Senate Dems field large roster of women in the Year of Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — If 2016 has been the Year of Trump in politics, it may also end up being a new Year of the Woman, if Democrats get their way. And that won't be a coincidence.

Democrats aim to have female Senate candidates on the ballot in nine states in November, a near-record, and these contenders will likely be sharing the ticket with the first major-party female presidential nominee in history in Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump, whose commanding win in Indiana cemented his improbable status as the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, is viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of women, according to Gallup. So as discomfited Republican Senate candidates released statements trying to change the topic or have it both ways Wednesday, Democrats made plans to link their largely male opponents to Trump, seeking to win back control of the Senate in November by electing Democratic women from coast to coast.

"I'll tell you as a professional woman, too many women have had to fight Donald Trump's type of sexism and offensive rhetoric their entire lives," said Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, who is challenging Republican Sen. John McCain and released an early ad in February tying the incumbent to Trump.

"After 33 years in Washington John McCain has changed, and Donald Trump proves that he has changed," Kirkpatrick said in an interview, comments reflecting the Democratic approach in key Senate races across the country. "Because even after Trump's sexist and offensive rhetoric, McCain has been really clear that he would still support Trump."

Republicans have grappled for months with the impact a Trump candidacy would have on their efforts to protect their slim 54-46 seat Senate majority. Last fall, the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Ward Baker, wrote a memo later leaked to The Washington Post that warned candidates to take lessons from Trump's rise but steer clear of his incendiary stances.

"Houston, we have a problem," Baker wrote. "Donald Trump has said some wacky things about women. ... We do not want to re-engage the 'war on women' fight, so isolate Trump on this issue by offering a quick condemnation of it."

Indeed for all of the controversies he's stoked and every voter group he's offended while appealing to enough white Republican men to emerge as the GOP nominee, women could be Trump's biggest problem this fall, and the biggest problem for Senate Republicans. Women vote in higher numbers than men — in 2012, 10 million more women cast ballots than men — and vote more heavily Democratic. This year, strategists in both parties expect those trends to be magnified given Trump's unpopularity with women, Clinton's historic candidacy (though she herself faces high negative ratings), and the large number of women running for Senate.

On Wednesday, EMILY's List, an influential political committee dedicated to electing women, targeted five GOP Senate candidates who face female opponents in November, demanding to know whether they would play the "woman's card."

"Are we about to see him devalue his female opponent and launch character attacks on her in the same vein as Donald Trump?" asked the releases aimed at McCain, Rep. Joe Heck of Nevada, and Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock said this election presents the chance to send a historic number of women to the Senate, even more than in 1992's "Year of the Woman" when female voters outraged over the all-male Judiciary Committee's treatment of Anita Hill at hearings on Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination swept women into office around the country.

"Donald Trump is going to have to really expand the electorate to overcome how badly he is seen by women," Schriock said. "If you're starting your presidential campaign with 70 percent basically women who don't like you, you're going to have to find a lot of brand-new voters, a lot. And the truth is there's not enough."

Already, a GOP-run anti-Trump political action committee aired an ad featuring women reading some of Trump's negative comments about women, including "bimbo," ''dog," and "fat pig." In Arkansas, Democratic longshot Connor Eldridge released a digital ad this week showing Trump himself saying some of those things and worse, and Republican Sen. John Boozman pledging to support the GOP nominee.

Democrats say much more of the same is yet to come.

"We have repeatedly called on Pat Toomey to distance himself from those and other comments of Donald Trump's and he's refused," said Katie McGinty, Democrats' Senate nominee in Pennsylvania. "What we have is a Trump-Toomey ticket."

Toomey's spokesman Ted Kwong said that Toomey has made clear he disagrees with Trump in several areas, and accused McGinty of being "a total rubber stamp for Hillary Clinton and the Washington party bosses." McCain's spokeswoman, Lorna Romero, offered a similar retort to Kirkpatrick, saying that her "only accomplishment in office is being a rubber stamp for this president."

Yet Toomey, McCain and the other Republicans running for re-election find themselves in a no-win situation. All have pledged to support the eventual nominee — to do otherwise would risk alienating Trump's many enthusiastic supporters. But most want to create some distance from Trump if they can, forcing a delicate straddle that might get only trickier through the fall.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a vulnerable incumbent, summed up the dilemma by declaring through a spokeswoman Wednesday that she would support Trump for president — just not endorse him.

NEWS SOURCE: YAHOO

Clinton has the guide on her side, yet history conflicting with her

Hillary Clinton makes a stop at the Lincoln Square flapjack house in Indianapolis on May 1. (Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

In the event that you need to encounter the all out disdain of the liberal scholarly people at this moment, go on online networking and propose, as I did for the current week, that Donald Trump isn't sure to get squashed in November. (Trump, on the off chance that you hadn't saw, brings out essentially the most exceedingly terrible in everyone.)

The way a considerable measure of fanatic Democrats see it, Hillary Clinton — in spite of a misfortune to Bernie Sanders in Indiana Tuesday — will soon secure her gathering's assignment, and the main way she gets herself even undermined by Trump is if the media chooses to legitimize him so we as a whole have something to discuss. The word I continue got notification from liberals is "layup."

Clinton does, truth be told, enter the general race season with some genuine basic points of interest. Having broke down patterns from the previous six decisions and considered in demographic shifts, Third Way, the main moderate Democratic gathering, reasoned that Clinton begins the crusade practically guaranteed of 237 constituent votes — 46 more than Trump and only 33 shy of a greater part.

What's more, as you've most likely listened, no hopeful has ever overcome — or even attempted to overcome — the sort of revolting impressions Trump has made on ladies and minority voters to this point. By him, Clinton surveys like Santa Claus.

In any case, if history is any aide, Clinton goes to the crusade with a basic weakness, as well, and one that shouldn't be neglected. It might clarify why she can't put Bernie Sanders away — and why the result in November is not really guaranteed.

I've experienced this history a few times some time recently, however it bears rehashing: In 1947, Congress passed the 22nd Amendment, which said nobody could be chosen to the administration more than twice.

In the 65 years since the last state endorsed that change — including 16 races, and six races taking after an eight-year administration — one and only chosen one has figured out how to win a third back to back term for his gathering. That was George H.W. Shrub, who defeated a twofold digit shortage late in the battle, thanks to a limited extent to a standout amongst the most incapable Democratic crusades ever.

(What's more, before you begin with me, I know, Al Gore really won, and in an other universe some place they are building his landmark on the Tidal Basin in an atmosphere that is, all things considered, four degrees cooler than the one we possess, however for motivations behind this dialog, how about we simply live in the without a moment's hesitation.)

The vital inquiry is the reason it's demonstrated so troublesome for either side to win third terms. The most widely recognized clarification needs to do with voter exhaustion. Basically, we're informed that voters become ill of having one gathering in office for a long time, thus the pendulum swings back.

I don't discover this hypothesis particularly convincing. I've met a horrendous parcel of voters throughout the years, and once in a while have I heard anybody present the defense that it was the ideal opportunity for the other party to get a turn. It appears to me voters center significantly more on the competitors themselves than on the gatherings they speak to.

What's more, this may get to the more genuine reason for the third-term problem. On the off chance that you glance back at decisions over the past half century, what you find is that the gatherings of two-term occupants quite often name the hopeful who is ostensibly next in line. Of the six applicants who have looked for third terms following 1960, five had already served as either president or VP. (The president was Gerald Ford, who kept running for race in 1976 in the wake of having held the occupation for two or more years.)

The anomaly was John McCain, who, similar to Clinton, had been the runner-up in the last open race, and who kept running in a year when the officeholder VP was sitting it out.

It's not hard to perceive how this happens. A two-term president has both the time and the muscle to set up somebody who will bear on his legacy — while adequately boxing out challengers.

What's more, since presidents quite often lose congressional seats and governorships in off-year decisions, an eight-year administration has a tendency to devastate the positions of commendable, more youthful successors from outside the foundation, in any case.

At the end of the day, when a president completes trudging his way through the crests and troughs of eight years at work, there aren't a great deal of new, energizing other options to whichever previous opponent or faithful No. 2 has been persistently attending to the edge of the stage.

The issue is that the following in-line — Gore, McCain, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon in 1960 — is never as politically skilled as the president he (or she) has served. In the event that he were, he wouldn't have wound up next-in-line in any case.

Also, that inadequacy is just amplified by a problem that even the best government officials would discover damn close difficult to explore. The following in-line must be steadfast without being little, exemplify the future while speaking to the past. He needs to by one means or another grasp progression while in the meantime putting separation amongst himself and the inescapable dissatisfaction a president abandons.

The following in a bad position than he ought to binding together the gathering, in light of the fact that the gaps that were smothered through eight years of an administration — in the reason for fighting off the resistance — ascend to the surface. The end of like clockwork administration is something like the fall of Tito, with unique groups and repressed feelings at long last unleashed.

Clinton — runner-up in 2008, faithful warrior from that point — is the prototypical next-in-line. Because of two or three shocking midterm decision cycles, she's needed to battle just with a 74-year-old dissent applicant who just as of late joined the gathering, and, after its all said and done she hasn't possessed the capacity to energize enough of her own gathering's base to secure the designation by May.

She's needed to lash herself firmly to the president while in the meantime attempting to co-select the ideological wrath among the gathering's disappointed groups. She will rise up out of this procedure with her motivation dark, her feelings supported.

Possibly Gore and McCain, having experienced precisely the same, have some kind of care group she can visit.

Not at all like both of those folks, obviously, Clinton appears to have become astoundingly fortunate in her restriction. It's actual: Trump's horrifying talk will make for some astounding TV advertisements. Furthermore, yes, if his numbers hold, particularly among ladies, Trump's next reality-show gig may be called "The Biggest Loser of All Time."

Be that as it may, here's the thing about Trump: He's run the level out most hostile, minimum substantive and crassest crusade in memory, and national surveys show him trailing Clinton by 10 focuses, with six months yet to go.

Consider that. In presidential legislative issues, 10 focuses can fall away speedier than Carly Fiorina on a riser.

Keeping in mind voters' impressions right now in a battle are typically difficult to change, what we don't think about Trump — the unavoidable issue, to my brain — is whether the bigger electorate will eventually judge him by the guidelines of a government official or, similar to essential voters, as a big name.

Government officials aren't permitted to just disregard their records and respawn completely. The voters, finely receptive to any indication of inauthenticity, won't have it.

Be that as it may, performers rethink and make up for themselves constantly; it's what gossipy magazines exist for. Furthermore, Trump is nearer to possessing this domain than any hopeful we've ever seen.

Try not to expect the Trump who makes that big appearance in Cleveland to be remotely similar to the Trump who boasted about his genitalia in a level headed discussion. Also, don't expect, on the grounds that his bias and base shenanigans are a matter of record, that the principles of conventional legislative issues will apply.

Next-in-lines have been known (in any event once) to win, and expecting she can nail down the assignment, Clinton is as clear a most loved as we've found in a while. However, Clinton shouldn't deceive herself into supposing she's set out toward a layup, and neither if any other individual.

NEWS SOURCE: YAHOO

Ruler had painkiller Percocet in his framework : reports

(Reuters) - Music genius Prince's post-mortem examination found the painkiller Percocet in his framework, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and KSTP-TV covered Thursday, refering to sources near the examination.

Ruler additionally had a perilously low red platelet check, showing he had been sick, Minneapolis ABC associate KSTP-TV said, refering to two anonymous law authorization authorities.

A representative for the neighborhood therapeutic inspector's office that directed an after death examination of Prince declined to affirm the reports.

The reason for Prince's demise stayed undetermined. The medicinal inspector's office said in late April the examination and toxicology results could take weeks.

The news reports came after government powers said on Wednesday they were joining the examination concerning Prince's passing.

The Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Lawyer's office in Minnesota will convey government assets to the neighborhood examination and ability on the unlawful utilize and trafficking of doctor prescribed medications, the U.S. Lawyer's office said.

Likewise on Wednesday, a legal advisor for a California dependence specialist said Prince's delegates had reached the specialist the night prior to his demise, including that the specialist had wanted to visit Prince for an "existence sparing mission."

The 57-year-old Prince was discovered dead on April 21 at his Paisley Park home-studio complex in a Minneapolis suburb. Medicine opioid solution was found at the scene, a law requirement source told Reuters.

Dr. Howard Kornfeld, who runs Recovery Without Walls, a facility in Mill Valley, California, wanted to travel to Minnesota on April 22, his legal advisor William Mauzy said. Meanwhile, his child, Andrew Kornfeld, a facility staff part, headed out to Minnesota on April 21 for an underlying talk.

At the point when Andrew Kornfeld touched base at Paisley Park, Prince was not accessible, Mauzy said. A staff part found the craftsman oblivious in a lift, and Kornfeld called 911.

(Reporting by Suzannah Gonzales; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

NEWS SOURCE:YAHOO

Report: Child supposedly told Joe Paterno of Sandusky misuse in 1976

A court request identified with the a great many dollars owed to the casualties of Jerry Sandusky says that Penn State mentors, including Joe Paterno, may have known of kid misuse charges against Sandusky as far back as 1976.

As indicated by PennLive.com, a line in a court request claims one of Penn State's safety net providers said a youngster "professedly reported" to Joe Paterno in 1976 he was "sexually attacked by Sandusky." Sandusky, who is right now serving 30-60 years subsequent to being discovered liable on 45 numbers of sexual misuse, was a protective colleague under Paterno from 1969-1999, when he resigned. Paterno kicked the bucket in Jan. 2012.

The report additionally demonstrates other already undisclosed assertions from 1987 and 1988.

From PennLive.com:

The request additionally refers to isolated references in 1987 and 1988 in which anonymous colleague mentors saw unseemly contact amongst Sandusky and unidentified kids, and a 1988 case that was as far as anyone knows alluded to Penn State's athletic executive at the time.

All, the sentiment states, are depicted in casualties' affidavits taken as a major aspect of the as yet pending protection case, yet that, concurring a PennLive audit of the case record, are obviously under seal.

"There is no confirmation that reports of these episodes ever went further up the levels of leadership at PSU," Judge Gary Glazer composed, in establishing that since Penn State's official officers - its leader and trustees - didn't know about the charges, he would not banish claims from that time period from protection scope.

Here is the record:

As per the Philadelphia Inquirer, a portion of the $60 million Penn State paid to Sandusky's casualties went to these informers, however they were never demonstrated in court. At the point when come to by PennLive.com, Penn State representative Lawrence Lokman would not affirm if the asserted 1976 informer was a part of the school's money related settlements.

In the Freeh Report, a Penn State-endorsed examination concerning the Sandusky circumstance discharged in July 2012, it is affirmed that Paterno, alongside previous school president Graham Spaniel, previous athletic executive Tim Curley and previous senior VP for business and fund Gary Schultz knew about grievances against Sandusky. In one occasion, the Freeh Report blames Spanier, Curley and Schultz of picking not to report a claim against Sandusky which was handed-off from right hand Mike McQueary to Paterno.

The Paterno family has since quite a while ago contended that Joe Paterno didn't know about Sandusky's wrongdoings.

"In the course of the last four-and-a-half years Joe Paterno's behavior has been examined by an interminable rundown of specialists and lawyers," the Paterno family's lawyer, Wick Sollers, said in an announcement.

"Through every one of this survey there has never been any proof of improper behavior by Coach Paterno. Despite what might be expected, the proof plainly demonstrates he imparted data to his bosses as proper. A charge now around an asserted occasion 40 years back, as spoke to by a solitary line in a court record in regards to a protection issue, with no supporting confirmation, does not change the certainties. Joe Paterno did not, whenever, conceal conduct by Jerry Sandusky."

Lokman told PennLive that Penn State authorities who have been taking a shot at the resulting Sandusky legitimate matters knew about these affirmations, yet in a wide sense.

"Numerous, numerous individuals, potential casualties and casualties have approached to the college as a major aspect of that [settlement] procedure," Lokman said. "We don't discuss their particular circumstances."

NEWS SOURCE: YAHOO

Hillary Clinton supporter Rep. Steve Israel: 'Donald Trump is the Republican Party'

On Thursday, Democratic Congressman Steve Israel joined Alexis Christoforous on "Yippee News Live" to examine his backing for Hillary Clinton, her way to the designation and, as the previous administrator of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, how Donald Trump's appointment will affect the down-vote races in November.

On regardless of whether Israel is shocked that the Republican race has wrapped up before the Democratic race, he told Christoforous, "I need to admit that I am somewhat staggered not by the way that Republicans have now picked the new face of the Republican Party as right on time as they did, however the way that Donald Trump is the new face of the Republican Party."

Does he think Clinton will at last be the chosen one, in spite of Bernie Sanders' proceeded with nearness in the race? "Yes," he said. "She has more than 3 million votes more than Bernie Sanders, almost 300 more promised agents than Bernie Sanders. She will be the candidate. She's not underestimating anything, Alexis. She's going to keep on working hard and battle forcefully."

Israel rejected Sanders' contention that he is the better chosen one since he improves against Trump in surveys. "We're in a political situation now where there's something going ahead with surveying, and those surveys — whether they're beneficial for you or awful for you — those surveys are not the most solid vehicles in which to make a judgment," he said. "I will say that toward the day's end, in a general decision environment when you have a differentiation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I believe that Hillary Clinton has a more grounded capacity to win that general race." He conceded, in any case, that "this will be an erratic general race environment."

He said Clinton will engage an extensive part of the general electorate due to the perils of a Trump administration. "She is going to attempt and claim — and not simply attempt and advance, since I trust she will offer — to those moderate and autonomous voters no matter how you look at it since they know, themselves, that President Donald Trump is a high-chance suggestion for the United States of America," he said.

Israel did not ask Sanders to drop out of the race. "That is a judgment that Bernie Sanders needs to make, eventually," he said. "I would ask him, however — without asking him to get out or stay in — I would encourage him to center not on what contrasts Democrats might possibly have, yet to concentrate on Donald Trump and lay off assaulting Hillary Clinton and rather concentrate on what he trusts he conveys to the table regarding Donald Trump. In the event that he does that, he has the privilege to stay in, however at one point, we must be joined together, we must be sorted out."

Israel additionally had a message for Sanders about Trump reverberating the representative's assaults on Clinton's judgment and capabilities: "Leave those assaults to the Republicans. Try not to empower those assaults." He then had a message about Trump's discussion of "terrible judgment." "Recall that, this is a person who has said that a lady ought to be rebuffed for her own social insurance choices, that we ought to restriction all Muslims from coming into the United States and that not just does he contradict expanding the lowest pay permitted by law, however that wages are as of now too high," he said. "Those are case of awful judgment."

The previous seat of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee likewise talked about the down-ticket decision. "Donald Trump is the Republican Party," he said. "He is the face, the voice, the chosen one of the Republican Party, and in case you're running down-ticket, you have a commitment to say whether you're with Trump or against Trump. I expect that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will consider Republicans responsible to their positions."

Israel, nonetheless, would not yet anticipate if Trump's bid would hand the Democrats both the House and the Senate in November. "I trust that the Senate is especially in play," he told Christoforous. "I need to let you know, as the previous seat of the DCCC, I think it is untimely to say that the House is in play."

NEWS SOURCE: YAHOO