Friday Open Thread

Busy day. I'll write a little bit on Iowa and EGhazi (same story, different day) tomorrow.

Open Thread.

< Thursday Open Thread | eGhazi: Same BS IC story: different day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Megyn's hair was very Trekkie... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 07:25:05 PM EST

    I think my favorite meme so far (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    Is that Jeb! looked weak by looking strong but only when Donald was on the stage giving him repeated nuggies.

    How discouraging would that be after finally having a decent debate performance.

    Poor guy.


    Damn (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 07:40:35 PM EST
    When Donald WASN'T on the stage.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:09:49 PM EST
    if she redid her hair to look more "businesslike". Melanie Griffith portrayed that phenomenon in "Working Girl".

    8 of 9 (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:26:17 PM EST
    Tertiary adjunct even.

    Some thoughts (1.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Green26 on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 07:38:05 PM EST
    I like Megyn Kelly. She's been a big winner in the Trump stuff (not meaning a winner over Trump necessarily). What a jerk and baby he is. Very destructive. I can't believe so many people support him. Truly baffling to me.

    I still think Clinton's email and other stuff may not end up well for her. It's clearly helping drag her down now. Some of you pooh poohed that view months ago, and noted she was so far ahead in the Dem and national polls, but she sure isn't now.

    I couldn't vote for Sanders or Trump. Couldn't move to Ireland either if O'Reilly was moving there.

    I think you've been mesmerized ... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:07:49 PM EST
    ... by too many shiny objects in your path. Speaking for myself only, I am at a loss to see how Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for the mishandling of this so-called "classified material," since once again the State Dept. is noting that these messages:

    • Were copied to her and did not originate with her;
    • Were never marked as classified by the personnel and staff who were sending and receiving them;, and
    • Apparently weren't classified by the Intelligence Community until nearly three years after Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her post.

    (Sigh!) Lather, rinse and repeat.

    Likely, this will turn out to be yet another manufactured contretemps from the IC, which appears to be unperturbed by the last round of nonsense on this issue, and still just as determined as ever in their ongoing attempts to rest control of U.S. foreign policy from the State Dept.

    As BTD has noted before and may well do so again tomorrow, this is a turf battle. And given the IC's rather abysmal track record as America's so-called "eyes and ears" over the last half-century, the prospect of them supplanting the State Dept. and calling the shots overseas should send a chill down everyone's spines.



    Congratulations (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:14:54 PM EST
    Lost me at "I like Megyn Kelly"

    Diane (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    Feinstein says they are going to be released so everybody can see what the IG has been trying to do. Also Clinton is considering suing the IG to get them released. They apparently are completely innocuous emails. It will be something to see when the right wing explodes over this.

    Right-wing head explosions ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:34:57 AM EST
    ... have long since lost their shock value, like "Nightmare on Elm Street XXIV."

    For the nonce (or something like that) (none / 0) (#23)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:14:08 AM EST
    The same-old-email story is recirculated ... tho, now, the after-the-fact classification by State (at the behest & persistence of the Intel IG) gets trafficked yet again by the Repubs & pushed yet again by a press anxious to continue the hype of who is going to win.  And all that.

    I'll admit that the recycled supposed big story made me reflexively queasy at first ... until the read of it showed this to be the ongoing bureaucratic inviting about classification policies that has long plagued the disagreeing State & Intel community.  

    I'm expecting HRC to meet this latest nonsense barrage from meddling Repubs & antsy narrative-making press ... to meet and surpass as she always does.  After all ... such an amazing coincidence that this "story" would break 3 days out from the Iowa caucuses ... my, my the Issa imps and others must be emulating Dick Tuck.


    But the headlines suggest otherwise (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:19:44 AM EST
    in anti-Clinton media, like the major paper in Wisconsin, with this top-of-the-page headline:

    US declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

    The paper has some readership across the border in Iowa, too.


    Donald, my thinks you are in denial (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:22:08 AM EST
    or close to denial.

    Perhaps the emails were only sent to her, but that is only coming from her side. We'll see.

    The marked-classified argument is starting to look pretty weak, as she, as SOS, should know whether certain info is or should be classified by not.

    I don't think the intelligence community sent or saw the emails. They can't or don't classify stuff they don't see.

    Looks to me that this probably isn't a turf war now. Looks like State is back on its heals, and no longer able to defend or protect Clinton.

    What if it comes out that someone, like a foreign government, tapped into to her private server? Not saying that occurred, but if it comes out that it occurred, she's toast.

    I'm not saying any of this is more likely than not to occur, but it's looking more like it could occur.

    Question. Do you think the email stuff is not impacting Clinton in a negative way?


    Oh, puh-LEEEZE! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:08:58 AM EST
    You wingbats have been spewing variations of the same bullschitt about the Clintons since the first time Paula Jones appeared on the scene, and couldn't remember if Bill exposed himself to her in the mid-morning or in the late afternoon.

    You sound just like local L.A. talk radio show hoser / certifiable right-wing crackpot George Putnam, who kept telling his audience of gullible putzes about the Clintons in that grave, stentorian voice of his, "Mark my words, it's all going to come out any day now ..."

    Well, 20 years later, Putnam's dead -- his last words on this earth likely being, "Bill Clinton still lives, damn him!" -- and yahoos like you are have dutifuly taken up his clarion-siren call. And 20 years from now, when the Clintons themselves are perhaps six feet under, no doubt you'll still be parroting, "Mark my words, it's all going to come out any day now ..."

    You are your own best parody.


    Donald, I have supported the Clintons (none / 0) (#53)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    both Bill and Hillary in every election they have run in, including this one. Perhaps I need to start the wingbats for Hillary group, at least for this site and posters like you. You are so partisan that you can even engage in a discussion over Clinton's email situation.

    ... for thinking otherwise. So, to be perfectly frank, your claim that you've supported the Clintons politically is not very believable.

    Donald, you are, of course, welcome (none / 0) (#99)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 06:47:13 PM EST
    to believe or not believe what you want.  However, it is true that I have supported Bill and then Hillary in every presidential election, including this election. She has the most experience and the most competence, and is smart and tough. She has negatives and issues, but competence, experience, and intelligence are much more important to me.

    ... since you first began offering your fact-free speculation in these threads on this phony scandal months ago. For you to now claim that you've supported the Clintons up until this point is simply another example of your disingenuousness, because real Democrats don't channel wingbat memes unless their name is Zell Miller.

    Nope Donald, I haven't been wrong (none / 0) (#114)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    on anything related to the issue, and the issue is still playing out. I have not been speculating either, although at times I tried to analyze some "what-if's" and provide the type of analysis that lawyers do. After all, this is also a legal site.

    There is now considerable chatter coming from some commentators and journalists from MSNBC, Bloomberg Politics, WaPost and other mainstream sources, indicating they are hearing things from their sources, including some at the White House, that the investigation could be changing, developing or getting more serious. Usually, fairly vague comments.

    In my experience as a lawyer who has been involved with or near many investigations, including criminal and independent counsel investigations, I see things that give me pause or cause concern. As I have said before, it is never good news to have the FBI investigating one's client.

    As for supporting Clinton, I have previously said I am supporting her and supported her in her last election. Nothing new there. Again, you are too biased to pay attention.


    Green, you vouche for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    without links or citations.  You speculate based on your supposed experience.   You supposedly hear rumors and chit chat and ask us to trust you.  Why would anyone do that?

    You offer nothing but fact free attacks.


    MKS, I actually don't speculate (none / 0) (#116)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 10:03:01 PM EST
    Feel free to quote of an example of my "speculation", and then we can discuss it.

    Feel free to look up what Halperin of Bloomberg Politics said on MSNBC on the subject on Friday, and what the MSNBC reporters said in the lead-in. Do you not read the Washington Post?


    I read your links (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:13:12 PM EST
    Halperin in particular was giving his opinion based on his interpretation of the body language of unnamed Obama people.

    You tell us you are a lawyer, and you don't recognize how this is just meaningless speculation.


    And, I do not believe you (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:20:29 PM EST
    are a Hillary supporter.  Your previously stated hawkish views on ISIS suggest a very Neo-con view of the world....

    And you are rummaging around the New York Post and the National Review for anti-Hillary attack lines....Not the place for Hillary supporters, and certainly not publications that Hillary supporters would find persuasive, yet you cite them.


    Does it really matter, now? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    ....Paula Jones appeared on the scene,  and couldn't remember if Bill exposed himself to her in the mid-morning or in the late afternoon.

    I mean is a morning act of sexual harassment worse or is the afternoon display of aggression by the boss worse?


    In a legal filing, yes, Jim, facts do matter. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    Paula Jones's attorneys had to go back and amend their client's original complaint when they discovered documentation that then-Gov. Clinton had actually been hosting a luncheon-reception at the Governor's Mansion at the very time Ms. Jones claimed he first displayed himself to her in a room at Little Rock's Excelsior Hotel, which she initially and very specifically said had occurred at 2:30 p.m. on May 8, 1991.

    Problem was, Clinton had actually been at the hotel much earlier in the day, having delivered the opening remarks that morning at the 3rd annual State Quality Control Conference, and he had in fact departed that venue well before noon. And so, Jones's attorneys initially tried to claim that Clinton had left the luncheon to return to the hotel that afternoon. But when that obviously wasn't going to fly, they eventually amended the original complaint to now claim that the encounter between the governor and their client had occurred in the morning.

    And that was but one of about one dozen major discrepancies between Jones's original claim and what she later so graphically described in salacious detail on CBS News' "60 Minutes." There's a good reason why the judge originally dismissed Jones's case. That Clinton ultimately settled with her had absolutely nothing to do with her original charge, which was at best greatly exaggerated if not outright baseless.

    You regularly traffic in so much rumor, innuendo and outright crap, Jim, that I highly doubt that you ever even know the actual facts of the matters upon which you comment. And as inconvenient as those facts are to your own personal beliefs and narratives, nevertheless reality and truth do matter to a lot of people, if not necessarily to you.

    And if ever you stop feeding on the steady diet of bullschitt that Fox News and AM squawk radio regularly ladles out to you and the other willing gullibles who prefer fairy tales to dealing with the real world as it is, you might eventually come to that realization yourself, descend from the parallel universise which you've been inhabiting, and return to planet earth.



    I see that I have hit a nerve and that you (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:41:35 PM EST
    have rushed to defend with your usual rants, slurs and snarks.

    The larger point is that in many cases the victim doesn't remember the exact details.

    The exact timing of  Clinton's comings and goings in this instance might mean something IF there hadn't been rape and other such claimed time and again and IF Monica had sent her little blue dress to the cleaners.

    Where there is smoke there is fire comes to mind.

    And FYI I have never called for Bubba's impeachment for his sexual activities.

    But, since you consider yourself such a staunch defender of female rights...aren't you aware that sex between a subordinate and a senior manager is considered to be close to rape and a firing offense in every corporation that I was employed by.

    And that would include the offender's peer who knew about the actions and said nothing.


    You haven't "hit a nerve," Jim. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 02:54:12 AM EST
    Don't flatter yourself regarding your debating prowess. You were simply wrong in your assertion that facts somehow don't matter in the Paula Jones case, and I corrected you. Just because Bill Clinton's longstanding reputation as a womanizer precedes him, it shouldn't necessarily follow that every story about him is therefore true on its face.

    Yes (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 10:54:06 AM EST
    Donald, I hit a nerve.

    And the reason I did, and the reason the confusion in the time of the sexual harassment can be ignored is two fold.

    1. Victims often are confused over exact times and minute details. ("I had three drinks." "No you had 4.") This is often helpful for the defense.

    2. Other related actions of the same,or related  types, come into play. Multiple claims, as in the Cosby case, must be considered.

    While spousal forgiveness can be expected, to a degree, when the spouse then claims to be a protector of women the specter of "the fox guarding the hen house" comes to mind.

    As for your defense, I understand. It is what Democrats do. The Republicans?? Not so much. That is one of differentiation characteristics between them.


    You are confusing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    "Hitting a nerve" and "getting on his nerves"

    The Republicans?? Not so much lol (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    that from the guy who fell all over himself fumblingly claiming that Mission Accomplished referred only to Bush's successful carrier landing and nothing else..

    And that Republican washroom prowler Larry Craig was the victim of a Blue State set up..

    And let's not forget the one about how Saddam really did have wmds that were secretly shipped to Syria right before the invasion.


    Why do you make things up?? (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    But you are improving. Two out of three ain't bad.

    1. I never said that Craig was a victim. And he was reprimanded and he did resign. OTOH Barney Frank and Studds did not. Studds had an affair with a 17 year old page, which would have got in jail today.

    And,of course, Barney was involved in Apartment Gate when his significant other was busted for running a male house of prostitution from his home.

    1. But do give the man a Kewpie Doll. A ship returning from a deployment has accomplished a specific task aka a "mission." But don't be embarrassed by your lack of military terms and proper usage.

    2. And who am I to disbelieve the number two man in Saddam's air force who said they were sent to Syria at the last minute and the UN's man who noted satellite images of heavy truck traffic from Iraq into Syria at the same time?

    And where in the *&&) did all that poison gas Assad has been using come from??? Magic. It must have been magic.

    Why do you make things up (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    about people making things up???

    When caught with your pants down, rather than owning up to it, perusual you double down..

    You forget, I've been watching you try to spin reich-wing train wrecks into scenic route excursions for years..

    In all that time you've never persuaded a single person, but you keep trying to out-bs yourself lowering the bar each time like you're  in a one man limbo  contest.


    You make things up (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:39:54 AM EST
    because you are not an honest person and you never provide proof.

    Note that I explained, again, re mission and movement of WMD's. That's called supporting your position.

    On the Craig claim you are just being dishonest.


    And just to provide some facts (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    I give you my comment made on 8/29/07 at 8:10AM

    The "Right" understands Craig's hypocritical position, just as the Demos understand their own. By attacking him you turn him into a victim. You would be far better off to just let him twist in the wind.

    As a social liberal who has repeatedly noted that I believe in gay and other minority rights I think it obvious that you are taking a problem that needs to be solved and turning it into a bigger problem by your actions and comments.



    Megyn Kelly (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    ...only looked good because she was on display with a bunch of morons who set the bar for "looking good" so low that anyone who could play tic-tac-toe would look good.  She herself is no prize.  She's a mouthpiece and a shill for FNC.

    I like Bernie, but if he doesn't get the nod, I'll go with HRC.


    You obviously haven't looked at the National polls (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    Coral, what do the national polls say? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:24:10 AM EST
    Just curious.

    If you were curious (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:37:51 AM EST
    you would have done 2 minutes of research and know the answer.

    I understand that your GOP choice has little chance to win the White House unless Clinton loses the Dem nomination, but you'd best be searching for another route to victory because Clinton will win the Dem nomination.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:45:15 AM EST
    I was going to point out they don't actually say anything until, as you suggested, you look at them.

    He's (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    a resident concern troll. They never look anything up.

    Coral, I did my research (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    I want you to post or cite what you have been looking at. Why are you unable or afraid to do that?

    Green, you must have been away, (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    since CoralGables gives poll results almost daily.  Your statement of CG being afraid or unable to post results is pure trolling.  Why do you say these things?

    Indeed. Some here would say I have a poll fetish. (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    btw the last Iowa poll I know of comes out at 6:30ET tonight. (I'm sure there will still be more)

    The polls provided (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    are much appreciated.

    The Selzer poll (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    Fish, I have been away (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    Even when I'm looking, I look at only certain threads and sometimes just skim some posts in those threads. I actually don't recall ever looking at a Coral post. Sorry, but asking someone for what they referencing is not trolling.

    Green, your first question (none / 0) (#107)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    was fine.  To accuse CG of being unable or afraid is trolling period.

    Eghazi (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 06:26:42 PM EST
    I love how for decades the GOP has been whining about the bureaucracy and now they've fully embraced it. LOL.

    The winnah (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 07:09:04 PM EST
    of the debate last night was apparently Megyn Kelly.

    The republican party can't be too happy about that.
    I mean, the star is not one of the pols, but one of the hired guns.

    And Trump.

    What a triumph.
    He dominates by his absence.

    And as a bonus, he reaps the reward of Kelly destroying Cruz and Rubio for him.

    I understand that they wound up tearing into each other. Only dust remains. (I did not watch the whole thing. Couldn't do.)

    EGhazi! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 07:20:45 PM EST
    That sounds like a water-borne virus congressional Republicans caught while cavorting on a junket in the Caribbean, the escalating symptoms of which include blurred vision, obsessive-compulsive neurosis, delusions of grandeur, extreme paranoia and finally, a near-total aversion to reality.

    It's been said: (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:09:36 PM EST
    "The Donald is playing Chess,
    While the others are playing checkers."

    The better comparison is:

    The Donald is playing WWE Wrestling,
    While the others think it's NFL Football.


    Just heard an equally good one (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    On the democrats.

    A woman discussing the difference between Sanders and Clinton explains that as a person of faith she understood and appreciated both Preachers and Pastors.

    A Preacher, she said, inspires us.  Brings us to our feet to clap.  But in time of need she wanted a Pastor.  Hillary, she said, was a Pastor.  Bernie was. Preacher.

    Not a religious bone in my body.  But I like that.


    I like (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:23:58 PM EST
    that too.

    I hope (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    I may be forgiven, but I don't want a preacher or a pastor.

    You're confusing analogy with reality (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Towanda on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:21:46 AM EST
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    I could be excused for confusing reality for an analogy.

    Every time I hear these pols invoke God, quite an un-American thing to do imo, I wonder what country we're living in.

    A bunch of heathens donning the apparel of the clergy.


    You will like this article then, (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 08:58:37 PM EST
    This French philosopherIs the Only One Who Can Explain the Donald Trump Phenomenon.  Comparing Trump's "wrestling" to the others' boxing.
    You won't find Roland Barthes on the Sunday morning roundtables dissecting the presidential race. Barthes is a French philosopher who died in 1980. But his work may hold the key to understanding Trump's popularity and his staying power.

    The Donald is playing 11 dimensional Bull$$$t (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:51:03 PM EST
    That doesn't need explaining by Barthes.  Mel Brooks would do.

    He so (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:14:29 PM EST
    outmanoeuvred FOX that I have to say that the man has talent.

    He would make a good Secretary of State in a Democratic administration.


    Of all the jobs (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 09:26:10 PM EST
    I can imagine hm being good at chief diplomat would not be top of the list.   But you are entirely right about out maneuvering FOX.   When the leading candidate for the republican nomination pees on the shoes of the propaganda arm of the Republican Party and is pretty much declared "fully in charge of the race" it might be time to redefine our construct.

    Trump (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:46:56 AM EST
    has outmaneuvered the entire press since day one.

    There is no need to redefine the construct, the MSM has long ago devolved into a narrative based infotaniment dispenser, where truth and reality are less important than ratings.

    Because the media are playing the part of journalists in the de facto reality show on cable and network news they must be very subtle when creating their narrative. They create their own realities with an intricate web of spin, hype, omissions and innuendo.

    Then along came Trump with his sledge hammer, ratings grabbing narrative, the media are defenseless against it.


    Not precisely the construct (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:33:40 AM EST
    I was talking about.   Pretty sure you know that.

    True, he has out maneuvered the idiot press from day one.    Not that hard, Clinton's have been doing it for decades.   A right wing candidate going flat out against the right wing media, not just FOX but Rush, Beck and the radio talkers and winning spectacularly is not something we have seen before.  

    It could not be more clear that FOX and Roger Ailes was caught with their pants around their ankles.  They begin to understand we are in uncharted territory.  
    The construct I'm talking about is about who is supporting Trump to allow him to get away with this and why they are.

    A lot has been written in the last few days about Donald's evangelical support.  The fact that these "values" voters are deserting Huckabee, Santorum, Carson and Cruz in favor of a thrice divorced casino owner who swears on stage and misquotes the Bible.  Construct.

    Then there are the dozens of reports of democratic support.  I know you hate this part but ignoring it won't make it disappear.  It's a fact.  10s of thousands of voters switching their registration from Democrat to republican for the coming caucus.  Iowa voters who are deciding between Hillary and Trump or way more commonly Sanders and Trump.  It's happening.  Construct.

     I know we here like to sneer at Omarosa.   But said something about Trump months ago, right after he entered the race, that I really really think we perhaps should consider.  She said what you need to understand is that starting now you need to throw out everything you thought you knew about what is going to happen in this election.  Because Donald is not a politician.  He is a mega reality TV  star and we are a culture obsessed with reality TV.  He will not play by the old rules.   He will not be bound by old traditions and his audience will cut across every demographic in ways we have never seen before.  


    an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements,


    Oops (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    Thrice MARRIED casino owner.

    Don't want to get sued.


    Just a (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:17:49 AM EST
    thought but Hillary wins Iowa and blows up the beltway establishment media and Trump wins IA and blows up the right wing establishment media.

    It becomes obvious that nobody is listening to either one of them.


    I think most people who are not (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:30:28 AM EST
    Sanders supporters expect Hillary to win Iowa.  In spite of what they say on cable news.  
    You want to talk about blowing something up? Consider this -

    Donald Trump is poised for the strongest primary performance in modern history

    For months, the press and the Republican establishment alike have been expecting the Trump bubble to implode. Now that it's clear Trump isn't going anywhere, we're seeing stories about a long slog of a campaign or even a brokered convention. But there's a very real possibility that, far from those kinds of days of reckoning, Donald Trump could actually "run the table." Ironically, Trump not only could win -- he could win more decisively than any non-incumbent Republican contestant for the nomination since the dawn of the modern primary system


    If Trump wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, and then goes on to win South Carolina and Nevada -- as he is favored to do -- he could very conceivably win every contest, or at worst lose a favored son state or two like Cruz's Texas. Nobody has run the table like that -- not Nixon in 1968, nor Reagan in 1980, nor Bush in 2000.

    Don Trumpo is gonna make Iowa an offer (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    it cannot refuse...

    All that looks (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    true now and it may come to be. He's still not breaking 50% in the GOP primary but he may in the future.

    As far as Hillary I'm talking about The Narrative. The Narrative is about polls when Hillary leads are not mentioned. Polls where Bernie leads are mentioned as Bernie "winning" Iowa. Hillary winning Iowa blows up The Narrative.


    How do you think (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    Trump matches up in a real contest with one other Republican candidate?  After the next few weeks, most of them will drop out - do you think Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Carly Fiornia, Chris Christie et al's support goes to Trump or a Cruz / Rubio?  

    I mean, even now, with all the hype 2/3 of all Republicans STILL want someone other than Trump!

    Right now, it's all fun and reality-show like.  But when it gets down to two or three candidates in the race, I don't see how he gets a pass on just throwing insults (and I definitely see the dropped-out candidates working very hard to defeat Trump), especially when there's a chance that the Democrats will be wrapped up long before them.



    What about Ben Carson? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    I think he stole the show with his incisive analysis of foreign affairs: "Putin is a one horse country, oil."   It is always a challenge to understand the true meaning since he speaks softly and carries a big shtick.   But, I believe it was a clever mix of "one horse town" and "one trick pony."  

    This shows that he is just what the Republicans are looking for in a president, just like George W. Bush, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."  Or, fool me once, shame on, shame on you, fool me,,, you can't get fooled again."   The Republicans like their fools and getting fooled.


    I believe they have hit pure gold (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    With Donald.   And I'm not talking about his hair.

    Howdy, go grab a beer, and read this (none / 0) (#100)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    I Read it on Slate a while back, and knew I'd have to save it.

    And, it really came from Slate, not The Onion.
    Oh, and it was written in this form; just an incoherent, rambling, projectile word vomit.

    They didn't know where paragraph breaks should go.

    Trump psycho speech

    Look, having nuclear--my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart--you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world--it's true!--but when you're a conservative Republican they try--oh, do they do a number--that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune--you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged--but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me--it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right--who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners--now it used to be three, now it's four--but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years--but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

    And, there you are:

    "Nations of the world , we give you our President."


    Pffft (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:03:22 PM EST
    Whatever else it would not be business as usual.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    Trump would not be so dominant in a legitimate two way race. Despite the flailings of his opponents and all the hoopla generated by the media. Trumps numbers have leveled off at around 37%, around 2 points lower when you screen for likely voters. Most of the state polls show him just now reaching into the low to mid 30's although he has seen a good rise in the last few weeks.

    That being said we are a long way from having a legitimate two way race and the clock is ticking.     I just don't see the field winnowing down all that fast with at least Trump, Cruz, Rubio and probably one or both of Kasich/Bush making it to Super Tuesday. The best case scenario would be for a surging Rubio to face a static Trump and a fading Cruz and hope all the rest are gone or insignificant on super Tuesday. I think the real drop dead date is March 15 when some one needs to stand out and get to  at least 40% to stop Trump from getting the first and biggest of the winner take all state Ohio and Florida.


    Thoughts (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:28:56 PM EST

    Trump plus 10 others (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    Some numbers from RCP.  Trump + Cruz = 54%.  If you add in Carson it's 63%.
    Supposedly the most common second choice for those guys is one of the other.  So the last one standing will probably win it seems to me.  We can argue about who that will be.  I think it will be Trump.
    Now, if you add the next  7 others, including Marco, you get 29%.


    that's nationally.  If you look at state polls he is often leading by significantly more that that.

    Parent | Reply to This

    The point I intended to make (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    Is the real question is not who Marcos supporters will go to.  It's who Cruz and Carson supporters will go to.   Do you think that will be Marco?  Jeb!  Kasich?
    I do not.  I think it's most likely the outsider vote will stay outside.
    We will know in 7 days.

    Parent | Reply to This

    Trump + Cruz = 54% (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    At this stage when there are other players still in the game. That doesn't mean anything. Latest RCP averages show Trump with 35.8% - that's still 64.2% of the vote NOT supporting him.

    If they have the same supporters and are the last two standing, then they can't have 54% - that doesn't really address who do Bush supporters go to? Christie supporters?  If Trump and Cruz, for example, are the last two left, where do Rubio supporters go?


    Do you ever actually read (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:48:07 PM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    But your comments didn't make sense, so maybe you could give it more thought than copying comments.

    Trump and Cruz supporters will go to each other?  So what?  If they are competing one on one, how does that answer my questions? Carson and Trump supporters are not remotely alike - why would Carson's supporters go to Trump?


    Because they say they will (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:58:35 PM EST
    I Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:40:27 PM EST
    Howdy, most polling shows that Trump's "second choice" numbers are rather poor although I don't know how it breaks down by candidate, but the polls have been pretty consistent on showing he will not be getting a large percentage of the dropout support. In the latest IBD poll its 19/17/13 Rubio/Cruz/Trump. i have seen worde numbers in other polls.

    Will it get down to 2? (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:50:21 PM EST
    Or bottom out at 3 or 4?

    Because 2 out of 3 may want someone other than Trump, but 9 out of 10 want someone other than Bush.


    Great question (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 04:56:29 PM EST
    With super packs I'm thinkin more than less.   With proportional delegates several may have a few and it's been speculated that with talk of a brokered convention even if they want to quit there are advantages to just suspending rather than quitting so they keep their delegates and go forward with some chips.

    I have (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:55:20 AM EST
    to say I'm enjoying the part where Trump is blowing up the media in this country.

    I (none / 0) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:09:36 AM EST
    will not really enjoy anything until I see some real journalism arising out of the ashes.

    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:18:53 AM EST
    that is my hope however futile it may end up being.

    What I enjoy (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    about the Trump phenomenon is that he is bypassing all of the roadblocks that the media and both political parties have been putting in our way for like forever.

    These media people think that they are the big shots. They have the power.
    They make or break the candidate.

    At the beginning of last night's debate (w/o Trump)
    the unholy three Fox freaks were cavorting as if they were headlining a variety show. They bantered for awhile - the way they do on those idiotic "news" shows.

    And it all fizzled.

    Fizzled, that is, with respect to any hope on their parts that it would impact negatively on Trumpypie.

    In fact, they not only bolstered Trump, by allowing the proceedings to be dominated by his absence, but they also proceeded to destroy his closest rivals.

    Good goin' boys and girls!

    The correct way to go about things is to, of course, reform our fked up campaign laws. Get rid of the pacs. Get rid of Citizen's Unrequited.

    But neither the Dems nor the Republicans seem prone to want to do anything about it. It would lead to a .... (choke)... Democracy - and we can't have that! If we let Democracy through the door, the next thing the plebes will be yelling for is free tuition and medical care for all! God help us!

    I will say that the only candidate mentioning the need for campaign reform is SANDERS.
    His candidacy is also refreshing for the same reasons as is Trumps.
    He is bypassing a lot of the powers that be... and is somehow doing very very well. Lots of small donations. No superpacs. That took guts.

    He may not succeed. He is opposed by Republicans and also frightened liberal Democrats.

    But, I am enjoying watching the scrambling going on among the party regulars, and the media carnival barker hacks - as they watch the level of their omnipotence evaporate.

    Having said all that, I am aware of what happened to every single person in public life that threatened the system in the 1960s....
    We live in a dangerous country.


    Apparently you missed it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    Clinton ton calls for campaign reform.

    And while Bernie is busy mocking Clinton for receiving money from outside sources (i.e. Super PAC's), and claiming that he doesn't have his own, he certainly doesn't mind taking money from them - more than any other candidate.


    jb, that link takes (none / 0) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    me to the Friday Open Thread. Is that where you intended us to be taken?

    Nope, sorry (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    Sanders the beneficiary of most outsideffective money

    To be fair, there are conservative Super PAC'S also helping him out by running anti-Clinton ads that are included in this total, but his campaign is throwing out the BS by saying he doesn't have any himself.  He may not be coordinating with them, but he ain't turning their money away, even though he'said "opposed" to them.


    The link still goes to the Friday (none / 0) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    Open Thread.

    Weird, I'm copying it from the NYT (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    Now it works. n/t (none / 0) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#96)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    She calls for it.

    Good point (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    But I am not that worried about Donald's safety.   I think maybe the system should be more afraid of Donald.  

    Yes but if the writer says that then (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    they have admitted to watching WWE Wrestling.

    No pundit, real or wannabe, would ever 'fess up to that.


    Drinking game! (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:33:37 AM EST

    You are (none / 0) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 08:12:10 AM EST
    asking for a case of alcohol poisoning there.

    NYT endorses Hillary Clinton. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:01:28 AM EST

    Undercutting (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    their own story on the email BS.

    NYT (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    endorses Kasich. I guess we can all declare his campaign DOA.

    Kasich (none / 0) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    could still surprise in NH, most of the aggregates have in him in second(barely).  

    he could (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    and there's a few states that he actually could win in a primary though probably not enough to get the nomination.

    I (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    don't think the landscape after NH is favorable for him at all, but a win in the "establishment" lane there will keep the waters muddy. Even if he pull a close third or even fourth he stays in until super Tuesday pulling vote from Rubio and Bush (I think Christie will be gone).

    Well (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    Ohio is in the middle of March not that far away. So he could stay in until then. NH seems to be Christie's last stand. There is nothing favorable to him for a long long time after that it seems.

    NYT article states 250,000 (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 01:56:42 PM EST
    expected to participate in Iowa caucuses. Iowa Secretary of State's website:  approx. 3 million registered voters as of Jan. 2016.

    Democracy at its less than finest (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    And keep in mind if your candidate doesn't get 15% at your caucus site, I believe you either change your vote or your vote goes into the paper shredder. (I'm open to being corrected on that)

    If your. Candidate (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    Doesn't get 15%, you can either go home or choose to align with another candidate.  (At least for the Dems).

    That's why Martin O'Malley and his supporters could play an important role.


    Does the GOP have the same 15% rule? (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    Wonder what happens with that many candidates if no one makes the 15% threshold. Not that it would happen but would be rather humorous.

    Here's a pretty good explanation (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    So how do the GOP caucuses work?

    The GOP process is the simpler one.

    Caucus meetings begin with the Pledge of Allegiance and then activists get straight to the main event -- selecting their presidential candidates in a binding vote.

    Each campaign gets the chance to have a representative make a final pitch to any wavering voters before a secret ballot. Some caucus sites might use a printed ballot paper. Others just go with a candidate's name on a scrap of paper.

    Raw totals of votes are tallied by local party officials and sent to Iowa GOP headquarters, where a running count is kept.

    And the Democratic ones?

    The Democratic caucus system is a little more intricate.

    As soon as the meetings open, attendees must declare a preference for a candidate.

    Typically, backers of each presidential hopeful physically stake out positions around the room. People who still can't make up their mind join a group known as "uncommitted."

    This is where it gets complicated. In order to be considered "viable," a group must clear a certain threshold -- usually around 15% of the entire caucus turnout in each precinct.

    Once first-round votes are tallied, anyone stuck in a group that is not "viable" has the chance to align with a candidate who has passed the threshold.

    This year it's likely that supporters of Martin O' Malley, scraping along at low single-digits in the polls, will struggle at many caucus meetings to form a "viable" coalition.

    The former Maryland governor thinks differently, saying at a CNN town hall Monday night that "my message to the O'Malley supporters across this state is this: Hold strong at your caucus."

    But it's one of the cruel realities of the caucuses that if the O'Malley pack is too small, all the determination in the world won't be enough, and his supporters will have to decide whether to join backers of either former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during a second count -- known as a "re-alignment period."

    Is that the only difference?

    No. A controversial aspect of the Democratic caucuses is the lack of a secret ballot.

    That means people will have to live with the vote they cast in front of their friends and neighbors for the next four years. And the faint of heart may be susceptible to pressure from more vociferous contemporaries.

    Thus, a candidate who wins the first round of a caucus is not home safe. They can still end up losing if their supporters fail to win over backers of candidates eliminated for not passing the threshold and instead see that support go elsewhere -- one reason why the organization and training of precinct captains is so crucial for campaigns.

    It's also why the second choices of voters for a presidential candidate are so important in the Democratic caucuses.

    Once the final count is completed, local officials work out how many delegates from a precinct each candidate gets to send the local county convention, the next step in a process that will end at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July.

    If you can keep track without a flow chart!



    According (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    to Ballotpedia
    Iowa is expected to have 30 delegates at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Of this total, 12 will be district-level delegates (three for each of the state's four congressional districts). District-level delegates will be allocated on a proportional basis; each candidate who wins a percentage of the statewide vote in Iowa's caucuses will receive a share of the state's district-level delegate.............
    Of the remaining 18 delegates, 15 serve at-large. At-large delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote; any candidate who wins a percentage of the statewide vote will be entitled to receive a share of Iowa's at-large delegates. In addition, three national party leaders (identified on the chart below as RNC delegates) will serve as bound delegates to the Republican National Convention. The RNC delegates will be pledged to support the winner of Iowa's caucuses.

    If I understand this correctly you would need to  get around  8% to get one of the District and 6% to get one of the at large delegates. Who know how they do the rounding, but it doesn't seem like they could make it work with a bunch of 5%s getting anything.


    Ben Ginsberg (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    A Republican lawyer and talking head explains how crazy the GOP race could get

    Welcome to a 2016 Republican presidential primary unlike any other. A crowded field, angry electorate and uncharacteristically divided establishment, not to mention the wild-card role of super PACs, have already made this nominating contest more frenzied and unpredictable than its recent predecessors. It's become conventional wisdom that, whatever the chaos of the early campaign, a winner is most likely to emerge by mid-March. This cycle, we can't be so sure. In fact, the better you understand how the 2016 calendar works, the more likely it seems we can face a messy slog that runs into late spring and possibly even into the July convention--an unlikely fate at this point but one that's no longer impossible.

    For starters, the 2016 calendar quite deliberately avoids having a mid-March nominee.

    In past cycles--2008, 2000 and 1996--the eventual GOP nominees won quickly by concentrating their attention on the first four or five state contests, leveraging their momentum into a front-loaded Super Tuesday and becoming inevitable by early to mid-March. After the 2008 GOP primary, in which 34 states voted by February 5, Republican Party leaders concluded that the frontloaded calendar had given John McCain a too-early primary win and allowed the Obama-Clinton primary to capture a lopsided share of attention. In response, those GOP leaders pushed through new calendar rules designed to create a longer, more contested race: They encouraged states to push their primaries later, and required states voting during the first two weeks of March to agree to allocate their delegates proportionally according to the voting results, rather than in a winner-take-all fashion, making those contests far less decisive. (The period is two weeks shorter in 2016 than it was in 2012, but about as many delegates will be chosen.)

    The 2012 presidential election was the first time the new rules took effect, and they dramatically prolonged the primary season. In every election since 1996, the GOP had settled on a clear nominee in March--as early as March 4, in McCain's case. Although Mitt Romney did as well as any of his predecessors early on in the 2012 primary--effectively tying Iowa, winning New Hampshire, losing South Carolina, and then winning Florida and Nevada--he didn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination until April 24, after 41 states had voted. Critics blamed Romney's long slog on weakness as a candidate, but the changes in the primary calendar certainly played a major role.

    The 2016 rules are much the same as the ones that dragged out Romney's victory, but the circumstances of the race all point to a longer, harder fight. Traditionally, the Republican nominee is known when more than 68 percent of the delegates have been chosen, which won't happen until April 19 this year. On top of that, the race itself is far more complex than it was in 2012: Romney's anti-establishment challengers petered out relatively quickly, while the two candidates currently leading the polls this year--Donald Trump and Ted Cruz--are themselves anti-establishment candidates, and are continuing to gain momentum just as the voting season begins.
    What can we expect along the winding path ahead? This will be my seventh cycle working in presidential politics, including previously as a lawyer for the Republican National Committee and then on George W. Bush's, Mitt Romney's and Scott Walker's presidential campaigns. More than any of the other primary seasons I've seen, this is the year to expect the unexpected.

    For the candidates, the primary calendar is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. They'll need victories in order to gain credibility, and resources in order to pick up the 1,237 delegates that make for a majority (having the most votes doesn't always mean getting the most delegates). They'll need to decide whether to run statewide campaigns, mostly through TV ads, or use advanced data techniques to target specific places--whether through ads, old-fashioned door-knocking or other techniques.

    For the rest of us who are following along, the solution to that jigsaw puzzle may be just as confounding. Beginning in Iowa on February 1, voters will determine whether GOP officials will get their wish of knowing the nominee by March 22, or whether the Law of Unintended Consequences will create an unusually divisive, long and inconclusive primary season that becomes a gift for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

    As we prepare for 19 weeks of voting, here's an insider's look at how major calendar moments could bring the nominating process to an end--or carry the chaos over to yet another contested round.

    No 15% rule for IA (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    GOP caucus, per iowacaucusbiz.com

    And why seasoned caucus organizers (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    for Clinton, if she is ahead in a county,  could have a few people line up for O'Malley if they see doing so would put him at the 15% and not end up with his supporter's votes split on a second round. That will be interesting to watch.

    That would be quite likely (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 11:43:37 AM EST
    It is a strategy to "keep options open."  I've witness such a strategy (& been part of it) in Colorado caucusing (where there is also a 15% viability rule.)  Call it horse-trading.

    Total? (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    In 2008, about 240,000 turned out for Dems.  The largest Republican turnout was 120,000 in 2012

    Patrick Healy's article. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    Ok, total (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 02:18:22 PM EST

    13 hours movie (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    It is a decent war movie.

    But the assertions that there was a stand down order or that the U.S. refused to send jet fighters are false.

    AP story fact checking 13 hours.

    The alleged stand down order (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:33:58 PM EST
    is a rumor that keeps changing its shape.

    The GOP tended to originally assert that someone high up gave such an order.  No evidence of that.  The movie 13 hours does  not even go there.

    Then, there was an assertion that three guys in Tripoli were told not to go Benghazi but to protect the Embassy in Tripoli instead.  I am not sure that ever happened but so what?  The Embassy in Tripoli was subject to attack, and the three guys would have arrived too late anyway.

    The 13 hours version of the stand down order is that the CIA station chief told the CIA contractors assigned to his station to stand down, to not go the facility where the Ambassador was under attack, and to protect the CIA station instead.  The 30 minute delay in going to try and rescue the Ambassador was alleged to have been a critical delay.

    The real CIA station chief says that never happened.  One of the soldiers involved says it did.  Even the Republican led committees tend to support the stations chief.  And the movie portrays the station chief with such a one sided cartoonishness that it looses much credibility.

    But none of this implicates, or could even theoretically implicate Hillary.   She never had tactical command of the CIA station, the CIA station chief or the CIA fighters.  Is that not obvious?


    The failure to send jet fighters (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 30, 2016 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    I admit I always wondered why such fighters were not sent from Italy.

    Well, the answer is that those fighters were training aircraft and would take hours to arm.  And even so, without good intelligence could not have been deployed with positive effect.  See the link in the above comment.

    The movie 13 hours seems to acknowledge this in a roundabout way. A female CIA agent at the station during the attack, and one of the fighters argue that just a flyby (like at football stadiums)  would have scared the enemy fighters.  That is quite a reach.  I assume such fighters would be at risk of being shot down by the weapons the enemy did have.  And so to risk getting shot down for a "just for show" flyby sound pretty stupid to me.  Not something that would be authorized.  

    And not Hillary's fault they were not sent.  Is that not obvious too?


    Perhaps "13 Hours" might be ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 31, 2016 at 03:07:17 AM EST
    ... more entertaining than "Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens." We finally saw that this afternoon, and I really should've followed my initial instincts when I said I wasn't interested. To be sure, it's visually splendid, and Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did their best with what they had to work with. But the plot was recycled and predictable, and eventually rendered the film tedious from my perspective. It's a kids' movie.

    I'll definitely pass in the next installment.