Simply because the year has turned, it doesn't mean we're done hearing Curt Schilling say colossally dumb things. Schilling claimed in a video published by TMZ on Monday that he got it wrong when he said in November that a t-shirt advocating the lynching of journalists was "so much awesome." Pivoting smartly after first claiming his reference to historically racial terrorism was just "a joke," Schilling said that his chances of reaching the Hall of Fame would have gone up exponentially had he simply changed the identity of the lynch-ee:"I promise you: If I had said, 'Lynch Trump,' I'd be getting in with 90 percent of the vote this year."To gain admittance, a candidate needs 75 percent, and gets 10 years on the ballot to get there. This is his fifth year in play. Schilling has claimed that his own Hall of Fame support, which rose 13 percent in 2016, has been suffering because of his political beliefs, or at least because of stupid shit he says that is politically motivated. It's true that some voters are using Schilling's own post-baseball rantings against him. It's certainly true in the case of Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe, who said Schilling's "lynching" tweet broke the camel's back for him regarding Cooperstown. While it's a dubious breaking point in a way, given the other odious crap Schilling has said, it's evidence that Schilling has at least one fact straight.It's also plain that Schilling continues to be an ignoramus for using a racially and politically charged word, "lynching," which shouldn't have anything to do with a conversation about him and baseball's Hall of Fame.But, to the question: Would Schilling be doing even better on the ballot were he neutral, or even anti-Trump (of all things)? It's possible, but his views aren't keeping him out of Cooperstown. Some voters do vote one way or another for stupid reasons, political or otherwise, but it's not enough for Schilling to overcome the threshold. Anyone who follows the Hall of Fame voting closely knows that it's a difficult time for the electorate, which has more candidates than it can handle and less time than ever to see justice (using the word ever so loosely) done. What Schilling being Schilling does is take away from the time and space his candidacy otherwise deserves for discussion. Schilling the ballplayer probably deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame, but he certainly deserves a hearing. His continued social-media nonsense makes it unlikely a true discussion ever will happen for the BBWAA.