Ashley Steele Archive

Mariska Hargitay Endorses the True Law-and-Order Candidate

Many people have asked me over the years how to get involved with the movement to end sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.

I’ve answered that essential question “What can I do?” in many ways. I’ve told people that they should do what they can, that their contributions can be as individual as they are. They should educate themselves and learn about the issues. If they have resources, write a check to one of the many organizations across the country that do this work. If they have time, volunteer at a shelter or rape crisis center. If they have young people in their lives, model healthy and respectful relationships. If they have a voice, speak about these issues. Speak about them again and again. If they have ears, and compassion, listen to a survivor tell her or his story, or simply be the one person in her or his life who responds to them without judgment. I urge people to never, ever underestimate the power they have to change the course of a survivor’s life.

My answers come down to this: Don’t be a bystander.

As the 2016 election nears, I cannot urge strongly enough: Be involved. Vote.

As for where I stand, I’m with her. I stand with Hillary, enthusiastically and with all conviction.

I can’t think of a more succinct rallying cry for the anti-violence movement than Hillary’s campaign slogan: Stronger together. We must indeed all work together to dismantle the deeply entrenched societal attitudes that have helped perpetuate this violence for so long, attitudes that have found such a dismaying spokesman during this election cycle.

The challenges we face as a nation in bringing an end to this violence are formidable. We need a President—and an administration—who will not only keep these issues at the forefront of domestic and international policy, but also will hold out a vision for a future free from these crimes. Whether it is arguing for change in how campuses address the epidemic of sexual assault, drawing attention to the use of rape as a weapon of war, or advocating for the criminal justice system to do all that it can to ensure victims of sexual assault have full access to all the tools at law enforcement’s disposal, including the mandatory testing of all rape kits, Hillary has a vision and a plan for action. And after a lifetime dedicated to working for the rights of women and girls, her vision and her plan are informed, hard-won, and comprehensive.

The job of carrying the bold focus and commitment of the current administration forward—the progress on eliminating the U.S. backlog of untested rape kits; the first-ever White House advisor on violence against women; and the revision of the archaic, decades-old definition of rape to expand the kinds of offenses that constitute the crime—will require determination, tenacity, poise, strength, intelligence, and a fierce will to fight for what is good. Hillary has it all, and then some.

I cannot urge you strongly enough to stand with Hillary. Stand with me as I stand with her, as we all stand together, as people, as women and men, united in our conviction that we can be the country that leads the world in bringing this violence to an end.

And yes, Hillary, in case you were wondering, this makes you the “Law & Order” candidate.


To the First Lady, With Love

She had rhythm, a flow and swerve, hands slicing air, body weight moving from foot to foot, a beautiful rhythm. In anything else but a black American body, it would have been contrived. The three-quarter sleeves of her teal dress announced its appropriateness, as did her matching brooch. But the cut of the dress scorned any “future first lady” stuffiness; it hung easy on her, as effortless as her animation. And a brooch, Old World style accessory, yes, but hers was big and ebulliently shaped and perched center on her chest. Michelle Obama was speaking. It was the 2008 Democratic National Convention. My anxiety rose and swirled, watching and willing her to be as close to perfection as possible, not for me, because I was already a believer, but for the swaths of America that would rather she stumbled.

She first appeared in the public consciousness, all common sense and mordant humor, at ease in her skin. She had the air of a woman who could balance a checkbook, and who knew a good deal when she saw it, and who would tell off whomever needed telling off. She was tall and sure and stylish. She was reluctant to be first lady, and did not hide her reluctance beneath platitudes. She seemed not so much unique as true. She sharpened her husband’s then-hazy form, made him solid, more than just a dream.

But she had to flatten herself to better fit the mold of first lady. At the law firm where they met before love felled them, she had been her husband’s mentor; they seemed to be truly friends, partners, equals in a modern marriage in a new American century. Yet voters and observers, wide strips of America, wanted her to conform and defer, to cleanse her tongue of wit and barb. When she spoke of his bad morning-breath, a quirky and humanizing detail, she was accused of emasculating him.

Because she said what she thought, and because she smiled only when she felt like smiling, and not constantly and vacuously, America’s cheapest caricature was cast on her: the Angry Black Woman. Women, in general, are not permitted anger — but from black American women, there is an added expectation of interminable gratitude, the closer to groveling the better, as though their citizenship is a phenomenon that they cannot take for granted.
Continue reading the main story

“I love this country,” she said to applause. She needed to say it — her salve to the hostility of people who claimed she was unpatriotic because she had dared to suggest that, as an adult, she had not always been proud of her country.

Of course she loved her country. The story of her life as she told it was wholesomely American, drenched in nostalgia: a father who worked shifts and a mother who stayed home, an almost mythic account of self-reliance, of moderation, of working-class contentment. But she is also a descendant of slaves, those full human beings considered human fractions by the American state. And ambivalence should be her birthright. For me, a foreign-raised person who likes America, one of its greatest curiosities is this: that those who have the most reason for dissent are those least allowed dissent.

Michelle Obama was speaking. I felt protective of her because she was speaking to an America often too quick to read a black woman’s confidence as arrogance, her straightforwardness as entitlement.

She was informal, colloquial, her sentences bookended by the word “see,” a conversational fillip that also strangely felt like a mark of authenticity. She seemed genuine. She was genuine. All over America, black women were still, their eyes watching a form of God, because she represented their image writ large in the world.

Her speech was vibrant, a success. But there was, in her eyes and beneath her delivery and in her few small stumbles, a glimpse of something somber. A tight, dark ball of apprehension. As though she feared eight years of holding her breath, of living her life with a stone in her gut.

Eight years later, her blue dress was simpler but not as eager to be appropriate; its sheen, and her edgy hoop earrings, made clear that she was no longer auditioning.

Her daughters were grown. She had shielded them and celebrated them, and they appeared in public always picture perfect, as though their careful grooming was a kind of reproach. She had called herself mom-in-chief, and cloaked in that nonthreatening title, had done what she cared about.


New Polls Show Clinton on Pace for a Landslide

In just three weeks, the 2016 campaign will be over and the speculation about 2020 (and/or when the Trumpist militias will relinquish control of Mississippi) will begin.

So, where do the most recent polls put this race, with 21 days to go? Here are five takeaways:

Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be president.

On Monday, CNN’s new “poll of polls” — an average of the four most recent national surveys that meet the network’s standard — put Clinton ahead of Trump by 8 percent.

One of those surveys was George Washington University’s Battleground Poll, which also found Clinton leading the GOP nominee by eight points. The same poll had Clinton up by only 2 percent in early September. In that earlier survey, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were collectively polling three points higher than they are now, with the Libertarian claiming 8 percent and the Green Party nominee just 2 percent.

A Politico/Morning Consult poll out Monday finds Clinton leading Trump 42 to 36 percent in a four-way race. After the vice-presidential debate, Trump had climbed to 39 percent, but grab’em by the pussy-gate and last week’s wave of sexual-assault allegations have pulled the GOP nominee back to where he stood after he bragged about tax evasion at the first debate. Clinton’s support has hovered around 42 percent in the poll for all of October.

As of this writing, FiveThirtyEight’s Polls Only forecast gives Clinton an 87 percent chance of taking the Oval Office next January.

Clinton’s strategy of separating Trump from the GOP may be hurting down-ballot Democrats.

Respondents to GWU’s survey preferred Clinton to Trump by eight points, but opted for a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by only five. More concerning, the public seems to see little relationship between Trump’s issue positions and that of his party. Per George Washington University:

“While Trump trails Clinton on every issue tested on the issue handling series, the Republican Party has the advantage over the Democrats on a variety of issues, including the economy by an 18-point margin, taxes by an 11-point margin, jobs by a 6-point margin and foreign affairs by an 8-point margin,” said pollster Ed Goeas, president and CEO of The Tarrance Group. “Republican candidates across the country will be able to run with the advantage in the minds of voters on the key kitchen table issues and on one of the signature issues of the Clinton campaign, foreign affairs. With or without the active assistance of Trump, Republican candidates will be able to run as their own independent entities, whose electoral fortunes will not be tied to the sinking presidential candidate of their party.”

Democrats have generally led the generic congressional ballot by a narrower margin than Clinton has led the presidential race. RealClearPolitics’s generic ballot has Team Blue up by five percent, while their polling average for the presidential race puts Clinton up by 6.3 percent.

It’s possible that Clinton’s strategy of isolating Trump from the GOP has contributed to this discrepancy. However, it’s also possible that Trump, through his singular lack of qualifications for the presidency, has generated the gap virtually on his own.

Regardless, Democrats’ best hope is that Trump’s large deficit will depress Republican turnout, as would-be ticket splitters decide they don’t care enough about local races to wait out the line at their polling places.

Alaska’s feeling uncharacteristically blue.

A new poll from Lake Research Group finds Trump beating Clinton by a single point in Alaska — well within the survey’s 4.4 percent margin of error.

The last time the poll was taken in early August, Trump led Clinton 38 to 30 percent in a four-way race; now, he leads 37 to 36.

Alaska isn’t the only longtime red state that’s flirting with a change of color. At present, FiveThirtyEight has Arizona wearing the faintest shade of blue, and Clinton is within striking distance in Georgia.

Trump’s campaign message is getting through.

Over the past week, Donald Trump’s central message has been that it will not be his fault if he loses in November. At rallies, in interviews, and via Twitter, the GOP nominee has predicted that the election will be rigged against — both in a figurative sense, due to media bias, and in a literal sense, due to fraud at polling places in (implicitly) African-American communities.

That message is getting through: The Politico/Morning Consult poll finds that 41 percent of the electorate — including 73 percent of Republicans — think the election could be “stolen” from Donald Trump.

The Democratic Party is trading white working-class voters for suburban Republicans.

The 2016 campaign is accelerating a long-term realignment that’s pushing more college-educated white voters into the Democratic coalition, while more non-college-educated whites defect to the GOP tent.

This movement has reshaped the battleground map, as the Republican nominee performs strongest in Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada — where non-college-educated whites outnumber white degree-holders by 30, 24, and 18 percent, respectively — while states where the ratio is closer to even, like Colorado and Virginia, have become firmly Democratic.

As David Wasserman notes in the New York Times, the Clinton campaign has made a strategic choice to focus on winning over suburban Republicans, instead of working to retain Obama’s share of the white working-class vote against a populist like Trump.

The Clinton campaign calculates that its candidate is likelier to prevail by “disqualifying” Mr. Trump — using ads to make the idea of voting for him socially unacceptable in professional suburbs — among additional well-educated voters (in states like North Carolina) than by holding on to working-class voters tempted by Mr. Trump’s populism (in states like Ohio).

The Clinton campaign and its allies have run fewer ads puncturing Mr. Trump’s credentials as a business savior or painting a picture of what the economy might look like for middle-income earners under a Trump presidency. That strategy carries risks. In 2012, President Obama was able to keep states like Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin in his column with early and effective ads linking Mitt Romney to Bain Capital and Cayman Islands bank accounts … In 2016, however, many surveys have shown Mr. Trump holding a lead in Iowa and running nearly even in Ohio.

This realignment is likely to heighten tensions within both parties. In the GOP, a larger downscale wing will only expand the gap between the preferences of Republican donors and the party’s voting base, while the Democratic Party’s growing upscale wing will be increasingly at odds with the party’s activist base on issues of taxes and government spending.


We agree with Trump, which is why The Sunday endorses Clinton

Against all odds, something insightful finally came out of Donald Trump’s mouth.

When Trump closed the second presidential debate by praising Hillary Clinton as a fighter, he spoke volumes about why she should be the next president. Not only did the comment spotlight a key reason to vote for Clinton, who has spent her entire adult life battling for such worthy causes as better treatment for migrant workers and disadvantaged children, but Trump again proved to be a disaster when working without a script.

This time, the damage he inflicted was to his own campaign. After repeatedly contending that Clinton didn’t have the stamina to be president, he then dropped a cluster bomb on his own argument by lauding her tenacity and saying she “doesn’t give up.”

Surely, his handlers were wincing — at least those who hadn’t passed out. But that’s Trump, who was as scattered and erratic as ever.

Miracle of miracles, though, he happened to be dead right about Clinton.

Her record of public service and top-level government experience in the face of withering personal and political attacks make her the obvious choice for the presidency.

She’s a tested, unshakable leader who has built a powerhouse resume for the White House: social-crusading lawyer, first lady, senator and secretary of state. At each point in her career, she displayed boldness and courage — fighting for women’s equality and affordable health care, proving effective in working with her colleagues in the Senate, and shaping economic sanctions against Iran that forced it to the negotiating table on nuclear arms development, to name a few accomplishments.

Clinton hasn’t been perfect. For instance, she admitted she made a mistake by using a private email server as secretary of state, and she has a tendency to be her own worst enemy with the media by becoming defensive, dismissive and nontransparent when pressed.

But perfection isn’t a requirement for the Oval Office. And among the characteristics that are prerequisites — experience, temperament, judgment and capability — Clinton is the hands-down choice.

Trump, as he has now proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in debates and campaign events, is unprepared, unfit and unhinged.

There’s not enough room in this magazine to detail all of the reasons he shouldn’t be elected. Items high on the list would include his praise of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, his call for proliferation of nuclear weapons, his refusal to release his tax records, his alarming lack of details about his plans on such issues as the economy and health care, and his compulsion to insult people.

He’s demeaned, belittled and offended the disabled, Muslims, women and Mexican immigrants, among other groups. When he offered a rare apology after his “Access Hollywood” remarks from 2005 were revealed, it was tepid. He said he was sorry if anyone was offended by his “locker room talk,” bragging about sexually assaulting women.

In any other year, any one of Trump’s disgusting displays would have been enough to derail him.

But this year, he’s become a monster empowered by anger and fear and bolstered by decades of the Republican Party’s political and media machine vilifying public servants and casting the government as an enemy of the people.

So we’ve reached the sad depth at which some Americans champion Trump as a political outsider, regardless of how repulsively and egotistically he behaves. That group shrank in the aftermath of the “Access Hollywood” scandal, which was reassuring, but there still are supporters who refuse to see Trump for the hate-mongering, unethical and immoral threat he is.

That’s heartbreaking, but the encouraging part about this forced march of an election is that Clinton offers voters a chance to choose a president who’s fully prepared to take over the job — and who, for decades, has proved that she’s in it to serve the public.

The Sunday enthusiastically endorses her.


Republican Mailer Caught Using Disgusting Tactic To Threaten Voters Against Voting For Hillary

The mailer shows a woman in a cold blue hue peeking through her blinds. “When the Democrats win the election and you didn’t do your part… your neighbors will know,” it reads, in all caps.

The back shows a map of houses, some tagged with red check marks in blue pinpoints.

“Do your part in this election,” it says. “After all, voting is a matter of public record.”

The flyer says it was mailed by the Republican Party of New Mexico. A spokesperson for the party, W. Tucker Keene, told The Daily Beast the party had, in fact, mailed the card. He said he was in a meeting and hung up when asked more about the flyer.


Mike Pence Changes His Stance On What Donald Trump Has Been Saying On This Huge Issue!

GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence admitted Sunday morning that it appears increasingly likely Russia has been meddling in U.S. elections by hacking into public officials’ email accounts.

“I think there’s no question that the evidence continues to point in that direction, and we should follow it where it leads,” Pence, who is currently Indiana governor, said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “And there should be severe consequences to Russia or any sovereign nation that is compromising the privacy or the security of the United States of America.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Pence added, “I think there’s more and more evidence that implicates Russia, and there should be serious consequences.”

That position shouldn’t be noteworthy. The intelligence community put out an extraordinary statement on Oct. 7 saying it was “confident” Russia was behind the hacks of emails that have ended up on WikiLeaks, including emails from the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton campaign official John Podesta.

“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” read the joint statement from the intelligence community.

But Pence’s running mate, Donald Trump, has refused to accept the conclusions of the intelligence community, even as he receives private briefings from analysts.

In the first debate, when evidence was already building pointing to Russia, Trump defended the country ― as he does so often.

“I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC,” Trump said. “[Clinton’s] saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?”

In the second debate, Trump suggested there might not be any hacking at all, and everyone pointing to Russia might simply be conspiring against him.

“I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking,” he said. “But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they’re trying to tarnish me with Russia.”

Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who previously headed the CIA and the National Security Agency, said Trump’s head-in-the-sand stance “defies logic.” He also said Trump would likely continue this practice of ignoring experts if elected president.

“He seems to ignore their advice,” Hayden told The Washington Post. “Why would you assume this would change when he is in office?”


Donald Trump’s Rise Exposes How 50 Years Of Lies Destroyed The GOP

Lies don’t generally work over the long term. Sometimes they seem to, setting up a belief that the lie is a useful strategy. The “Southern strategy,” the Republican Party’s 50-year campaign of appealing to racial bias, provides a good example. While claiming their success based on the Southern strategy was due instead to their economic policies, conservatives created a belief within the party that the lie can be an effective and sustaining weapon of political battle.

Though apparent to the likes of journalist David Horowitz as early as the 1970s (before he moved from the far left to the far right, admittedly), this strategy began to trickle down widely to Republican apparatchiks in the 1990s, influenced heavily by the success of the late Lee Atwater. That 1980s master of the political lie influenced Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge, then Fox News and Ann Coulter (and so many, many more), who began to see how the strategy of the lie could be made to work — for their own personal benefit, and also for their movement.

The political-lie strategy needs two prongs. First is the lie itself. Second is the concurrent painting of the target as a liar. The most obvious contemporary example is Donald Trump’s attacks on Hillary Clinton, preempting any of her attempts to bring attention to his own much more frequent lies. (Look at the fact-checking of their debates.) Similarly, Trump uses Bill Clinton’s sexual scandals to deflect attention from his own. Not only do these take advantage of the “both sides do it” false equivalency the contemporary news media has such a hard time shedding, but they box in the opponent. The Clintons have been subject to this strategy for 30 years. In fact, much of the hatred toward Hillary today comes not from anything she has done but from the campaign of lies against her that depend on calling her the liar. No matter how often she is shown not to have lied about the Benghazi attacks, the incident is thrown up as an example of her lies almost any time a lie by Trump is exposed.

Attacks on Clinton claiming that she hasn’t accomplished much over her decades in the public eye are examples not only of the second prong, but of Trump’s recognition of the economic malaise felt by so many Americans. Yet it’s the conservatives who have effectively accomplished nothing. Their influence on national policy (especially economic policy) has dominated politics for half a century. Many of those feeling the most downward economic pressure blame the “free trade” policies long championed by economic conservatives. As a result, the fissure widens between Trump, who lies about the impact of trade policies to stir the anger of many Americans, and the older Republican establishment.

It is their unwillingness to face the lies, particularly the Southern strategy (which Ann Coulter denies ever existed), coupled with the short-term nature of this political “philosophy,” that is causing the Republican Party to fall apart today. Many of those who have profited by the success of the Southern strategy lie — again, I mean the argument that economics, not race, is behind conservative electoral success — have been lying to themselves, coming to believe that there is widespread support for their right-leaning ideology.

But there is not. Trump’s isolationism, at odds with Republican thinking for decades, makes that point dramatically.

Many Republicans yearned to believe that their success was a result of the stirring vision of Ronald Reagan and the economic policies long at the heart of conservative laissez-faire beliefs. They turned a blind eye to the devastation felt by much of the American middle class as they, and those around them, got richer and richer. West Virginia is nearing catastrophe; today, the population there, still believing many of the right-wing lies, is embracing the “change” advocated by Trump (though what that change would be is anyone’s guess) precisely because of the lies they’ve been fed. They blame all those in power, Republican and Democrat alike.

Old-style conservatives like George Will and David Brooks long assumed that even if the right-wing ascendancy was partly due to racial animosity, a great deal of their political (and personal) success reflected widespread agreement concerning economics. Rejecting the racist aspect of their movement, they felt that the rest was strong enough for their survival. Trump has informed them otherwise.

Older Republicans never understood that the only liar able to get away with lies over the long term is the liar with no beliefs at all — for that liar doesn’t have to lie to himself. The pundits and politicians who went along with the Southern strategy for so long, yet refused to see it for what it was, are now reaping their reward as the lied-to Republican base turns to Trump, a complete and “honest” liar. Paul Ryan, John McCain, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have benefited from lies in their own political careers, but none of them, I think, has been willing to admit to themselves that appeals to racism and racial hatred have helped them. That has left them vulnerable not only to Trump but to people like Alex Jones, who claims to have been told, for example, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton smell of sulfur and are, in fact, demons. That this sort of nonsense can even be expressed in a forum prominent enough to come to the attention of the president should outrage us all. Yet we have become so inured to junk lies that we just shrug and move on. We’ve been hearing slightly less toxic lies from Rush Limbaugh, after all, for more than two decades.

Liars, like viruses, don’t stop. They evolve to evade each antibody. If we don’t start paying attention to that, our republic is doomed. It will die, not the lie.


Trump Likely To Lose This Red State Due To Lack Of Resources

Three weeks until Election Day, the Trump campaign and the RNC are at risk of letting historically red Arizona slip away.

“I think he’s going to lose Arizona,” said Matthew Benson, a Republican state operative and former senior aide to Gov. Jan Brewer. “Barring something unforeseen, Trump is going to lose Arizona, and you’re still not seeing the type of activity you’d expect to see if he expects to save it.”

The campaign has placed few resources in the state. There are five staffers aiding Trump’s bid, paid for by a combination of the campaign, the RNC and the Arizona Republican Party.

Last month, both an Arizona Republic/Arizona State University poll and an NBC News/WSJ/Marist poll showed Trump and Clinton with a one percentage point margin of each other in the state.

This comes at the tail end of a week in which the Trump campaign effectively pulled out of Virginia and cut ties with Ohio’s state party chairman.

The campaign has not put up any broadcast TV or radio spots in Arizona, and it has committed just $15,000 for mailers for the remainder of this month and $7,000 for the final week of the campaign.

Asked if more funds directly from the campaign and the RNC are wanted and if they have been requested, a state GOP party official told NBC News: “Of course.”

“We’ll take anything,” the official said.

The state party has been the primary source of pro-Trump messaging, sending out multiple fliers on behalf of the party and Trump and placing calls to Republican voters. The state’s party chairman, Robert Graham, has remained a vocal proponent of the GOP nominee, and the state treasurer, Jeff DeWit, serves as the national campaign’s chief operating officer.

The state party has had a tough balancing act as it remained committed to supporting the top of the ticket while the state’s two U.S. Senators, Jeff Flake and John McCain, stood out as two of the most vocal critics of Trump.

The Trump campaign has dispersed more than 60,000 yard signs and has opened a campaign headquarters in Mesa for volunteers to work out of.

“Unlike in other states, there is a real fantastic working relationship between the RNC, the AZ GOP and the Trump campaign,” said Brian Seitchik, Trump’s state director.

But Benson, the Trump critic, said there is “no comparison” between the Trump efforts this year and those funded by Mitt Romney’s campaign four years ago. Multiple Republicans told NBC News they had not encountered any pro-Trump messaging.

“Romney actually had a campaign and a field operation,” Benson said. “Even though Arizona wasn’t at risk in 2012, they still had a good operation here because they wanted to run up numbers and raise a lot of money.”

The party official acknowledged to NBC News that Clinton could win Arizona, an electorate that has voted for just one Democrat for president since 1952 — Bill Clinton in 1996.

Another GOP operative in the state said Clinton has a “real shot,” placing the odds of a Clinton win at 50 percent.

“It will be because Trump lost Arizona rather than because Clinton won it,” the operative asserted.

“We’re not Utah, but we have a sizable Mormon population,” the individual said. “So the problems he’s having there [in Utah] should mimic to a smaller degree in states like Arizona and Nevada. And it only takes a few degrees given his numbers in Arizona right now.”

With Trump’s own position in the state on shaky ground, the multiple Republicans expressed concern that Trump could ultimately suppress turnout for down ballot races.

“Between the fact it’s going to look like it’s over on Election Day and with Trump turning his fire on Republicans, every Republican is going to pay a price for what’s going on,” Benson said.


Biographer Says Trump’s Rhetoric Will Get Worse As Election Loss Becomes More Likely

Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist Michael D’Antonio said on Sunday that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is only going to become more dangerous and unhinged as the prospect of a humiliating election loss becomes more likely.

In a Politico article titled “I think he’s a very dangerous man for the next three or four weeks,” D’Antonio was one of a group of Trump biographers interviewed by the magazine. The authors — some of whom have made decades-long studies of the reality TV star’s behaviors, moods and motivations — agree that Trump is liable to lash out because his back is against the wall and he is on the verge of a landslide defeat.

D’Antonio — author of The Truth About Trump — said Trump “comes from a long line of flame-throwers, so this is a person who will reach for any clot of mud available to him and fling it if he feels threatened or like a loss is on the horizon.”

“The idea of losing is so horrifying for Donald Trump, especially losing with a woman opponent,” D’Antonio explained to host Alex Witt, “and a lot of women coming forward, people who he didn’t respect finally saying their truth. This has got to have him freaking out, so I would look for the worst kind of behavior to come out of him over the next three weeks.”