pie of her own.
I don’t know Michael, “I’m the realist” just won her Iowa and – according to the rest of Tomasky’s analysis – she is already poised to win almost all the state nominating contests other than New Hampshire, Vermont, and maybe Minnesota.
But none of that is bothering Tom Cahill at U.S. Uncut, who has the Berniebro friendly spin on how Senator Sander’s failure to achieve an outright victory in Iowa is evidence that he is, umm, going to make Clinton work for the win, or something, I’m not sure:
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd says it is “very unlikely” a winner will be announced tonight.
Hillary Clinton preemptively declared victory earlier tonight, and Todd called the announcement a “big mistake” and a “bad blunder” for the Clinton campaign, given the race was still down to the wire well after midnight.
Just a week before today, NBC News predicted Hillary Clinton would win Iowa. The pundits have argued for months now that Sanders only has support among young people and other unlikely voters, and that Clinton’s name recognition and experience would ultimately mean she would prevail over the 74-year-old Vermonter.
But Sanders’ hard-fought battle in Iowa, combined with his likely win in New Hampshire, where he’s ahead of Clinton by a 57 to 34 margin, means that Clinton will now have an uphill battle for the nomination that may last well into spring. What was once thought as a cakewalk for the former First Lady and Secretary of State could very well be a nail-biter if tonight’s results are any indicator.
FYI, Chuck Todd and his employer-mandated need to increase the spectacle and melodrama of every political development is one of the things I thought the Sanders revolution stood opposed to. Am I wrong (again)? One reason why I remain so skeptical of Sanders supporters and their claims of political revolution is that it is always based on debatable predictions about the future, or entirely spurious claims about the present. Cahill’s article is a lot of the latter, but it is important to include here because everybody you know who is #feelintheBern will be sharing it on Facebook today. “May last well into spring,” – now there is a rallying cry for the revolution!
Honorable mentions need to be made, as well. Dr. Ben Carson was a winner of sorts because he gets to go home for a bit after this. Rachel Vorona Cote has the story at Jezebel:
Carson’s campaign told The Hill, this travel decision should not be interpreted as a sign of defeat. The campaign “confirmed…that he’ll stay in the race regardless of his performance in the first-in-the-nation caucus.”
Why is this important? Because Ben Carson finally made a coherent, sensible proposal: that candidates should maybe take a few days off sometimes. I can get behind that.
The other clear-cut winner of the night, and she isn’t getting enough press for it, is the young woman who got to drop an F-bomb on MSNBC while keeping it real about Veterans Administration issues. Jim Newell at Slate describes how it starts with the young woman debating a young man who may have accidentally wandered from the Ron Paul 2008 to Bernie Sanders 2016 bandwagon:
It appears our young man is arguing that Bernie Sanders supports a flat tax and he supports him because of that? Bernie Sanders supports the opposite of a flat tax, actually, young man.
Then he majorly screws up by arguing to the young woman that Sanders “cares about veterans’ rights. He cares about taking care of them. He doesn’t want to ship them overseas.”
OH, YOU WANNA TALK VETS, DO YOU? “I get VA. I am VA. I am a vet. My mom’s a vet. How is he going to fix it?” she says. “The VA is more screwed up than it has been in a while. The fact I haven’t gotten benefits in three months because the VA is so fucked up really makes me concerned.”
And then MSNBC cut away from what was becoming an interesting discussion about real issues because someone said a curse word.
Why we trust Jon Stewart and not anybody on cable or network, folks: because he fucking talked like a real person. Anyway, the video is available at the link. It is great. My personal favorite thing from the whole night, for sure. Moving on…
Who both won and lost?
Marco Rubio & the Republican establishment
Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary explains how much, and how little, the Iowa results mean for Senator Rubio:
With John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all close to him in the New Hampshire polls, Rubio desperately needs to convince voters in the Granite State that they need to get behind him rather than the other so-called moderates. Though New Hampshire generally reverses the verdict of Iowa, Rubio’s strong showing was exactly what he needed if he is going to force the others out in time to unite the mainstream of the party. But if he fails to finish ahead of all of them — especially Bush who flopped in Iowa but has enough money to keep attacking Rubio for as long as he wants — his good night in Iowa will mean nothing.
Alexis Levinson called it “The Rubio Comeback” in a piece at National Review, pointing out that Rubio’s victorious loss in Iowa is a validation for his campaign’s oft-lampooned strategy:
It’s all relative. That’s been the operating theory of Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, which has confounded both political analysts and the press. And yet Rubio’s team has been firm in its belief that, by under-promising and over-delivering, it can generate the sort of excitement, energy, and yes, actual delegates needed to capture the Republican nomination. They even thought that by notching a strong third-place finish, with over 23 percent of the vote, Rubio would emerge from the Iowa caucuses on Monday evening with more momentum that the winner, Ted Cruz.
That’s why Rubio, who nearly caught the longtime Iowa frontrunner, Donald Trump, who finished just a point ahead of him, walked on stage to deliver a victory speech here in Des Moines on Monday. “This is the moment they said would never happen,” he declared as he took the stage at the Marriott hotel downtown.
I just have to LOL – “the moment they said would never happen” – is usually reserved for winning, not by losing with a higher percentage of the vote than expected. But whatever, Senator, you do you.
Jonathan Chait explains how and why a three-way victory for Trump/Cruz/Rubio is seen as a victory for Rubio, basically because it helps make his case to the GOP donor class (one of Chait’s favorite, and best, subjects) who are not going for Cruz or Trump:
The biggest mystery of the Republican race has been the curiously persistent appeal of the obnoxious, thrice-married, former Democratic donor Donald Trump. But the second-biggest mystery has been the absence of Establishment support unifying for Marco Rubio, God’s gift to the Republican donor class. Both of those things seem just a little less mysterious now. The intense exposure of the Iowa caucus brought up Trump’s unfavorable ratings, publicizing his deviations from conservative orthodoxy. And Rubio has implanted himself as the leading, and probably sole, selection of the party regulars. As Rubio’s spokesman, Alex Conant, said Monday night on MSNBC, “If you don’t want Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as the nominee, you better get onboard with Marco Rubio.”
Lauren Fox at Talking Points Memo has the conventional wisdom on what it is that Rubio won in Iowa:
The GOP now has a plausible establishment candidate to rally around. Whether it takes advantage of the window of opportunity presented by Rubio’s better-than-expected showing in Iowa will be a story written next week in New Hampshire and the week after that in South Carolina.
Fox also has this tidbit, which I did not know, and which in addition to Trey Gowdy’s support means Rubio must have quite a bit of the South Carolina establishment behind him:
Adding to his momentum as caucus tallies were rolling in, news broke that South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott (R) was also planning on endorsing Rubio before the crucial South Carolina primary.
At Slate, Jim Newell – who like me, mocks the idea of Rubio’s long-predicted third place finish as a victory – nonetheless looks ahead to the work Rubio and the establishment have ahead of them:
We’ll have to wait for new polls to come in to show how fully Rubio shattered the world following his bronze-medal finish—sorry, strong bronze-medal finish—in the Iowa caucuses. These things can shake up quickly. But consider how much space South Carolina has for the top establishment candidates according to the RealClearPolitics polling average: Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Christie earn a combined 27 percent. That ain’t much, and it’s not going to be much better throughout the Southern sweep that follows on March 1. If Rubio is going to win the nomination, his path would still rely heavily on the back-end of the primary schedule and its moderate, winner-take-all states.
And just because it makes the segue to the loser column easy, and because it relates to how Rubio’s path to victory in the primary may do irreparable damage to his prospects in the general, Peter Beinart writes about how Rubio
won lost-less-badly by acting more like Trump:
He surged by borrowing Trump’s message while pledging to more effectively package it. In the final weeks before Iowa, Rubio grew markedly more anti-immigration. Having previously warned against using terrorism as a pretext to restrict legal immigration, the Florida senator in mid-January declared that because of the rise of ISIS, “the entire system of legal immigration must now be reexamined for security first and foremost.” He also followed Trump’s lead on trade, suggesting that he might oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement he had once praised.
The list goes on and on, that’s just one of three paragraphs detailing all of Rubio’s moves towards Trump’s dogma, before Beinart concludes ominously:
Trump may have lost in Iowa but Trumpism won. The fact that the moderate in the GOP race is now peddling a version of The Donald’s message testifies to how profound his effect has been. And it’s not likely to dissipate anytime soon.
So who was the, oh I don’t know, what’s the word?
Ah right, LOSER. Who was the loser, no near-tie, no beating expectations, who just straight up fucking lost this thing?
I hereby grant Donald Trump the lifetime title of “Loser.” Like a public office, this label can – some would say, should – be used whenever referring to the defeated windbag from New York. Of course Loser Trump is certainly still a major contender in the GOP race, he actually did beat my own expectations for how he would do, and he is heading towards a lot of states where his weaknesses (organization, lack of evangelical cred) are not as consequential as they were in Iowa. Unfortunately, that won’t stop a bunch of pundits – who are already 0 for 64 attempts to predict the downfall of Loser Trump – from predicting that this is the end of his campaign. Here is a gem from Kevin D. Williamson at NRO, written with no irony whatsoever:
First: This is a reminder that people who hate politics aren’t usually very good at politics.
Yeah because a guy who entered politics last year getting 40,000 people to caucus for him in Iowa last night, placing second in a record turnout year, and all without any real ground game in a state that is built on ground game… …obviously he is no good at this. It’s not like he is leading in every poll of every other state, either. Except he is.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight lays out a remarkable proposition, that Trump has now been revealed as a Pat Buchanan type figure:
But there’s good reason to think that the ground game wasn’t the only reason for Trump’s defeat. Republican turnout in Iowa was extremely high by historical standards and beat most projections. Furthermore, Trump won the plurality of first-time caucus-goers.
There may have been a more basic reason for Trump’s loss: The dude just ain’t all that popular. Even among Republicans.
I wrote in August about “Donald Trump’s Six Stages Of Doom” and noted that this might be a problem for Trump. Several past factional candidates, including Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson and Ron Paul,1 received somewhere around 25 percent of the vote in Iowa. Under some circumstances, 25 percent can be good enough to win an early state. But it leaves you well short of the majority you need to win a nomination.
Read the whole thing, Silver is always worth the read. I still think that Trump’s showing in Iowa, while not meeting his expectations there, shows that a lot of his irregular voters were willing to show up to the polls, and that fundamentally makes him a stronger candidate than he was before we had that data. The remarkable showing of Cruz’s strengths doesn’t change that Trump’s weaknesses were actually less of a problem than many, if not most, expected.
Tim Mak and Betsy Woodruff at The Daily Beast are sticking with the assessment relative to more widely held expectations, writing:
He rode in to Iowa as the man to beat, the guy poised to run the table against all his Republican opponents and secure the biggest primary victory of any candidate in modern times.
Instead Trump barely cleared second place in a remarkable defeat. And while it may be too soon to officially declare that the Trump Train has finally gone off the rails, the man who has led the Republican field since early last summer suddenly finds himself in a profoundly difficult battle to regain momentum before New Hampshire.
Okay, so I guess folks aren’t exactly predicting the beginning of Loser Trump’s end, they’re just making it clear that they are thinking about it before saying why they’re not saying it. 😼 Mmhmm.
Jeremy Stahl at Slate decides to lay out some serious post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning to explain Loser Trump’s Iowa results:
The result would appear to be a damning indictment of Trump’s last-minute decision to skip last week’s Republican debate because of a feud with Fox News, or an indication that his polling strength doesn’t actually hold up when people start to vote and caucus. Either way, it’s a good sign for the intellect of the American people.
I repeat: The dude got out 40,000 caucus goers, including a plurality of first-time caucus participants. That really does say more about the strength of his polling numbers than about the weaknesses. I don’t know that any of the correlations Stahl mentions are relevant, but I would say that there is a good sign for the intellect of the American people in Loser Trump’s still awesome (national) unfavorable ratings.
Reihan Salam, also at Slate, joins me in believing that the results in Iowa really don’t portend badly for Loser Trump, just for the few remaining pundit-based-fantasies of his inevitable demise:
Monday night’s outcome means less than you might think for Trump’s prospects going forward. Cruz often speaks of his fight against “the Washington cartel.” Yet it is Trump who has violated almost every tenet of movement conservative orthodoxy and who has maligned professional politicians, Republican or Democratic, as the pathetic cat’s paws of billionaires like himself. He has demonstrated that there is a large constituency of Republicans who are indifferent to the fight against Obamacare and the battle to cut capital gains taxes, and who are instead passionate about restricting immigration and protecting America’s industries against Chinese competition. Trump is threatening to transform the ideological configuration of the GOP, and all his Republican rivals can do is react to his erratic moves. This dynamic won’t suddenly come to an end because of Iowa, and it has allowed him to shape the Republican race to fit his strengths.
If you only read one of the Trump links, be sure it is this one. Salam is on point.
Of course, it should be obvious to everybody how Loser Trump will continue to drive his campaign, and the GOP nomination battle, forward:
Update (trigger warning): After some additional thought, I am including a link to Gideon Resnick’s piece in The Daily Beast, detailing the disappointment felt by internet trolls, neo-Nazi’s, etc. after Loser Trump’s second place finish in the Iowa caucus. If hate speech offends you and you already know about all the bad people backing Trump, don’t read it! If hate speech offends you and you still need to learn about all the bad people backing Trump, read it (but not at work)! If hate speech does not offend you, well, get the fuck off of my blog. We don’t serve trolls here.