New Yorker: Suddenly, Trump vs Clinton doesn’t matter now

Our American friend, the Political Animal, will be back soon, and in the meantime offers a comment:

Benjamin Wallace-Wells claims at the New Yorker that whether it’s Trump or Clinton doesn’t “matter”:

These are just a couple of polls, taken at one moment in time, and so there are plenty of caveats. Perhaps Clinton’s numbers have been temporarily suppressed by the continued (and increasingly hostile) opposition of Bernie Sanders; according to the ABC/Post poll, Trump has eleven-per-cent support among registered Democrats, which seems unlikely to stick. Perhaps there are many Republican voters who remain blissfully unaware of Trump’s offenses and transgressions, who will be swayed by the wave of negative advertising to come. But Trump did not exactly sneak in under the radar. This is probably the end of the #NeverTrump movement, which looks likely to go down as a deeply felt reaction from conservative influentials that voters did not hear. But these latest numbers also seem to signal something else: that this historically weird race may be turning into an ordinary one, in which the parties matter more than the candidates. More.

Something doesn’t sound quite right here, so of course I asked the Animal. He banged back

I’m old enough to remember when the New Yorker was worth reading. “White men against everyone else.” The cycle is outing the dumbest of the dumb: Trump leads Hillary in all categories of demographics. The democrat elite is starting to panic because this is May and things only get “baked into the cake” going forward. Yesterday Salon had a piece on why Trump will win.

He also wonders what is the matter with men who have hyphenated last names. Traditionally, it often made sense for a married woman, but … oh well.

Reality check: But if Trump does win, could he make any difference? Won’t the Supreme Court just enshrine the Permanent Progressive Revolution?

See also: Donald Trump: Republican Nominee for President

Follow UD News at Twitter!