My Election Predictions

I was talking to Mike Kupari about this yesterday, mostly being my usual optimistic self, and telling him don’t worry, the election wasn’t going to be Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders, so there was no reason to flee and build a compound in Costa Rica just yet. He suggested I write it up for the blog, so what the heck, here goes.

Note, these aren’t endorsements, they’re predictions. So you don’t need to yell at me for not backing your dude. Yes, I’m sure your Candidate X is super awesome, and I’m a stupid jerk face for not seeing it.

My prediction is that the republican nominee will be Ted Cruz. The democrat nominee will be Hillary Clinton.  At this early point in the campaigns I got Dole, Bush, and Romney right. McCain surprised me, but I think I was just blinded by my dislike for him. I predicted Obama as soon as he got done with that first original DNC speech, and sadly got that one right. Though I was surprised how fast he usurped the Clinton machine.

Here is my reasoning. First, the democrat side is really easy to predict. You’ve got one batty old socialist and a slightly battier old socialist. Though I’ve been told that Hillary Clinton isn’t actually a socialist because the way she loves taking bribes is very capitalistic. Good point.

Bernie is nuts, but he’s honest. He skips right over all the typical democrat feel good, heart string tugging reasons why they think the government should control everything, and gets right to the government controlling everything. He is economically illiterate. Those Occupy Democrat memes going around Facebook where they are quoting Bernie fucking up some basic economic principle are literally painful. Every time you share one of those, an accountant dies.

The only reason Bernie is actually polling surprisingly decently is because many democrats sense just how lackluster Hillary is. However, Hillary is still going to get the nomination. Because as much as democrats like to think that they’re all about tolerance, there is something incredibly emasculating about watching your candidate get chased off the podium of his own rally. There’s a reason the Black Lives Matter protestors haven’t invaded Hillary’s space, because we all suspect she’d shriek “GUARDS! SEIZE THEM!” super villain style, and then have them devoured by her nanotech enhanced attack weasels.

Hillary may be a liar and a cheat, and she’d sell your children’s organs to Russian mobsters to make five bucks, but at least she’s not a total chicken shit. So, barring the highly unlikely event that Hillary gets arrested by the FBI for one of her multitude of scandals between now and the primaries, Hillary is it.

On the GOP side it gets really hard to predict just because there are a slew of candidates. Right now I see it going Cruz, with an outside chance of Rubio or Walker. Yes, I know that isn’t what the polls say right now, but this is how I see it playing out.

Trump is a stunt candidate. He’s sitting around twenty percent, lots of people are flipping out about it, and the media is loving that. But the rest of the GOP can’t stand him. As we head into the primaries we always do this thing, where somebody will pop up, the voters will say Oooooh New and Shiny, they’ll surge, and then once people have a chance to actually look at what they’ve really done, they come back down.

The thing everybody needs to remember is that every single election cycle we go through this period where the media tries to pick the eventual GOP candidate for us. Their criteria are A. Can the democrat eventually beat them? And B. If they do somehow win, will they not rock the boat too bad for democrats? McCain is the greatest example of that ever. This time around their obvious pick was Jeb Bush. For weeks it was Jeb, Jeb, Jeb. Only Jeb was dull and Trump makes great TV. If you look at early polling it almost always correlates with how much media attention the candidate is receiving. So, a candidate polling at 5% is usually getting 5% of the coverage, etc.

Trump comes along, he’s bombastic, unapologetic, and simply does not give a shit. The real lesson to be taken from Trump and Bernie is that many Americans are so damned tired of the establishment and the media that they’ll root for anybody, no matter how crazy they are, if they’ll just quit sucking up and actually stand for something.

But here is the problem with Trump, and it isn’t his personality or being willing to insult people (because if I’m judging these people on personality, I’d probably get along with him in person way better than most of the others, and the Rosie line made me do a spit take). It is because he’s been a Republican less time than Bernie has been a Democrat. When I’ve talked to the hard core Stormtrumpers they’ll say he’s great on the border! Okay, but what about his record on abortion, guns, crony capitalism, government intervention, eminent domain, and single payer healthcare? Suck, suck, suck… oh but on that one he evolved… This week.

For the people convinced that Trump is the Real Conservative in the race, and that the other 15 are all RINOs, put down the crack pipe. This is the same guy who a couple of years ago was outraged about violent videogames and saying how somebody needed to do something about them. Yeah, there’s a dude totally grounded in the Bill of Rights.

And before any fanatical Trump fan yells at me again about Megan Kelly was mean and how I just listen to FOX News, I cancelled cable like a year ago, so I don’t watch TV news unless I’m on it. Sheesh. The hard core Trump fans remind me a lot of the old hard core Ron Paul fans.

So with all the attention in the world, he’s leading at 20%, but that’ll die down as the novelty wears off. Most people aren’t single issue voters, and they’ve already put up with two terms from a malignant narcissist, why pick another? Trump will eventually drop out and use his celebrity to make even more money, much of which he’ll donate to democrats and democrat causes.

Then it gets really complicated.

Carly Fiorina did really well on the first debate, and then kicked Chris Matthews’s ass (see that thing above about people being hungry for anyone who will stand up to the media). I’ve got several friends who are hard core Fiorina supporters, but I have another friend who worked for her at HP who really found her business practices shady, but I’ve not had a chance to delve into that enough to comment.

A lot of people are thinking it would be a good match up because Fiorina is a woman and Hillary is a sort of woman shaped carbon based life form. And it could possibly derail Hillary’s main campaign platform of Vote For Me Or You’re a Misogynist Pig. Which will probably be similar to Obama’s Vote For Me or You’re Racist and Vote For Me or You’re Racist 2: Extra Racist.

However, according to the media we all know that Republican women aren’t real women. Just like Ben Carson, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Walter Williams aren’t actually black people either.

The strategic problem for Fiorina is that because she is a Republican woman, and she has done well, expect the media to go full Palin on her. If she does have any questionable business dealings, they’ll be huge headlines for weeks on end (unlike deleted emails, missing classified documents, and getting ambassadors killed, because what difference does it make?). She’s still a possibility, but if there is anything even vaguely shady or potentially shady, the media will use it as a club to discredit her. Nothing freaks out the media worse than female or minority republicans.

Once people get tired of the Trump show, that hunger for bucking the establishment and telling the media to bugger off will still be there. And this is why I think Ted Cruz will move into the lead. He’s been a pain in the establishment’s ass. The left wing media hates him. And you can usually tell who the media really fears by how much they try to ignore them, or talk about them, rather than to them (gee whiz, I can’t imagine where I came up with that theory!).

Cruz has an elected track record. He’s got actual conservative cred. He’s one of the Tea Party generation that’s been replacing the greying and thankfully dying off big government GOP. Is Cruz a fantastic candidate? Nope. His track record isn’t perfect and he looks a lot like a young Grandpa Munster. Once they can’t safely ignore him, expect the media to go after him extra hard. The thing Cruz has going for him on that front is that they’ve been trying for years, and they’ve already spilled every bit of dirty laundry they had to discredit him back during the government shut down fight.

The biggest hurdle Cruz has won’t be the DNC or their tame news media, it will be the McCains, Hatches, and Grahams of the GOP. Because they really want a Jeb or a Christie. (note, I didn’t put Lindsey Graham in that list of potential presidents, because nobody, and I’m including Lindsey Graham, think that Lindsey Graham can be president).

On Jeb Bush… Ain’t gonna happen. He was the media’s initial pick, and it was even more painfully obvious than when all the democrats showed up in our open primaries to “cross the aisle” to nominate McCain, and then promptly ditched him for Obama on election day. But Jeb’s got zilch. Actual conservatives don’t like him, the Tea Party hates him. On the issues, he’s mumble mumble amnesty and mumble mumble that’s not what Common Core was supposed to mumble. Seriously, do you know any actual voter who likes Jeb? Can you think of one? I can’t. Jeb has all the suck of the old, dying, big government GOP, so the conservative base will be even less enthusiastic for him than they were for Romney and McCain, with the added benefit that his last name is Bush, so automatically half the country hates him.

Chris Christie is beloved by the media because he’s loud, and the biggest big government big republican they can have lose to Hillary, and if Christie happened to somehow beat Hillary, then they’d only be stuck with a republican who was electable in New Jersey. Christie came to prominence because of that same phenomena that is floating Trump now—which I think will eventually give it to Cruz—in that he’s willing to be disagreeable. Sadly, he’ll buck the media, but he won’t buck the establishment because Christie is the establishment. By volume, he’s half the establishment. And I’m saying that as a 6’5” 300 pounder myself.

On the far side of Christie is Rand Paul. Now personally, I really like Rand. I think he’s actually got real convictions and he’s got guts. As hipsters where whining in one tweet about the horrible evil Tea Party, and their next tweet was lamenting how bad it was the government was reading their emails, a guy elected by the Tea Party was the one fighting to get the NSA to quit reading their mail.

If you had to name three elected officials in the GOP who have been the biggest pain in the establishment GOP’s collective ass over the last few years, it would be Paul, Cruz, and Mike Lee (that’s my senator! I don’t claim Hatch). Luckily, I think Lee is too antisocial to ever run for president, which is good, because I want him to eventually replace Mitch McConnell and his weird turtle face.

But between Rand and Cruz, Cruz is polling better now, and seems to be having a better run of it. Gut feeling, barring a really good showing, I think Rand is principled enough that he’ll drop out after the first couple of primaries to not split the Tea Party contingent, and the liberty minded republicans who are backing Rand will go to Cruz. That’ll be the jump. Of the other candidates, who else would they support? A regular Rand ally, or one of the bigger government types? That’s a no brainer and several percentage points.

That’s if the Tea Party side coalesces into one favorite. The establishment side is split too, so it’ll be interesting if they all get behind one person.

There are two others that I still see as strong possibilities, Rubio and Walker.

Scott Walker is an election winner and a union buster, two things that really appeal to the base. He had a pretty vanilla showing in the last debate. He’s squishy on some core issues, but the feeling I get is that for some reason he’s a relative unknown to most primary voters. Which again shows that who the media most fears, they ignore, until they can’t, then they lie. They did the lie/fear thing in Wisconsin, but at the national level it has mostly been ignore. So if Walker does something really interesting enough to sneak past the Trump circus sucking up all the coverage and oxygen in the room, he could still have a shot.

Rubio is an interesting one. If you’d asked me four years ago who I thought the GOP front runner would be today, he probably would have been my call. It seems like he’s got a lot of national electability, but his problem is that he straddles the line between big government establishment republican and small government conservatism way too much. Note, to all aspiring young politicians, if perpetual loser John McCain wants you to team up with him on a big controversial issue, RUN AWAY! The whole fishing boat, speeding tickets, NYT expose helped him more than anything else. It humanized him and made him relatable. But there are too many issues he has sucked on with the base, so I think he’s going to fall by the wayside.

If several of the candidates drop out and toss their support behind Rubio or Walker, it could very well go their way.

Cruz and Rubio are both Latinos. Some republicans seem to think that is like a magic bullet, and suddenly republicans are going to get the Latino vote. That’s stupid. Just stop. The concept of “Latino” as a demographic is horribly flawed and unrealistic to begin with. How in the hell can you expect to stick people whose ancestors originate from one whole continent, the bottom half of another continent, and the west end of a third continent, islands in every hemisphere, spread over like 30 countries, in America between one and ten generations, and expect them to be this homogenous voting block?

Though since Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban, I expect to see the media declare that Cubans aren’t real Latinos. Sort of like when the government declared that Portuguese are Latino, and I was all like MWA HA HA HAAAAA I’M OFFICIALLY A MINORITY and they were all like oh shit what have we done?

On the same note, some republicans seem to think that if we run Ben Carson, republicans will suddenly get the black vote. I like Ben Carson. I think he’s probably a really good man. I also think focusing on his race is an incredibly stupid philosophy, and one that the democrats will beat republicans at every time. Identity politics are stupid democrat games. Don’t be surprised when you play their game and lose. That’s because they make the rules and game is rigged. You want to win, convince people that you’re worth voting for.

The problem with Ben Carson is that he’s not a politician, and it shows. You’d think being a non-politician at a time when everybody hates politicians would be a winning proposition, but they still have to know how to play the game. Trump isn’t a politician either, but he is a consummate game player. Fiorina isn’t a politician, but judging by how she rolled Jabba the Matthews, she’s got game. As a brain surgeon Carson is probably the smartest guy on the stage, but he’s not a political animal. Hillary has 1/3 of Carson’s IQ and none of his humility, but my gut feeling is that she’d walk all over him in a debate. Then Carson had to go and suck on guns, which is a kiss of death issue with the base.

Kaish… I’m not even going to bother to look on Google to see if I spelled that right. I have no idea why he is there. Non-entity. He could be the best candidate ever, who is right on every single issue, but I wouldn’t know, and neither do any of the voters. Perry just can’t seem to shine. Lots of Texans seem to love him, but he’s got zero momentum. Jindal, same thing. Barring any sort of super brilliant coup maneuver, I don’t see these guys moving up.

Lindsey Graham… Holy shit, just shoot me now. If Lindsey Graham got elected president I’d volunteer for that one way trip to Mars, and if that was a no go, I’d build my own rocket. He’s everything wrong with John McCain and the GOP, only he’s not a war hero, and has a lisp.

Again, these are just my guesses. I could be totally wrong. I also predicted Romney was going to win in the electoral college (to be fair, he only lost by like 600k spread across four swing states, so it wasn’t like I totally blew it). But the democrat side is going to be Hillary, unless she is arrested and can’t make bail.  Republican side, I figure Cruz, with an outside chance of Fiorina, Rubio, or Walker.

However you look at it, no matter who wins, we’re going to end up with somebody better suited for the job than Barack Obama. Sadly, I’m including Bernie Sanders in that equation, and that’s really saying something.

The Aloha Snackbar
How to get personalized autographed copies of my books

398 thoughts on “My Election Predictions”

    1. Should have waited just one more day Larry!

      Watching the breaking news that the FBI seized Hillary’s E-mail and thumb drives. I never thought she was ever hiding her dirty digital deeds from Congress or Republicans. If the press can suppress mass killings of babies for spare parts for profit, they could shield Hillary from this. No, IMHO she was trying to hide her corruption from the powers that be in the Obama administration.
      Its no secret (ow, pun!) that Valerie Jarrett and the Clintons hate each other . Its like THUNDERDOME politics! Two Progressive Feminist enter, one leaves Federal office for a Federal prison cell. Note this came out on a Tuesday, not the regular “Nothing to see here, move along…move along” Friday document dump.

      This could open a whole new race on that side of the isle! Gotta stock up on popcorn! This could get good!

      1. My guess is that the Obama Admin is pressuring Hillary to quit of her own volition, ratcheting up the pressure. Hence the leak from the FBI that work related emails were recovered on her server. She probably has too much on too many people (and committed donors) for Obama to let the FBI investigation turn into actual charges- but the threat and pressure are there. My prediction is that he’ll continue the push to slide Biden into the race as the favorite– on the condition Biden picks a rabid left-winger as VP, Warren.

  1. “devoured by her nanotech enhanced attack weasels”

    Stop it. You’re making her sound cooler than she really is. 😛

    1. I know. I read that line and thought, “Hillary has nanotech-enhanced attack weasels? I may have to take another look at her!”

    2. lol – when I read that line I thought “Wait! I finally understand the Hillary appeal. It’s some kinda freaky kin k thing!” I’d always assumed she was a *weak* candidate because she’s evil and completely unlikable. Those are her strengths.

    1. Politicians going Full Gladiator ?

      Remind me to stock up on popcorn and fixings. Several 50-pound sacks, and 100 or so pounds of butter should do . . .

      1. Living tax free in Mexico, squatting on a dead American hero’s money. You know, taken from his widow and fatherless children.

        For real….

  2. I tend to agree that it’s likely to be Cruz. I halfway expect a Cruz-Fiorina ticket.

    If it’s Walker. . . .Cruz will not be on the ticket. Carly still might be Veep. My evil fantasy comes when the first Supreme Court Justice retires or dies: President Walker, flanked by Attorney-General Gowdy . . . are in the Rose Garden announcing their nominee. . .and Ted Cruz walks into view. . .

    1. Oh, holy mother of sweetness and light; Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court. I love that idea so much I am speechless.

      1. Oh my word…imagine…Cruz and Scalia…in the SAME ROOM. It would either explode or…I don’t even… Cruz on the Supreme Court…yes please! Just have clean-up crews ready for all the squishy messes made by leftist heads going *pop!* and splattering everywhere. *happy sigh* We can even “donate” the “legally obtained” “tissue” to research companies! Shoot…that was meant to be funny, but now I’m nauseous. 🙁

  3. I tend to lean to Walker as the best of the GOP governors in the race. It is hard not to like Fiorina, and IF nothing comes up significant, I fully expect her to be the VP. I can’t see any major party ever having two white, straight males on the ticket again.

    1. It’s hard to like her after you spend 15 minutes researching how she ran Lucent, Compaq and HP all into the ground, and then stepped away pretending like it wasn’t her fault.

      Sure, she says all the right things in debates, but she’s a frighteningly incompetent executive.

      1. And if she hadn’t done the things she did, they would have died on the vine 15 years ago. And I say that as someone who was “fired” by her actions.

        1. Unless you’ve got some kind of inside info that everyone else doesn’t know shoot, I’m calling BS. She was a laughing stock in the tech industry. When people started talking about her candidacy, I thought they were joking. Especially after she lost her House bid.

          1. I got all the IT industry weeklies and newsletters back then. If there was anyone who *didn’t* hate Fiorina they weren’t saying much. Even the stockholders were spooked.

            You weren’t the only one who thought her candidacy was a joke…

      2. This. I work in a small tech firm. Everyone over 30 remembers when she came in, cut all R&D at HP while changing the slogan to “invent”, then getting fired when the board realized that she’d destroyed HP as a center of jnvention.Accurate or not, this perception has caused her to be one if the most loathed executives in modern history, right up there with Bob Nardelli.

        Basically, she’s unelectable in tech, so, if she gets the nod, the socialist ones will vote Democrat and everyone else will vote Libertarian.

    2. Biden/Webb 2016. You read it here first. Hey, it could happen.

      Can you imagine Biden in a debate with Cruz, Fiorina, or Walker? They’d have to spot him 5 questions off the top.

  4. I’m not so sure on Hillary anymore. She’s got too many enemies in the DNC, and I think she’s got too much baggage now as well. Just as Obama eased her out last time, I really think someone else is going to ease her out this time.
    Not quite sure yet, but again, I’m not so sure Hillary is going to get the nod.

    1. The sense I’m getting from the Left side of aisle is that they really, really want an alternative to Hillary. Even her most hard-core supporters can’t name an accomplishment of hers other than having been born with an XX genotype. Plus, this is a party of novelty junkies who decided she was too uncool 8 years ago; she hasn’t gotten any younger and hipper since then. Yeah, everyone is sticking with her now, but after the first high-profile endorsement goes to Fauxahauntas or Crazy Uncle Joe, I predict dozens following. Hillary’s only hope is to hang onto the idea that she’s inevitable and none of her challengers are serious.

      1. Their problem is that Obama could hide his far-left ideology behind centrist platitudes and of course the press was in love with Historic First Black President. Warren or Sanders will have a much harder time.

        I think people underestimate the chances Biden will win the nomination. Hillary is too corrupt and the others are too extreme or totally unknown.

        1. I don’t know if Biden could secure the nomination. Even the left knows he’s senile. Bernie Sanders on the other hand is gaining a lot of traction with his brilliant political philosophy of “free everything for everyone”.

          I’ve been on the fence as to whether the country is beyond the point of no return for several years, and if he’s nominated, and Finagle-forbid, elected, it will be a foregone conclusion.

      2. And the MediaMatters/former ACORN money is pouring in against Webb and Sanders. If Biden tosses hat in officially, it could get really strange, in terms of who is protesting who with whose money.

        1. Yeah, watching the lefties eat their own at the Sanders event in Seattle was very popcorn-worthy. Now that their Messiah and Prophet is out of play, and there’s not another obvious one to replace him yet, at least there will be some entertainment value in the next 15 months.

      3.         Hillary’s accomplishments?  She spotted Bill as a comer way back when, and snagged him.

        1. She also successfully ran Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” war room twenty years ago, sending out James Carville and George Stephanopoulos every Sunday morning to go on the talk shows and slander whichever woman had accused Bill of rape that week. “When you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park you never know what you’ll find!” Clearly this is a defender of the poor and the powerless, and a defender of women from those who would abuse them. Clearly, sir.

      4. Every election, I stand there with my card and marker and think, “three hundred million Americans, and it comes down to choosing between these two (or three) bozos?”

        I still advocate the Powerball election system. When the balls generate a valid Social Security Number, that’s who fills the office. Doesn’t matter if they’re senile, imprisoned, “abled”, or whatever. Yes, we’d get some bad politicians that way… but realistically, how much worse could they be?

        1. ROFL. I’m totally laughing. No those aren’t tears and I’m not weeping. Seriously. *suspicious sniffle* Anyway, how sad is it that I actually went “hmm…that…might…” before smacking myself? It really *is* that bad. :-/

          PS: what about SSN’s that are stolen/manufactured for…”undocumented immigrants”? :-p

        2. Well, to be fair, with the Powerball system the people who are really in charge wouldn’t be any different.

    1. The USA is lost regardless. You don’t kill 50 million human beings for sake of convenience and escape judgement.

          1. So God is going to punish the United States for abortion? Is that what he is saying?

          2. God is the universe’s number 1 abortionist. 2/3rds of embryos don’t make it to term.

          3. The problem is you ain’t God, to make that decision. What I want to know is when you’re going to pardon Mengele? After all, he said the same thing.

        1. It just religious superstition which is fine as long as we don’t use it to constrain the liberty of the non superstitious – but alas the religious right thinks their mythology should have the force of law. Reminds me of a line from one of my favorite songs:

          “So youre screaming bloody murder about the Taliban regime
          For subjugating women and being too extreme
          And basing legislation on some ancient, holy book
          Does that sound a bit familiar?
          Heres a mirror, have a look! ”

          1. Actually, the only reason anyone screams about the Taliban is that their religion says kill all non Muslims; there is nothing in the New Testament that says anything remotely like that, liar.

          2. The religious right thinks no such thing. Prove it, retract it, or stand denounced as a vile liar.

          3. We all notice that you didn’t attempt to provide evidence for your delusional assertions.

          4. IOW, you try to claim the people you hate are like the Taliban so you can feel all righteous. Except if they were like the Taliban you’d be fleeing for your life.

          5. numbers, I’m a pro-choice, pro-SSM Wiccan. I have no use for the Christianist loonies pounding away on their keyboards screaming ZOMG! MOLOCH-WORSHIPPING BABYKILLERZ!!1!!!!1!, but to equate them with murderous assholes who are actually killing babies (and women, and gays, and anyone at all they deem insufficiently pious) often in particularly gruesome ways, shoots right past stupid and into total idiocy. That kind of asshattery is exactly why SJWs are due only contempt and mockery. You might as well be typing with a crayon. Get back to me when Operation Rescue starts lopping off heads.

      1. Oh, look, somebody scribbled something on the wall over here.

        “Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.”

        Whatever could *that* mean . . .

      2. I wrote a long reply to you, and the internet are it. I clicked post comment, and…poof. Anyway, I upvoted you. A!Eric has many wounds to heal and far to go before we can say that the Constitution is more than a shredded piece of paper again. And our descendants will look back on the innocent, helpless babes we’ve slaughtered, or permitted to be slaughtered, in the name of “equality” and recoil in disgust. Oh, and “SJWnumbers”? The Democratic party is the one that supports suppressing puberty and mutilating little boys and girls. That mirror? Have a look in it yourself.

        1. I edited it, but, again, the comment system ate it. Here:

          I wrote a long reply to you, and the internet ate it. I clicked post comment, and…poof. Anyway, I upvoted you. America has many wounds to heal and far to go before we can say that the Constitution is more than a shredded piece of paper again. And our descendants will look back on the innocent, helpless babes we’ve slaughtered, or permitted to be slaughtered, in the name of “equality” and recoil in disgust. Oh, and “SJWnumbers”? The Democratic party is the one that supports suppressing puberty and mutilating little boys and girls. That mirror? Have a look in it yourself.

  5. Republicans: Walker as President, Nikki Haley as VP (do you really think the Confederate flag thing happened in a political vaccum?) – alternate VP Fiorina.

    Dems: Clintron as President, unknown as VP. Perhaps a governor from a swing state.

    Sanders – can’t run as a Dem. I am amazed that no one is talking about the fact that he is a registered Independent. He can’t be on the primary ballot in many key states (think NH or 5 of the 6 Super South states) unless the state Democratic Party Committees pass a motion to permit it – Clinton has those committees sewed up. The role he is filling is that of the scrub mare who is in estrous and is used to fluff the stallion at stud, i.e. he is firing up the base.

    1. Elections in this country are won or loss in the south. The Confederate flag has enraged so many it is scary. The flag rally at Stone Mountain in Georgia had heavily armed people show up. It came within sight of going out of control.

      1. Yes – it is indicative of the Republican Southern Strategy losing steam. Who would have thought it would take this long to take down a flag that is roughly the US equivalent to a Swastika?

        One of the things I am looking forward to before I pass on into the great nothingness, is the final death of Dixie. Can you hear the death rattle?

        1. Since the Southern Strategy was debunked long ago, the rest of your analogy is equally inaccurate. If Dixie is dying, why are people moving there from blue heavens like CA?

          1. Snelson,
            SJW numbers has already stated he is one of those Blue Boils that infect the anus of the great state of Texas. My guess is that he would not be a native but some socialist hell hole transplant, and knows from personal experience what you are talking about. And, you just used logic and common sense against a Liberal. They are immune.

          2. Fine Eric, I’ll concede the point.
            Maybe all Liberals are not Social Justice Warriors.
            However, every last stinking Social Justice Warrior IS a Liberal.
            So sorry if we failed to make that oh so fine distinction.

          3. Now, now. Can’t expect the drone to go off script. Too much of a strain on SJW’s poor overworked neural net.

          4. I don’t know about the Southern Strategy being over – if a candidate w/p/s in the first primaries (NH, IW etc.) and then sweeps Southern State Super Tuesday on 1 March (FLA, TX, GA etc.) that is likely game, set and match.

            If the ‘classified material on her server’ imbroglio sticks to Clinton, then expect Biden to step in.

        2. Not trying to be That Guy, but I have noticed over the years that all the exact same people who hate the Confederate Flag hate the American flag too, for all the exact same reasons.

          1. he exact same people who hate the Confederate Flag hate the American flag too

            Not exactly concurrent sets but a lot of overlap.

          2. I dislike the flags of the CSA because I hate the Democratic Party, and have little regard for their attempt to take their marbles and go home.

            The folks who want to dig up the dead and deface memorials are being hypocritical, because they are not cleanly sweeping all signs of the Democratic Party from the record. They aren’t proposing that Wilson, FDR, and JFK, fraudulently elected by white supremacists, be erased from history, so they are clearly picking and choosing what is convenient now.

            Secondly, the six flags over Texas are Spain, France, Mexico, Texas, CSA and USA. The Aztec Triple Alliance, symbolized by the Mexican flag, was at least as evil as the CSA. If the CSA flag causes white supremacist crimes in and around Texas, then certain other crimes in and around Texas are caused by the inappropriate display of the Mexican flag.

            I would not myself display the CSA flag, or the Confederate battle flag, but I am angry over that act of political grandstanding and intimidation.

        3. You are consumed by the thoughts of something/someone you hate being destroyed, and yet think you are a good person?

        4. SJW Numbers- You really should go and read Hunter S. Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72”.
          At the end, when asked for his analysis of the McGovern loss, he does not jump on the Southern Strategy/Racist Poopyheads bandwagon.

        5. The Republican Southern Strategy was to invade, burn everything between Atlanta and Savannah, end slavery, and eventually capture huge numbers of voters when their incomes rose in the late twentieth century.

          Ingenious, really.

          1. I’m sensing college sophomore. The sneering condescension despite a demonstrable lack of knowledge, the painfully apparent lack of real world knowledge and experience, and the obvious parroting of talking points he does not understand all point to this.
            Which is to be expected- many of us were smug little know-it-all gits at that rather naive stage of life.

    2. You do know you’re talking about the Democrats, right? When have they ever bothered to follow their stated rules when what the want to do is in conflict with those rules? If the Dems see Hilary tanking, those rules will mean nothing.

  6. What scares me is if Trump goes Perot and decided to run as a 3rd party candidate and basically splits the non-hilary voters, thus guaranteeing a Hilary win.

    And Cruz is the man I want in the first place and have wanted for quite a while now.

    1. At this point, who cares? The Hildabeast is unlikely to be any worse than Obama, and only marginally worse than ¡Jeb! would be. I doubt American’s problems are going to be fixed at the ballot box.

      1. I’ve pretty much resolved that if Jeb and Hillary are coronated as the nominees, or if it’s Jeb, Hillary and Trump, I’m going to vote “Hemp Ropes and Streetlights” on the presidential write-in ballot.

        Because in a sane America none of those three would be anywhere near the nomination . . . and the country’s screwed whichever one of them wins.

    2. Trump won’t run as a third party, he just refused to say he wouldn’t, because he knew it would raise more attention if he did that. The only reason Perot ran was because he HATED BUSH PERSONALLY. He had no intentions of ever winning (Perot was an ass like that I’ve been told by people who worked for him), he just wanted to make sure that Bush did NOT win.
      Trump knows as a third party he couldn’t win, an he won’t throw his money away like that.

      1. Your assuming he would be planning on winning. As Larry Corria mentioned he isn’t really a republican. He supports most of the democrats platforms, and has donated plenty of money to the Clintons. He could simply be purposely splitting the republican vote to guarantee Hillary wins. Sure it might cost a bunch of money initially, but I bet Trump could still turn around and make a bunch of his money back off of a “failed” presidential bid, maybe even turn a profit. On top of that having the president personally owe him for her win, would be an extremely valuable to a guy like him.

          1. The “birther” thing was during his first attempted run, back in 2012. That bit of demagoguery didn’t really take off.

          2. Do some research, the Birther thing was started by……Clinton! Its why Obama hates Sid “Viscous”Blumenthol. He was the Clinton hatchet man that started the thing on the ’07 primary trail. Its hardly Top Secrect E-mail or anything.

          3. Well considering the whole birther red herring washed up in the hillary camp back when she was fishing for the 08 nomination, I wouldn’t rule anything out

  7. Larry,
    As an Ohioan I can assure you that Kaisich is as establishment as Yeb and Christie. In fact, he is probably more so. This is the guy who expanded Medicaid in Ohio and said that his faith was the reason he had to do it. The real reason is he wanted that sweet sweet federal cash to make it look like he balanced the budget. In 2017 when that money dries up it is going to make our state budget look worse than when he started out.

    I hope you are right about Cruz. He will mop the floor with Hilary if he can get her to show up to a debate. The man knows how to argue and he knows his issues inside and out.

    1. Kasich isn’t a bad guy, per se, and he is clear on the fact that he’s a Republican and not a Democrat. But otherwise… eh.

      OTOH, he has a really good combat accountant for State Treasurer, and he’s made some other good picks. He’s not out committing felonies every day, either, and he’s clear on the fact he’s elected. So he’s definitely not the worst thing that could happen.

      1. I will agree with you on Josh Mandell. His website that shows every check the state writes and to whom is one of the greatest ideas ever. I am really not a Kaisich fan though. He is not a criminal but he quickly abandoned many of the promises he made the base to get elected the first time. I think the reason he got reelected had more to do with his lack of opposition within his party and from the criminal democrat who ran against him.

    2. “I hope you are right about Cruz. He will mop the floor with Hilary if he can get her to show up to a debate.”

      Hillary, on why she backed out at the last minute on the first Cruz-Clinton debate:

      “I unexpectedly had to launder the cash… I mean, launder the cat. Besides, at this point, what difference does it make?”

  8. I don’t disagree with your conclusion but would like to know your thoughts on why Cruz is outpolling Paul (I, like you, prefer Rand Paul over most of the others but don’t have too much of a problem with Cruz other than him being a bit of an unknown quantity in my books).

    — G.K.

    1. More presidential hair? Nobody can imagine a President with hair that looks like that guy from the Pet Shop Boys.

    2. Also; Paul is weak on immigration, which is the Schwerpunkt issue right now. As Ann Coulter keeps saying, if we keep losing on immigration, nothing else much matters.

      Cruz is my top pick, but he could really stand to learn a style lesson or two from Trump. He doesn’t have his charisma, but some of that can be learned.

      1. Yeah — I’m not too wild about any of their views on immigration. They all keep focusing on the Mexican border and I get it; that’s a hot-button big topic issue. I’m worried about the HB-1 visa issue thing, though, and how it’s gutting the STEM sector right now.

        1.         Immigration is the issue that illustrates what modern politics is really about.  The culture of the U.S. is to be destroyed, by running in immigrants faster than we can assimilate them.

                  And faced with the choice of doing something about this, or putting up with it, YOU ALL will put up with it.

        2. Yeah, sure. 95% of our LEGAL immigration is BS and fraud, and our immigration policy—both with regards to legal immigrants and illegal immigrants both—is societal suicide.

          Any candidate can have my vote if the adopt the following platform: Shut down the border hard. Take every EPA and IRS employee that hasn’t been jailed, give them a gun and put them on the border if they want a federal job. Tell them to shoot anything that crosses it, even if it’s just a jackrabbit. Nothing gets across.

          Take every immigrant—regardless of country of origin, legal status, ethnicity, or anything else—who’s on any kind of government assistance, who’s convinced of any kind of crime, who’s overstayed his visa, who came here under fraudulent conditions (in other words, about 95% of them from the last 30+ years)—and dump them in Tijuana. Tell Mexico that I don’t want to hear their complaints, because we’re on to them and we ain’t having any more of it. If they don’t like it, we’ll consider their actions in encouraging plunder of the American people via their border policy as an act of war and will take them down hard.

          Any candidate who backed this position—even the Hildabeast or whack-a-doo socialists like Bernie Sanders—would get my vote if I thought they were serious about it. Any other problem can be undone. Immigration is the most difficult one to undo. The window to resolve it relatively non-violently is closing fast. Soon, the only solution will be Reconquista 2.0.

          1. heh. when my family first came to US, on legal refugee visa (long story), we were on public assistance for a bit. I don’t think it was longer then maybe 6 months? but that gave us an opportunity to get situated, for my parents to brush up on their English (they tried to study it before moving, bless them, but its hard enough to learn a new language when you are older, its harder when you have few opportunities to practice with native speakers), update necessary licenses and find jobs, for me to find a job.

            going to be 20 years in a few months since we’ve been here, got our citizenship about 12 years ago, but.. we are still immigrants, as we weren’t born here. mom and dad are both still working full time, I’m freelancing, husband is working full time. no public assistance since that first initial period to get situated. husband is also first generation immigrant, also was on public assistance at first, to give his family opportunity to get situated. none of them are on public assistance now. but with your plan? neither of our families would have been given a chance.

            I know of so many immigrants who had help at first and are now not merely productive members of society, but are certainly far more productive and hard working then some of the born in USA people I’ve lived around at some point. doctors, nurses, engineers, programmers, etc etc. your “solution” will not fix anything. your solution is throwing baby out with bath water.

            and in any case, unless you are native american? at some point, your family were also immigrants. founding fathers families were immigrants. the whole appeal of this country was that you could come here and have an opportunity to make something of yourself. and some time that may require some initial assistance. limiting how long that assistance lasts? sure! your plan though… your plan would hurt more of the kind of immigrants that you WANT in US than the kind that you don’t.

            P.S. at this point I will vote for damn near anyone who is not Hillary (excepting Trump but i don’t see him making it to final ballot anyways), regardless of their party association, even if my current preference, based on her platform is Fiorina – not that I’m fully behind her either its just out of all candidates her platform seems to align the closest with my own beliefs, that and for all the mixed opinions on her management of HP.. I know that before she took over, HP wasn’t even on my radar, after she took over? one of my current PC’s is an HP, the one I’m typing this reply on actualy. say what you will but with her at the help HP’s became viable alternative to Dell and the like.

            either way, I hate voting for the lesser evil, cause its still voting for evil, but in case of Hillary, I’ll make an exception.

          2. “…and in any case, unless you are native american? at some point, your family were also immigrants…”
            Horseshit comment, unless you somehow think the Noble Savages evolved in Ohio.
            Americans have every right to legislate who can and who can’t come into their country, and to demand the removal of those who came here illegally.

  9. I’ve got at least one decently-connected friend laying down Kasich as the eventual nominee.
    He’s arguing that the BIGGOP wing still has enough influence force to win, and that the rest of the factions will be too divided to pick a selection in time. Of the acceptable BIGGOP candidates, Bush/Christie/ Kasich/Rubio, Bush is too damaged of a brand & he’ll be jettisoned soon, Christie is too belligerent and not from a swing state, and Kasich is a governor with the resulting executive experience over Rubio.
    Kasich also has significant ties to the Bush administration, so He’ll be able to pick up all the connections once Jeb drops.

    1. I hope your friend is wrong Peter. Kasich would be a formidable opponent and I want the other side to win. I don’t think he is going to make the mistake of adding a Sarah Palin to the ticket which bailed us out once before.

        1. Eh, don’t play mind games with folk like numbers up there. Do what they HATE. Research and make an informed decision.

  10. I think your analysis is very realistic. Personally, I favor Fiorina, but I think she’s still a long-shot for the nomination.

  11. I personally like Rand Paul on a lot of things, but I don’t think he’s got a chance in hell. Two core issues for the GOP this cycle are foreign policy and immigration, and he’s vulnerable on both.

    At this point, I have no prediction for the GOP side, but I think Biden has a real shot on the Dem side. He doesn’t have Hillary’s baggage and he’s not Bernie Sanders either.

    1. I cannot believe that Biden has any chance at all at the Dem nomination and would be an instant loss in an election if it did happen. Not even the Dems take him seriously. No one else can claim to be the presidential candidate endorsed by Osama Bin Laden (see SOCOM-2012-0000019 obtained in the Abbottabad raid). One of the many examples of the incompetence of Obama was whatever cynicism (assassination insurance?) or irresponsibility led him to make Biden his VP.

  12. “Every time you share one of those, an accountant dies.” My first thought was “uh oh, Larry is an accountant.” Second was a mental image of Tom Stranger tossing less valuable accountants in front of Larry.

  13. Nice summary.

    Personally, I’d take Cruz, Walker, Paul, Rubio or Carson. I don’t think Trump is electable.

  14. Boy. All the Smart People are gonna look really stoopid when Trump gets the GOP nomination . Impossible! Can’t happen! Flash in the pan! Uh huh. You too, Larry, ya big lunkhead.

    But relax: It’s going to be fun, and entertaining. Hillary will win, but she’ll win no matter who the GOP puts up. How do you compete with Free Stuff and Sit-on-your-Ass? THAT’S today’s winning platform!

    1. Impossible is a good word choice for Trump winning. I think I might have gone with asinine though.

      As for that whole fatalistic bullshit about an inevitable Hillary win, the GOP has won more at every level other than POTUS than at any time in the last hundred years, Hillary has far more baggage and far less appeal than Obama, and in statistical terms his last election was a nail biter. Whoever the republicans go with, this is the GOP’s election to lose.

      1. I’m not totally convinced that Hillary will be the nominee. Keep in mind that she was the “inevitable” nominee 8 years ago. I don’t think Sanders or Biden will get the nom, but as a left-wing fan of yours, I can tell you that we’re all pretty much looking around the room for an anybody-but-Hillary candidate right now. Sanders isn’t drawing huge crowds because he’s Sanders. He’s drawing big crowds because he’s not-Hillary.

        1. Sanders needs to grow a beard to be a proper Marxist. And letting those girls run him off his stage was really sad.

          1. Poor little Bernie. He can’t even preside over his own speech on his own podium with his own microphone. Some random hoodrat just walks right up on stage, takes his microphone away from him, shuts him up, and shuts him down, leaving him slinking away with his tail between his legs, whimpering like a whipped dog. And one of his aides has to help him off the stage.

            Oh, what fun Vladimir Putin is going to have with him. And the Ayatollahs. And the Chinese. And Kim Jung-Il.

            Bernie Sanders is a cowardly little weakling who should have retired from public life thirty years ago. You people in Vermont, I’m ashamed of you.

        2. Frank, I don’t know you; but you have my instant respect for admitting on this forum that you are a left-winger.

          1. lol. I can take care of myself. 🙂 I actually first came here because of Sad Puppies, then took the online version of Larry Correia’s course, then stuck around to follow the content. I’m one of those very rare creatures on either side of the political spectrum: I’m someone who can change their mind, particularly when presented with new evidence.

      2. @Correi45, since we all know you don’t actually care what a bunch of random people on the internet think about you, do you mind sharing which candidate you would prefer at this point? No one’s going to hold you to it come election day (which is a long way off); and I’m genuinely curious. Of course, this is still America, so if you want to tell us “Go piss in a sink, it’s my business who I vote for.” That’s a valid answer.

        1. Don’t rightly know yet, because there are a few I need to know more about before I can make an intelligent decision. Currently, I’ve been a fan of Paul and Cruz in the Senate.

          1. Fair enough. Being from Texas, I’m biased towards Cruz; but am also waiting to make a decision. Was curious to see what you thought, thanks.

      3. this is the GOP’s election to lose.

        Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory would, however, appear to be a GOP specialty.

      4. “Whoever the republicans go with, this is the GOP’s election to lose.”

        Yeah, but that’s the problem. They are very good at it.

  15. …and meanwhile, back at the abortion clinic, more organs are harvested for resale.

    Just like back in the 1940’s, just outside of town, humans were killed and burned to ashes in the millions.

    Judgement is coming, irregardless of who is elected president.

    1. Planned Parenthood did no wrong, and its so-called scandal is exactly the kind of red herring non-issue that the Left tosses out every election cycle to see if we’re stupid enough to waste effort on it. Please, just once, let’s not be.

      1. Nope. They did all sorts of stuff that if we had a functioning DoJ that cared more about law than Obama’s political allies, they’d would be prosecuted. Even without prosecution, those tapes are a huge PR disaster for Planned Parenthood, that at MINIMUM makes them look like a bunch of desensitized ghouls.

        No longer giving them half a billion dollars in tax money is a no brainer

        1. They shouldn’t be getting any tax money in the first place, but I’m of the opinion that there are lots of federal funds going places that it shouldn’t. So many organizations that could be defunded.

      2. @jdgalt You are missing the boat on this big time. Have you actually watched the videos or are you just glomming onto the narrative that they are doctored and aren’t really that bad?

        I know there is a segment of libertarians who think that social issues are losers. I can agree that there are some I simply don’t care about or think that the government shouldn’t be involved in to begin with. Abortion is one that I do care about and it is overwhelmingly unpopular with the general population when it comes to abortions at stages where the “fetus” looks a whole lot like a baby. This is a winner with 60-70% of the general population opposing the Democrats position. Just because they scream “women’s health” doesn’t mean that people are going to believe them and they know it.

        The way this organization has gone about this is genius. They knew that if they just released 1 or 2 videos the media would dutifully ignore them and the Democrats would spin a short time and then let the issue die. By recording ~10 videos that contain more and more grotesque behavior and releasing them on a weekly basis they keep the story alive. It also has the hilarious effect of disproving the spin story PP comes up with because the next video shows them doing exactly what they denied doing the previous week.

      3. Since the organization that released them has NOTHING to do with the Left, and the unedited videos are stomach churning examples of both the “banality of Evil” and obvious violations of Federal law against abortion for body parts which no one who actually watched them would consider a red herring, you’ll understand why I’ll ignore your concern trolling.

    2. Still puzzled by the downvotes…unless it’s because of “irregardless” because…that’s just wrong. It’s *regardless* dangnabbit! Other than that, yeah. If folks who love near a PParenthood had to witness the more lucrative side of their business, they’d do the same thing that the townsfolk who lived next to concentration camps did in many cases once they were forced to face what they had ignored was happening right next door: eat a bullet. Mutilated infants have that effect.

      1. I think it may be more with the general attitude of ‘God is going to destroy us for our sins so don’t try’ that seemed rather rife in that post.

        1. Ohhh. Well, I read it more as “Genocide has a price, and, even if we stop the slaughter now, we’ll be paying that price, in guilt, in shame, and sure, in eventual examination by a higher power, regardless of who we elect.” I get that it’s not exactly a pretty picture to paint of the future, but honesty isn’t always pretty. Sure, I love my Nation, but I’m also fairly certain that the bad, sometimes horrific things that my Nation has, as an entity, allowed to be perpetrated within its borders, by people claiming to belong to it, have a cost associated with them. The Germans are still paying for the Nazis. What makes this any different, aside from its widespread and vocal defenders? A Holocaust is a Holocaust, no matter how tidy, and Holocausts have moral, and sociological, costs associated with them. I figured “The Observer” was just pointing that out. I do get how it could be seen differently though. Pardon if I sound too negative…heh. *sheepish look* Talking about this sh!t brings out the pessimist in me, I guess. :-/

  16. Carson was a big dissapointment for me. I loved his speech at the prayer breakfast a few years ago, and most of what I’ve heard from him was solid gold. Then Ferguson happened and he had to open his cheesepipe. Specifically, he went on record as feeling Wilson was justified in his shooting, (so far, so good, ) but that the whole scenario could have been prevented by training police to shoot for the legs. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect a doctor to know the finer points of use of force, but I expect him to have heard of the femoral artery.
    Throw in the fact that he’s gone on record as saying cities should be held to a different standard for the second ammendment then rural areas and I’m convinced that he doesn’t have the saavy for the big leagues.

    1. I’m thinking Carson could do more good as a cultural figure than a political one at this point. The job of getting our country back to the point where “more free stuff” is not our rallying cry is too big for just the politicians, and I’m thinking Carson could do a lot of good in that fight.

      1. Carson is very deliberate, which is what you want in a neurosurgeon. That’s not necessarily what looks good on camera, or comes across as rallying the troops.

      2. Dr. Ben Carson as the Sec. of Education? He’s a great example of how far a thirst for learning can take a person, no matter how far down the totem pole they started. No better person to surgically remove the Progressive cancer infesting the Dept. of Education. I mean, its not like Brain surgery or anything 🙂

        1. Me, I want Mike Rowe as SecEd. For reasons beyond the head-exploding it would cause, but not many of them.

  17. My ticket is Walker – Rubio. If the unions in Wisconsin haven’t managed to ruin Walker by now, it can’t be done. They couldn’t even find a way to make shit up about him – so in my opinion, he is untouchable. Walker also plays the “normal guy” card better than any of the rest. Rubio as Veep for one simple reason – FLORIDA. He may not bring in the Latino vote (what the hell does that even mean?) but he WILL get the Cuban vote in a critical swing state. (Side note: Normalizing relations with Cuba right now wasn’t an afterthought, you know – that was carefully calculated. By the time the election rolls around, enough families will have been reunited, folks will have made their first visit home in decades to see Papi and Mami’s graves – all the rancor will be washed away or left to a few bitter old farts. That was a deliberate attempt to make sure the Cuban vote in FL was fair game and not a lock for Rubio or Cruz.) ANYWAY, Rubio will (hopefully) sit as #2 for eight years, while he matures and develops his own platform, and be poised to be the heir apparent. Lord knows we will need 16 years minimum to fix the crap the current Butthead in Chief has done.

    I like Ted Cruz as the Junior Senator from the Great State of Texas, but he would be a train wreck as The Man. He is too much of a wack-a-doo on a lot of issues, especially social issues. I don’t vote for people based on how they feel about social issues – I vote based on 2A, border security, immigration, taxation, and national security. And I agree with Cruz on a lot of things. What I don’t like is that he is TOO “hellfire and brimstone”. It’s fine for a US Senator to be a firebrand – there have been many great statesmen who were – but he is less “Well, my personal opinion is…” and too much “MY opinion is the only one that is right and true and screw you and what you think!” That’s not a good look for a President – we have one of those in the WH right now and you see how that’s worked out for us.

    Trump is unelectable, but what I do like about him is that he is angrily expressing many of the same frustrations a LOT of people in this country are thinking right now. And it’s not just the angry-fascist-hetero-normative-misogynistic-patriarchal-religious-cis-males thinking it either. (Did I miss any?) If I had the money and the level of DNGAF that he has, I would be saying a LOT of the same stuff he is, and maybe not as politely. He is crafting the debate to suit his purposes – forcing the others to actually **answer** questions rather than their usual platitudes and talkyspeaky nonsense, and people are cheering for him. Sanders is doing the same on the pinko commie liberal SJW side and the establishment (D) are freaking out.

    So I thank Trump for that. Ain’t gonna vote for him, but I do thank him.

    1. Rubio is probably needed for the republicans to carry Florida, and Florida is essential in this election.

    2. Cruz isn’t firebrand enough. He needs to absorb some if Trump’s style to win. Your electability triangulation us what gave us Dole and McCain, and your brushoffs are what would give us another Reagan landslide.

    3. If Cruz’s views on social issues are unacceptable to you, I can’t imagine how you stomach Rubio, whose views on abortion are to the right of Cruz’s (i.e., no exceptions at all).

      Then again, I stopped believing people actually believed their reasons for voting for someone way back in ’96. An acquaintance told me that he was voting Clinton/Gore over Dole because Gore was in the military. Clinton’s “I loathe the military”, the fact Gore was in the press pool smoking dope instead of seeing actual action, and the fact Dole was a freakin’ war hero with the physical disabilities to show for it? Didn’t make a dent.

  18. “If Lindsey Graham got elected president I’d volunteer for that one way trip to Mars, and if that was a no go, I’d build my own rocket.”

    This just in Scalzi registers as a Republican and comes out as a Lindsay Graham supporter.

  19. Cruz has a lot of backers from what I can tell. Even though I vote for him here in Texas I just don’t think I want him as president. He’s just too goofy. I like Walker. I’m hoping after all the poseurs fall away that he’s the man left standing.

    And, “and he looks a lot like a young Grandpa Munster” damn near caused me to develop a hernia from laughing so hard!

  20. Most awful possibility: With so many candidates, the primaries are all over the map, and no one emerges as a strong front-runner. We get a brokered convention, the conventions tells us You’ll Get Jeb and You’ll Like it. Hillary is elected in a landslide and makes Jeb her Pet Republican nano-weasel in charge of Open Borders as a reward.

    So about that Mars probe, Larry, how big can it be and is Orion drive still on the table?

    1.         Every campaign, someone talks about a brokered convention, and every convention since 1952, the guy who won the most support in the primaries gets the nomination on the first ballot.

              IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.  Not today, not tomorrow, not ever, NEVER!

  21. I think everyone is missing the obvious. The democratic candidate will be Barack Obama again, I’d be willing to bet on it.

      1. If she doesn’t run for office now, I feel comfortable predicting she will later. Automatic votes from the Obama congregation, endless “historic!” fawning by the media and leftoids… seems too good to pass up. That’s unless she really hates being in the spotlight as much as it was rumored at one point.

      2. Fantasy rumors about Michelle are a fantasy past time for the right wing conspiracist. I am still waiting for that Video tape of her to come out and sink Obama’s chance at winning the election. That and Mitt Romney’s landslide.

    1. Every election cycle this same bullshit comes up. It’s either [outgoing pres] “is going to declare martial law and cancel the election” or “is going to use some loophole to run for a third term” (or military action, or executive order, or bla bla bla).

      I had some progressive friends who were ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that Bush Jr. was going to refuse to stand down after his 8 years and set himself up as Pres for Life.

      It ain’t gonna happen.

      1. I’m also pretty sure Obama wants out- he’s really not a guy that rolls with the punches, nor handles criticism well. Contrast Bill Clinton who seemed to thrive on negative press.

  22. I’m completely entertained by Trump.

    It’s really too early for me to worry much about any of this. I believe there are 17 candidates? Hopefully soon one (or more) a week will start dropping out. I heard on the radio that Perry can’t pay his staff, so he may be one of the first to drop out.

  23. As a nanotech-enhanced attack-weasel, I take offence at your assumption that I would work for a bat like Hillary.

    1. No offense was intended to the nanotech enhanced attack weasel community, and you have my sincere and deepest apologies.

      1. Gad! Even the nanotech enhanced attack weasels are offended these days! Will nobody stop being butt-hurt? Yeesh! >:(

  24. Your prediction is pretty close to my best hope (best halfway realistic hope anyway–the odds of getting an ideologically libertarian candidate with a realistic view of foreign policy within even long range missile range of the candidacy are long at best).

    My fear is Trump pulling a Perot, running as a third-party/independent while still mouthing at least a few conservative platitudes thereby splitting the conservative/libertarianish vote handing the White House to Hillary even _without_ fraud.

  25. I tend to agree with Larry. One more point on Cruz is that, next to Dr Carson (a brain surgeon), he is by far the smartest GOP candidate. I wish he had more of that Reagan-ish charisma, but I hope his pure intelligence can compensate.

    1. I’ll take Jindal for $1000, Alex. He doesn’t get a lot of attention, but Jindal is a scary-smart geek boy. Unfortunately, he debates and comes across as a scary-smart geek boy, so he has almost no chance of being elected.

      1. Yeah, I was surprised how much I liked him when I did some research. He is a smart fellow. Sadly, you’re right, he isn’t likely to win a primary OR an election for president.

        1. I’ve really liked Bobby Jindal since he first became governor, but I don’t think there’s much chance of him going far.

  26. I still expect Walker comes out ahead of Cruz as the candidate most likely to unite the party. From the talk I’ve seen, apart from the occasional idiot Trumpkin, no one on the right who’s heard of Walker actually opposes him. He’s a second or third choice for a lot of conservatives, but no lower than that. And of the major Republican factions, Walker’s the only one that doesn’t turn off any of them:

    Establishment/pragmatic Republicans: Favor Jeb/Christie/Kasich, OK with Walker/Fiorina/Carson/Huckabee, opposed to Cruz/Paul/Rubio/Trump

    Religious conservatives: Favor Huckabee/Walker/Cruz, OK with Jeb/Rubio/Fiorina/Carson/Kasich, opposed to Trump/Paul/Christie

    Libertarians: Favor Paul/Cruz/Walker, OK with Fiorina/Carson/Rubio, opposed to Trump/Christie/Jeb/Kasich/Huckabee

    Tea Party: Favor Walker/Cruz/Paul/Rubio, OK with Fiorina/Carson/Trump, opposed to Jeb/Christie/Kasich/Huckabee

    Anti-Immigration: Favor Trump/Cruz/Walker, OK with Fiorina/Carson, oppose the rest.

    At the end of the day, Walker has the lowest negatives and the best track record. Unless he actually makes a major error at a debate (rather than just being mostly a nonentity like at the first debate), I think he’s got the best chance.

  27. (Still getting that stupid “social plugin not configured” thing, grumble grumble…)

    While I’m in no way a Trump fan, I have noted one particularly amusing side effect of his candidacy.

    On another forum (won’t link or identify it, they’re tetchy about importing or exporting drama), the majority of the members apparently think he’s the lefty equivalent of the Antichrist, or at least the bogey man the way they talk about how the Sanders/BLS thing makes a Trump or Cruz presidency a certainty. It amuses me (possibly too much so) that something that’s so unlikely as Trump actually making it to the top GOP slot sets them into such a frothing rage.

    1. It’s really funny how bent out of shape people are getting over Trump. So far he’s able to put both feet in his mouth and come out smelling like a rose. But eventually, he’ll do himself in with something or another.

  28. Unfortunately the only way to get someone to do the job well would be to elect an honorable, hard-working individual who doesn’t want the job…

  29. “Lindsey Graham… Holy shit, just shoot me now. If Lindsey Graham got elected president I’d volunteer for that one way trip to Mars, and if that was a no go, I’d build my own rocket.”

    And I’ll volunteer to help.

    In 2008 I told all my friends, “If McCain picks Graham as his VP candidate, I will vote Democrat out of spite.” If he’s the nominee: I will vote Democrat out of spite.

  30. Regrettably, I don’t think the Republicans have anyone who can beat Hillary. The race is quite literally hers to lose. The question is: why? There are two reasons in my mind: 1) The Republicans don’t have an actual platform other than “We’re not those people!” and 2) what platform the Republicans have is antithetical to concepts of liberty and freedom.

    They desperately need to win because a) Congress is up for grabs, and b) lots of Supreme Court justices may retire or die and then be nominated by the next President thereby potentially shifting the balance of the Supreme Court for years to come and defining two or more succeeding generations.

    Republicans will not win unless they acknowledge that they’ve been out of touch with freedom and liberty and get a program that’s really consistent with the notion. Let go of the “culture war” – it’s been lost. Gay marriage, abortion, universal healthcare, these are all wars they fought and didn’t win (no thanks to Republicans who crossed lines there or the Supreme Court, see above). It’s over. Move on. Try a campaign based on respecting peoples’ freedom like: I) Americans value their privacy therefore we’re going to place real and meaningful limits on domestic spying and the acquisition and sale of personal data; II) Americans hate being unduly restricted from harmless pursuits, therefore we’re going to scale back the drug war to focus on the really destructive ones like meth instead of cannabis; and III) remove licensing and limitations on suppressors and so-called short-barreled rifles since the distinctions are all but meaningless nowadays anyway and pass a national reciprocity act so that concealed carry permit holders’ rights must be respected in all states – you know, the whole “privileges and immunities” Constitutional thing.

    This would not only co-opt significant portions of the Democrat base (watch the ACLU’s head explode!) it would demonstrate a real commitment to the core values that differentiate America from everyone else.

    The only viable alternative is for every single Republican to go out and literally drag all of their non-voting friends and family to the polls. Even then, it probably won’t be enough without a message that sells.

      1. It is an appropriation of private and public funds to buy votes. The government denied it was a tax, but the only way the Supremes could contort the case to be even plausibly Constitutional was to find that it was, in fact, a tax. They should have proceeded to the rational conclusion that, since the government denied it was a tax, it was not presented to the public as a tax, therefore it could not be sustained as a tax and had to be struck down. Still, it’s all water under the bridge, over and done.

    1. Cadeyrn,
      Yeah, its a damn shame Republicans didn’t just win the mid terms in an epic landslide. Your so right that wanting less soul crushing big government makes people less free. If that pesky George Washington had only given up that lost fight 250 years ago, to smoke a bowl, why…. We’d all still be good little subjects of the Queen!
      I do however, totally agree with you about CCW, so I won’t tell you to just fuck off.

    2. I personally would love to see a candidate who runs, and wins, based on a platform of individual liberty; I just don’t think it is very likely to happen.

      Both parties have drawn fairly arbitrary lines in the sand, and polarized the voters around them. Republicans are against gay marriage, Democrats are for it. Democrats are for abortion; Republicans are against it. Republicans love guns; Democrats hate guns. And so on.

      Every election cycle, both parties energize their base by screaming about their stock set of issues as loudly as you can. Democrats are all bloodthirsty baby-killing monsters ! Republicans are evil gay-bashing bigots ! Republicans want you to get shot with guns ! Democrats want to take away your guns and shoot you with them ! And so on and so on, ad nauseam.

      There’s just no room for someone who says, “hey guys, can we stop it with the outrage for a sec, and focus on what the NSA is doing”, because he will immediately be denounced as an evil baby-killer, and evil gay-basher, or possibly both, and then the electoral-media complex will roll onwards. The barrier to entry is just too high.

      1. Largely correct. Also, the NSA has co-opted all of the politicians. Is it even possible for them to vote to restrict domestic spying? Problematic.

    3.         Ah, the great Supreme Court mirage.  It never dies.

              It doesn’t matter which party wins the White House, or which people get put on the Court.  The decisions will amount to ‘the Progressive platform is required by the Constitution’.  When the crunch comes, its conservatism who get crunched, always.

      1. Well yes – there is a right to liberty.

        But conservatism doesn’t always get crunched. There is that Citizen’s United decision.

        1. And a relative tiny handful of recent decisions like DC vs. Heller that have deceived, sad to say, the pro-gun-rights people into thinking there’s been a sea change.

          For example, in my opinion Heller vs. DC was symbolic only, in the sense that Federal court orders pertaining to it are even now being contemptuously ignored by the governments of not only Chicago (see also, McDonald vs. Chicago) but Washington DC, against whom the decision was handed down seven (7) years ago. Nothing is happening. No consequences are being created. The Supreme Court is refusing to take up further firearms-related cases that might allow them to clarify certain aspects of the new policy or directly order certain states–California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, etc.–to comply with the law.

          If the Powers that Be give a tinker’s damn about enforcing a Supreme Court decision, the 82nd Airborne tends to show up in town to hold the offenders at bayonet point and carry the message that further noncompliance will be met, not with strongly worded letters, but with force.

          Heller and McDonald were an accident. Just as soon as whoever next occupies the Oval Office, D or R, can nominate a few more doctrinaire Marxists to the Supreme Court, it’ll be walked back and dropped down the Memory Hole. Sooner than you think, too. Cultural Bolshevism requires it. The Narrative requires it. The Revolution requires it. What’s a moldy old piece of paper scribbled on by a bunch of dead pale stale males got to do with anything?

          1. The second amendment should be repealed. It really is an awful goof. Seems that Hamilton was right and Jefferson was wrong. We had a constitution. We didn’t need a bill of rights.

            The second amendment does not say “guns”. It says arms. And it says that the right to those arms cannot be infringed. It literally grants Donald Trump the right to a hydrogen bomb – or anyone else. No – one can’t limit guns such as assault weapons under the second amendment. Nor any other kind of weapon.

            Or …. we could just say the founders didn’t mean what they said. Or we could endorse the rather bizarre carving out done by Scalia.

          2. “but but but nuclear weapons” is a red herring. Nuclear weapons are so expensive and resource-intensive that creating one requires the resources of a nation-state, and success still eludes many nations after decades of research.

            Otherwise? I rather like having rights, thank you very much. But to get to the root of the matter: Citizens are armed, because a state can only exist legitimately at the pleasure of the citizenry and not one instant longer. The people must maintain the balance of power and no government can ever be given a monopoly on the means or use of force; such a government would no longer be legitimate. The state serves the people. The people do not serve the state. This is freedom. We don’t have a king, we are not royal property, and would-be conquerors are advised to bring plenty of body bags.

            In any event guns are not, never have been, and by definition cannot be a social problem. See also, Switzerland, safest nation in Europe despite having a “gun culture” centuries older than America’s and which on a per-capita basis purely dwarfs ours, as well as having access to all manner of neat toys that the Nine Kings in Black on the Supreme Court have arbitrarily denied to American citizens. Compare the violent crime rates in Geneva or Bern with those in London, Paris, Stockholm, or Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, while noting that at least in the UK the government has admitted to cooking the statistics to make things seem less bad than they really are (“we shan’t count this incident as ‘murder’ until there’s been an arrest, a trial, and a conviction, which may take decades if it ever takes place at all…”).

            Thus, citizens are armed. Slaves are unarmed, for obvious reasons. You appear to be uncomfortable with this. Have you considered leaving for some nation with a social contract more to your liking? You seem not to like it here. And this isn’t Cuba. This isn’t North Korea. You’re allowed to leave.

          3. You do realize that there’s more in the BoR than the right to bear arms?

            Love the silly H-bomb canard. But it’s good to see you demonstrate that you understand the 2nd Amendment.

            You can tell that when the H-bomb ploy gets trotted out that someone’s getting desperate.

            Always good for a laugh. Thanks.

          4. I do. So did Hamilton. But Hamilton’s argument was… well let Hamilton explain it to you…

            “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John…It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. “We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government….
            I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? ”

            Rights are not a matter of constitution. Rights are a matter of being. Powers are matters of constitution and governmental powers are those granted. All other matters remain with the persons.

            Madison agreed with Hamilton but he eventually split the baby in half and guarded against enumeration strict constructionist with the 9th amendment. Madison said:

            “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution. ”

            That was the introduction of the 9th amendment which says plainly:

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            So to all those that would disparage gay people by how they show affection and shout “sodomy isn’t in the constitution” or to those that would force women to carry pregnancies to term because “abortion isn’t in the constitution”, I simply reply… sure it is.

            As to the second amendment – it is poorly thought out, poorly written and an all around bad idea. But it is what it is.

          5. The right to murder for conveniences sake is most certainly *not* enshrined within the Constitution. Indeed, the right of each and every citizen to not have their life, their very breath, stolen from them by callous, selfish, monstrous tyrants such as yourself is one of, if not *the* fundamental principles within that Constitution. Just because a toddler has his or her voice stolen, his or her lungs ripped out, and a woman forcibly links him/her to her body, making that toddler incapable of surviving for nine months without her body, does not make that voiceless, lungless little girl or boy subject to that woman’s realization that she made a mistake in grafting that innocent child onto her body, and she would really rather snuff out that little boy or girls life than have to deal with the inconvenience of bearing him/her around with her wherever she goes. She chose to make the child helpless, and even if she didn’t, the child is innocent, and cannot be removed without committing the horrific crime of murder upon a helpless babe. Inability to speak, or breath on ones own, are not the metrics used to establish whether cutting a person to pieces is, or isn’t, murder. Or at least, they aren’t for the humans among us. You, plainly, are not human. Please, please argue that “they aren’t children, they’re unborn fetuses!!” I love when you call babies babies…in Latin. Or maybe you’ll call them “blastocysts” or “clumps of cells”… Yeah, and selling a worthless clump of cells will get you a ” Lamborghini ” as one PlannedGenocide employee put it, in a recent video. News flash: all living things are “clumps of cells” …that doesn’t make them any less alive, or unworthy of protection from your and your friends’ murderous intentions. In a sane world, this wouldn’t even be a question. You(and your friends)’d be considered (a) mass murderer(s) waiting to happen, and locked up, pending a comprehensive psych eval. But in this world, you are allowed to promote genocide as a “sacred right” of all women. Delightful.

          6. Bib wrote: ” Or maybe you’ll call them “blastocysts” or “clumps of cells”…”

            That would be correct at a stage of development. A fertilized egg isn’t a person. An abortion isn’t murder. You are welcome to your opinion however and my advice would be for you to not have an abortion. We call that “choice”.

            You know it is rather funny. Getting all riled up because others don’t share your opinion is what the pup packs are all about, yes?

          7. You are welcome to your opinion however and my advice would be for you to not have an abortion. We call that “choice”.

            Does that apply to other things? Don’t like guns, don’t get one? Don’t like theft, don’t steal? Don’t like rape, don’t commit it? No need to pass laws against them.

            Or maybe “don’t like X don’t do it” isn’t the automatic “answer” you feel* it is.

            *started to type “think” there but “thinking” has little to nothing to do with your posts.

          8. As to the second amendment – it is poorly thought out, poorly written and an all around bad idea. But it is what it is.

            Ah, you’ve gotten to the “it’s true because I say so” level of desperation.

            Did you have problems downloading the latest script?

          9. As to the second amendment – it is poorly thought out, poorly written and an all around bad idea.

            Actually it’s quite clear, well written, and concise. That it doesn’t say what you want it to say does not change that.

            Sweetened condensed milk, being necessary to this recipe for key lime pie, the right of farmers, to keep and raise cows, shall not be infringed.

            Nobody but a complete idiot would suggest that the right to keep and raise cows put foward here was limited to sweetened condensed milk, that only the sweetened condensed milk has the right to keep and raise cows. Yet the exact same construction is used by people who hate the idea of an armed citizenry to claim that it only recognizes the right of a militia to keep and bear arms.

            Even more inane is that by doing so they are claiming that the Founders thought the 2nd necessary for the government to arm its own troops when that power was already given to Congress in Article 1.

            The only real question is which one of the proponents of that idea are stupid enough to believe it, and which ones know its a lie but think we are stupid enough to believe it.

          10. Really, I swear that SJWnumbers is an actual poster and not a spoof account I use to try and make progs look stupid. Poe’s Law and all, I know it is hard to tell sometimes, but I promise.

          11. Writer in Black said: ” Nobody but a complete idiot would suggest that the right to keep and raise cows put foward here was limited to sweetened condensed milk, that only the sweetened condensed milk has the right to keep and raise cows.”

            That’s a lot words to argue against a point I was not making. I actually agree with you that “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”. If you your neighbor wants to keep grenades, he can keep grenades. That’s why it needs to be repealed. What Scalia does is try to rationalize what kind of cows one can keep – to use your analogy.

          12. Oh son, do you really think you have any possibility of repealing one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? If you could even come close, you’d be fomenting another civil war. And trust me, your side wouldn’t be the winners.

          13. Indeed. But maybe SJWnumbers *wants* to spark off a second civil war. I really don’t know.

          14. “poorly thought out, poorly written”

            And that’s bullshit. It means exactly what it says, exactly what it’s intended to say, and serves the exact purpose it’s intended to serve. It’s only idiots who desperately want it to mean something else that find it at all confusing.

            Grenades? Did you know that the army has a training manual on improvised weapons that includes both homemade firearms and homemade explosives? It’s ostensible purpose is use by special forces to train foreign insurgents but it’s available online. I have it in PDF.

            That manual includes explosives manufacture using ordinary, readily available, chemicals. If someone wants the functional equivalent of a grenade, they can have one. All laws against it accomplish is to keep them out of the hands of the law abiding, the very people who _aren’t_ a threat to others.

            The second is there for a damn good reason: The Right to Life must, inescapably be coupled with the right to defend that life. And the right to defend that life must, inescapably be coupled with the right to the effective tools of same. To deny the right to keep and bear arms is to deny the right to life. The same for the right to liberty. (of the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”.




            (Multiple links so this will probably go into moderation, so I hope Larry clears it soon.)

          15. Actually, at the time of writing, common citizens could own cutting edge “military” hardware like cannon, canister and grapeshot for same, warships, ect.
            Don’t forget the BOR was written by people who had just finished a revolution, who had a distrust of standing armies, and who modeled their new government after the best points of the Roman Republic. One of those points was civic militarism- where the citizens possessed arms and fought for the state directly in times of need. Or, if needed, they could throw out a government grown corrupt or abusive (King Tarquin for instance).
            Remember, professional standing armies were petty universally despised and detested until roughly after the Napoleonic wars. Being personally loyal to the monarch, they were often used to oppress the population. That the founders would intend the 2A for a standing army under the control of the state is ludicrious.

          16. Nicely put. Also, there were pistols with 10+ barrels in use at the time (pepperbox) and even a primitive Gatling gun! (Idk if you know this, Jo, but I’m assuming our friendly neighborhood anti-gun-nut doesn’t) Single shot muskets were common, sure, but the Founders were knowledgeable mem, and were well aware of just how dangerous and destructive weaponry could be and how much more dangerous it could get. That was their point. If you want to remake the Constitution, that’s one thing, and I’ll be happy to fight to prevent it. But saying “it doesn’t matter, because ‘the future!'” is not a valid tactic, no matter what some incompetent, intellectually dishonest Supreme Court justices may have said. It’s either valid, and the document we base our nation and laws upon, or we need a Constitutional Convention. It’s that simple.

          17. Never mind. Found it. Sheeeit I’m a little scared to know how easy this is to find! Forget 3D printed pistols, the feds should be shitting themselves over *this*! *shiver*

          18. Ahem…PDF? Ya don’t say… That wouldn’t be an easy PDF to find, would it? I’ve made black powder, but it’s never a bad idea to know *more* ways to make things go bang. In my opinion, of course.

          19. What if rights are the obligations of the state to the citizen under the social contract?

          20. Thankfully others have chimed in to school you once again on writings you barely understand, let alone have read comprehensively.

            So much bullshitting just to try a bait and switch with gay marriage.

            Your trolling loses its punch when it gets this schizophrenic.

          21. Nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive and, even with current restrictions, it’s only that rather extensive, and large, infrastructure is needed to produce them that keeps them out of private hands.

            And despite all that if someone like Trump really wanted a nuclear weapon I suspect that they would have one, restrictions or no. Yet what would he want it for? What possible reason would justify a wealthy businessman spending that much money on a nuke? It doesn’t make money for him. It doesn’t increase his “quality of life”. He’s not threatened by foes that the deterrent effect of nuclear reprisal would stop. Why would he possibly want one?

            Other WMD’s? Chemical weapons are easy. With my rather basic knowledge of chemistry, I could come up with several different chemical weapons, including war gasses. Imagine what the guys who really know chemistry could do. Bio? A bit harder but the anthrax attacks of some years back show that’s doable too.

            As for Hamilton, it’s funny you should invoke him. The reason he opposed a Bill of Rights is because 1) he didn’t think it was necessary–the Constitution gave the Federal Government no power to regulate the press so why the need to specify a free press? and 2) if you did put such a Right in there it might lead people to think that the government would otherwise have that power and begin to look for other powers not explicitly granted. (This comes straight out of his writings in the Federalist Papers, BTW.)

            The anti-federalists claimed that without a Bill of Rights the government would immediately begin infringing on rights. The anti-federalists were right.

            The federalists, on the other hand, claimed that a Bill of Rights would lead to the Government deciding it had the power to regulate anything not explicitly listed and expand its power far beyond its intended scope and end up infringing on the Rights of the people. The federalists were right.

          22. Hamilton has become my favorite. To me his vision of the nation and then later his vision of the constitution seems to be the correct one.

            To see that one should read Scalia’s dissent in the Lawrence case. This is a case about gay rights and their liberty to express their affection to each other. Scalia is on the wrong side of that case and if you read his dissent you have him arguing for state police powers to be able to regulate masturbation. What a novel argument from a justice. Not so novel for conservatives in Texas. The Texas Republican platform in the past advocated putting people in jail for making wrong love with the wrong consenting adult.

            And at one time Scalia would have been right. There has always been since the beginning the struggle with conservatives over a states right to limit personal liberty. You would have thought the 14th would have settled that. I think the shift in demographics will do that eventually. I hope to see Dixie finally die.

          23. If Hamilton were your favorite, you couldn’t be a leftist.

            Unless you mean that phase where he wanted a monarch over the new United States…

          24. And yet Hamilton was a strict constructionist, the Federal government has no power not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution.
            The first Amendment was unnecessary because The Feds weren’t granted any power to regulate speech, the press, religion, etc. The second unnecessary becuase they were not granted the power to regulate arms. And so on.

            If Hamilton is your favorite how can you possibly support any of the 99% (at least) of the stuff the Federal government is doing that isn’t listed in the Constitution?

            Or maybe you’re just taking a Humpty Dumpty approach to words, “a word means exactly what I say it will mean, neither more nor less.”

          25. Writer in Black Said: “If Hamilton is your favorite how can you possibly support any of the 99% (at least) of the stuff the Federal government is doing that isn’t listed in the Constitution?”

            To Writer in Black:

            You know – it is nice to read a well thought out argument without animosity. Thank you for that. To answer your question, consider the Jefferson/Hamilton debate over the establishment of a National Bank. Jefferson arguing that the word “necessary” means required and Hamilton saying that “necessary” in that since would be nugatory. “Necessary” often means no more than useful according to Hamilton.

            Jefferson writes to Madison for help. But later Madison is President and charters a Second National Bank. During the debate, Washington sides with Hamilton.

            Fast forward to 1937.

            The case is Helvering v Davis. This is the 1937 decision on Social Security. Justice Cordozo would write the opinion noting that the Federal government can promote the general welfare and has a constitutional power to tax. Accordingly, it has a constitutional power to spend. Said Just Cordozo. This is Hamilton’s broad expansive reading of the constitution. Says Cordozo:

            “Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare”. Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. ”

            And with that logic we have a social security system although you don’t find the words “social security” in the constitution. It is a constitution. It isn’t a statue.

          26. “Settled by decision?” No such a thing. Decisions, especially at the Supreme Court level, have not been eternal and immutable. They have been overturned, and can be again. As to the Constitution not being a statue, of course it isn’t, no one ever maintained that. What it is, is a contract between the people, the states, and the federal government. The various clauses of this contract have been more or less observed over the past 2+ centuries, but have now been fairly comprehensively violated by the federal government. Such violation in any other contractual arrangement would cause the contract to be voided; I suppose the argument could be made that that has happened here too, since the Feds don’t appear to be paying much (any) attention to the Constitutional clauses they violate routinely.

          27. Of course he’s your favorite. He advocated a strong central government with all control flowing down, rather than a federal system with substantial authority staying with state and local governments. You statists are all alike.

          28. Your commentary is an elegant synthesis of both Brandolini’s and Poe’s Laws.

            I know you’re trolling, but I just can’t resist jumping on the Correct SJW90210 Train.

            No one was denying gays the right to express themselves through marriage. Gays have always been able to get married. They have always been able to enter into legal contracts with one another. So please, spare us all the beauty pageant argument about “affection”. Submit it for a GEICO commercial.

            Lawrence was never about affection, no matter how many Hallmark cards Kennedy ripped off in his Opinion.

            To avoid Brandolini’s law and save myself an hour, I’ll leave the rest of your bilge alone.

          29. You must know that you can’t possibly win on that position. Are you really stupid enough to try?

      1. Yep. None of them are seeing what Trump is exposing. The big issues at this moment are immigration and PC. Not the Libertarian dream list.

    4. @Caderyn: After reading pages of comments, this is the first really smart one that I see.
      Completely correct. GOP should look at Canada and see how Harper constantly kept winning elections by ignoring social red herring issues like gay rights and abortions. It is time to move on. Gay marriage is accepted by all except the older generations who are beginning to die out, luckily. Going against gay marriage will also lose independent votes who have conservative economical leanings but progressive social leanings.
      Yeah, but it won’t be happening this time. If somehow the GOP nominee wins, it’s because of Hillary lack of charisma and the various issues surrounding her.
      If Hillary wins on the other side, GOP has a very good chance to win but they might blow it by nominating unelectables likes Ted Cruz.

      1. Dream on. You’re living in the standard leftist fantasy world; those of us here in the real world know that you’ve opinions aren’t remotely based on reality.

          1. That’s about the only case it’s true. The vast majority of the time, reality skews hard to the right.

          2. Funny enough, I’d say that the “Right” is moving in a more Libertarian direction, while the Left is sliding towards Statism.
            (If I wanted to get really nasty, I’d mention that “returning to Statism would be a better way to express that thought. SJ Numbers may go on regarding the ‘Southern Strategy’, but remember that Mao, a definite Leftist, was murdering millions.

          3. Polls are, by their very nature, ephemeral. Furthermore, it’s well known that virtually any result desired can be obtained by tailoring the questions properly. The only reasonable conclusion is that you’re pushing your agenda and hoping that no one recognizes the weakness of your argument. Well, or that you are deluded enough not to get that yourself.

          4. Polls can be tailored to “prove” a view is “correct” based upon whom you poll. The possibility of people answering polls not giving an honest answer (“Do you own guns?” “Nope!”) seems to be deliberately ignored as well.

            Though I do wonder why, if gay marriage is so popular, why their advocates haven’t won many statewide referendums and in fact have used the courts to impose it?

          5. And yet it seems to fail by large margins every time it was put to a vote. So do I believe your polls, or the actual votes?

            Might want to re-evaluate your understanding of bias.

          6. Judging from the flash mobs and use of lawfare against people who disagree with gay marriage I wonder how many in the polls Lothy handwaves about include people who said “yes” because they were afraid they’d attract attention and get their lives ruined?

            Sort of how some progs crow about “polls” saying gun ownership is low… except would you answer a question from a stranger on whether or not you were armed?

            (“I maxed out my Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer manifest a few weeks ago, does that count?”)

          7. Indeed. When you need to resort to judicial fiat to impose your views upon the citizenry, after failing to do so via majority vote, you can be fairly certain your view is not the majority view. Delusional/doctored polls are irrelevant beside real-world evidence of majority opposition to the views the poll suggests have majority support. If polls say one thing and ballots another, the polls are quite obviously wrong. Especially considering how much voter participation is witnessed during votes about such divisive issues.

      2. I would also like to note that the last Republican president quite famously courted his evangelical (socially conservative) base and won two terms.

        Now, you can make assertions about who’s electable and who’s not, and that’s all fine and dandy, but if you don’t have an ounce of reliable data or relevant examples to back up your claim, don’t pretend your unfounded assertions are smarter than anyone else’s.

  31. Sort of like when the government declared that Portuguese are Latino, and I was all like MWA HA HA HAAAAA I’M OFFICIALLY A MINORITY and they were all like oh shit what have we done?


    Cruz or Paul, from the very few times I’ve glanced at American politics lately, would be likely, but I’m in Australia so take it with an ocean’s worth of salt.

  32. I’ve always thought the nominee would ultimately be Creepy Uncle Joe. I’ve heard that BamBam gave Hillary the nod, but there’s too much acrimony and he really doesn’t like Bill. Shrillary can’t concentrate on running for President if she’s fighting to stay out of prison, and who else is going to have a chance at the nomination? Bernie?

    Nope, I’ve thought all along that Creepy Uncle Joe was biding his time and would jump in after Billary was knocked out of the running. Heck, she has enough scandals to her name that they could dredge up a new one every other month without trying too hard. She gets indicted and has to drop out, and the Touchmaster jumps in to save the Dems from certain annihilation in the election. He picks Fauxcohantas as his running mate in an attempt to set up round three after he’s had his two terms.

    1. I think it was Maureen Dowd who had a story the other day about Biden visiting his son Beau in the hospital, and promising that he’d win the White House.

      That kind of story doesn’t get floated unless the person in question is thinking about running.

    2. Funny you mention prison. In Texas our attorney general Ken Paxton and former Governor Rick Perry are under indictment. Dear Ken was just told to allow recognition of gay marriage on death certificates of same sex couples or face a contempt charge.

        1. Ah, but if they keep shopping around for the right jury maybe one of them will stick.

          Justice, SJW-style!

  33. Been doing the Trump/Ronulan comparison for a while now myself.
    “But, but … Border!” yeah, what about his gun grabbing supporting, Kelo loving, friends with the Clintons, etc. etc?
    “But Border!”
    So far, prefer Walker. Like you, not sure he’ll get the nom. I’d be happy with Cruz. For that matter Perry, Rubio, or Jindal would be okay with me. I have issues with the others, or like you think “Why are you running? (Kasich sp?)” though I don’t doubt most of the Repub field would be better than 0bama. It’d take some work to be worse (but I do think Hillary would work at it)

  34. Speaking as a pinko commie socialist godless leftist, I’d much rather vote for someone like Bernie Sanders than for Hillary. Hillary isn’t even a candidate; she’s just a moderately complex device explicitly designed to channel corporate donations directly into policy. Which, I suppose, is somewhat refreshing in a free-market kind of way, but being a pinko commie, I think that letting government policy go to the highest bidder is not a great idea.

    That said though, I’m not convinced by your arguments against Jeb. From what I understand — and I don’t have many conservative friends, so I could be wrong — he’s seen as a kind of lukewarm, middle of the road establishment choice… which, ultimately, is exactly who you need to be in order to get elected (and why Bernie Sanders has no chance). Energizing the base is fine and all, but at the end of the day, the base is going to vote for whomever has “R” (or “D”) after their name, regardless.

    To win, you need to reach out to the moderates; and to do that, you need to be amorphous enough for them to project their ideals onto you. You also need cooperation of the media, name recognition, and well-oiled juggernaut of an election machine — all of which Jeb does possess, AFAIK. So does Clinton, obviously, so (assuming I’m right) it’s going to be a really boring race, less “robot weasel apocalypse” and more “mating slugs”, excitement-wise.

    1. Absolutely nobody with the last name Bush is going to pick up the ‘moderate’ vote, even if he’s not even related. Whoever it was above who called the name a damaged brand was spot on. It may not be fair, but that’s the reality.

      1. Yeah that is a good point. Somehow I assumed that the Bush name was mud only among Democrats, but on reflection you are probably right.

        1. Most (albeit not all) moderates are low-information voters. They’re not passionate about, or even particularly interested in, any of the issues, so they can’t be bothered to research the candidates. They just believe whatever the MSM sends to their TVs, and the MSM spent eight straight years hurling made-up mud at Bush like meth-crazed poo-flinging monkeys. So ‘mud’ is all a large proportion of the ‘moderates’ remember/’know’ about Bush, and that will transfer in their apathetic little minds.

    2. “but at the end of the day, the base is going to vote for whomever has…”

      There are people out there who refuse to hold their noses and vote for candidates who regard the party’s base with open contempt. Given the rather low turn-out numbers in election after election, I suspect there may be a lot more people in this category than is commonly thought. I can’t prove that, of course. But I suspect it to be the case.

  35. I think it will be Walker, watching the debates I couldn’t help but notice his face when trump was talking and trumps face when Walker was talking. I see trump gaining a rather large group of minions and supporters, but not quite large enough to when the ticket, then throwing his support over to Walker who walks (pun intended) away with the nomination. Personally Rand MIGHT convince me to vote republican, but the rest of the GOP can suck my libertarian snake

  36. Obligatory Ron Paul 2016.

    But seriously, whoever the next guy is, we’re just still ticking out the clock. I can see America’s “Romulus Augustus” being elected within the next few presidential election cycles.

  37. Trump is short-attention-span theater, and unfortunately passes for entertainment in the modern era of “ooh, shiny…” news following. Every time Fox features him, an investigative journalist weeps, and the Fox producers wring their hands and cackle manically.

    Cruz and Paul are just too far in the libertarian camp to be elected, though Paul at least has managed to sound less extreme now that he has better handlers. Coming off of eight years of uncompromising socialist “my way or the highway” partisanship, I don’t think the answer is to counter it with eight years of uncompromising libertarian partisanship. As Edmund Burke said; “All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.” I just don’t see that happening with either of them. Walker’s record with Wisconsin unions would also probably handicap him as too polarizing to get much done.

    Fiorina is interesting, though truthfully I’ve learned more about her in the comments here than in all of her news coverage so far. With experience in the business world, she could clear away a lot of the shenanigans currently passing for fiscal prudence on Wall Street, or she could turn it into a complete plunder-fest, depending on which way her moral compass points (or if she even bothers to check it).

    I agree with others that Carson is the smartest man in the room. But it takes more than smarts to be elected President, and Carson is on the outside looking in. He speaks his mind, and I think that he’s capable of learning (I think Rubio shares these traits), but he’s a lamb amongst political wolves, and barring some really good handlers coming into his camp, he’s not a contender. Surgeon General maybe?

    Bush has money, and is a moderate. Like it or not, rebels and radicals don’t tend to win major office. The old guard likes him, and the Tea Party will view him as the lesser of two evils, and try not to gag on their vomit as they pull the lever next November. Rubio would make a good VP for the ticket, and do a (small) bit to assuage the libertarians without scaring the moderates away. They’ve also got history (most of it good) and so might actually work together synergistically, instead of the last eight years where Obama has kept the only political deal-maker in his cabinet on a leash short enough to prevent the use of his (only) political talent. This synergy is dependent on neither going for the others throat during the silly season though.

    I also agree with the comments that long for a platform of definitive positions, but political reality works against that. To commit to a position is to make that position vulnerable to criticism (one lesson Obama has learned the hard way after being elected on a wave of flowery rhetoric). So, expect more Hillary bashing to go along with the illegal immigration and 2A rhetoric until and unless someone’s feet are held to the political fire before the Republican platform starts congealing out of its current amorphous form.

    WordPress’ security is still top-notch, in that it’s keeping me from logging in as myself. I wonder if Ukrainian hackers are having the same problem?

    1. You’re really misreading the tenor of the populace if you think folks from the Tea Party movement would accept Jeb in any way. If the GOP elite force him upon the party, the base will just stay home as they did in 2012. As for Hilary, she’s got at best a 50/50 chance of getting the nomination. I’ve contended for over a year that she won’t be the Democrat nominee.

  38. Obama is going to throw Hillary under the bus and put his own anointed forward at the behest of the old guard. Biden? Who knows. But Hillary is going to tank in the primaries. I agree about one of Cruz, Walker, and Rubio as a good bet for who will get the nomination. I like Cruz for his walk:talk ratio, PO’ing the RINO old guard, and being a staunch defender of the rule of constitutional law and civility in general. I hope he gets a coach that teaches him how to really smile. Like a smile that reaches his entire face. He needs to relax on camera and be the kind of guy that can spend an entire day fishing with the average rural US family and not talk about politics all day. And have the kids asking their parents when Uncle Ted is going to go fishing with them again. He needs unfurrow those browse and smile at least as much as Grandpa Munster did fer cryin’ out loud. He is a Nixon on camera, but that can be fixed.

  39. Please let it be Ted. Please – please – please…

    It won’t be Ted Cruz. Tea Partiers (and Tea Puppies) make a lot of noise but there isn’t that many of them. They do so because their world is changing . It will continue to change. I saw a bumper sticker that said “18% isn’t a minority”. I don’t know if Tea people are 18% but it is a pretty small group.

    BTW – Hillary is a centrist; people that say she is a socialist are just talking to their choir.

    I don’t know who the Republicans will nominate. My guess would be Jeb Bush. He certainly has the best chance against Hillary.

    But for those of you who think Ted is going to win, might I point you to what the odds say? Google William Hill or oddschecker or Betfair or any number of others. I see Fortune Magazine and ESPN are using William Hill. If you think Ted isn’t dead, this is a great time to make a bundle. Jeb Bush is 5/4. Ted Cruz is 25/1.

    It would be nice though. The Demographics continue to change which is why you see so much anger from the far right. If Hillary can pull this off, I might not have to put up with another Republican President in my lifetime.

    Oh – if you are stateside, you need a VPN to get to William Hill. This is because the Republicans shut down US online gaming when they attached the UIGEA to the Safe Port Act on the last day Congress was in session. It was done after the Senate passed the bill in a Conference report and then was signed by President Bush. Republicans have never been big on liberty.

    1. LOL!

      I’d say welcome back, but isn’t there a bridge you need to be at and some goats in need of molesting?


    2. Facts just aren’t your strong suit are they? You do realize that the Tea Party has been largely responsible for one of the biggest electoral shifts in modern history, right? No, of course you don’t. That would be empirical evidence – something which seems to give you fits.

      Hillary is a centrist? Hillary is a corrupt crony capitalist who’s trying to bribe the young vote by offering free tuition. She’s really riding the fence on that one. Then again, I bet you believe phrases like “deficit neutral” too.

      Did you write anything that was actually supported by any evidence after that nonsense? Because that’s where I stopped reading.

      1. She’s a centrist in the sense that… well, Bill was kinda sorta a centrist, I suppose. And Establishment Republicans act pretty much the same as the Hildabeast; just not quite as blatantly.

        But her rhetoric and actions are completely Marxist. She’s no centrist on any axis that is based on reality.

        1. Bill was only a centrist because he got dragged back that way by his congress. Back when the congress was still marginally useful and Presidents were still smart enough to feign ‘triangulation’.

          If Obama were half as smart as Clinton, we’d probably already have a functioning Politburo in place. Obama’s only advantage over Clinton is his dick discipline.

      2. Hillary is a centrist in the sense that if you’re living in an SJW bubble dome on Pluto, Neptune is centrist.

    3. “BTW – Hillary is a centrist; people that say she is a socialist are just talking to their choir.”

      Pop quiz; what are the differences between Hillary Clinton’s positions and those of admitted, proud, hardcore socialist Bernie Sanders?

    4. “The demographics are changing?” The demographics are BEING CHANGED. It’s planned. Deliberate. There’s a difference.

      People have noticed that they’re being colonized, marginalized, and displaced from the nation their ancestors built, by a tidal wave of tens of millions of criminal foreign invaders–the borders are wide open and every nation in South and Central America is emptying their prisons into America at Obama’s public invitation, even as he illegally prevents the Border Patrol and INS from doing their jobs and enforcing the law. Like the State in Berthold Brecht’s “The Solution,” the Democrats are dissolving the people and electing another.

      Damn straight, we’ve noticed. Damn straight, we’re angry. I hope very much that I’m wrong but I think we have long passed the point where we’re going to be able to vote our way out of this. I anticipate another civil war in this country, and sooner rather than later.

          1. Yes, he has Gollum, Gromit, Grover, Greenpeace, Green Eggs n Ham and other such things vying for control of his conciousness.

        1. The noted philosopher Yogi Berra once said, “When something can’t go on forever, that means sooner or later it’s gonna stop.”

          Either there’s a political solution or there isn’t one. But this can’t go on forever. And I would note that multiculturalism and wide-open borders killed Rome, killed Yugoslavia, are killing Western Europe, and–well, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I recall what Mr. Berra said, and I’ve read my history.

          Control of the borders and prevention of foreign invasion is what a state is for–it’s one of those things that’s so obvious and so fundamental that it’s not always immediately mentioned in enumerations of the social contract. And I believe that there’s something in the Declaration of Independence about abolishing and replacing states that don’t abide by their end of the social contract. I think we’re living in interesting times, as the Chinese would call them.

        2. I’m sorry, but following the overblown outrage and murderporn following the death of Cecil the Lion, the Left has officially lost the right to the “You’re Angry” attack.

        3. Somehow I doubt you notice anything. If you did, you wouldn’t be so comprehensively wrong about everything.

    5. Aw, how cute. The drone’s been told to try a lame attempt at reverse psychology.

      Go back and get a better script.

    6. Of course it won’t be Ted Cruz. But the typical commenters on this site think Obama tried to invade Texas or something, so predicting Ted Cruz as the nominee seems eminently reasonably by comparison.

  40. I don’t see how Hillary’s health problems are held off long enough for her to actually make it to the convention. I just can’t see her surviving the rigors of the campaign trail for even another 12 months.

    1. And she’ll counter Biden’s son’s deathbed exhortation with begging Chelsey to step into her place and run and become the nominee.

  41. NFW on Ted Cruz, Larry. Talk about economics, there is nobody in Wall St or Finance that would support the guy who put a gun to the head of the US economy by seriously threatening to trigger a default on US Treasury Obligations.. Quite the opposite. For the same reason that John Corzine did not go to prison, in the end Cruz will not get nominated, ever. Full stop.
    And you should know that.

    1. Actually, even after CRS ruled Treasury already has the ability to prioritize spending, Congress specifically passed legislation that explicitly demanded Treasury NOT default in the event they were not able to borrow more, and there was no reason they should default given that revenues are many times interest payments.

      The myth of default is one of the most pervasive on the left.

    2. The only ones threatening to default was the Administration. The Administration deliberately and with malice aforethought set out to make the “shutdown” as painful as possible for the general public.

      And the only people who don’t know that are the useful idiots fawning at the administration’s feet.

  42. I’m still worried about Michelle Obama getting nominated after her husband is tragically injured by (according to the media) a right-wing terrorist. She’s at least as qualified as Zer0 was 8 years ago, and Valarie Jarrett gets to stay in command.

  43. I hope you are right. I hope it is Cruz. Walker or Jindal would also be O.K.

    It might not be Hillary! if this e-mail fiasco is followed up honestly. I do not know if the FBI seized her e-mails to prosecute her for criminal actions, or just to hide them from disclosure to Judicial Watch for another few years?

    I suppose it all comes down to “Who does Obama want to succeed him as President?”

      1. Which is a slightly different variety of Marxism than socialism. So, if you want to split hairs, then sure—she isn’t.

        But what’s the point of splitting hairs? They’re both different heads of the same Marxist hydra.

      2. Hitler, a Fascist, was also a ‘National Socialist’.
        Hilary Clinton although ‘left of center’ in terms of US politics would be considered well to the right of center of almost the rest of the world.

        From a non-US perspective there appears to be trivial difference between most of your prospective Presidential candidates. The main apparent difference seems to be in gun control.

        1. Newsflash: This is an election for the United States President. If you, as a foreigner, want a say in this election, put on a sombrero and get your behind across the Mexico border.

        2. Then you have no concept of politics in the US. And from our perspective, pretty much all of Europe is on the left, in that you have all accepted and internalized the statist imperative, where the government is the first thought in response to any perceived problem. For us, that defines the left. Our right is made up of individualists, who believe that any perceived problem should be handled at the lowest possible level, by individuals if possible, but then by freely-joined private organizations, then by local government, then by state government. The federal government should only have authority in very strictly limited areas, tightly defined in advance (by our Constitution). I know, that makes almost no sense to you on the left (or Europeans, but I repeat myself, largely).

          Oh, and just so you know, we all realize that fascism is a leftist political and economic philosophy. The only way it’s on the right is by using your European definitions of left and right, which are completely different from ours.

          1. Europe has *always* been statist and ruled by an aristocratic elite. First it was kings and emperors, princes and barons. Now it’s the EU which has little support from the common people but is run by the usual political establishment . There has always been a political class in Europe that ran the various countries, which is basically an inherited caste. We are starting to trend in the same direction; rather than citizen-politicians, we are now generating a class of politicals where children follow parents (see the Gores, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Udalls and soon the Clintons.) It’s just a new aristocracy and still mostly inherited. It ends up with a ruling class that has no understanding of what the vast majority of citizens want, and the political class arranges things to suit their own interests and to hell with the people, they are just beasts of burden and cattle to be milked.

        3. Hilary Clinton although ‘left of center’ in terms of US politics would be considered well to the right of center of almost the rest of the world.

          So much the worse for “almost the rest of the world”.

        4. That was even more true during the Cold War, when the median citizen of the world lived in a Communist dictatorship. Maybe we should consider the possibility the rest of the world is wrong.

  44. At this point, I might vote for Cruz. I haven’t completely written off Walker like I have Rubio.

    As for Trump, I think he’s useful. Is he a conservative? Obviously not. Republican? In name only. I think some criticism of him is fair and some isn’t. But his value comes from his ability to smoke out the rats.

    What has almost every other Republican candidate done in response to Trump? They’ve all danced like little monkeys to the tune of the Democrat organ grinders. They’re so focused on denouncing him instead of seizing the initiative that he’s given them on immigration. That single issue is the biggest, most bipartisan, most poll tested issue that a republican could run with and, to my knowledge, only Cruz has said “Hey wait a minute, let’s look at the message instead of the messenger here.”

    It may not happen, but what this country actually deserves is Biden v Trump ’16. Might as well be entertained as we hurtle over the cliff.

  45. It is Trump or Jeb. That’s it. If Trump drops out, the GOP establishment will easily destroy the rest of the non-entities.

    And if it’s Jeb, then Hillary wins.

    (Yes, Jeb is lame and boring and non-conservative and should not be the nominees. You know who else fit that description? Bush Sr. Bob Dole. John McCain. Mitt Romney.)

  46. I want Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee. But I don’t see how he could get it because the GOP establishment hates him and they control who gets the nomination.

  47. Funny and accurate predictions, Larry.

    However, I’m afraid that an improvement over Obama, even the best possible one (Ted Cruz), might not be enough. With the Iran “deal”, we’re potentially looking at a Nuclear Holocaust, 100+ million dead, and World War 3 in a good 10-20 years.

    Although the deal can certainly be rescinded, the $150 billion in aid remains, and the sanctions won’t be lifted by either Russia or China.

  48. Rush advanced an interesting theory that the crowds surrounding Bernie Sanders are similar in size and energy to Obama’s. Hillary was annointed to be the candidate back then too until Obama gained steam. There are more Democrats that don’t like Hillary than there are fans of Hillary. I think I agree with Rush on that.

    I admit that I’ve been voting for Trump on the polling but my real candidate of choice is Ted Cruz. I voted for Trump in the polls because he has made debating big issues possible and he fights like Cruz does. He has also thwarted the bluebloods in the Republican party that want to eliminate conservative candidates. There is nothing better than making the RINOs cry. Now when the chips are down I’ll be with Cruz but make no mistake; Cruz would be given the beat down and he would be ignored right now if the bluebloods had their sights on him. Their sights are on Trump. I for one have had it with the Republican establishment. I’m not going to take another Dole or McCaine and vote for those idiots. If Jeb or Graham or Christie get the nod then I’m staying home. I’ll probably vote for any other candidate but my candidate is Cruz. I’m a Texan, and I’m proud to have voted and campaigned for him. He will be a great president.

  49. Thanks, Larry, for writing this. I just can’t decode US politics at all from over here. It all sounds to me as two right-wing sides argueing with each other. One has weird notion about almost no goverment other is so corporate focused that it stinks of Italian fascism.
    In the meantime our politics are getting either more socialist, it’s almost like getting laws in 1970 after Soviet intervention or getting sweet deals for bussinesman.
    Just read this wiki:
    And that’s our current Financial Minister. Few quotes about him from that wiki:
    “Babiš is the Minister of Finance in the coalition government of Social Democrats, ANO and Christian Democrats.”
    “In January 1993 Babiš became managing director of newly established Petrimex’s subsidiary Agrofert. He had suggested establishing Agrofert while he was a Director at Petrimex, and he gradually assumed full control over the new company. The (foreign) source of the initial financing for his takeover of Agrofert from Petrimex was still undisclosed as of the end of 2014.”
    “In 2013 Agrofert purchased the company MAFRA, publishing Lidové noviny and Mladá fronta DNES newspapers and operating the Óčko TV. Agrofert also owns Radio Impuls, the most listened radio station in the Czech Republic (as of late 2014).”
    “Babiš has been called a career communist who used his background with the StB (the Communist-era Czechoslovak secret police) to enrich himself.”

    So have ever one of your candidates been accused of being secret policeman snitching on his associates and basically being agent of foreign power and opressor of your nation? Or is your Financial secretary the second most rich person in your country and CEO of large number of big companies in your country. Do you believe that even if he resigned from his posts in financial world that he won’t prefer his previous companies?
    Yeah… I think our politics suck balls.

    1. I wouldn’t say one side wants almost no government. That camp just wants government we can afford and the government we’re supposed to have by law. Not really an Out In The Wings concept when you really think about it, but damned if it doesn’t get portrayed that way. But that fairly large cohort isn’t very well represented by their nominal political leadership, despite the fact that they keep getting that leadership more and more power.

      Though I’d certainly disagree with the characterization that fascism/corporatism is a right wing feature for reasons too long to get into here, it’s just a major problem in both parties. By your account, it looks like you’ve got the same problem over there. As best I can tell, the US has pretty much the same political ideologies of Europe, just with different distributions of people falling into each category. The main difference is that we only have two real parties to lump everyone into.

      To answer your questions – yes to both. It’s a bit tough to answer that first one since the US is so high up on the professional corruption food chain that no other nation really comes within orbit. I could easily make a case for a major, current Democrat Presidential Candidate. For your second question, see Jeffrey Immelt for a recent example or Robert Rubin.

  50. Hillary and her husband screwed over every Party member they ever dealt with… but that was 20 years ago, and memories have probably dimmed. And even where they’re fresh, most Democrats would vote for Satan Himself to keep the Republican Evil out of their rightful office.

    Nominations can be passing strange, though. Over at Galactic Journeys it’s August 1960 and the Republican National Convention just finished up; the smart money was on Lodge, with Dirksen having a good following. When the smoke cleared Nixon had the brass ring and everyone was standing around going “whaaaat?”

  51. You know this election cycle is weird when you find yourself looking at someone like Jim Webb and thinking “Damn, I wish he had a different letter after his name.”

  52. For the record, Larry, you’re the one who suggested a Costa Rican compound. I said a Trump vs. Sanders contest would be, quote, “hilarious”.

    I can’t afford a compound, man! No, I’ll be in the robot soup line (powered by Google, and reporting dissent to Homeland Security) with the rest of the proles.

    1. Actually, It may be Alphabet soup powered by Alphabet(tm). Google just opened a holding company by that name. Domestic spy drones? digital (automated?) voting machines? Sharks with freaking HEAD LAZORS?

      Sounds like a mission for DEAD SIX!

      Stop protecting our country (Thanks again for that) and get to writing! /crackwhip

  53. “If you had to name three elected officials in the GOP who have been the biggest pain in the establishment GOP’s collective ass over the last few years, it would be Paul, Cruz, and Mike Lee …”
    [I would add Rand Paul to the list, especially after his NSA filibuster (unless you discount all Congressional debates as theater, which they may be).]
    ” (that’s my senator! I don’t claim Hatch).”
    [I look forward to the eventual disclosures about Hatch’s corruption, he’s compromised and we will find out how once he leaves office]

  54. Larry, This article is the first thing I’ve ever read by you. The humor was very good. I’ll now think about buying one of your books.

  55. Looks like my post got eaten.

    Anyways, to recap Cruz’s book is pretty good and he should win Texas which will give him a big leg up because the state is so much earlier this year. If he can stay competitive elsewhere I think TX makes him the nominee.

    Also the GOP can’t win by trotting out “their” minorities because the GOP’s core is anti-identity politics. Cruz will win because he’s a great candidate and brilliant man, not because he’s Hispanic.

  56. The question I have is this- where’s the rising stars of the Democratic party?
    The 2016 field is basically a small handful of aging white hippies.

    1. FWIW, I’m a liberal, and I pretty much don’t even care anymore. I would love to vote for some sort of a hippy, but I can’t, because none are running. Instead, what I’ve got is a finely-tuned corporate machine with a mere semblance of a human face; plus a bunch of random stragglers. These latter ones have some good ideas, and they seem passionate about their policies (as opposed to just being passionate about their campaign funds), but they have zero chance of getting anywhere, so they aren’t worth my time.

      1. Yeah, you’d better stay home on election day. And have a party to entice your leftist friends to stay home, too.

        1. What’s sad is that, even if I were to take your sarcastic comment at face value, it wouldn’t change much. I live in a Blue state, which means that no matter how I vote, my state is going to go to the official Democratic nominee. If I lived in a swing district in a swing state, that’d be a whole different story.

          I would love to vote for someone who is committed to changing this deplorable state of affairs, but so far, no candidate from either party had stepped forth.

          1. Ok I am curious how you can say no candidates from either party have stepped who are committed to changing this deplorable state of affairs? Depending on what you actually consider to be wrong you have on the left you have Bernie Sanders and on the right Rand Paul (and personally I’d throw in Ted Cruz too but I am biased towards him so that could be affecting my judgment)

          2. Sanders pay lip service to campaign finance reform, which, to be fair, is better than nothing; but no amount of campaign finance reform will make your vote matter if you live in California or Alabama. Lawrence Lessig is IMO more committed to reforming electoral politics in general, but he’s not running for anything (and wouldn’t win if he did).

            I’m less informed about Rand Paul, but to me he sounds like “Ron Paul-lite”: more electability, less filling. He’s big on personal liberty issues (or, at least, so he says), as well as government spending, but he seems unconcerned with reforming the political system.

            To be fair, I don’t see why any politician would be concerned with that; the system is working in their favor more often than not…

          3. Bugmaster,
            If you wan’t to spice up the primaries, offer to be a body guard for Bernie Sanders. Looks like he needs a few.

          4. Yeah, so another thing I’d love to see happen — which it never will — is a shift in media coverage away from gaffes, amusing incidents, and wardrobe minutiae; and toward the candidates’ stances on issues as well as their voting records. But I have a feeling that I’ll be riding my own personal unicorn to to work on the Moon before that happens…

  57. ” Of the other candidates, who else would they support? A regular Rand ally, or one of the bigger government types?”

    I think for more than few the answer will be no one. Rand Paul has had trouble retaining his fathers ardent supporters, but there is at least discussions amongst libertarians on why it is in their best interest to support Paul. There is non on Cruz whatsoever.

    There are also Teaparty types who consider Ted Cruzs support of the “Freedom” Act or initial support in regards to extending the patriot act as a complete non-starter.

    Honestly I think a lot of older republicans are having a hard time realizing that more and more of the under-35 conservative/libertarian republican crowd have little to no party loyalty whatsoever and will not vote for someone by mere virtue of them not being a democrat.

  58. Sanders is the PBS candidate. That is, he’s the darling of the Masterpiece Theatre and NPR set. He’ll flame out early, like Howard Dean did in 2004.

  59. I didn’t know where to post this…I was reading Masaad Ayoob’s blog…he wants to meet you. He is a big fan, though you may already know it.

    1. Tell him Larry will be at Toadstool Bookshop in Milford, NH on October 29th. I believe Masaad lives in NH himself. I plan to be there myself, and heard a lot about Masaad and would love to meet him as well as Larry. It’s rare Larry get this deep into New England (especially the Live Free or Die state; Massachusetts hardly counts.)

  60. As a Wisconsinite, my current favorite in the race is Walker. I like Cruz, and would vote for him if he were the nominee, but I’d prefer someone with executive experience – and in Walker’s case, he has a track record of accomplishing what he says he will without letting the left intimidate him. That goes a long way with me.

    I’d love to see a Walker/Cruz ticket.

    1. Yeah, if they are both around when the dust settles. My one thing about Walker was how he weathered the long ridiculous storm against the unions. But I really haven’t learned much about him besides that yet.

    2. That’s pretty much how I feel. Being an executive seems to require an entirely different skill set than being in the legislator, and at this point I’d really prefer someone in the White House who knows what the heck he’s doing. I wouldn’t take any governor over any senator–Rubio and Cruz are both significantly better than Bush or Christie–but all else being equal, I’d prefer one, and Walker has shown himself to be both a good governor and a good candidate.

      1. Walker also wins, even in the face of furious leftista opposition. In Wisconsin, which is not exactly a red state bastion. He crippled the teacher’s unions there, He was elected Governor, trounced a recall election by an even bigger margin, and then was re-elected. He crippled one of the state’s most powerful unions despite boatloads of cash pouring in from out of state in opposition, and weathered a truly egregious politically-motivated witch hunt by the state AG.

        1. Also importantly, it also means that Walker has already been vetted. The left spent MILLIONS, and in the end broke all sorts of laws in a vain attempt to dig up dirt on Walker – but there (apparently) was nothing to find.

          If he had any skeletons in his closet, they’d have been unearthed during the circus that was the last two elections.

          1. This. I’m not sure how I feel about Walker, aside from a sort of warm fuzzy sensation when I think of the gnashing of teeth going on in Union HQ’s all over Wisconsin, but I am truly impressed by just how thoroughly the Leftist stormtroopers (they raided people’s homes…in SWAT gear…because they could. John Doe investigations are just such a joy!) vetted him. It’s almost like they were trying to save the GOP some cash by making it unnecessary for them to run any background checks! Hell, they would’ve given him an involuntary colonoscopy if they thought they could’ve gotten away with it! Talk about “clean as a whistle”! Or at least *insanely* good at covering sh¡t up. Shoot!

          2. There’s an excellent article on Walker at The Federalist, from which I quote:

            “Does Walker sizzle? Not exactly. Is he a particularly charismatic speaker? No, he isn’t. But does he sit upon a throne made of the skulls of his enemies? Yes, yes he does. The November 4 election proved that in a definitive fashion. And though we are a constitutional republic not given to men upon thrones, this particular throne deserves consideration for a national position…”

          3. Well, unless Walker learns how to sizzle he’ll be “That guy who everybody forgot about”. Politics rewards showmen more than policy wonks (sad but true), and while Walker would make an excellent choice he’s not going to peel voters away from the other runners unless he can grab a few headlines.

  61. People get all het up about Trump, but his candidacy begs the question. He’s running- not just way out ahead, but polling almost double the next most popular candidate in some polls, with lots of crossover support, and he’s doing it on exactly one issue and one attitude.
    The question is: Since a known Democrat like Trump can do so well with Republican voters just based on taking the hardline on illegal immigration and an in-your-face attitude, why why WHY hasn’t the Republican Party taken the wind out of his sails by doing the same with more acceptable candidates? Hell, Rick Perry ran himself right out of the race with his pro-illegal stance.
    Gee… it’s almost like a wave of amnestied illegals is exactly what they want.

  62. In regards to the Hillary email thing, I’m sensing a faction fight between the Obama’s and the Clinton’s. The Obama Faction is willing to throw the election to the Republicans to keep Hillary out- they just can’t look like they’re wanting to throw the game.

    So, they’ll want the investigation to trickle along as long as possible, until early next year or so. Then, forced by either Congressional pressure or public opinion, they’ll be shocked, SHOCKED! to find that Hillary was insecure regarding classified information.

    The Press will be harder to predict. Some may want to get the story out earlier, to force Hillary out of the race and make room for someone else (Draft Man-BearPig!). Others will be tired of 8 years of being mewling myrmidons for the Administration and hungry for a Republican president to kick around.

    However, most of the press and political insiders know that a loss in 2016 will finish off the Clintons as a political force. I’m sure there’s a few folks with quiet vendettas and long memories in the background.

      1. If you throw out all the places that had 140%+ voter turnout, the large districts that had 0 – ZERO – votes for Romney (after they illegally threw out GOP observers), etc., I imagine Romney *did* narrowly win the Electoral College.

        1. You mean (GASP!) that there was massive vote fraud ongoing in many Democrat-controlled locales? Why, how could that be? No one was convicted, or even indicted, for such. Oh wait, the Democrat-controlled locales would have had to be the ones doing that, wouldn’t they?

        2. And then there were… how many million absentee ballots submitted by ACORN and its successor organizations in each election cycle? How many million votes from Mr. Zig Zag and Mr. Crack Pipe, Mr. Jack Daniels and Mr. Johnny Walker, of no fixed address, who have no visible means of support, with no Social Security number nor anything else but the promise of an infamously corrupt organization that these people really really truly do exist?

          1. And before they went to vote, they clicked on Obama’s campaign donation page and dropped off $50 or $100 bucks. Heck, in both 2008 and 2012, I was able to donate $5 under the name Tyrone Shoelace and a fake address… but real credit cards. Not even a hiccup.

            Now, campaign finance law says you have to verify that each and every one of your donors is a US citizen, that they only give so much in total, if they are government employees or contractors. Think any of that was getting checked? No wonder Hamas ran a phone bank for Obama from the West Bank in 2008.

            Folks, I have 17 years with one of the top 3 B2B and e-commerce software providers in the WORLD. The software we install comes with automatic credit card verification; you have to deliberately turn it off.

            “But, where was the FEC?” Complaints were filed, with mountains of evidence. However, the FEC declined to investigate the Obama campaign in either 2008 or 2012. Hmmm, wouldn’t have anything to do with the FEC being run by a woman named Lois Lerner? Ya think, DiNozzo?

            Obama’s campaign got 1/3 of it’s money from those unverifiable donations. That should have gotten him disqualified.

    1. Whoever has the D behind their name will win, that seems obvious. Between the media going hammer and tongs against Cruz while letting The Dem get away with bloody murder, the breathtaking levels of voter fraud, and the likely addition of 3-4 million new Dem voters, it’s a foregone conclusion. The Republic is dead…..the last election was the last real one. The rest will be kabuki.

  63. Damn this is long. Find this an interesting topic. Note I am right of center. I am not as conservative as most of you. Going to talk about a few Candidates

    Donald Trump: He can’t win. There is a trump vote and then the not-trump vote is divided amongst everyone else. He is too undisciplined. Boo hoo someone asked if he was going to run as an independent. Grow some balls and deal with it. He will get worse questions than that. Most of us realize that. Plus he hasn’t figured out how to be opposed to illegal immigration without making racist comments. Yes his comments are racist and I am opposed to illegal immigration. We have candidates who know how to do that.

    Ben Carson: frustrates me. I agree with him when he says that we don’t need career politicians, but it doesn’t mean I want a complete novice. I want a record and I want to see that you won’t stick your foot in your mouth. Carson is from Maryland. We just took the governorship for the first time in a long time. There is a 5 term democratic senator that is retiring, so in 2016 there is a senate seat up that we can flip. Carson is the PERFECT candidate for this. 4-8 years from now, when he is in the senate (preferably 8 because then he can show me he can win reelection) he would be a serious candidate for president.

    I don’t have respect for candidates who don’t want to be bothered establishing a record. Having a record and spending 20 years in politics is two different things. I wish someone in the party would talk him into running for senate. He will never get the nomination. VP picks don’t matter unless you catastrophically screw up (see Sarah Palin). It will be a nice discussion that we pick a black VP, but it won’t make a difference in the election. VPs don’t do anything anyway. He would do more in the senate.

    Ted Cruz: We are screwed if he is nominated. He is an asshole. Thats all the negative research you need to run against him. The ‘trump’ vote combined with his own only puts him at 20-30% in the polls. After New Hampshire we will be down to just a few candidates so this won’t be spread out that much. I doubt he will get enough of the rest of the vote.

    I work in IT. I am an asshole too. Who is going to work with him? If he doesn’t get exactly what he wants he will attack people. You won’t get everything you want every time. Its the way a republic works. The negative ads run against Cruz will be republicans saying he is a backstabbing jackass. Rand Paul is a thorn in the side of the establishment politicians, but his fellow Republicans don’t go on TV and talk about how he is a total dick. He knows how to be conservative and have a personality. He also knows how not to backstab people. In order to win we need to win the swing voters. Running an asshole won’t let us win them over.

    Scott Walker: Likeable personality, conservative, but too soft spoken to stand out.
    His soft spoken personality is perfect to make conservative reforms in Wisconsin since that fits with the culture up there, but he doesn’t stand out in a crowd.

    When he was reforming education there were tons of protests against. People called him a Nazi. You know what he did back? Nothing. He didn’t insult anyone. He said you have a right to protest (which they do) and then he moved forward. If he had been aggressive in attacking people that would fail in Wisconsin. I went to high school outside St. Louis so I can speak to that ‘midwestern’ sensibility. A personality like that doesn’t allow him to stand out and establish an ‘IT’ factor in a field this big. Now he may be able to do that in 4-8 years if he runs again, but I don’t see that in his personality.

    Marco Rubio :is our best chance to win even the election. I am averse to him due to his pro-H1B stance. I know H1Bs. They make chicken shit compared to the rest of us. They are treated poorly also. Its why corporations want them.

    Brief rant on H1B Visa process(note not attacking H1B people themeselves).
    BTW, I have friends who are H1B, I know how much lower the wages are. I had one friend who called himself an ‘h1-bitch’. Its essentially legalized racism against Indians at low wages. If they are better than me, they can beat me for the job, but then they should make MORE money than me right? Not less. We need a conservative lawyer to file a class action suit charging corporations with racism AGAINST H1Bs due to low wages.

    — back to Rubio.
    He is young. Look at 2008? Obamas age clearly helped him against McCain and Clinton. If you read George W Bush’s autobiography (its pretty good, not great), he says that ‘when Americans move on to the next generation they don’t go back). Hillary is the last generation. Someone young would likely beat her. Also, he is a minority so it counters ‘history with Hillary’. He also has a likeable personality. That is really important. I am not as conservative as most of you and I think many of you forget how valuable a likeable personality is. Contrast him with Hillary? Who is more likeable? Ted Cruz is an asshole. So where is the contrast with Hillary?

    Rubios biggest strength (his age) is his biggest weakness in the primary. Lets face, we like old wrinkly veterans. We don’t like the fresh face. I think Rubio will be a much stronger candidate if he runs against in 4-8 years. All of our nominees since 1964 have all run before? (dont know if Goldwater ran before… my history is not that good).

    Jeb Bush: Don’t discount him. He raises a massive amount of money. If you look at how primaries go with how they are spread out, massive amounts of negative ads in key states at key time is huge. I think Bush is a strong candidate against Hillary, but its another ‘look to the past to find the future’ election and I think if that is the election Hillary has him there with swing voters.

    The biggest unknowns are her emails. We don’t know what is in the 60,000 emails. There will likely be something bad because lets face we all have sent bad emails. I am particularly bad at it… get that shit in my yearly review at work every year. Our Congressman will play this up alot, but it only matters if there really is something there. I still think she will win the nominations. Bernie Sanders is too far left. If you look at polls most democrats are to the right of him. He also is dischevelled and lets face it ugly. The guy doesn’t look good on TV. That is mean, but its true. Gore isn’t going to run again. Kerry is done. I think Elizabeth Warren has rose and fell (maybe she will win it if hillary dies cause they want a women).

    The democratic nomination is like the republicans in 1996 there was Bob Dole and no one else. I don’t think swing voters care about Benghazi. Its good for fund raising, but its a waste of time for our candidates to spent campaign ads on it. It won’t get us the swing voters. They don’t care. Sorry, but they don’t.

    I also want to add.. we got too many damn people running. I think 17 people running makes us look stupid. I dont know why half of them bother they got no chance. Carly Fiorina? Seriously? SHe got fired after 2 years as a CEO for gutting HP. She cried sexism even though she was replaced with a woman who was actually a good CEO. Lyndsey Graham? Look I like Graham is honest about his hawkish policies, but he looks like an uppity submissive crying out for a spanking. He doesn’t look as tough as he tries to sound. Lets face charisma is a large part of this. Christ, just get out. Your done. The “I’m a tough, but kind asshole, isn’t playing’.

    Id really like the candidates that legitimately have no shot to just disappear so we can have a real debate with candidates that have a shot. Right now each person gets so little time to talk they are trying to audition by seeing who can be the most entertaining. I’m not looking to be entertained. I don’t want you to juggle for me. We need less people on that stage so we can go into details.

    1. Gotcha: you don’t like Ted Cruz for personal reasons. Many of the rest of us like him for exactly the reasons you don’t-like Lincoln said of Grant, he fights. We’re just really tired of having Republican candidates who can’t be bothered to actually fight for the offices they’re putatively running for.

    2. I am not a Trump supporter, mainly because I suspect he’s in it for the ego boost and not an actual serious candidate. He found a group of people marching somewhere and ran up and put himself out in front of them, carrying a banner, creating an illusion that he’s leading them.

      I don’t think Donald Trump has any principles whatsoever beyond “Hi there, I’m The Donald, you should give me money and power ’cause I’m awesome. Trust me, I know what I’m doing.”

      That having been said, I cannot find one racist thing he’s said about the wetbacks. They’re foreign criminal invaders, by definition. We cannot survive as a nation unless we round them up and ship them back, every last one of them, “anchor babies” too. Anything else is treason.

      One of the problems, incidentally, with throwing around the R-word: if everyone’s “racist,” then nobody is, and the word loses all power and all meaning. Like the word “fascist,” it’s just an empty swear-word leftists use and it means “anything I don’t like.” It’s the new Godwin’s Law: when a leftist runs out of substantive points to make he results to name-calling, usually starting with “racist,” and by doing so tacitly concedes the debate.

      I say this as a fellow IT nerd: yes, I would agree, the H1B program needs to be scrapped altogether–ideally, I’d like to see a fifty-year moratorium on work visas of any kind–and all the foreigners involved need to be sent home post haste. This is a nation of over three hundred million people. There is no shortage of people with any skill that you can imagine, from coding in C++ to managing server farms to embedded programming to underwater basketweaving. There is a shortage of people who have these skills who are willing to work for the Burger King wages Big Business wants to pay, which is why Big Business wants the H1Bs, but we need some politicians who will throw the moneychangers out of the temple, tell Wall Street to shut up and suck it up, and let the free market solve the problem. A lot more very bright young people going to college right now would be majoring in computerscience if it weren’t guaranteed ticket to cutthroat wage competition against people in Third World countries being paid two cents a month. I believe the term for this is “race to the bottom.”

  64. Cruz is definitely my second choice after Trump. I take great issue with how the 14th amendment has been abused for more than decades, and I’m not sad to say that I will become a single issue voter if that’s what it takes to fix it. We don’t need more people here. So for the time being I’ll definitely go with Trump, but if he does drop out I’ll show up to vote for Cruz. If both of them fail to make it, I’m staying home and watching the nation burn.

  65. “… Hillary is a sort of woman shaped carbon based life form.” Well, she is NOW. But by the time the conventions are over, Cyberdyne will have gone through a three or more iterations,m so Hillary! Mk. 08 should be really … something.

  66. An insightful analysis, but I think Trump will take it. The MSM and the rest of the Left are praying that “the novelty will wear off,” but that may not happen, especially since Trump’s campaign manager is a libertarian-conservative, and he’s rolled out good positions on immigration, guns, and taxes. More will follow.

    On the other hand, if Trump falters the logical next choice is Cruz. Ditto for Rand Paul supporters. I support Trump because…Burn. It. Down. But my fallback is Cruz, who’s entirely acceptable.

  67. Here is the biggest problem with Cruz. He is the brash, inexperienced not ready for prime time candidate. His strategy is suck up to the stormtrumpers (brilliant description) and wait for Trump inevitable collapse. The problem with that strategy is that Rubio is going to get miles ahead of him by the time that happens and the hardcore Trumpsters are going to stay home. They are single issue, build the wall and turn the US into East Germany voters who think Cruz is no different than Obama on immigration.

    The only real proven governing conservative in the group is Scott Walker and he is gone. The adult in the room is too Leave it to Beaver for today’s infantilized Internet culture.

    1. Nonsense. I’ve seen you post over at the Federalist and you usually have much more well-reasoned commentary. Turn the US into East Germany? I could go into a much more in-depth breakdown of your little screed, but you beclowned yourself a bit too much with that gem.

    2. Cruz is a tea-party pipe dream – crack pipe. He is 3% at Predictwise.

      Same poll, Rubio is next in line behind Jeb. Personally, I think he would be easier to beat. I think it hilarious that The Donald is third. That tells you a lot about the Republican voter.

      Yep – Walker is gone but I don’t think he had much of a shot anyway.

      1. Oh hey, a post of yours that I sort of agree with! As in, Cruz doesn’t really look like he has a chance at the nomination right now. Things might change — the one thing you can always predict in politics is unpredictability — but as of right now, nobody’s paying much attention to him so he’s trailing HARD in polls.

        I don’t know why you think Rubio would be easier than Bush for the Democrats to beat, though. Bush has the built-in disadvantage of his last name, which is an albatross Rubio doesn’t have to carry. And for those voters who care about identity politics, Rubio is Hispanic, which means it’ll be harder for the “He’s racist!” charges to stick. They’ll be thrown anyway because the political scene is like that, but more people will be able to see their inherent unfairness.

        So given those factors, why do you think Rubio would be easier to beat?

        1. Fair points.

          Jeb has creds with Latinos as well. He speaks Spanish well.

          While I try to be a numbers guy when looking at elections, the observation of Rubio is largely subjective. I have watched him and listened to him. Particularly the water gulp moment. So I have my own subjective feelings.

          If you go to Real Clear Politics and look at the poll aggregation, Clinton V Jeb is pretty much even. Hillary’s lead is so small, I don’t count it. If you look at Clinton V Rubio, Clinton has 2 points, and for most of the electorate, Rubio is new bright and shiny. I think he gets roughed up when he is taken seriously.

          It is so early, however my observations are weak. 2 points isn’t much right now.

  68. Very, very late to this party, but I think a Jindal/Fiorina vs Sanders/Warren race would be one for the ages. Certainly it would lay out the choices in as stark a distinction as could be.

  69. Very, very late to the party, by I think a Jindal/Fiorina vs Sanders/Warren race would be one for the ages. Certainly a starker choice would be difficult to imagine.

  70. It wont be Hillary; It will be Biden, Obama will have the FBI arrest Hillary if he has to to ensure it. Obama will pick Biden’s VP, who will take over after the terrorists attack on Biden.

  71. Having been an Obama delegate twice, it will be sad to see him go. Good man. As good a job as he could have done with the hand he was dealt. Still … way too conservative and he drank the kool-aid on on all the debt reduction nonsense. The national debt is a non-issue.

    One real issue is income and wealth distribution. Sanders is best on this issue but he won’t win. I think the Hillary scandals will be like all the Clinton scandals – a whole bunch of nothing. The Hillary/Biden/Sanders breakdown at PredictWise is 68%/19%/12%.

    For the Republicans, I still like Jeb and and if not Jeb then Rubio. It can’t be Ben Carsen. He’s a black guy and Republicans are not going to put a black guy on the head of the ticket. The base is largely racist. Civil rights is the whole reason the south turned Red under the guidance of Reagan et al. That was/is the Southern Strategy.

    I think Jeb would be hardest to beat so I would like to see out. Rubio? From what I see of Rubio, he seems like he would be an easier target. But I have not seen that much of him. As he gets more well known and the new wears off how will he do with voters? Right now, he can’t beat Hillary. I suspect as the cycle ages, it will get worse for Rubio, but I don’t know.

    It is way early so Nate Silver hasn’t cranked up the big green election machine yet. When he does, we know it is time to pay attention. There is however a decent article at about Jeb. It details the conservatism of today’s Republican and speculates that this isn’t Jeb’s Republican Party anymore.

    Without Nate, the next best thing are the betting markets. Betting markets are rational in the way stock markets are rational – real money by real people. Predictwise uses such sources in their predictions. Ted Cruz is at 3% so those looking for Cruz to cruise have a great opportunity to get some really great odds. Go make money. Lots of money.

    It’s difficult to get a third term but Gore almost did it. If Hillary can pull it off , I doubt I will see another Republican president in my life time. The demographics are changing and the Republicans have nothing for policy issues other than their big government social issues.

    It will be awhile before the Latino electoral power starts to be greatly felt. By that I mean flipping states like Texas. But it will be felt to some extent and more each cycle. Not good for the “send Grandma back to Mexico” party. Odds for the Democrat/Republican winning in 2016 is given as 59%/41% at PredictWise.

    Still way early. Starting to feel a twinge of excitement though. Loving the Trump clown show.

  72. Okay, I already posted this, but apparently people need to be reminded:

    Scott Walker dropped out of the race MONTHS ago. He is not running.

    So unless you are proposing that he does a turnaround and gets back in the race (a losing proposition), then stop talking about his chances of winning. He’s not running.

    1. Yeah… and Larry posted this MONTHS ago- August to be exact.
      Hint- there is a thing under the post title that lets you know Month, Day, and Year the item was posted. Your homework assignment is to find out WHAT DATE Larry posted this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *