Check out our slate of Daily Kos-endorsed candidates

Many of us fantasized about it during the primary: One day Donald Trump would throw up his hands and say, "Just kidding! I only wanted to expose the GOP for the sham party it is." But Trump quickly became too awful—his policy proposals too objectionable, too offensive. Now people in his own party are similarly wondering if he ever really wanted to be president. Sam Stein writes:

“I think he has psychologically collapsed and is both consciously and unconsciously looking for an exit,” said Rick Wilson, a longtime GOP operative who rarely holds back in his disdain for Trump.

“It’s either that [he’s trying to lose] or it’s complete and utter incompetence in every facet of his campaign,” said Brian Walsh, another veteran Republican hand and Trump critic. “When you look at how he’s conducting every aspect of the campaign it seems entirely fair to ask if he’s purposefully trying to lose because the only alternative answer is complete arrogance and incompetence. And I’m not ruling out complete arrogance and incompetence.”

Agreed, let's not rule that out. But some operatives say he simply never counted on winning the primary.

One oft-repeated story, several people have told The Huffington Post, is that upon entering the race, Trump told his campaign team that he didn’t expect to win the primary, anticipating instead that he would finished second or third and the publicity of a run would boost his business ventures. Associates say that isn’t true. 

Wyoming held its primary on Tuesday and as expected, Liz Cheney decisively won the GOP nod for the state’s only House seat. Cheney, the daughter of Dick Cheney, defeated state Sen. Leland Christensen 40-22. Cheney should have no trouble in November in this solidly red state.

Cheney’s victory comes less than three years after the end of her disastrous U.S. Senate campaign. In 2013, Cheney announced that she would challenge Sen. Mike Enzi in the primary, and as we’ve detailed in the past, things started going wrong for her almost immediately. Enzi was popular with fellow Republicans, and Cheney struggled to come up with a good reason for voters to fire him. Cheney had only moved to Wyoming from Northern Virginia in 2012, and she didn't do a particularly good job dispelling the idea that she was a carpetbagger. Most memorably, just 72 days after closing on her new Wyoming residence, Cheney filled out an application with the state for a fishing license that listed her as a 10-year Wyoming resident. 

Ugly drama also followed Cheney. Her campaign against Enzi angered ex-Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime friend of the Cheneys, and he got into a nasty fight with the family. Cheney had a terrible relationship with the state's newspapers: While picking fights with the media usually works in GOP primary campaigns, it's not such a great strategy in a place where newspapers are still strong and have loyal conservative readers. And worst of all, Cheney got into a feud with her openly gay sister after the candidate publicly claimed she opposed marriage equality in the face of right-wing attacks. The well-connected Cheney had trouble raising cash against Enzi, and she even lied about how much she brought in. In the face of awful polls, Cheney dropped her campaign in early 2014, and Enzi went on to easily win renomination.

However, Cheney got the chance to redeem herself sooner than she probably expected. In November 2015, GOP Rep. Cynthia Lummis unexpectedly announced that she would retire. Cheney soon expressed interest in a House bid, and she kicked off her bid in early February. Aside from accidentally announcing her campaign on Facebook from Virginia, Cheney’s second bid for Congress went completely smoothly. Simpson supported her this time, and she raised a massive amount of money.

My new theory is that whatever Donald Trump "is," in terms of the unique mental stew of self-regard and impossible-to-parody bluster that marks his every word and action, it is contagious. How else to explain this evaluation of Trump's telepromptered Tuesday efforts from his newest omnipresent sidekick, Rudy Giuliani, to (of course) the puddingheads of Fox & Friends?

"I think this is the best speech that any Republican at the least has ever given."

That's right. Donald Trump's Tuesday speech, an exercise in explaining What's Wrong With The Black People Today, a rote exercise of Donald Trump reading some internal lackey's words off a screen while the restless audience wondered if he was going to bite the head off a bat as promised in the rally pamphlets or if this was all they were going to get, was the greatest Republican speech ever given. Better than Lincoln. Better than anything that dullard Reagan could read off—and finally, we've lived long enough to see Republicans take Ronald Reagan off the party mantelpiece and pack him into storage with the rest of the also-rans. Nay, the best speech ever to flow from Republican lips.

That one. By Donald Trump.

“All Lives Matter.” Technically speaking, that’s true. But if it wasn’t for Black Lives Matter, we more than likely wouldn’t have the additional scrutiny of law enforcement shenanigans—the less than lethal things cops do—that we are now seeing on an almost daily basis. Take, for example, the case of Carl Roettgen. Last week Donald Stouffer, prosecuting attorney for Saline County, Missouri, dropped several charges against Roettgen because the arresting officers lied. 

“After hours spent examining the video, trying to reconcile the video with the two officers’ statements, and consulting with staff, I reached the difficult conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the officers’ accounts credible,” he said.

Stouffer said the officers’ commander supported their false story so that the outcome of the criminal case would not be affected, raising further concerns about the department’s handling of the case. Furthermore, he said he will not file charges in any pending cases in which the officers, Tyler Newell and Josh O’Bryan, had a major role and that he’ll review other cases in which either officer was a key witness.

Police tried to arrest Roettgen for a parole violation in May 2015 in a Walmart parking lot in Marshall, Missouri. They stated that a passenger in Roettgen’s car jumped out as he was pulling away; that’s when one of the officers jumped into Roettgen’s car to try to stop it from moving. The officer alleged that Roettgen then pointed a gun at his face, and that he heard a ‘click.’ The other officer said that he had seen a gun in the car from the driver’s side of the vehicle.

Nothing but lies. Three counts of first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm were all dismissed against Roettgen, but he pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and was sentenced to four years in state prison.

The lying officers have been placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation. The officers’ commander at the time is the one who supported their lie, but he was not named by the prosecutor. So he has not been placed on leave.

This sounds like a case that should rile up a lot of indignation from the “there are good cops out there too!” crowd.

We’re waiting.

LOSER.

As Donald Trump's sludge seeps into every race across the country, House Speaker Paul Ryan is doing everything he can to put a firewall around the House (control of which has at least become a consideration). Ryan has already raised nearly $33 million in contributions during the first six months of 2016, and now he's blanketing the nation to bolster the GOP House majority against the Trump train wreck. Lindsey McPherson writes:

Ryan will visit eight states between now and the end of August to host fundraisers and bring some of his Republican Party star power to incumbents and newcomers running in House races. Counting events the speaker held in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington earlier this month, that will bring his August campaign travel total to 12 states, a Ryan political aide told Roll Call.

Ryan’s favorite subject is his so-called "Better Way" policy agenda on "taxes, health care, poverty, national security, regulations and the Constitution." Right. How about just passing some Zika funding since Republicans own the Congress? Anyway ...

The speaker has said frequently that the agenda allows Republicans to run a campaign of ideas, something he acknowledged his campaign with 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney was lacking.

Obviously, the 2016 campaign spearheaded by Trump has been a big turnaround on the substance scale. Yeesh.

Follow below for more on some of the specific candidates Ryan is promoting.

Donald Trump is going to lose the election. That’s not an absolute certainty, of course. Things happen. But barring the discovery of a note handwritten in Vince Foster’s blood describing how Hillary and Web Hubbell planned 9/11 on a table stolen from the White House, Donald Trump is going to lose.

The Republican nominee knows he’s losing. Congenitally unable to take personal responsibility, he blames his slide in the polls on the people who have prodded him to act “presidential” and wage a more traditional campaign.

In a phrase that seems to be going around these days, he’s going to lose “big league.” So … then what?

Trump could go home to a nice long vacation, but the one thing the campaign has definitely done already is destroy the value of his largest asset.

Trump's campaign estimates his brand to be worth $3.32 billion. It's specifically listed in the line item "real estate licensing deals, brand and branded developments," according to a net worth assessment filed in 2015.

The top line item in Trump’s portfolio is simply the Trump name. It could certainly be argued that after this campaign, Trump’s name will be far better known, but better known doesn’t mean more valuable. After all, with a nod to Mr. Godwin, few people are better known than Hitler, but that doesn’t lead to a lot of licensing deals.

The decline in value of Trump’s name is already reflected in what’s happening to facilities currently carrying the big ‘T.’ 

Today, Daily Kos Elections rolls out a redesigned new site featuring in-depth coverage of the 2016 races for president, Senate, governor, and the House of Representatives.

Along with the always excellent news coverage and analysis by the Daily Kos Elections team—and with opportunities to help out many great endorsed candidates—the site contains something new: A complete set of forecasts of the 2016 presidential election at the state and national levels, based entirely on quantitative data (long-term economic and political data plus state-level public opinion polling). We also offer the predicted composition of the next U.S. Senate, and the number of state houses expected to be controlled by Democratic or Republican governors. It’s a wide-angle, comprehensive look at where we expect our political leadership to end up in November.

I’m pleased to have worked closely with David Nir and the rest of the Daily Kos Elections team to add these forecasts to the site. We previously collaborated on forecasts of the 2014 Senate and gubernatorial races that were rated the most accurate—anywhere. Before that, during the 2012 presidential campaign, I published votamatic.org, which accurately predicted a 332-206 Obama victory as early as June. The 2016 presidential forecasting model that appears here is very similar to the model I employed in 2012. For more information about how all of our forecasting models work, we’ve put together a detailed write-up of our methodology and approach to the data.

Soon, we’ll be adding even more features, including Daily Kos Elections’ classic race ratings; additional information about each of the presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races; and state-by-state poll tracking and trendlines of candidate support in every state-level matchup nationwide.

But for now, we’re starting with the presidential election. We waited until one key piece of economic data was released, and until public opinion stabilized after both parties’ conventions. At this point, the picture is pretty clear. With 82 days until Election Day, Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite to defeat Donald Trump, with approximately a 90 percent chance of winning.

If you don't believe by now that policing in the US is broken, you haven’t been paying attention. Case in point: as calls for police accountability and transparency continue to echo across the land, there is also the call for people—all people … no seriously, all people—to simply comply with officers when faced with unjust arrests or harassment. The theory is “live to fight, or file a complaint against the officer, another day.” On its face that appears to be sound, reasonable advice. But what if you can’t file a complaint against police because the police won’t let you? Then what? In Minneapolis, a group of “undercover” lawyers (that’s such a cool term, by the way) attempted to file hypothetical complaints against police officers at various precincts:

The Office of Police Conduct Review assigned three attorneys to each of Minneapolis’ five police precincts to make hypothetical complaints. They dropped in at different times during the day over several weeks, and were told to be polite, but firm. They were to strictly follow the basic, two-step process listed on the city’s website. 

But the testers were turned away 13 of the 15 times they tried to make a complaint.

The “undercover” lawyers were turned away when they tried to make a complaint. Not that they filled out the complaint form and it was “lost”; not that they filled out the complaint form, it was accepted, processed, investigated and found without merit. “Of the 15 times they tried to make a complaint,” they were turned away 13 times. As in, “get the hell out of here with this mess.” 

What words do we use to describe such behavior? Shameful? Corrupt? Feel free to add your own. 

If there is a silver lining to this, the only precinct that did not give the lawyers the runaround was Minneapolis’ 4th precinct. The precinct that was occupied for more than two weeks over the murder of Jamar Clark by Black Lives Matter activists. The precinct that Black Lives Matter activists occupied for more than two weeks over the murder of Jamar Clark.

Who says protesting doesn’t work?

Much of what you need to know about Donald Trump's purported "outreach" to the African-American community can be gleaned by panning through the audience at the West Bend, Wisconsin, rally he presented it to. As with every other location Donald Trump has ever set foot in on the campaign trail, the audience was almost entirely white—the town of West Bend, Wisconsin, is nearly 95 percent white, in fact, making it a conspicuous choice for a speech focused on black Americans. And it was not so much "outreach" to those black Americans as it was "outreach" to the Trump voters who are quite certain they know what ails shiftless and riot-minded nonwhites around them.

What we need around here, Trump intoned in his usual effervescent manner, is for black Americans to pipe down and help us help you.

“Every time we rush to judgment with false facts and narratives, whether in Ferguson or in Baltimore, and foment further unrest, we do a direct disservice to poor African-American residents hurt by the high crime in their community — a big, big unfair problem,” Trump said Tuesday night at a campaign rally. [...]

He then called the “war on police a war on all peaceful citizens who want to be able to work and live and send their kids to school in safety,” including African-Americans in that group. [...]

"Our job is to not make the job more comfortable for the rioter or the robber or the looter or the violent disrupter, of which there are many,” Trump said.

There would apparently be no mention of Black Lives Matter in this speech, at least not by name. Only a war on police by "rioters" and "violent disrupters."

But just as Trump has ideas about how to deal with Muslim Americans and their penchant for "radical" thoughts—in his administration, the government will form "commissions" to investigate Muslim American communities and "viciously, if necessary" remove the troublemakers—Donald Trump is equally certain of what black American communities need.

Voters in four states this November will have the opportunity to do what congressional and many state lawmakers have repeatedly failed to do: strengthen gun safety laws. It's a good tactic, since many lawmakers have been persuaded by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to vote against their constituents' interests on gun issues. Kira Lerner reports:

In California, voters will decide on a ballot measure to ban large-capacity magazines. In Nevada and Maine, they’ll decide whether to expand background checks. And in Washington, they can decide to take guns off the hands of potentially dangerous people.

The four ballot measures constitute just one, but potentially the most effective, manner in which gun safety advocates are pushing their agenda this November. Gun safety groups have also said they will target vulnerable, pro-gun members of Congress and hold them accountable for their votes against what they call “common sense” gun legislation.

When given the chance, voters have typically approved gun safety measures. Washington State voters strengthened background checks two years ago, Oregon voters "closed the gun show loophole" in 2000, and voters from Florida to Colorado to Missouri have all bolstered their gun safety laws over the years.

Taking these issues to the ballot box has not only proven to be a winning formula, but it could send a signal to lawmakers that the NRA's “weaponize at all costs” mantra is losing popular traction, even if its coffers are full.