Michale

could've fooled me.

look, this isn't one of those clear-cut cases where the facts and interpretations are indisputable. you have a valid opinion on this, and though i disagree with you (and would continue to disagree even if it were dubya and a dem senate), i'll credit the point of view. the senate is permitted by the constitution to make its own rules, and unless a supreme court mandate says otherwise they can interpret the constitution's text to mean whatever they want.

the senate's point of view seems to be, we're all going to vote no anyway so why bother going through the kabuki theater of confirmation hearings. my opinion is that having the hearings is part of the constitutional mandate, regardless of their length or outcome.

but my opinion and yours don't matter. the only opinions that matter are the senate rules committee, the president and the supreme court. since the president seems content to make political hay rather than force the issue, the current eight supreme court members will probably not get the chance to weigh in.

JL

It's not a refusal.. The Senate WILL process the President's nominee...

Just not THIS president's..

Michale

no, it isn't. and the constitution says it isn't.

article II section 2 is a mandate to advise and to consent (or not) based on the extent to which their advice was heeded. at least constitutionally, refusal to do either is decidedly NOT an option.

JL

The only difference between then and now is that, then we will all be in agreement.. :D

Michale

But it's not really a violation of the land's highest law..

As I said.. The power to advise and consent is ALSO the power NOT to advise and consent...

This is likely another one of those Boris The Animal impasses.. :D

Michale

my hangup with it is that i believe a blanket refusal to act on a presidential nomination goes against the constitution. just like obama's attempt to recess-appoint while congress was technically still in session went against the constitution. if mcconnell wants to avoid another obama nominee being confirmed, he has a perfectly constitutional option available - namely, schedule hearings and make them drag on indefinitely. still politically toxic, but at least not in violation of the land's highest law.

call me silly, but i think article II of the constitution is a bit more important than a city ordinance against political solicitation on the NYC subway.

JL

Hillary campaigning on a subway train in violation of the law looks bad politically..

Obama doing the tango with a hottie while americans are butchered in Brussels looks bad politically..

Do I think that will hurt Democrats in the upcoming election??

Of course not..

So it is with ya'all's hangup on Obama's SCOTUS nominee...

It's a big yaawn...

Michale

2014 was a midterm election year, in which republicans traditionally do better than presidential election years. in addition to which most contested seats were in republican leaning states. this year it's the opposite, most of the vulnerable seats are republican senators in dem-leaning states.

in addition to those factors already stacked against the senate staying republican, marco rubio isn't running for re-election. if gallup is right that 29% of the population are democrats and 26% are republican, a twenty point gap opposed to the senate refusing to hold confirmation hearings means a BIG majority of independents.

being partisan in a way that many (even non-democrats) believe goes beyond the confines of the constitution, in your own words, looks bad, politically...it looks REALLY bad, politically.. :D

so, you do the math.

JL

Probably won't have any relevance...

In 2014, polls thought that the GOP's "black eye" was their War On Women...

We know how well that worked out...

What this all boils down to is Democrats want the GOP to bend to their will and the GOP is sending a mighty FRAK YOU back to the Democrats...

In other words, same ol same ol... Nothing new here...

Michale

according to every polling organization i've searched through, even the conservative leaning rasmussen (53%-30%), a significant majority think the senate should vote on obama's nominee. if that's the will of the voters and the voters' will is being ignored, how do you think that will help kirk, johnson, ayotte, blunt, portman or toomey retain their seats, or the republicans keep florida or win nevada?

JL

So, there is really no downside for the GOP and there is quite a bit of upside...

Michale

heh

Michale

That's one person's opinion..

obama might have a legitimate case to force senate action.

Key word there is "MIGHT"....

Michale

full marks for the first, but no bonus points.

“In the dictionary under redundant it says see redundant.” ? Robin Williams.

[68],
According to the US Constitution, the Senate COULD take forever and a day...

JL

It looks bad, politically...

Bonus points if you can make two.

It looks REALLY bad, politically.. :D

Michale

*A* President's term is yada yada yada yada...

But *THE* President mentioned in the Constitution is the OFFICE, not the man...

By Michale's definition, the Senate could take forever and a day before it saw fit to begin the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees.

According to the US Constitution, the Senate COULD take forever and a day...

Under the Democrats, the Senate didn't pass a budget for over 5 years....

There are MANY valid arguments ya'all could make against the SCOTUS nominee delay...

That it's against the US Constitution is not one of them...

Michale

Surely, you jest!

:-)

That's not just wrong, it's hilarious.

yikes, that's not just wrong, it's spectacularly wrong. the constitution has 3 parts: the preamble, the articles and the amendments. all are considered part of the constitution.

The president's term in article II is four years, and the 22nd Amendment limits any president after its ratification to a maximum of 2 full terms, and no more than ten years total (in case he/she took over during a previous president's term).

Not at all..

Because "The President" mentioned in the Constitution has an unlimited time in office... That President's term never expires.

There is absolutely no Constitutional reason for the Senate to process ANY nominee until such time as they see fit..

If there is a SCOTUS vacancy in 2021 and a Democrat Senate wants to wait til after the 2024 election so President Trump can't get his nominee in, there is absolutely NOTHING in the US Constitution that says the Senate can't do it..

Of course, there are other considerations besides the US Constitution that are in play, I readily grant that..

But to claim that the US Constitution forbids an Senate delay on processing the President's nominee is a false argument because it simply is not the case...

Michale

But, the president only has a limited amount of time in office so, doesn't that impact on the obligation of the Senate to act in a time-appropriate fashion?

All of the "SHALLS" seem to apply to the President, not to the Senate...

So, the Constitution says that the President SHALL nominate..

The President has done his job...

The Senate is under NO OBLIGATION to process the nominee according to the President's desire or timetable...

Michale

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

article II, section 2, second paragraph.

and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States

if all the president had to do was nominate, his job would be done, but the constitution says "shall appoint" as a separate action. "by and with the advice and consent of the senate" is part of the appointment, which "shall" be done, according to the constitution.

JL

a filibuster is a procedural precedent that has existed for hundreds of years. cloture (forced closing of debate by a supermajority) has its hundredth birthday next year. as frustrating as such procedural delays can be, they do not create a violation of any provision in the constitution. if mcconnell slow-walked the process, used filibuster and procedural blocks to continue judicial hearings until next january, it would certainly be against the spirit of the constitution, but not contrary to the letter of the text. abject refusal to allow what the constitution says "shall" be done leaves no room for interpretation - it's flat out unconstitutional.

technically obama might even have standing to sue mcconnell over it, but i suspect he finds much more appealing the political dividends of making hay against vulnerable senate incumbents like burr, toomey, ayotte, portman, kirk, johnson, blunt, possibly even mccain and boozman, as well as open seats in florida and nevada.

overall, republicans are defending 24 senate seats this election and dems are only defending ten. republicans could still hold the senate, but in a presidential year it's a tough ask, and i'm sure obama sees the republican stance on his SCOTUS nomination as something that could tip things toward the democrats.

JL

Really??

Where does it say that??

I am also constrained to point out that filibustering a nominee is ALSO a way to refuse to process a President's nominee..

And ya'all have already conceded that a filibuster is proper...

Michale

It's simply "shall appoint".. And since it's the Senate's duty, the Senate has final say as to the timing...

that's sorta true, the senate do have the right to slow-walk the confirmation process, only that's not what they're doing. it is their prerogative to make the confirmation process take as long as they like. the only thing they absolutely can't do under the constitution is what they're currently doing - refusing to hold any hearings ever on a president's nominee.

JL

My position will be exactly the same... :D

It's the Senate prerogative to schedule the Advice And Consent to occur at a time of it's choosing...

Michale

But, by rejecting or filibustering a nominee, the Senate is ALSO not allowing the President to appoint his nominee...

The Senate HAS 'advised' the President that they will NOT process his nominee until such time as the people have spoken regarding the next President..

therefore, the president's job isn't done until he's gotten the senate's advice and consent on a nominee.

The President HAS the "advice" of the Senate.. And that "advice" is that it's going to wait until the new President is sworn in. Or until such time as the Senate decides it is time to process the nominee..

There is no time limit inherent in the advise and consent.... Nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate cannot advise and consent at a time of IT'S choosing...

that's "shall appoint." it is not, "shall appoint when the senate feels like it."

It's also not "shall appoint" immediately.. or "shall appoint" within a fortnight...

It's simply "shall appoint".. And since it's the Senate's duty, the Senate has final say as to the timing...

Michale

that's "shall appoint." it is not, "shall appoint when the senate feels like it." article II addresses nomination and appointment separately.

therefore, the president's job isn't done until he's gotten the senate's advice and consent on a nominee. it is the senate's right to approve or reject a nominee, or to filibuster one nominee until the president compromises on another, but not to force a president to disobey the constitution's explicit instruction.

Strike that to read...

Ya'all just don't like it NOW because the Democrats are on the receiving end of it..

My bust...

Michale

Not at all.. The President chose his nominee and submitted it to the Senate.. His job is done...

Now the Senate will advise and consent when they decide to...

The power to advise and consent is also the power NOT to advise and consent...

As the Democrats have exercised again and again and again..

Ya'all just don't like it NOW because you are on the receiving end of it..

that's not the same as rejecting (voting no on) a nominee; it's creating a constitutional violation. to whom that violation officially pertains,

That's your opinion and only supported by cheery picked facts...

Remember. The power to advise and consent is the power NOT to advise and consent..

Nothing in the US Constitution would FORCE the Senate to advise and consent...

Michale

Driver Who Struck, Killed North Texas Firefighter May Face Charges
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/driver-who-struck-killed-north-texas-firefighter-may-face-charges/#.VwRFDsjtQ3w.twitter

A Texas Firefighter and his two young baby children would likely be alive today if there was a border wall....

How many innocent American lives are worth freshly minted Democrat voters???

Michale

so by basic logic, if the senate refuses to consult or vote on a nominee, they're intentionally forcing the president to violate his constitutional mandate.

that's not the same as rejecting (voting no on) a nominee; it's creating a constitutional violation. to whom that violation officially pertains, as michale is wont to say, is a distinction that makes no difference, and therefore IS no different.

JL

Are you socially isolated Michale ;)

According to Nate Silver, I am...

But the guy doesn't have the best track record on being right, so...... :D

Michale

but it isn't looking good right now

It's NEVER "looked good" for Trump...

And yet, he's still here.. STILL the front runner.. :D

Michale

I am also constrained to point out that ya'all have absolutely NO moral foundation to whine and cry about the GOP's Senate lack of "faithful execution" whilst, at the same time, supporting Obama's lack of "faithful execution"...

Michale

Another week, another primary, another Trump "melt-down"..

YYYaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Michale

No where does it say that the Senate MUST advise and consent..

The duty as outlined is at the discretion of the Senate.

It's not an obligation to the Senate, but rather a restriction of the President..

The power to give advice and consent is also the power NOT to..

It's ALL completely and utterly at the discretion of the Senate..

A point ya'all would be making if it was a lame duck GOP POTUS with a Democrat Senate..

We know this because that's what's happened in the past...

Michale

for the small-fingered orange bigot.

I wonder if you understand how hilarious your comment is..

:D

Michale

Thanks. I thoroughly enjoyed learning that.

Neil

El Cid (the movie) is a 1961 cast of thousands technicolor epic "historical" movie notably starring Charlton as knight Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (AKA El Cid = The Lord) and Sophie Loren as it completely doesn't matter who, it's Sophia Loren. In his last battle El Cid takes an arrow in his shoulder and dies from his wound. Next day, his body, in full armor, is strapped onto the saddle of his war horse, also in full armor, and the the besieging enemy Saracens flee when they see El Cid leading his charging army out the main gate.* Actually it's El Cid's horse who is leading the charge, but you can see how the Saracens might be confused about this and panic.

This is a classic example of a working stiff showing up and doing his job well, when by all rights he should have been on his back in bed.

Thus was born the coveted Cidy.

*This is a case where Heston's lack of emotional range was a plus, that and his uncanny ability to not blink on cue.

Answer: It doesn't..

But the Constitution does instruct them to do it by the very fact that it is part of a "shall statement":

Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

The Founding Fathers went as far as to stick the Senate's tasks between TWO "shall" instructions for the President. They probably assumed that most people would recognize that since the Senate's tasks were essential for the President to be able to complete his instructed and required task, it was not something they can just ignore. Surely our nation would not become so screwed up as to have politicians that would risk playing semantics games regarding their duty of maintaining the judicial branch of our government! The intent of what the Senate is expected to do in these situations is very clear to anyone giving it an honest reading,

I'm feeling better -- luckily, just caught a rather low-grade version of the flu, so it didn't completely knock me out. Just posted my Wisconsin picks for tonight, but still a little too weak to answer all the comments here. Thanks for all the kind words, though -- dodged a bullet this time, it seems, so was able to keep the columns coming.

OK, I gotta ask TheStig, though: why's it called an "El Cid" award? Inquiring minds want to know...

:-)

See you all on today's comment thread during the WI returns...

-CW

Clinton would be having a pretty bad week if Trump weren't having something that looks a bit melt-down-ish.

PredictIt and PredictWise both track the Betfair markets pretty closely. That's why I tend to simply report Betfair trends, I used to caveat this, probably should more often. Betfair info comes out pretty close to real time, although I think it's risky to attribute Betfair oscillations to specific real world events, like bad press coverage or terrorism, the market noise is high. It's the long term trends I take seriously. It would be nice if Betfair would print dates on the x axis like PredictWise does. Both Betfair and PredictWise compress the x axis as events get older. This can and does confuse.

Betfair reenctly opened up markets for both a brokered and contested GOP convention....the markets are still small, but they indicate both are more likely than not to occur. I take both somewhat seriously, but probably not as seriously as some of the big time press seem to.

Source:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/momentum-may-matter-just-this-once-in-wisconsin/

Are you socially isolated Michale ;)

I model Presidential Elections featuring The Electoral College. Senate and House races are very different animals. Modeling Presidential Elections is actually rather easy, what I call a entertaining hobby... Modeling Congress is far more data intensive and what I call full time work. I have no interest in doing any more full time work (with deadlines!!!) unless it pays extremely well, in a great location, mostly outdoors, for a limited amount of time and lunch is AT LEAST 2hrs long. Drop me a line if anything like this pops up.

More to the point, analyzing 2012 Senate elections with my electoral college models would be like analyzing a submarine with a flight simulator.

I can just see Michale's reply (you all counted him out x number of times before), but it isn't looking good right now for the small-fingered orange bigot.

I'de be more inclined to accept your models if they accurately "predict" the 2014 Nuclear Shellacking...

Michale

I came across this quote while updating my own Quick and Dirty Electoral College model (Q&D 2016) with Sabato's latest state by state values for a Clinton:Trump face off. I have a lot of respect for Sabato, he's old school, but his track record of calling elections is outstanding. My humble little Q&D model gave predictions very close to those of 538 Blog and the NY Times in 2012 and was in close agreement with the late lamented InTrade prediction market.

Sabato's map has 7 qualitative values, Strong, Likely or Leaning Red, Strong, Likely or Leaning Blue, plus Toss Up. Sabato's data fed into my model predicts the election is leaning towards Clinton. Sabato's ignores his own category conventions and states that Trump is the "underdog," which I'll take as close enough to leaning Clinton.

I've also run David Rothschild's Predictwise quantitative electoral college map through Q&D 2016 and arrive at a 67% chance of Clinton winning the White House. That' about 5% lower than Betfair and Rothschild's multi factor model are currently calling the generic Democrat:Republican race.

I'll be putting Q&D 2016 and a slightly more respectable model through their paces again this season. It will be fun to see how well I compare to the big league number crunchers.

What a frakin' douche....

Michale

OK That works for me.. :D

I am not really sold on the whole good/evil thing... But (and I have said this before) Cruz reminds me of a slick used car salesman.. After shaking hands with him, I have to check my wallet and count my fingers to make sure I have everything..

As for Trump (and I have said THIS before as well) you don't get to where he is by being stooopid, moronic or a clown...

I think he is going to make a fine POTUS...

Of course, after Obama, the bar is pretty low....

Michale

Michale

Your supporting Cruz!!??? :D

Not sure how you got there from what I said Michale, but let me be really clear: Trump would be better than Cruz as President - Trump is a spoilt, bumbling fool with no impulse control and ideas gleaned from silly internet sites; Cruz is evil. Really evil.

Your supporting Cruz!!??? :D

Michale

Just read an article on the rules for VP selection - it is more possible than I thought (mea culpa). It is a straight up/down vote - Trump might get voted in by his delegates if he loses the Presidential nomination.

So, to answer your question: I think Trump is going to take getting edged out by Cruz very badly. This is a man who has stated that revenge is a necessity so his decision will be: can he hurt Cruz/Republicans more as the VP nominee than as an independent? He could become a caricature of himself and sink Cruz by offering suggestions to nuke Canada, make Bernie Sanders the next supreme court judge, etc.

What fun we are going to have in July if Trump doesn't get 1237.

Apparently the "court" means something to ya'all, since ya'all are always incessantly quoting it. :D

Oh, that's right. It only means anything when it agrees with ya'all :D

Simple reasons why this is completely asinine:

1. It is illegal (but that probably won't stop Trump if he gets up a head of steam)

You mean "illegal" like when Obama said he changed the law to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrant criminals??

That kind of "illegal"?? :D

This is the 'great businessman' that is also going to eliminate the $18T debt in 8 years.

As opposed to the con man who said that there are no red states or blue states, just a UNITED states??

Ya'all lapped it up then... :D

So did I, but that's not the point. :D

Michale

Trump is going to stop remittences from the U.S. to Mexico to blackmail Mexico to pay for the wall.

Simple reasons why this is completely asinine:

1. It is illegal (but that probably won't stop Trump if he gets up a head of steam)
2. Mexicans will route their remittences through Canada, Vietnam, U.K., etc using one of the dozens of companies that will add this new service for their Mexican customers on day 1.

This is the 'great businessman' that is also going to eliminate the $18T debt in 8 years.

Har har.

You mean like the court of public opinion that wants the Republicans to give the SCOTUS nominee a hearing? Really? ;)

Which will result in an Indictment issued by the Court Of Public Opinion...

That indictment will be MUCH worse for Hillary than an indictment from the DOJ...

Obama's lacky, Lynch, can control an indictment from the DOJ...

Benghazi!!! was easily the dumbest thing the Republicans did in the last few years

And if Republicans had anything to do with the email investigation, then you would have a point.

But they don't so you don't..

You see what I mean about ignoring facts that prove ya'all wrong?? :D

The Hillary haters will be up in arms, but they were never going to vote for her anyway,

Over 70% of Americans think "LIAR" or "DISHONEST" are the best words to describe Hillary Clinton...

I guess the vast majority of Americans are "Hillary haters"... :D

Michale

You think Cruz would select him? I'm not there yet. I think cruz is a certifiable nut job, but he isn't stupid and he would know that The Donald is a general, not a lieutenant and would be stealing the front stage saying the wrong thing and making Cruz walk it back.

Plus I don't think Ted would trust Trump. I wouldn't.

Right wing wet dream. In reality, the worst case for Hillary is FBI recommend an indictment, left wing pile on 'partisan Republican' Comey, DoJ drop it. Benghazi!!! all over again claims flood the airwaves from both sides. Benghazi!!! was easily the dumbest thing the Republicans did in the last few years - it made Hillary into a female victim of arrogant men, and if you don't think that is how it is played in the left-o-sphere it is only because you live and breath the right-o-sphere.

The Hillary haters will be up in arms, but they were never going to vote for her anyway, plus The Donald will steal the news cycle after a couple of days because he can't stand being out of the limelight, even when it would be good for him.

"Let's agree to disagree."
-Boris The Animal, MEN IN BLACK 3

:D

I see two ways Hillary will win:

And the one sure way that Hillary WON'T win..

INDICTED

:D

Michale

I see two ways Hillary will win:

#1 - Trump gets the Republican nomination and loses in a landslide in November
#2 - Trump is edged out of the Republican nomination and goes rogue as a spoiler (which is why I think Ryan is too smart to run, and the Reps will let Trump/Cruz fight each other into oblivion)

And there are a lot of THEM as well!! :D

Michale

Oh snap!!! :D

Michale

Good to have you back. If you manage to get out a Wisconsin Primary column I'll nominate you for an El Cid Award. The coveted "Cidy" is bestowed to a a dedicated working stiff who shows up on the job when, by all rights, he/she should be flat on their back in bed.

About the only way I can do that is to annoy you.. :D

I get to irritate them offline, online is where I get to irritate RWNJs. That's how it works when you live in a place where almost nobody admits they are a Republican ;)

I'm developing my irritating line of argument for the holier-than-thou "If I can't vote for Bernie I'm voting Green" brigade. Trust me there are a lot of them and they point out all of Hillary's faults (there are a couple on this board who are probably about to burst in).

Current most irritating comment "Well if voting Green is your second choice, you don't *really* care about the planet then, do you."

I usually get an earful at this point. You'd enjoy it ;)

But getting you to CONCEDE that is like pulling teeth..

About the only way I can do that is to annoy you.. :D

heh

Michale

That's what I'm here for! :D

In fact, given that I live in the people's republic of left-wing smugness, I probably see a lot more on the left than the right.

Most likely.. :D

Michale

You're annoying me Michale ;) This was not a concession, I've always believed that politics is the art of the possible and that the holier-than-thou exist on both sides.

In fact, given that I live in the people's republic of left-wing smugness, I probably see a lot more on the left than the right.

The Tea Party gave voice to the purity-test-brigade on the right that have shut down the government either explicitly ("I do not like them, Sam-I-am") or implicitly by 'primarying' reasonable conservatives and replacing them with troglodytes.

He'll be missed...

Michale

Trump will suffer from the comparison, with the exception of the 'bomb-thowers' on both sides who have solutions outside of the compromise zone (which is historically thin at the moment).

Glad ta see you concede that there are bomb-throwers on BOTH sides.. :D

My work here is nearly complete... :D

Michale

I call BS!! :D Wages are stagnant and the unemployment number rose...

and finishing in grand style with a debate about punishing women who get abortions.

Of course, that's not what was said... But why let FACTS interrupt a good TDS-induced rant.. :D

Whether it's accusing Trump of racism, accusing Trump of inciting violence or accusing Trump of wanting to punish women for abortions..

It's ALL about the hysterical innuendo with nary a SINGLE fact to be found..

TDS indeed...

As to the rest.. It makes me ill so I can't read any further.. :D

Michale

I call BS!! :D Wages are stagnant and the unemployment number rose...

Michale

And, of course, Obama made things a hundred times worse for Cuban dissidents.

But who cares about that. Obama got his photo-op and his legacy.

Michale

Where in the US Constitution does it say that the Senate MUST process a lame duck President's nominee??

Answer: It doesn't..

There is absolutely NO REQUIREMENT in the US Constitution for the Senate to do whatever Democrats want them to do..

It simply is not there..

Michale

Where in the US Constitution does it say that the Senate MUST process a lame duck President's nominee??

Answer: It doesn't..

There is absolutely NO REQUIREMENT in the US Constitution for the Senate to do whatever Democrats want them to do..

It simply is not there..

President Obama made a historic visit to Cuba -- the first president to do so in almost nine decades -- but it wasn't as big a deal here at home as it was on the island. Obama had every right to his visit, since he will go down in history as the president who opened up Cuba after over 60 years of the Cold War deep-freeze in diplomatic relations.

And, of course, Obama made things a hundred times worse for Cuban dissidents.

But who cares about that. Obama got his photo-op and his legacy.

One background reason why Obama's poll numbers are improving is that the American economy is chugging along and creating jobs at a pretty healthy rate, and incomes are finally starting to rise a tiny bit while the labor participation rate also seems to be inching upwards.

I call BS!! :D Wages are stagnant and the unemployment number rose...

and finishing in grand style with a debate about punishing women who get abortions.

Of course, that's not what was said... But why let FACTS interrupt a good TDS-induced rant.. :D

Whether it's accusing Trump of racism, accusing Trump of inciting violence or accusing Trump of wanting to punish women for abortions..

It's ALL about the hysterical innuendo with nary a SINGLE fact to be found..

TDS indeed...

As to the rest.. It makes me ill so I can't read any further.. :D

Michale

Trump will suffer from the comparison, with the exception of the 'bomb-thowers' on both sides who have solutions outside of the compromise zone (which is historically thin at the moment).

Today's Anecdote:

Thin, older black man walking down street, backpack on back. What does he think of the election season so far?

"I have no complaints. I'm just waiting for things to be decided...I don't like Trump though!"

Me: do you mean you're waiting for after the primaries?"

Him: "I like Hillary. But we'll see."

Grandmother using walker, and Granddaughter (live across the street from my house) - black -- what do they think of the election season so far?

Granddaughter: "It's terrible. I don't like anyone who's running. It shouldn't be like this. It's terrible."

Grandmother: "Yes, it's terrible."

Granddaughter: "It shouldn't be so horrible. No one who's running should be president."

I said I am getting opinions, not trying to influence anyone, but after the primaries were over I'd share with her who I support and Granddaughter said: "Please do!"