maggienyt

I think Clinton's challenge is with younger voters, which has been clear throughout the primary. That's a challenge she'll retain with or without the current primary fight. But for all the talk of a rough campaign, the Democratic primary has been nothing like how nasty it was in 2008.

I don't think it's quite right to say facts have little to no impact. But I do think we are operating in a particularly post-truth moment, as my colleague Michael Barbaro wrote a few months ago. In this primary race, direct contradictions to what candidates have said have mattered little to their supporters in many cases.

Not really but there is lots of food everywhere.

Great question. One surprise has been how little super PACs have mattered. Part of that is because they basically are only useful to air ads, and negative ads still have the most currency. But given the hype about how this was going to be the super PAC election, it hasn't worked out that way.

Hi there - nice to meet you again! Since the first debate I have not thought treating Trump like a "joke" was advisable, given where he was in the polls and given his ability to command media and survive controversies that would have killed other candidates. I also never thought he was a boom-and-bust candidate like Cain because he was a known commodity well ahead of the 2016 campaign cycle. He's spent years being broadcast into homes of millions of people on "The Apprentice," where he sat in a leather chair and looked, well, leaderly. That said, I did not think he would be as dominant as he is now and was skeptical that he could hold this plurality win. I did not think even in November that he was likely to be the nominee. And I misread early on, when he first got in, how strong he would be.