AREN'T THEY JUST CONFIRMING WHAT HE SAID? (profanity alert):

[A]round the time Trump had his now infamous conversation with Billy Bush, I traveled to Mar-a-Lago to interview the couple for a first-wedding-anniversary feature story.

Our photo team shot the Trumps on the lush grounds of their Florida estate, and I interviewed them about how happy their first year of marriage had been. When we took a break for the then-very-pregnant Melania to go upstairs and change wardrobe for more photos, Donald wanted to show me around the mansion. There was one "tremendous" room in particular, he said, that I just had to see.

"I just start kissing them," he said to Bush. "It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.

Now, I'm a tall, strapping girl who grew up wrestling two giant brothers. I even once sparred with Mike Tyson. It takes a lot to push me. But Trump is much bigger -- a looming figure -- and he was fast, taking me by surprise and throwing me off balance. I was stunned. And I was grateful when Trump's longtime butler burst into the room a minute later, as I tried to unpin myself.

The butler informed us that Melania would be down momentarily, and it was time to resume the interview.

I was still in shock and remained speechless as we both followed him to an outdoor patio overlooking the grounds. In those few minutes alone with Trump, my self-esteem crashed to zero. How could the actions of one man make me feel so utterly violated? I'd been interviewing A-list celebrities for over 20 years, but what he'd done was a first. Did he think I'd be flattered?

I tried to act normal. I had a job to do, and I was determined to do it. I sat in a chair that faced Trump, who waited for his wife on a loveseat. The butler left us, and I fumbled with my tape recorder. Trump smiled and leaned forward.

"You know we're going to have an affair, don't you?" he declared, in the same confident tone he uses when he says he's going to make America great again. "Have you ever been to Peter Luger's for steaks? I'll take you. We're going to have an affair, I'm telling you." 

OUR MAN IN TEHRAN:

[T]he incumbent is likely to secure a second term in office for five main reasons.

First, the Principlists lack a charismatic face. The reality is that if Ahmadinejad had competed in the May 2017 election, the poll would have become rather exciting while at the same time extremely polarizing. His candidacy would have overshadowed that of any other Principlist candidate. As such, the Principlist movement has effectively lost its ace. At present, there is simply no figure in the Principlist camp that can be compared to Ahmadinejad in terms of charisma. That is one reason why prominent Tehran University professor Sadegh Zibakalam has stated that under the current conditions, "Even with his hands and feet tied, Rouhani will win votes in the May 2017 elections."

Second, while the Rouhani administration's economic performance has not been eye-catching, it has managed to save the country from economic collapse. Indeed, Rouhani has played the role of a physician who is unable to heal a patient but able to prevent the patient's condition from getting worse. The Islamic Parliament Research Center has estimated economic growth of 6.6% in the current Iranian calendar year (ending March 20, 2017), driven by the rebounding oil sector. This is while the economy retracted by 6.8% in the Iranian year 1391 (which began on March 20, 2012) and has gradually returned to growth in the three years since. Though Iran's economic growth is mainly influenced by exogenous factors, to the Iranian public, this rebound is seen as a positive score in the Rouhani administration's report card.

Third, the supreme leader is not opposed to Rouhani's re-election. [...]

The last and most important factor is the consensus among Reformists on Rouhani. The Reformist camp neither can nor wants to sideline the incumbent president. In their view, Rouhani's performance has been acceptable, while the political and economic shortcomings of his administration are due to factors outside the government's control. As such, the Reformists believe that they should stand behind the Rouhani administration with all their might in order to advance their own agenda under his cover. 

CHEENA?:

Nathan Law, 23, is the Legco's youngest lawmaker and a former pro-democracy protest leader. He invoked Mahatma Gandhi, India's pro-democracy icon, during an impassioned speech before taking the oath.

"You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body - but you can never imprison my mind," Law said, quoting Gandhi.

Every time he referred to China in the oath, he changed his tone to turn it into a question.

Law, who is demanding for self-determination for Hong Kong, was one of the main leaders of the 2014 protests calling for democratic reform.

Other pro-independence lawmakers, Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, added their own words before the oath, pledging to serve the "Hong Kong nation."

Both displayed flags emblazoned with the words: "Hong Kong is not China." Leung took the full oath in English but deliberately mispronounced "China," calling it "Cheena."

REPEATING PUTIN PILLOW TALK:

"I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are -- she doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking," Trump said. "But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia is because they think they're trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know -- I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia."

It's unclear if Trump was suggesting that the emails were fake, or that the hack was an inside job. (U.S. intelligence officials say Russia is behind the hack, and Trump has been briefed on that point.) Regardless, just a day after questioning the legitimacy of the Democratic emails released by WikiLeaks, Trump was reading one of them at a rally in Pennsylvania.

To be fair, few right-wingers could resist this particular email, in which longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal told John Podesta, her campaign chair, that the attack in Benghazi was "almost certainly preventable."

But Trump should have gone with his gut instinct, because it turns out the email was a complete fabrication put forth by Sputnik.

TOOTHLESS DRAGON:

The current issue of The New Criterion contains a "Letter from Beijing" by Arthur Waldron, the Lauder Professor of International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania and one of America's foremost experts on China. Last winter, Waldron attended the funeral of a renowned Chinese soloist, and afterward talked to someone he identifies only as "a brain-truster for the [Chinese] central government," a man who "worked at the center" of China's power structure, who "was on a first-name basis with scores of the highest officials," who "read the secrets every day." This Chinese insider bluntly stated to Waldron that China's political system does not work. "If we place our foot incorrectly," the insider warned,  "we could begin a disaster, violence and civil war."

This is not the rosy picture of a rising China that normally fills the airwaves and popular media throughout much of Asia and the world. "China viewed from the inside is very different than China viewed from the outside," the man told Waldron.

Waldron relates that he soon observed the phenomenon noted by the insider. He and his Chinese friends stood in line behind about a dozen people he describes as "motionless . . . drab, glum, calm, resigned," who were waiting "for their morning meal of scalding hot cabbage and mystery meat" from a small kitchen located on a "rundown square." When one of Waldron's colleagues left the line for a moment then returned, a woman standing in line began yelling obscenities which triggered others in the line to do likewise, then the "whole previously passive line exploded," shouting, cursing, and striking each other. After about a minute it was over.

Waldron's Chinese friends immediately assured him that he had finally seen "what China is really all about." This, they told him, was "the real China." 

A CANDIDACY BUILT ON HATE:

HAZLETON, Pa. -- Thousands of Dominicans have poured into this little city in eastern Pennsylvania since 2001 to work in the food plants and warehouses on the edge of town, where the highway to New York meets the highway to Philadelphia.

Hazleton's population is growing for the first time in more than half a century. Landlords, doctors and shopkeepers are learning to love their new customers.

But the city's economic evolution has left behind its previous, non-Hispanic working class, and the presidential election has crystallized its frustrations. Many of those losing ground economically, including lifelong Democrats, say they plan to vote for Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee. Many of those who are prospering, including lifelong Republicans, say they will vote for the Democrat, Hillary Clinton.

For both sides, how to deal with immigration has become a defining political issue, one that is likely to transcend the contretemps over Mr. Trump's treatment of women that has cost him so much support among elected Republicans. This city was built by European immigrants who flocked here a century ago to work in the coal mines. Their children found better jobs in the factories. Now their grandchildren are struggling against economic decline and cultural displacement.

"I don't care for this town no more because of the Hispanics," said Lewis Beishline, 70, as he sat drinking at 11 a.m. on a Friday at Cusat's Cafe, a bar owned by the mayor of Hazleton, who lives upstairs. Mr. Beishline, a retired welder, said he moved from Hazleton to a nearby town last year because he no longer felt safe.

He plans to vote for Mr. Trump, he said, "because of the immigration."

IF YOU'RE OFFENDED YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT...:

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights, free expression is a bedrock American principle, and Americans tend to express stronger support for free expression than many others around the world. A 38-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2015 found that Americans were among the most supportive of free speech, freedom of the press and the right to use the internet without government censorship.

Moreover, Americans are much more tolerant of offensive speech than people in other nations. For instance, 77% in the U.S. support the right of others to make statements that are offensive to their own religious beliefs, the highest percentage among the nations in the study. Fully 67% think people should be allowed to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, again the highest percentage in the poll. And the U.S. was one of only three nations where at least half endorse the right to sexually explicit speech. Americans don't necessarily like offensive speech more than others, but they are much less inclined to outlaw it.

ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:

Hillary Clinton, who has been dealing with regular interruptions at her rallies by Donald Trump supporters, approached one heckler Wednesday with mock sympathy.

"You do have to feel a little sorry for them. They've had a really bad couple of weeks," she said before a crowd of more than 2,000 in Pueblo, Colo.

WE'LL REFORM IT, NOT REPEAL IT:

One aim of the law was to expand coverage to the very poor. That was to be done by expanding Medicaid, a joint federal-state insurance program for the poor and disabled. Medicaid is generally funded by the federal government with matching grants to the states, which administer the plan.

Under the ACA, the federal government offered money to states to expand Medicaid to those at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty line. The expansion became politicized, however, and many states chose to forgo the federal money and not expand. As of today, 19 states have not expanded Medicaid. As a result, about three million poor people  across the country did not gain the coverage that the law originally intended.

Even so, several studies have since documented large gains in insurance coverage between 2013 and 2014 for other groups of uninsured people. One natural question is: How much of these gains in coverage came from the ACA? Could the higher number of insured people have come from other factors, notably a better economy?

In a recently released National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, we use data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to answer this question. We find that the ACA led to a 5.9 percentage point gain in insurance coverage in Medicaid expansion states and a 3.0 percentage point gain in coverage in nonexpansion states.

ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:

Putin is determined not to become Khrushchev.

And to prevent this, he needs to keep the elite off balance with constant purges, reshuffles, and carefully targeted prosecutions.

And as a result, he's quickly becoming a caricature of the lonely and isolated autocrat.

IT'S COSMETICS, NOT MEDICINE:

The results were sobering, as H. Gilbert Welch, a physician at Dartmouth and the study's lead author, explains in this short video. The idea behind cancer screening is that it saves lives by identifying cancers when they are more treatable -- i.e., earlier, when they are smaller. If it works, then we should see a rise in the number of small tumors being detected and a commensurate drop in the number of large cancers, as treating the small cancers would eliminate them before they become big ones, in the same way that picking small zucchini from your garden prevents you from developing humongous ones. But the new study found that although the incidence of cancers smaller than 2 centimeters rose quite dramatically after widespread mammography was introduced, by 162 cases per 100,000 women, the incidence of larger tumors fell by a much smaller amount -- only 30 cases of cancer per 100,000 women. [...]

Most importantly, the incidence of metastatic cancer, which is the type that causes most deaths, was flat. Welch said that means that screening finds a lot of small cancers that would never have killed anyone.

Screening did result in more cancers being detected, he said, but the data suggests that only about 30 of the 162 additional small tumors per 100,000 women that screening mammograms found would ever have progressed to a dangerous stage. That means that 132, or 81 percent, of the 162 extra tumors detected represented "overdiagnosis" -- the discovery and treatment of tumors that were never destined to harm.

WHEN ONE BLACK PANTHER DOES IT THERE'S A NATIONAL CONSPIRACY...:

Trump has often claimed that only a "rigged system" could deny him victory. How? Not through sabotaged debate microphones or a biased media but through unqualified voters.

At a recent rally in Pennsylvania - a must-win state - Trump digressed from his text to remind his mostly white audience of this danger, urging them to go to "certain areas" on Election Day and "watch" who was voting. The implication, of course, was that they should challenge anyone who appeared to be unqualified. Nor was this a random remark. The Trump campaign features a website where supporters can sign up to become a "Trump Election Observer" and "Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election!"

How can "Trump Election Observers" distinguish between qualified and unqualified voters? Trump doesn't say. But his reference to "certain areas" - and the entire tenor of his campaign - suggests that their color will give them away.

JUST LONG ENOUGH TO PASS AMNESTY AND SOME OBAMACARE TWEAKS:

[I]magine that Clinton prevails in November. If so, the most likely outcome is a continuation of the recent pattern of resounding GOP victories in midterm years. In 2018, Democrats will defend Senate seats they won in 2012 in several red states, including Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. West Virginia's Joe Manchin famously shot a copy of the cap and trade bill in a 2010 campaign advertisement -- but even excellent marksmanship might not be enough in a third consecutive midterm wave for the GOP.

In addition, some of the most important aftershocks of the 2016 election are likely to be felt not in Washington but in state capitals across the country. In 2018, 36 states will choose governors. As I've pointed out before, our elections for governor increasingly track national trends. Governors are typically powerful officials in their own right, with substantial control over state budgets and policy. But even for those who care about power only at the federal level, there is good reason to care about the 2018 governors' races: In many states with multiple House districts, those governors will have veto power over their states' redistricting processes after the 2020 census. Over the course of the Obama presidency, anti-Obama voting in non-presidential years is a major reason why the Democrats have lost a net of 11 governors' seats.

Likewise, 2016 has critical implications for state legislative elections. Political scientist Steven Rogers has shown that presidential approval is a powerful predictor of voting in state legislative races. Since Obama became president, the same dynamics have cost the Democrats approximately 818 seats in state legislatures, and they have lost control of 29 net chambers in state legislatures. Sure, holding the presidency allows a party to pursue its agenda at the federal level. But in recent decades, that pursuit has come at a remarkable down-ballot cost for Democrats and Republicans alike.

To explain why the electorate has alternated between leaning Democratic in recent presidential years and Republican during midterms, Obama argued that Democratic-leaning constituents are less likely to vote in midterm years. There's some truth to that. But it's not the main force behind the recent swings, as FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten has shown. Think about the math: Each voter who sits out a midterm costs his party one vote, while each voter who switches parties adds a vote to the new party while taking one away from the old party. The more powerful engine for change is that voters are changing their minds -- and for decades, they've leaned against the party holding the White House.

ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:

According to Ben Domenech, Cruz did this out of sheer political cowardice: His donors were angry with him and threatening to support a primary challenger against him. Cruz even went phone-banking for Trump, looking like the saddest man in the world. As always, the only way Trump can take your dignity is if you give it to him.

The fact that Cruz caved in so quickly and so easily and for such motives might have been a tragedy. The fact that he did it just two weeks -- two weeks! -- before Trump's campaign collapsed in on itself and was deserted by one prominent Republican after the next, that's not tragic. That's hilarious.

And the funniest part of all? There wasn't a single aspect of this that wasn't utterly predictable, utterly obvious -- apparently to everyone except someone of Cruz's universally recognized intelligence. I mean, who could have thought that Donald Trump would self-destruct? Who could have thought that some horrible new thing would come out that would finally break the camel's back? Who could have foreseen this, except anyone who had paid attention at any of the last six months?

If Cruz could have held his nerve for just two more weeks, he'd be looking smart, courageous, and principled. A prescient man, one who could be TrusTed. Two weeks!

There are many, many causes for sadness these days in American politics. Ted Cruz, however, has become a source of mirth. 

SOME LOCKER ROOM:

The attorney for a woman accusing Donald Trump of raping her in 1994 when she was 13 years old has told BuzzFeed News the case against the Republican presidential candidate will be tried in court -- and Trump himself will have to answer the accusations under oath.

"This case, based on the sworn declarations of the victim and two corroborating witnesses, will be tried in court, where the defendants will be required to answer questions under oath and pursuant to the rules of evidence," said attorney Cheney Mason in a statement to BuzzFeed News. [...]

On Wednesday, BuzzFeed News reported that four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants -- some as young as 15 -- were changing.

An initial hearing has been scheduled in the "Jane Doe" case for Dec. 16, 2016.

KNOWING YOUR ALLIES:

A Saudi Arabian lobbyist in the US has called for "a collaborative alliance" between Riyadh and Jerusalem based on regional and economic interests, citing "a historic opportunity" for a new era of peace and prosperity.

FINALLY, A DONALD IDEA WE CAN ALL GET BEHIND:

YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET YOUR CONSCIENCE BACK EITHER:

GREATEST WAR EVER:

BONESUCKERS:

Many conservatives, then, have been making what we can call the utilitarian argument for Trump. They argue that those who appreciate how bad a liberal majority on the Supreme Court would be should recognize that Trump, for all his faults, would be less bad than Clinton, so they ought to vote for Trump.

Stated in these terms, this argument has always been too simple and too fast. A vote has lots of effects, only one of which is increasing the probability of a particular candidate's victory. In particular, all else being equal, the more votes Trump receives, the more people will think that his platform is one that deserves a place in American politics and that his style of politics is worth emulating; it encourages the Republican Party to adopt his views and manner. A Republican vote for Trump will, generally, be taken as a Republican condoning of Trump.

For some people, this is a good thing. Trump is focusing on what really matters, they reason, and his abrasive and controversial style is what's needed to challenge the stranglehold of the media and political elite.

Others acknowledge that there have always been costs associated with supporting Trump--even if they think that doing so is, all things considered, the best thing to do. He has debased political discourse and crafted a right-wing identity politics. Support for Trump may be taxing, in future years; social conservatives, for instance, will have to explain how they could support a man with a history of infidelity, and Christians will have to explain how they could support a man whose first reaction to criticism is often unhinged mockery.

Trump neither cares for nor understands issues such as abortion, marriage, or religious liberty. When he defends them, it is always clear that it is because he feels, or has been told, that he has to. His defenses of issues that social conservatives care about merely consist in a kind of Christian identity politics, as he insisted at the Value Voters Summit last month:

A Trump administration, our Christian heritage will be cherished, protected, defended, like you've never seen before. Believe me. I believe it. And you believe it. And you know it. You know it. And that includes religious liberty--remember, remember.

Social conservatives who support Trump contribute to the impression that their votes are cheap. They will accept a candidate who does not speak their language as long as he throws them a few bones; a candidate whose concern for their interests is halfhearted can still earn their votes.

ALL AGAINST THE SALAFI:

Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday, saying the coalition had conducted more than 70 "unlawful airstrikes" in Yemen.

"It appears that either the Saudi coalition is intentionally targeting civilians or they are not distinguishing between civilians and military targets. Both would be war crimes," wrote Lieu, who had taught classes on the law of war when he was a lawyer in the U.S. Air Force.

WHAT IF THE rIGHT GOT ITS IDEAL CANDIDATE?:

New polls show Trump trailing by 9 points nationally, by that same margin in Ohio, and tied with Hillary Clinton in Utah. What's more, the L.A. Times/USC tracking poll, whose aberrant voter model has put Trump ahead for most of the campaign and all of the past month, now has him tied with the Democratic nominee.

The Ohio poll, conducted by the Baldwin Wallace Community Research Institute, finds Clinton leading Trump 43 to 34 percent in a four-way race, and 48 to 38 in a head-to-head. The survey finds a gender gap in the state, albeit a relatively modest one compared to most national polls, with men favoring Clinton by 2 points, while women back her by 10.