As Kevin Drum documents, Donald Trump's position on abortion is evasive, incoherent and it changes hourly. And of course, if you don't like his answer to a simple, direct question then the fault is with the questioner.

Ben Carson even said that "I don't believe that he was warned that that question was coming, and I don't think he really had a chance to really think about it." Because why should a guy running for the highest office in the land expect someone will ask him about one of the five most polarizing issues in the country today?

For some odd reason, I'm semi-fascinated by televised police pursuits. I'm always curious about what's going on in the mind of the fleeing driver. That's presuming anything is, which is probably not always so. He's being chased by eight police cars and there are three helicopters overhead. Is he thinking he can get away? It's true that every once in an odd while, someone does but the odds are pretty slim.

The chances are probably something like this: 70% chance he'll be captured unharmed, 27% he'll be killed or injured in a collision, 3% chance he'll get away from police. And even if the last of these occurs, they'll probably be able to track him down later. Also of course — and this might not matter to some of them — he might kill or injure some innocent pedestrian or driver. Still, they keep fleeing, perhaps forgetting that when you run red lights and endanger the public, you rack up more charges against you. You could easily be turning ten years in prison into twenty.

But also what interests me is how TV covers these events, which are among the few things you ever see on your screen where the producers have no friggin' clue what's going to happen — and it's all coming to you live, as it transpires. You could argue that happens with sporting events but sporting events are rarely that unpredictable. Also in sporting events, you usually have some idea how much longer they're going to go on, whereas a police chase could be over in two minutes or two hours.

A police chase often gives you the chance to discover that your local news anchors really don't have much to say, especially when the chase is just officers following suspect for a long, long time with no accidents or close calls. I think I mentioned this once before but I once heard a news anchor say, as a chase went on and on and on, "We've established that there is at least one person in the car." Now, that's Breaking News.

And I keep thinking about the guy or gal at the newsroom who makes the decision as to whether to cover a given chase…and when to bail out on the coverage if it's getting dull. Once you commit and get your audience interested, it's anti-climactic to cut away and it may make your viewers very frustrated. Also, for an indeterminable period, you're pre-empting other news stories that they might want to see like the weather or the sports. At some point, especially if you opt to cover a chase during the 11 PM News, you have the problem of what to do when it's time for the show that follows and your chase isn't over yet.

Last night in Los Angeles, there was a chase that started shortly after 11 PM. It involved a suspect in a white Nissan Sentra who was reportedly armed. The local ABC and CBS affiliates rushed their copters to the scene and probably regretted it. I guess they hoped it would reach a conclusion before they had to hand off to Mssrs. Colbert or Kimmel at 11:35 but that did not happen. The chase jumped from freeway to freeway, ultimately speeding through the communities of Lynwood, Hawthorne, Paramount, Norwalk, Azusa, Irwindale, San Dimas and Rancho Cucamonga before moving into the high desert communities.

Worse, it was boring. For most of that time, the freeway wasn't crowded and there was no possibility of a crash or any sort of game-ender. It was just a bunch of police cars following a white Nissan. The reporters had nothing to say for a long period…then came one bit of information that probably made the newsroom guys realize they weren't going to be showing the end of this chase and probably shouldn't have even started.

Police had run the license plate and discovered the car was registered to an address in Victorville. And since the guy was on a freeway heading towards Victorville, that's probably where he was heading — quite some distance. The California Highway Patrol had decided the safest thing for all was to follow the guy until he got to wherever he was going…or ran out of gas.

In other words: It was likely to just be the police following him for another hour or more. No crashes. No spike strips. No PIT maneuvers. No excitement.

At 11:35, both channels shifted their coverage elsewhere. Channel 7 (ABC) announced that if you wanted to continue following this story, you could do so on their website. They made that available for a while and at some point realized that it was too monotonous even for a website. So they shut that down and called their chopper home.

Channel 2 (CBS) is a sister station to Channel 9, which is not a network affiliate. So when Channel 2 began showing Stephen Colbert, they shifted coverage to Channel 9 — which I'm sure did wonders for Colbert's ratings here. I was wondering how Johnny Carson would have responded if his lead-in had suggested people change the channel. On Channel 9, they were pre-empting a rerun of Mike & Molly instead of a first-run, might-never-be-repeated show for which, one assumes, a lot more folks had set their DVRs.

I changed because (a) my TiVo was recording Colbert and I could watch him later and (b) the coverage on Channels 2 and 9 was being done by my favorite local helicopter reporter, Stu Mundel. Stu is the Vin Scully of televised car chases. Scully can usually make the most boring, nothing-happening games interesting and so can Stu…but this one was beyond even his ability. About the only thing to note was this: The driver was fleeing from the law but when he changed lanes, he always made sure to signal with his turn indicator.

After a half-hour on Channel 9 of essentially the same, unchanging shot of six or seven C.H.P. cars following the Nissan, the only suspense was how much longer the Channel 2 helicopter could continue to bring us that image. By heading out into the High Desert, they explained, they were now nowhere near any open airfield where the chopper could land and refuel in order to get back to home base. And they were still maybe an hour from Victorville.

Just shy of Midnight, they announced that Stu and his pilot had to get back so they weren't able to show us any more of this chase and they instead ran Entertainment Tonight. Anyone who'd been watching the chase since coverage commenced had seen about 50 minutes of an adventure but wouldn't be able to view its conclusion. Ironically, on the way back to home base, the CBS copter did get some shots of a far more exciting chase involving a motorcycle but I don't think those were broadcast live.

The Nissan chase wrapped up just before 1 AM at a gas station in Victorville. Apparently, the police did lay down some spike strips that punctured the suspect's tires but he still made it to the station where much of his family was waiting for him…and there, he gave up without a struggle. It appears that something was going through his mind: A fear that when he surrendered, he'd be shot, regardless of what he did. So he phoned his family from the car and had them waiting there for him, presuming — and this is just a theory on my part — that the cops were less likely to open fire if he was surrounded by his loved ones.

If that's what was on his mind, he may have been a rarity: A fleeing driver who was actually thinking (somewhat) straight. That might even explain why he was using his turn indicator, trying to break as few laws as possible. He would have been better off giving up two hours earlier and he could have done it without being shot…but at least he wasn't under the delusion he could outrun them.

This may be more wishful thinking than reality but it's starting to feel like the Trump juggernaut is losing steam fast and his followers are heading for a head-on collision with Buyers' Remorse. His recent comments on abortion are not those of a guy who tells it like it is, speaks his mind, isn't afraid to be politically incorrect and never backs down. That's one of the main things his cheering section says they like about the guy…and here he is trying to desperately dodge a question that every candidate for office has to confront.

Then he answers it badly — in a way that pleases no one — and his handlers have to rush out and say, "No, what he really meant was…" Today, he's out insisting that the perfectly clear question — "Should there be punishment for getting an abortion?" — was convoluted and confusing. That's the Sarah Palin excuse. When she gave a stupid answer, it was always the fault of the press.

People in this country care about the issue of abortion. They may care about it because they want to see it banned or because they want to see it safe and legal but they care and it also leads you to other issues like women's rights and sexual freedom and how much the government controls your body. If I were a Trump supporter, I'd be really, really disappointed in my guy for not having a firm, thought-out position on this. Seth Meyers has more…

Chris Stroud didn't like what Larry J. Sabato said about how it's sort of "crystal clear that Hillary Clinton will end up being the Democratic candidate." Here's what Chris wrote to me…

This wasn't a straight and honest race from the start. For Sanders, it has been one of the steepest climbs anyone who ran for President ever had to make, and right now the word from on high seems to be — even though the race for nomination isn't over yet — declare Clinton in no uncertain terms the winner of the Democratic nomination, I guess the strategy is simply to discourage the remaining folks who want Bernie so they will cast their vote for Clinton. Sabato's crystal ball — feh. He simply followed orders. Likely he's right so goody for him. Consider what Sanders has accomplished so far, despite the cards being stacked against him all this time. Right now as you read this, who is really deserving of the nomination?

Well, I could make a decent case I think that Hillary Clinton is pretty "deserving" but a contest like this is never about that. It's about who gets the most votes according to a system that is in place before the voting commences. It may be a bad system but that's a separate discussion. You don't win a baseball game because your team played harder or had more factors working against you. You win it because you scored more runs. And very often in politics, the person I think is more "deserving" doesn't win and that isn't even the criteria I use when I cast my vote. I vote for whichever person I think will do the job best.

I would not be displeased in the slightest if Bernie Sanders got the nomination but that ain't looking likely. There is no conspiracy to undermine him at work when reporters report that he's running behind Clinton in delegates and that the kind of support he'd have to have in the remaining primaries looks really, really difficult to achieve. That is how every person who has run for public office in the last umpteen decades has been covered.

Hey, if Sanders can pull it off, great. I just wish some of his supporters wouldn't get so upset that the press isn't writing headlines that say he's crushing Hillary…because he's not. Yet. Actually, I suspect the press is dying to write that story because they love close elections and come-from-behind victories and the lead changing hands and, most of all, underdogs who win. It sells papers. But the facts are not there right now to justify that scenario and you can't really believe there's anyone ordering independent sources like Sabato to write a prediction that even you admit is probably right.

Hey, if you're anywhere near Los Angeles this Sunday, this might interest you. Out at the Glendale Civic Auditorium, they're having the Los Angeles Vintage Paperback Show. It's a one-day convention where vendors will be selling vintage paperback books, magazines and other paper goodies, and there'll be at least 45 authors and illustrators who'll be signing their books. The autographs are free, admission to the show is only five bucks, and there's free parking! How great is that? It's open 9 AM to 4 PM so what else do you need to know?

Oh, yes: Among those 45+ authors will be Dick Lupoff, Jerry Pournelle, Wendy and Richard Pini, Don Glut, William F. Nolan, Barbara Hambly, Mel Gilden, Joe R. Lansdale, Tim Kirk, David Pollock and quite a few others. The whole list and the schedule of who'll be there and when they'll be there is over on the show website. So that's all you need to know. Go grab yourself a signed treasure.

How are socks made? And where can I buy one of those vacuum devices that turns the socks inside-out?

Writing about Al Jaffee reminded me of a question that keeps popping up in my writing — a question of proper punctuation and style…

As we all know, it is customary to underline or italicize the name of a book or magazine or a newspaper. Most authoritative guides will tell you that when typing out the name of a publication, you don't italicize or underline a "The" even if one is part of the name.  For instance, you're supposed to write the New York Times and not The New York Times…or the Saturday Evening Post, not The Saturday Evening Post.  This is one of those cases where I usually will sometimes purposely defy the rule and I'll capitalize and underline the "The" just because it looks righter to me. And yes, I know "righter" isn't a word. Neither is "wanna" or "dunno" a lot of other warpings of English that I employ.

Okay. So there's this magazine called MAD. For some reason, it has become very common to capitalize its name and type it as MAD. I dunno who started this but I wanna figure something else out. Almost always, people refer to it as "MAD" followed by the word "magazine" but the "magazine" part is not really part of its name. So assuming we buy into the capitalization of the first part,  tell me the correct way to type it in a sentence such as this: "Al Jaffee is still drawing for _______."

1. MAD magazine
2. MAD Magazine
3. MAD magazine
4. MAD Magazine

I looked up examples on the web for MAD and also for Time and Life and other publications which are usually referred to with the word "magazine" appended.  It seems to be handled all of these ways but most often #2.  But I've never seen any style manual that would dictate that form.  So what does anyone think?

Senator Orrin Hatch thinks Merrick Garland would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice but not if appointed by Barack Obama. Recently, he explained his position on the New York Times editorial page. And recently, historian Mark S. Byrnes explained why Hatch is wrong in just about everything he asserts.

In the meantime, as many as 16 Republican senators seem willing to at least meet with Garland to discuss his suitability…which means some of them are worried that Republican intransigence in this matter is going to hurt them at the ballot box. I didn't think Obama was going to win this one but now I'm not so sure.

Last night, DC Entertainment threw a big birthday party in New York for Al Jaffee, who is 95 years old. Of course, if you fold-in that number, he's only 14…or about the mental age you need to be a successful cartoonist. Al — who still creates his Fold-In page each month for MAD and does other things as well — is a successful cartoonist and has been for a long time.

How long? Well, a highlight of last night's celebration was this announcement: The folks who compile the Guinness Book of World Records have now certified Al as the record holder for the longest career as a professional comics artist. It's 73 years and 3 months…and it grows greater with each passing day.

This certification was the result of extensive research into Al's long time at the drawing table, plus statements of support from prominent experts in the field, myself included. I wish I could have been there last night but I am annoyingly proud to have helped make that recognition possible.

The room at Sardi's was packed with Al's friends and co-workers, plus New York City Major Bill de Blasio was there to officially declare March 30th, 2016 as Al Jaffee Day in New York. I hope they had the decency to close the banks and have a big parade with everyone yelling out Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions. You can see photos of the event over at Tom Richmond's site.

Here at newsfromme.com, we believe that you can't watch the presidential election without watching the electoral college. When someone tells me that So-and-So "has momentum" or is a "breakthrough candidate" or anything like that, my question is "Which states will they carry?" Because rightly or wrongly, that's how we pick our presidents.

There are several sites that track the electoral college and one of the most-watched is Larry J. Sabato's. He has just posted what I believe is his first attempt to map how things are shaking out for 2016 and he's saying that if it's Hillary v Donald, it's an electoral landslide for Hillary.

Now, obviously, a lot can and will change…but some things almost surely will not. It's just about impossible that a Republican would win California and New York just as it's almost impossible that a Democrat would win Texas and certain states in the Deep South. Either party could nominate a walrus and probably keep its "safe" states. Sabato (and others who do this) keep a careful eye on seven key "swing" states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. Pennsylvania used to be on that list and in the last few elections, Republicans confidently predicted victory there but fell far short.

The seven collectively represent 85 electoral votes and at the moment, Sabato and his crew think they'd all fall for Hillary. Trump would have to sweep almost all of them to win. If he did, he'd have 276. He could afford to lose New Hampshire's four votes or the six from either Iowa or Nevada but not two of the three.

Is a Trump win possible? Absolutely. There's enough wiggle room in those seven states and maybe a few others to considerably change the picture…and a map like this can even help change that picture. Those in the G.O.P. who want to dump Donald are going to be waving copies of projections like this as the best possible reason to deny Trump the nomination. Why run a guy who doesn't seem to have a credible path to victory in November?

Read this. The Donald was asked a pretty simple softball question — "In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?" — and he couldn't come up with an answer acceptable to anyone.

That's a cluelessness that deserves the rating of Full Palin. If Hillary Clinton gave an answer like that, Trump supporters would call her an idiot. But they'll ignore ignorance coming out of Donald because, you know, he talks real tough. He doesn't know what he's talking about but he talks real tough.

Speaking as I was a few items ago about great places to eat meat: If you forced me at gunpoint to name the best meal I've ever had that is still available — which exclude things my mother made — I know what I'd say. It would be the Porterhouse Steak at Peter Luger's Steakhouse in Brooklyn, especially if it was accompanied by their German Fried Potatoes. A reasonable facsimile of this masterpiece can be obtained at Wolfgang's Steakhouse in Beverly Hills and, I suppose, at the twelve other Wolfgang's around the world. Here is what this wonderful plate of cooked cow looks like…

On the other hand, Nate Silver is pretty pessimistic about Bernie Sanders' chances of winning in most of the remaining states — and winning by large enough margins to amass the necessary delegates. Silver's numbers seem to add up. So that battle could be over before June…maybe as soon as April 19 when New York votes.

I still don't have a big preference in that race. At the moment, I kinda feel Bernie would make a slightly better president but Hillary would make a slightly better candidate…but ask me tomorrow and I may think the opposite. What I really want is for one to have a clean victory — no room for the loser to claim cheating or rigging — and for the loser to congratulate and support the winner in a way that binds the party. Maybe I'm hoping for the impossible.

If you're sick of this presidential primary and just want to see the nominees get selected, you'll cringe to see Ed Kilgore explain that this probably won't happen until June 7 — which means we aren't quite halfway through this game of Candy Crush. Assuming no one (except maybe John Kasich) drops out of the race, it's going to take until then for someone to amass enough delegates to have a lock on their party's nomination — and even then, it might not happen for Donald Trump. And don't get pissed at me. I want this to be over as much as you do.

Eric Idle has written a novel about the television industry and is serializing chapters of it on the web. Here's a link to Part One, here's a link to Part Two and here's a link to Part Three. I have no idea how many chapters there will be or if they'll all be posted so don't blame me if you get hooked on it with adverse results.