Hillary Clinton

Watching recent cable news talking heads chat about the prospect of Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders being “denied” the Republican/Democratic nomination, you would think that entertainment media is run by 5th graders. (Although... That WOULD explain a lot.)

Wonderful Wednesday news for you: Donald Trump suffered not just a loss yesterday, but a double-digit loss.

You can send all thank yous to Wisconsin. The Badger State’s Republican and conservative power players created a united front against Donald Trump.

This election season so far has raised a series of questions.

When Americans pick a president, they are looking for someone who is right for the moment. A person who speaks for the time, who is equipped to react and respond accordingly.

The 2016 election has, for a while now, felt eerily akin to 1984 (lots ‘o doublespeak coming out of Trump and his supporters). Or The Hunger Games, to take a more recent example of dystopian genre fiction. Wherein, government becomes solely about politics and the media spectacle, rather than actual policies and ideas.

Women are a big topic in politics. Whether you’re the first viable female presidential candidate, stumping for paid parental leave, campaigning on reducing access to abortion, or — if you're Donald Trump — talking about female reporters being on their period, the topic of women is inescapable on the campaign trail. You can't win an election without women. Well, women voters.

But can you win an election without any women on your senior staff?

I recognize there are loads of readers who think the Republican Party’s demise is nothing to cry about. I get that. But for centuries, our country has relied on two strong, restrained parties that operate along shared political norms.

On what she's been reading lately: