Trump won the Nevada caucus. If you follow me, you know I was expecting that.

The real estate magnate’s success has been written on the walls of this nation for quite some time, but the Trump-obsessed media both couldn’t stop giving him all the attention he craves, they also were fooling themselves when, at the same time, they kept talking about a Bush surge, and now, a Rubio surge. To which I say, in my best Dana Carvey impersonation of George H. W. Bush, “Not gonna do it!”

But here we are and the Trump steamroller is gathering momentum. So much so that Trump felt free to let it rip at his victory speech. Watch:

Granted, Nevada is not a populous state like California and it does provide for a small sampling. But what Trump said about just who voted for him is true. The educated, the uneducated he loves, and “The Hispanics,” all 46% of them did vote for him. What’s more, voter turnout at the Republican caucus was very high – far higher than Democratic turnout this weekend.

So an emboldened Trump knows he can say cringe-worthy things like “The Hispanics” love me, and it is no longer hyperbole. An emboldened Trump can say the educated voted for me and completely refute what the pundits have been saying all along about the educated and Trump’s viability. In fact, today, every last pundit was refuted and rebuked by a not insignificant portion of the American voting public: Republican voters.

It’s about time the press corps, pundits and journalist alike, took stock of the mess they’ve helped create by giving Trump so much ink and air time, without really telling the American people how scared they should be at some of the things he’s said he’ll do. I don’t mean the tax policy he’s been talking about, or the beautiful healthcare plan he’ll come up with, or even ramping up the military for new wars. No. It’s none of that. It’s what he said this last weekend in South Carolina about putting Carl C. Icahn in charge of trade. Instead of talking up Mario Rubio, as if he had any chance of winning, Paul Krugman should have made something of corporate raider Carl Icahn behind the wheel of America’s economic engine and potentially perpetrating the biggest corporate raid ever. That’s what makes Trump scariest of all. If you think the middle class is shrinking now, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

https://youtu.be/PZ3RZ0hDd8o?t=7m50s

In a previous post on the three remaining and viable contenders, I wrote:

“Trump uses his usual schtick of saying that China, Japan, Mexico, and, now, Vietnam are killing us with trade deficits. But, this time, he added something that places him squarely on the side of the oligarchs, maybe as an overture to them, since he wasn’t their candidate to begin with:

Trump’s tack is a very effective one. As he calls the Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans and Vietnamese thieves, he calls America’s leaders (President Obama) for doing a terrible job at negotiating, all the while not saying one word about the corporations that urged <del>bribed</del> Congress in order to force deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TPP. So, how does he hint at fixing what he perceives as having been done wrong? Well, Trump begins with a self-congratulatory mention of endorsements from business leaders, particularly that of Carl C. Icahn and others he does not name. Hover over Icahn’s name to see a pop-up with highlights of his “achievements.””

To those who know the checkered history of Carl Icahn, the specter of his possible ascent to any kind of position of authority in government should be frightening to Trump’s “educated and uneducated” alike. But scarier yet, is the very real possibility that Mike Bloomberg decides to join this disaster of an election, and throw more gas on the blazing conflagration that is the Republican party.

Some on social media called Trump’s win in Nevada the beginning of the apocalypse. No. It wasn’t. The apocalypse will begin when Bloomberg officially enters the fray and a very ill-managed and ill-equipped DNC, out of desperation, continues its underhanded fight against Bernie Sanders to force the issue with voters, rather than let things play out and allow Sanders to focus on managing his race and consolidate support with a view to the summer and fall.

As I’ve written in my commentary in the New York Times and on this blog, this is probably the last free election this nation can look forward to, if the oligarchs are not defeated. This is our last stand and the “establishment” on the left is too corrupt to face its own folly. Now is the time to begin mounting a counter attack on both plutocrats, Trump and Bloomberg, and convincing liberal and neoliberal voters who might be considering voting for them, that a vote for either billionaire is a vote against their own middle class interests, and against their party’s rightfully-elected candidate.

Trump is no less a part of the oligarchy than the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. What Trump says about not being bought is only true in that he’s already a member of the club and his view is only slightly misaligned from the rest of his peers.

It is almost past time the media reassessed its role as corporate shill and resumed its mission of informing voters, using the highest standards of ethics, and not the meddling, conniving, and duplicitous ways it has employed this past year, just to ensure their preferred candidate prevails. By now, we’ve been shown enough proof that the American electorate is just not having the establishment. It’s a fact. As this post I saw in social media states:

Be afraid. Be very afraid, but not of those the media is steering you to. ‘Nuff said.

---

Blog#42 is a reader-supported site and my full-time job. I cannot do more without your financial support. Please click here to help me take Blog#42 to the next level!

---

Here’s a bonus for making it all the way down here.

It’s a very strange day when you can miss Pappy Bush and dread whatever it is the comedians will be coming up with until November…

---

Related:

The Sanders “Economic Plan” Controversy |  Moyers & Company

Economist Gerald Friedman did an analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’s plan suggesting it would produce significant growth in the economy — and then a group of left-leaning economists flipped out.

BY DAVE JOHNSON | FEBRUARY 23, 2016

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

“When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.”
– James K. Galbraith

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he wants the American people to join him and “fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides health care for all.” His website outlines a number of proposals toward this end, including increasing taxation of corporations and the wealthy and using the money to repair the country’s infrastructure, extending public education four years to cover college, extending Medicare to everyone, expanding Social Security and addressing climate change.

Gerald Friedman, a respected economist (and Clinton supporter by the way) took a look at Sanders’ proposals, ran the revenue and spending numbers through a standard economic model, and suggested that the very high level of spending would provide a “significant stimulus to an economy that continues to underperform, with national income and employment at levels well below capacity.” This stimulus could lead to several positive economic outcomes, including increasing gross domestic product growth to 5.3 percent a year, cutting unemployment to 3.8 percent and increasing wages by 2.5 percent per year. This, combining with the revenue proposals, would bring a budget surplus. Friedman wrote:

Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders’ program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity: the expenditure, regulatory, and tax programs will increase economic activity and employment and promote a more just prosperity, “broadly-based” with a narrowing of economic inequality.

On balance, the Sanders program will lead to a dramatic acceleration in economic growth and employment. It will raise wages, especially for the lowest-paid Americans, and narrow the gap between rich and poor. With these gains, economic conditions will return to the prosperity of the late-1990s, or even the mid-1960s.

Friedman’s analysis went largely under the radar of the mainstream press.

Please click here to read the rest on Moyers & Company