Trump might just be a disastrous enough candidate to hand Democrats a governorship and a second senator in bright-red Indiana. The bad news is the second senator would be former senator Evan Bayh, whose reflexive and often sanctimonious Blue Dog-styled centrism frustrated grassroots Democrats for two undistinguished terms before he chose not to face voters in 2010.

On his way out the door Bayh talked a big game about how his decision reflected his belief that the Senate had become too dysfunctional to make being a senator worth it, rather than the belief that he couldn’t win re-election in a midterm year with the Tea Party at the height of its power. 

“I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives,” Bayh said at the time. “But I do not love Congress.” He went on to become a lobbyist-in-all-but-name, a private equity adviser, and a Fox News contributor—not the kind of jobs you take if you’re a civic-minded politician looking for better ways to serve the public. In the years since, the Senate has if anything become even more dysfunctional, so it appears very much in hindsight like Bayh concocted a high-minded excuse for retiring when his political fortunes looked bleak, and has come out of retirement now that his fortunes look better.  

His return coincides with the emergence of his state’s Republican governor, Mike Pence, as a leading contender to be Trump’s running mate. Normally that kind of thing might spook someone like Bayh out of running statewide. But Pence is if anything a more lackluster politician than Bayh—barely above water in his re-election campaign against Democrat John Gregg, hobbled by an intellect that rivals Rick Perry’s. So not only might Bayh prevail despite a prominent Hoosier at the top of the Republican ticket, but we might be treated to an “oops” moment on a general election debate stage. 

David Cameron will submit his resignation to Queen Elizabeth on Wednesday, making May, the current home secretary, the leader of the conservative party and the UK’s newest prime minister. Andrea Leadsom, the current energy minister, dropped out of the running for the position on Monday, clearing May’s path to victory.

After a chaotic period in which both pith helmet-fetishist Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, a character deleted from The Thick of It for unbelievability reasons, were knocked out of the running, May and Leadsom were the final two contenders for the position. Leadsom, already the underdog, scored a howler of an own goal over the weekend when she suggested that she would be a better prime minister than May because she has children and May does not.

In the wake of the vote to leave the European Union, however, being prime minister of the UK is easily the worst job in the UK, and it might be the worst job in the world. May will be tasked with negotiating the Brexit, which is a truly thankless task that will almost certainly result in some combination of broken promises to voters (most likely in the form of curbing migration) and a substantial loss of jobs, tax revenue, and spending. David Cameron was so happy not to have the job anymore he literally started singing on his way out:

On Monday, he said the centerpiece of Donald Trump’s vague platform, one that elevated him to Republican stardom, was unlikely to take physical shape. “There are some that hear this is going to be 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso, 30-foot high, and listen, I know you can’t do that,” he said in an interview with Snapchat News’ Peter Hamby. “It’s a wall, but it’s a technological wall, it’s a digital wall.”

The apparent confusion over whether the wall will even take physical shape follows months of experts saying it would be economically and structurally unfeasible to build. But a digital wall would undoubtedly be less than satisfactory for many of Trump’s supporters. After all, how will they get the satisfaction of watching supposedly job-stealing and crime-making Mexicans pay for a wall that will keep them out of the country if they can’t see the wall itself? And a “digital wall” will be far less humiliating to Mexico than a standard one.

There has been no comment from the Trump campaign confirming or denying Perry’s remarks.

According to Digital Vision, the franchise’s new app has nearly as many Android daily active users as Twitter and has been installed more times than Tinder. When it comes to the daily time that users spend on the app, Pokémon Go surpasses both Instagram and Snapchat. Currently, it’s the top free app in the Apple store.

For the highly-functioning, normal and successful people who haven’t (yet) played Pokémon Go, this news might come as a surprise. But for those of us nerds who have been anxiously awaiting the game since the trailer came out last September, it makes total sense. Why spend time in a world where you swipe right on Martin Shkreli when instead, you can swipe up and catch A BULBASAUR?

Technically, there isn’t a lot of player-to-player interaction on the app itself, but all you need to do is walk outside to link up with other people playing Pokémon Go.

Who knows, you just might find yourself making new friends (like robbers) or having some new experiences (like finding dead bodies)!

Since Trump knocked out the other Republican contenders in May, the speculation regarding his running mate has tended to focus on surrogates who backed him (relatively) early: Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and, the frontrunner for most of the last two months, Newt Gingrich.

Trump is likely to announce his running mate this week, but over the last few days, and Christie is apparently only being vetted for the sake of his self-esteem, Carson has had his foot in his mouth for most the last two months, and Trump’s kids don’t like Gingrich. Now, the conversation has focused on Indiana Governor Mike Pence (now the frontrunner), and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. The conservative Washington Times has said that there is a “95 percent chance” that Trump picks Pence, who looks like he has Lego hair, and that many within his home state are expecting him to get the call. Pence is widely-seen as being the safest pick for Trump: He has a strong conservative record and executive experience, two things that Trump very much lacks. Picking him, as The New Republic’s Jeet Heer noted on Monday, “would be a sop to the sensibilities of conventional conservatives.” Pence, who is virulently anti-gay, anti-choice, would also presumably shore up any soft support among so-called “values voters.”

Flynn is a more interesting choice—he’s pro-choice and was a Democrat until 2014. He would do nothing to shore up support among those who doubt Trump’s conservative bona fides, or his commitment to fighting the culture wars, though it would presumably comfort some of those who doubt that Trump is temperamentally fit for the role of commander-in-chief. But Flynn is also clearly not a politician, and seems to be genuinely uncomfortable in the spotlight, though both of those qualities may endear him to Trump.

Hillary Clinton has been the presumptive nominee for the entirety of the contest and the last election was nearly a month ago, but Bernie Sanders has refused to endorse her. That will chance, according to numerous reports, on Tuesday, when Clinton and Sanders will appear together in Vermont and Sanders will endorse her, finally ending the Democratic primary just before the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia later this month. 

Depending on your perspective on Sanders, his decision to play things andante could be seen as an example of steadfastness or obstinance. A week ago, House Democrats booed Sanders during a tense meeting that focused on his foot-dragging. But Sanders’s approach has reaped dividends for progressives. While Sanders’s team didn’t win concessions on the TPP or Israeli statements, the party’s platform has moved left on a host of issues, including the minimum wage, the public option, the death penalty, and Federal Reserve, criminal justice, and Wall Street reform. Of course, Sanders’s decision to hold out for more platform concessions may mean that some of his supporters have hardened their resolve to never vote for Hillary Clinton. But Sanders’s endorsement will certainly sway many of his supporters, likely adding to Clinton’s post-convention “bounce,” especially given the relatively progressive party platform.  

Friday morning, Donald Trump released a statement where he said some things about how “more needs to be done” so that black people can feel secure around police and in America. His statement, though notable for not being full of narcissistic crazy talk, was nevertheless a cynical ploy that distorted his opinions about policing and his history of making racially-charged remarks.

Friday afternoon, Newt Gingrich appeared on Facebook Live with Van Jones and took things even further than his possible running mate. “It’s more dangerous to be black in America,” he said. “It’s both more dangerous because of crime, which is the Chicago story. But it’s more dangerous in that you’re substantially more likely to be in a situation where the police don’t respect you where you could easily get killed. I think sometimes for whites it’s difficult to appreciate that.”

That is, aside from the characteristic euphemistic allusion to “black-on-black crime,” surprisingly on point. But it’s surprising because Gingrich has a long, long history with making racially-insensitive remarks and proposing racially-insensitive (at the very least) policies. In the Contract for America, as Emma Roller pointed out on Twitter, he called for the return of orphanages to take children away from single mothers. Throughout his career, he has been a connoisseur of the dog whistle, telling voters in New Hampshire he would go to the NAACP and tell them to “stop accepting food stamps and start accepting pay checks,” calling Obama “the food stamp president,” and in the 1990s routined lectured black Americans about their “bad habits,” which he felt prevented them from getting rich.

And, while Gingrich may have said something seemingly insightful to Van Jones, he also went on Fox & Friends this morning, where he blamed liberals and Black Lives Matter for the shooting in Dallas and said this:

“My argument is the policies that have driven us apart, the policies that have trapped African-Americans in all too large numbers in poverty and in hopelessness [are] the ideological policies that say, ‘Black lives matter.’

Well, baloney! All American lives matter, of all backgrounds. And we ought to challenge the Hillary Clintons and the Bernie Sanderses to say that American lives matter. All American lives.

We’re in the eighth year of a president who could have brought us together, a president who could have worked in the African-American community to make people feel better about themselves, a president who could have offered visionary changes in the policies that have failed for the last 50 years. And he didn’t do any of that.”

So, no, like Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich does not suddenly get it.

Early Friday morning, before much information was known about the attackers who killed five police officers in Dallas, Trump released a statement about the need to “restore law and order,” which was balanced by the implication that something must be done about the use of lethal force by police. Here’s the relevant bit:

We must restore law and order. We must restore the confidence of our people to be safe and secure in their homes and on the street.

The senseless, tragic deaths of two people in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done….Our nation has become too divided. Too many Americans feel like they’ve lost hope. Crime is harming too many citizens. Racial tensions have gotten worse, not better. This isn’t the American Dream we all want for our children.

Many have pointed out that this statement was uncharacteristic from Trump, who has previously responded to tragic violence with fear-mongering and gloating. Here, for instance, is The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, reading the tea leaves:

In other words, acknowledging the racial dimension to the problem of police overuse of lethal force is not anti-cop, and indeed, it is a necessary precursor to healing the divisions between communities and police, which will make the jobs of the vast majority of law enforcement professionals who are doing great work easier.

Trump appears to agree, at least to some degree. While he made no mention of the racial dimension to police killings, he today acknowledged that restoring confidence in public safety also requires doing “more” in response to this week’s police killing of two black men.

And that’s good.

Yes, this is a good thing. Still, this is also an exceedingly generous interpretation of Trump’s statement. Trump has not, at any point in the past year, done anything to suggest that “acknowledging the racial dimension to the problem of police overuse of lethal force is not anti-cop.” He’s right that “more” needs to be done, but I have no confidence that the “more” in question will involve increased scrutiny of the police.

Instead, Trump has repeatedly said things like, “The police are the most mistreated people in America” and “We need to give power back to the police.” If Trump has had a change of heart about the use of lethal force, that would be a profound change in his campaign. But I’m skeptical, especially given Trump’s long history of siding with the police and against black citizens (remember when he advocated putting the Central Park Five to death?). His continued use of the Nixonian euphemism “law and order” suggests, at the very least, that he’s trying to have it both ways.

This isn’t the first time Trump has seemed like he’s about to become a more mainstream and conventional political candidate—I’ve certainly fallen for it in the past. But he’s always reverted back to his destructive and divisive mean. There’s no evidence yet that this time is any different.