Julie Pace of Associated Press addresses a critical problem for the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination:

How can the wonkish Clinton counteract Trump’s finely tuned ability to command attention? Can she win the White House by letting Trump run on his terms, hoping his unorthodox candidacy wears thin with voters by November?…Or does she need to make a positive case for her own candidacy, something she has struggled to articulate during the Democratic primary?

It’s a tough question. Trump’s ability to manipulate the media is unprecedented in U.S. presidential politics. Back in March, for example, a New York Times/mediaQquant study found that Trump had received $1.898 billion in free media coverage, compared to $746 million for Clinton and $321 million for Sanders.
As a reality TV star, he has learned that saying outrageous things positions his campaign to dominate headlines and television coverage. He undoubtedly hopes that it creates an unspoken subtext that he is “in control” of the narrative, regardless of how stupid or malevolent are the substance of his comments. Low-information voters, he hopes, will mistake his media domination for authority.
Further, notes Pace,

“He’s good at dominating the news cycle and changing the news cycle to fit his purposes,” said Rick Tyler, former communications director for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s failed presidential campaign. “He has this ability to just change the trajectory of where the news is going by using amazing distractions that are just too delicious to pass up.”

if Sanders can somehow pull offf an upset and win the Democratic nomination, he is going to have the same problem. Although Clinton has received more popular votes than Trump, and Sanders has received nearly as many, neither one has received anything close to the media coverage Trump now takes for granted. Trump’s campaign is the ultimate test of the proposition that even bad media is better than no media.
The danger for the Democratic presidential candidates is that their ability to be pro-active in their messaging gets smothered by Trump’s outrage du jour. As Pace writes,

…Clinton has overcome her messaging struggles in the primary and is close to clinching the Democratic nomination. But facing Trump will be another matter, with his capacity to set the tone for the day in the morning through frequent tweets and calls into news shows, catching his rivals off guard and leaving them scrambling to catch up.

It’s possible to over-worry about all of this. A lot of Trump’s coverage is not just bad; It’s horribly negative and that has to hurt some over time. Millions of voters are going to see video collages of his most unflattering moments in the months ahead and it could have a devastating effect on his campaign.
There are a lot of options in between ignoring Trump’s daily tirade and blasting him with well-targeted soundbites. But what the Democratic presidential nominee must have is a disciplined, pro-active messaging strategy and a positive political identity that stands in stark contrast to Trump’s reckless and obnoxious persona.

Although former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got nearly 2,000 more popular votes than Sen. Bernie Sanders in the KY primary, Sanders is ahead by about 36,000 more popular votes than Clinton in Oregon, where 70 percent of the votes cast have been counted, according to the Associated Press.
The two candidates are expected to split the delegates in KY, while Sanders will reduce Clinton’s delegate lead slightly as a result of his Oregon victory. Dana Tims of The Oregonian noted,

Sanders locked up the Oregon victory by establishing insurmountable leads in Democratic strongholds including Multnomah and Lane counties. But they’ll share 74 delegates proportionally, meaning Sanders’ victory will do little to cut into Clinton’s overall lead in delegates.
…A sizable surge in voter registration, particularly among young voters apparently sparked by Sanders’ populist message, preceded the primary.
Registration among those ages 18 to 29 increased by 21 percent from September 2015 to April 2016. No other age group managed to break double digits, with voters ages 30 to 39 coming closest at 9 percent, according to Oregon Secretary of State’s Office figures.
During that same eight-month period, Democratic registration grew by 16 percent. Democrats now comprise 42 percent of the electorate, up from 38 percent less than a year ago. Republican registration, by contrast, grew by 7 percent during the period. Their share of the electorate remained unchanged at 30 percent.

Thus far, Clinton has received more than 3 milllion more popular votes than has Sanders. As for overall delegate totals, Tims notes,

Although precise delegate tallies can change day-to-day, Clinton, prior to Oregon and other Tuesday contests, counted 1,716 delegates awarded on the basis of the votes she’s gotten. That’s an edge of 283 over Sanders’ 1,433 pledged delegates.
When superdelegates are factored in, Clinton’s lead grows daunting, giving her a 2,240-to-1,473 edge over Sanders…Unpledged Democratic party leaders are free to support the candidate of their choice, regardless of how their states’ voters leaned. A vast majority of the party’s 714 superdelegates – 524 to 40 to be precise – have declared their support for Clinton.

The Clinton campaign believes they can clinch the delegates needed for the Democratic nomination on June 7, when California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota hold their primaries and caucuses. Sanders has pledged to stay in the campaign “until the last ballot is cast” and “take our fight to the convention.”
Regarding the angry conflict between Clinton and Sanders supporters at the Nevada state Democratic convention, Clare Foran observes at The Atlantic:

The challenge for Democrats, and particularly for Clinton, is to find out how to preserve unity as the primary drags on. One question is whether the kind of hostility seen in Nevada will play out at the national convention this summer. “There’s not going to be any violence in Philadelphia,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN on Tuesday. “Whoever the ultimate nominee is we want to unify the party… so that we can all go out and defeat Donald Trump in the fall. I don’t think there’s any question about that. What happened in Nevada, I think, is an aberration.” That likely won’t be enough to quell fears among Democrats who are concerned that unity will be difficult to achieve.

Let anger, chaos and violence define the GOP brand. The last two Democratic national conventions have provided excellent displays of civility, event management and party unity — that’s a tradition worth keeping.

From Andrew Prokop’s Vox.com post, “Why Democrats increasingly think Donald Trump can deliver them a Senate landslide“:

In addition to competing in a set of Senate contests that have long been expected to be in play, Democrats have managed to recruit well-credentialed and potentially formidable challengers in many “reach” Senate races where the party wouldn’t ordinarily expect a win.
These contenders are running mostly in red states, and most of them would likely lose in a “normal” presidential election year. But a backlash against Trump could potentially put these seats into play, so long as credible challengers were ready and waiting to take advantage of the situation.
“We wanted to have as many surfers on the water as we could, because we didn’t know how big the wave would be,” a Democratic strategist involved in Senate races recently told me.
Indeed, the surprise dynamics of the presidential race and the apparent strength of these contenders make the upper bound for Democratic gains very high indeed — north of 10 seats. With a strong performance across the board, Democrats could end up with 56 seats or even more overall, which is a very solid majority.

Prokop adds, “The upshot, of course, is that Democrats get to pick and choose which Republican-held seats to gun for, while playing defense in very few races.” He sees three basic categories of 2016 U.S. Senate races:

The top-tier GOP-held battlegrounds: These are six Republican-held seats that have long looked vulnerable — Obama managed to win all these states twice. In five of these, senators who first won their seats in 2010 will face a presidential-year electorate for the first time, while the other seat is open.
The “reach” GOP-held targets: Then there are another six GOP-held seats, mostly in redder states, that would likely be out of reach in a typical year. But Democrats think they’ve recruited strong challengers in all six who could be competitive in the Year of Trump.
The few Democratic defenses: Finally, there are a mere two Democratic-held seats that are being seriously contested by the GOP. And both are in states with growing Hispanic populations, so Democrats are hoping Trump’s rise will hurt Republicans badly here.

Here’s a map illustrating Democratic prospects for winning a senate majority at the current political moment, based on Prokop’s analysis:

Prokop has paragraphs analyzing each key senate race, and you can read more about it right here.

Gabriel Debenedetti reports at Politico that “A group of Bernie Sanders staffers and volunteers is circulating a draft proposal calling on the senator to get out of the presidential race after the final burst of Democratic primaries on June 7, and concentrate on building a national progressive organization to stop Donald Trump.”
It’s a 1600-word document, which “calls for the Vermont senator to exit the race and launch an independent political group far larger than any other recent post-campaign political operations, such as those started by Howard Dean or Barack Obama.”
Yamiche Alcindor reports at The New York Times, however, that:

Michael Briggs, a spokesman for the Sanders campaign, called the draft plan “totally irrelevant.”
“We are focused on winning the Democratic nomination,” Mr. Briggs said in an email. “This document is something that neither the senator nor anyone he works with has seen. We have no idea who wrote it. We could care less about the document.”

Sanders and his campaign are still focused on making the most of the rest of the presidential campaign. They still hope for an upset win in CA and they plan to be in a good position to win the nomination, should Clinton stumble or hit the political banana peel. However, as Debenedetti explains,

The group of over a dozen Sanders backers crafting the proposal — a collection of volunteers and current and former Sanders staff members, all veterans of other high-profile campaigns, including Barack Obama’s, who insist on anonymity — believes that leaving an imprint on the party platform is an overrated goal. They suggest that the Vermont senator should exit the race if it’s clear he cannot win — a call similar to the one made by Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, his lone Senate endorser — rather than spend the five weeks before the convention in limbo.

Another element of the proposal may not sit so well with Democratic Party officials, depending on the timing:

While Sanders will likely speak at July’s official Democratic convention in Philadelphia, the document proposes that he and his aides host a ‘convention’ event of their own to spur excitement and launch this group: “The best organized independent expenditure organization in history [that will] give the vast (and deeply anti-establishment) base a vehicle into which they will whole heartedly pour their energy.”…Such an effort, they write, would help bridge the gap between Clinton and the “large cadre of young, newly political Sanders supporters [that] sees rejection of Hillary and the Democratic Party establishment as core to their identity.”
…”A Sanders-led (as opposed to Sanders-centered) independent entity could provide a much needed, articulate and energized economic populist voice to the anti-Trump effort without the intrinsic compromising effect posed by close association with Neoliberal Democratic elites, as well as weaning the volunteer base off total reliance on individual candidates during one-off election cycles.”

It’s good to know that this dialogue is underway inside the Sanders campaign. Win or lose, Sen. Sanders has a lot to contribute to the defeat of Trump and the election of Democrats down-ballot from the presidency, If he is able to organize a progressive coalition that can function beyond 2016, Democrats may at long last have the vehicle that can help challenge the GOP’s midterm edge.

At Vox.com Matthew Yglesias conributes the most credible explaination yet offered why Sen. Bernie Sanders will surely support Hillary Clinton, if she wins the Democratic nomination:

…Sanders already has all the reasons he could possibly need to give Clinton his full-throated support.
Thanks to the primaries, Sanders has emerged as a substantial factional leader inside the Democratic Party — someone whose statements and tweets will garner media attention, whose email list will be coveted and envied by other Democrats in Congress, and whose support or opposition to a measure will matter to a national constituency. That gives him, potentially, considerably more influence over national affairs than he’s had in his previous 25 years in Washington. But essentially all of that influence hinges on Clinton winning the election in November.
That, rather than anything to do with platform concessions or “lesser of two evils” talk, is why Sanders will almost certainly do everything in his power to boost Clinton this fall. He’ll do it because it’s the right thing for Bernie Sanders.

Their differences on key issues are more a matter of degree than substance, as Yglesias notes,

Clinton and Sanders are pulling in the same direction on almost every issue.
Sanders wants to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour; Clinton wants $12.
Sanders wants a massive increase in taxes on the wealthy; Clinton wants a modest one.
Sanders wants a big new government-run health insurance program to cover everyone; Clinton wants to expand an existing government-run insurance program to cover more people.
Sanders wants a hard cap on bank size and complexity; Clinton wants enhanced capital requirements for large and complex banks that would discourage size and complexity.

Yglesias adds, “…On virtually every issue, Sanders has promised to go further than Clinton has in the same direction. Which is another way of saying that implementing Clinton’s agenda would be a way of moving closer to Sanders’s goals — so in pursuit of his goals, he’s going to want to put her in the White House.”
In addition, argues Yglesias, a Clinton victory gives Sanders substantially enhanced clout as the leader of a bona fide grass roots movement that has the ear of the President. It would give Sanders inside leverage, as opposed to being the leader of a movement on the outside.
Further, it would give Sanders the inside track to become the chair of one of the most powerful Senate panels, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, with “influence over legislation, of course, but also the ability to call hearings on whatever subject he likes.” That’s a lot better than being a minority member of the committee headed by a Republican, which would likely accompany a Trump victory.
Sanders is a pragmatic progressive, not a Naderesque ideologue who would rather go down in a blaze of purist glory than support reforms that can benefit millions of working people. Sanders is not giving up his efforts to win an upset victory. But he clearly understands that a Clinton presidency would provide support for his policy reforms, support that would be completely denied by Republican control of the Senate. For both moral and practical reasons, he will work hard to elect the Democratic presidential nominee, as will most of his supporters.

Some recent comments from conservatives about Trump’s impending GOP nomination, the future of the Republican Party and, in some cases their intention to vote for some other candidate:

Rep. Scott Rigell [R-VA]: “My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgment, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander-in-chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee.”
Former Romney staffer Garrett Jackson: “Sorry Mr. Chairman, not happening. I have to put country over party. I cannot support a dangerous phony.”
Former top Romney strategist Stuart Stevens: “I think Donald Trump has proven to be unbalanced and uniquely unqualified to be president. I won’t support him… Everyone has to make their own choice. I think Trump is despicable and will prove to be a disaster for the party. I’d urge everyone to continue to oppose him.'”
Rep. Carlos Curbelo [R-FL]: “I have already said I will not support Mr. Trump, that is not a political decision that is a moral decision.'”
Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE]: “Mr. Trump’s relentless focus is on dividing Americans, and on tearing down rather than building back up this glorious nation. … I can’t support Donald Trump.”
Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes: “This is what political division looks like. Trump’s claim to be a unifier is not just specious, it’s absurd. This casual dishonesty is a feature of his campaign. And it’s one of many reasons so many Republicans and conservatives oppose Trump and will never support his candidacy. I’m one of them.”
Former McCain adviser Mark Salter: “The GOP is going to nominate for President a guy who reads the National Enquirer and thinks it’s on the level. I’m with her.”
RedState editor Ben Howe: “#ImWithHer”
MA Gov. Charlie Baker: “I’m not going to vote for [Donald Trump] in November.”
Former RNC Chairman Mel Martinez: “I would not vote for Trump, clearly.”
Former VA Senate candidate, Ken Cuccinelli on Trump: “When you’ve got a guy favorably quoting Mussolini, I don’t care what party you’re in, I’m not voting for that guy.”
Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman: “Leaders don’t need to do research to reject Klan support. #NeverTrump”
Former Bush spokesman Tony Fratto: “For the thick-headed: #NeverTrump means never ever ever ever ever under any circumstances as long as I have breath never Trump. Get it?”
Former Eric Cantor communications director, Rory Cooper: “#NeverTrump means…never. The mission of distinguishing him from Republican positions and conservative values remains critical.”
Conservative blogger Erick Erickson: “Reporters writing about the “Stop Trump” effort get it wrong. It’s ‘Never Trump’ as in come hell or high water we will never vote for Trump”
Fox News’ Steve Deace: “Apparently @secupp has a #NeverTrump list to see who keeps their word to the end. You can sign my name in blood.”
Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini: “I will never vote for @realDonaldTrump. Join me and add your name athttp://NeverTrump.com . #NeverTrump”
America Rising co-founder and former Jeb Bush communications director Tim Miller: “Never ever ever Trump. Simple as that.”
Former Rep. J.C. Watts [R-OK] said he’d write-in someone before voting for Mr. Trump in November.
Former Director Of NV and MS GOP Cory Adair: “You’ll come around,” say supporters who just got done saying their candidate doesn’t need me. Nah. I won’t. #NeverTrump
Townhall editor Guy Benson: “Much to my deep chagrin (& astonishment ~8 months ago), for the 1st time in my life, I will not support the GOP nominee for president.”
DailyWire editor Ben Shapiro: “Really? #Nevertrump. Pretty easy.”
Wisconsin conservative radio host Charles Sykes: “I suppose I should clarify: #NeverTrump means I will nevereverunderanycircusmtances vote for @realDonaldTrump”
Editor at RedState, Dan McLaughlin: “For the first time since turning 18, I will not vote for the Republican candidate for President.”
Conservative columnist George Will: “If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power.”
Redstate contributor Leon Wolf: “I will never vote for Donald Trump. I will not vote for him in the general election against Hillary, and I would not vote for him in a race for dogcatcher. Heck, I would not even vote for him on a reality television show.”
Former Romney adviser Kevin Madden: “I’m prepared to write somebody in so that I have a clear conscience.”
Pete Wehner, former speechwriter for George W. Bush: “I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination.”
Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard: “Donald Trump should not be president of the United States. The Wall Street Journal cannot bring itself to say that. We can say it, we do say it, and we are proud to act accordingly.”
Undersecretary of State under George W. Bush, Eliot Cohen: “I will oppose Trump as nominee. Won’t support & won’t work for him for more reasons than a Tweet can bear.”
Former Jeb Bush digital director Elliott Schwartz: “In case there is confusion about #NeverTrump.”
Doug Heye, Former RNC communications director: “I cannot support Donald Trump were he to win the Republican nomination.”
Former IL GOP Chairman Pat Brady said he’d back a third-party candidate or “just stay home” if Mr. Trump is the nominee.
Washington Examiner’s Phillip Klein: “I have officially de-registered as a Republican.”
Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson: “I registered Republican when I was 18 because I thought free markets and liberty were important. Not sure what “Republican” means today.”

The way things are going, don’t be surprised if this list doubles every couple of days. More on the great conservative Exodus, right here.

Nate Silver offers some interesting data and analysis of Donald Trump’ “base” in his latest post, “The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support: His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans,” at FiveThirtyEight.com. An excerpt:

…The definition of “working class” and similar terms is fuzzy, and narratives like these risk obscuring an important and perhaps counterintuitive fact about Trump’s voters: As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.

Silver explains his methodology, which draws on exit polls, and adds that “Trump voters’ median income exceeded the overall statewide median in all 23 states, sometimes narrowly (as in New Hampshire or Missouri) but sometimes substantially. In Florida, for instance, the median household income for Trump voters was about $70,000, compared with $48,000 for the state as a whole.” Further, says Silver,

…There’s no sign of a particularly heavy turnout among “working-class” or lower-income Republicans. On average in states where exit polls were conducted both this year and in the Republican campaign four years ago, 29 percent of GOP voters have had household incomes below $50,000 this year, compared with 31 percent in 2012.

When you factor in race, to focus on white working-class voters, says Silver, “The median household income for non-Hispanic whites is about $62,000, still a fair bit lower than the $72,000 median for Trump voters.” In addition, “although about 44 percent of Trump supporters have college degrees, according to exit polls — lower than the 50 percent for Cruz supporters or 64 percent for Kasich supporters — that’s still higher than the 33 percent of non-Hispanic white adults, or the 29 percent of American adults overall, who have at least a bachelor’s degree.”
Trump voters do display a hgh level of discontent about the economy, concludes Silver. “But that anxiety doesn’t necessarily reflect their personal economic circumstances, which for many Trump voters, at least in a relative sense, are reasonably good.”
Clearly, plenty of white working-class voters are still quite leery of Trump, though many agree with his views on trade. There is a solid argument that Democrats can get a larger share of this demographic group with well-targeted policies and outreach.

In his Talking Points Memo post, “The Most Important Poll You Didn’t See,” Josh Marshall calls attention to an interesting poll that has been underreported by the usual suspects. Marshall reports that.”the Harvard Institute of Politics just released a detailed poll on the opinions of millennial voters, particularly voters between 18 and 29 years of age. The results are a very, very big deal.”

First, millennials map, in a more exaggerated form, the views of the general public on the top candidates. They have very favorable impressions of Bernie Sanders (54/31); fairly unfavorable impressions of Hillary Clinton (37/53) and extremely unfavorable impressions of Donald Trump (17/74.)
So what about Clinton’s problem with millennials? Well, in a race against Donald Trump it basically disappears. Among 18 to 29 year olds, Clinton beats Trump 61% to 25% to 14% undecided/”don’t know”.. .

That’s great news. But digging a little deeper, Marshall illuminates even better prospects for the future of the Democratic Party:

In Spring of 2015, this age group wanted the Democratic party to win the next presidential election by 15 points (55% to 40%). Now, a year later, that spread has increased to 28 points (61% to 32%). Notably, this is irrespective of candidates. It’s Democrat versus Republican. Also for the first time in 5 years the number of self-identified Democrats is higher than self-identified independents. Dem 40%; Indy 36%, GOP 22%.
Take all that together and you come away with pretty clear evidence that over the course of the Democratic primary young voters have become more attached to progressive politics and the Democratic party. One read of this is that the primary process itself – as divisive as it has sometimes seemed – has deepened young voters’ identification with the Democratic party.

None of this means that Democrats can kick back and expect a decent youth turnout. That’s always a dicey proposition. But it does suggest that, with sustained encouragement, this constituency could help secure Democratic control of the white house and congress well into the future.