I have to admit that when I first heard about "Watchman," and, how radically different it was from "Mockingbird," I had similar emotions about reading it. But, after the shock wore off, and rationality crawled back into my head, I thought, "How nuts am I?" How unfair to Ms. Lee am I, a literary illiterate, to have the unbridled hubris of thinking that suddenly I belong in the Pantheon of the greatest authors in history: Hemingway, Dostoyevsky, Goethe, and, therefore possess the requisite qualifications to sit in judgement of a truly great mind; "Oh, Lordy, Lord, how will you ever forgive me, Ms. Nelle Harper Lee?"

Joking aside, there is a risk in reading this new novel, and having a wondrous bubble carried around in my brain for over 50 years go, "poof." But, that's a risk every time a favorite book, or, movie I've enjoyed comes out with a sequel. On average (I'm only guessing here) more often than not, I'm disappointed. But, every once in a while, if the author is really, really good, and, really honest with him/her self, he/she recognizes whatever tiny flaws the original work might have had, and goes on to build upon, and, improve on the original, leaving us with the after-thought, "I didn't think he/she could top the first one, but.....................wow!"

Redbrow: "After all, from it's inception and through the decades when it was a powerful and relevant political orginization, the KKK was almost exclusevly democrat."

... and relevant -- how, exactly?

Look, most everyone here is fairly well educated. By and large, we're quite aware of the fact that the prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, a rather large bloc of the Democratic Party -- the so-called "Dixiecrats" -- was comprised of racist Southern white conservatives. We also know that after LBJ signed those two aforementioned acts into law, the Dixiecrats started to abandon the Democratic Party in droves.

Those Dixiecrats first supported George Wallace's independent presidential candidacy in 1968, delivering several southern states and about 45 electoral votes to him in that election, before eventually joining the Republican Party at the expressed invitations of President Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, per their respective initiatives under the GOP's odious "Southern Strategy."

So what's your point in stating the historically obvious, other than to make what you likely perceive to be a dig at current Democrats? We were talking about Harper Lee's "Go Set a Watchman," and not about the KKK and the Dixiecrats, or even about politics in general.

Anyway, as Mr. Natural said, these yahoos are now your party's problem, and not ours. Republicans sowed the wind by openly courting white malcontents with racist dog whistles, and they can now reap the inevitable whirlwind which has long accompanied the presence of those nativist kooks.

Secondly, Trump thinks he can physically kick the kingpins @ss.  Trump tweets:

Can you envision Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton negotiating with 'El Chapo', the Mexican drug lord who escaped from prison? ....

...Trump, however, would kick his ass!

He kept it classy with:

Mr Trump added on Twitter: "Mexico's biggest drug lord escapes from jail. Unbelievable corruption and USA is paying the price. I told you so!"

I love when dbags use 3rd person to brag about how great they are, but the idea that Trump could kick anyone's @ss is especially funny.

And while his proclamation is funny, the idea that he told people Guzman was going to escape with racist comments about Mexicans is especially funny.  Now I guess told is going to get credit with his idiot followers for every crime committed by a Hispanic. This was a crime in Mexico, 1000 miles form the border an yet Trump told us so.  Mexicans are a problem.

I guess he missed the prison break by two white fellas a month ago.

In recent years, an example of playing on the $$$$ fears and envies of white voters has been deftly demonstrated by the craven Governor Walker in Wisconsin.  When he drove the wedge between public employee unions and other union members, he played on a strong, deep envy when $$$$$ can be king ... and, when people will follow the money.  

I believe that Trump is playing to that not-so-complex set of attitudes--greed mixed with envy-- among his present supporters.  While the "ego" or whatever plays a role, there is an aspect of dumb-like-a-fox that energizes his torrent of I'm-so-rich bravado that relates to strategy.  IMO, that strategy starts with understanding that a sizeable portion of the very conservative voters whom he seeks equate $$$$$ with smarts.  That segment also equates $$$$$ with being an outstanding businessmen ... and, further, that segment equates the mythical top-down business with knowing how to run a strong government.  It is the old "what is good for business is good for the country" carried too far ... see, e.g., the periodic attempts by conservative Repubs to privatize almost everything but the Dept. of Defense.

Add to that: If Trump convinces a sizeable conservative segment that he is good-for-the-country because he has big bucks (and all that means to them), he could stand out as the go-to rightwing favorite in the early primaries.  BTW, at that point if not before, the Repub big financiers will be forced to dump a load of $$$$$ themselves to undermine his claim(s).  Ultimately, the history of that party's primary maneuverings, say that he will be pushed aside.