The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Marco Rubio Is the Flamingo Kid
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Whether Marco Rubio’s feelings deep down about the Middle East are quite as bloodthirsty as he makes them sound is probably a question that even Rubio would have a hard time answering fully.

Perhaps that’s just the path of least resistance in South Florida for a politically ambitious lad?

Rubio reminds me of Matt Dillon’s character in Garry Marshall’s 1984 movie The Flamingo Kid.

Dillon plays a handsome, vaguely Latin working class youth (Hector Elizondo portrays Dillon’s father) who gets a summer job as a cabana boy at a swank private beach club.

Soon he’s the protege of Mr. Brody, a rich car dealer (Richard Crenna), who sees in him a promising car salesman. The kid quickly takes on the values espoused by Mr. Brody.

Similarly, Rubio has been pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of billionaire Miami auto dealer Norman Braman. This almost inevitably turned Rubio into the cabana boy for the Dade County Likud Party Billionaire Boosters Club. From the Jewish Telegraph Agency:

Marco Rubio’s big Jewish backer and 7 other things to know about him

By Uriel Heilman October 29, 2015 7:15pm

NEW YORK (JTA) – After Marco Rubio’s strong performance in Wednesday night’s Republican primary debate, many Americans are taking a second look at the U.S. senator from Florida. Here are a few things American Jews might want to know about him.

1. Rubio had humble beginnings — and rose quickly

The junior senator was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban parents who moved to the United States in 1956 and later found work in bartending and housekeeping. After high school, Rubio paid for his first year of college with a football scholarship and then took out student loans. Rubio later repaid $100,000 in student debt out of the $800,000 advance he received for his 2012 book, “An American Son.” (He also sprung for a fishing boat.) While studying law at the University of Miami in the mid-1990s, Rubio interned for Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R.-Fla., the first Cuban American elected to Congress and a staunch supporter of Israel. Rubio won election in 2000 to the state legislature, the Florida House of Representatives, and became its youngest-ever speaker in 2005. In 2010, Rubio was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating Florida’s governor, Charlie Crist.

Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances. In 2010, Braman and Rubio went to Israel together shortly after Rubio’s election to the U.S. Senate.

“Gee, Mr. Braman, I never thought about Israel like that before!”

A Rubio-Sanders race might be interesting in that Sanders is ethnically well-positioned as an old Jew from Brooklyn who was a kibbutznik for awhile in the 1960s to call out Rubio’s neocon extremism.

 
Hide 121 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Marco Rubio as the Flamingo Kid

    By dropping the Os, he could be Marc Rubi, the Flaming Kid. That would endear him to two excitable minorities with lots of money to donate.

    • Agree: Vendetta
    • Replies: @Lugash
    Pink Flamingo Kid?
    , @antipater_1
    Its the Flaming-O Kid.
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances.

    Wow, that’s pretty sad. Rubio hasn’t done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn’t come out of Braman’s pockets.

    What’s also really sad is that such shameless people like Braman dominate the political process and are completely shameless about corrupting the system. Note that this is an absolute corruption of the system but doesn’t get counted in all those world country corruption surveys and measures.

    • Agree: Glossy, TWS
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Wow, that’s pretty sad. Rubio hasn’t done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn’t come out of Braman’s pockets. "

    Since Bush flamed out, Rubio has found a new and even richer sugar-daddy - the hedge-fund manager, sovereign-debt-collector, and gay-rights champion Paul Singer.

    Rubio is the Republican Party's rent-boy.
    , @David
    Rubio's first book that he received the $800,000 advance for, and which has sold a staggering 37,000 copies, was published by Sentinel. Looks like a donation to me though I am not in publishing.

    As the web site says, "Meet Sentinel."

    http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/

    , @LondonBob
    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.
    , @Stan Adams
    A couple of years ago, Braman led a highly-publicized fight against another Miami billionaire, Stephen Ross - the owner of the Dolphins. Ross wanted the taxpayers to foot a mid-nine-figure bill for renovating the football stadium.

    Ross' timing was awful, though - public anger over the taxpayer-funded $600-million baseball stadium was still high. (Even before the stadium opened, Braman led a successful recall campaign against the city mayor who'd championed the deal.)

    In the end, Braman won - Ross had to pay for the renovations himself.

    So he's not all bad.

    But, yeah, Rubio is a pathetic puppet with void between the ears.
    , @guest
    To be fair the political process, defined as that part of politics affected by elections and elect officials doesn't count for all much. Which isn't to say you and thousands of people can't get rich off of corrupting it. But that's peanuts compared to things like Social Security, which people freely call ponzi schemes yet aren't considered to be corrupt. And indeed, they aren't corrupt in the usual sense. They are "beyond (or above) politics."
  3. @Reg Cæsar

    Marco Rubio as the Flamingo Kid
     
    By dropping the Os, he could be Marc Rubi, the Flaming Kid. That would endear him to two excitable minorities with lots of money to donate.

    Pink Flamingo Kid?

  4. Do I detect a slight frisson of fear in the Trump-o-Sphere here?

    Shouldn’t have gone so vigorously against Job (sp?)

    • Replies: @Clifford Brown
    Now is not the time for fear, that comes later.
    , @Thrasymachus
    Pool Boy (as he is usually known on Twitter, although Cabana Boy is better) is no threat, any more than Evita.
  5. Notice that no one is celebrating the success of Latinos in the Iowan Republican Caucus. If a Democratic Latino had won the Iowa Caucus and another Democratic Latino had come in third, it just might have been considered important.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Notice that no one is celebrating the success of Latinos in the Iowan Republican Caucus. If a Democratic Latino had won the Iowa Caucus and another Democratic Latino had come in third, it just might have been considered important.
     
    There's also the White Cuban effect. If either Rubio or Cruz looked like Hoolian "El Chino" Castro....
    , @Maj. Kong
    Do you even "who, whom", bro?
  6. http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php

    The father of the EU was a rich aristocratic mongrel (Austrian-Japanese) married to a jewess, he wrote a book in the 1920s called ‘Pratical Idealism’ where he imagined a future mongrelized Europe ruled by a Jewish elite, it has happened in America before Europe.

  7. A Rubio vs. Sanders race might end up being Rubio vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg which may end up resulting in Rubio vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg vs. Trump.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    I'm certain that Trump would not waste any of his money on a fruitless third-party bid. Same with Mike Bloomberg.
    , @Clifford Brown
    Bloomie only runs if the race is Trump v. Sanders, an ideal race from my vantage point, but one that underserves the donor class.

    Bloomberg would not run against Rubio because Rubio is the Establishment's waterboy.
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, any thoughts on Scott Adams’s argument that the Iowa cacuses were rigged?

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong

    As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.

    I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.

    But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.

    If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?

    A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.

    As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.

    I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    I earlier posted about polls showing Rubio rising in Iowa before the caucuses. I just ran across a New Yorker article dated January 29, 20126 (this past Friday, before Monday's caucuses), which contained the following line:

    "And yet, yesterday afternoon, an NBC News poll put his Iowa support at eighteen per cent, not too far behind Ted Cruz’s twenty-five per cent."

    Interesting that Cruz climbed from 25 to 27, while Rubio climbed from 18 to 23.
    , @Ed
    I can't find the link, but Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.

    The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.

    The article didn't mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    You could make a stronger "I'm not saying..." case on the Dem side, with Hillary's 6 coin toss wins.
    , @MaximumCynicism
    The Rubio result stinks to high heaven. He's a Bush surrogate.

    Scott Adams is trying to say it without saying it, but does anyone audit these results?
    , @Hersh
    Adams is making it too complicated. Iowa doesn't just have a governor and a few congressmen and senators; there are loads of jobs throughout the whole state that are by political connections. They exist all the time; during the quadrennial presidential caucus, they go into overdrive because theres lots of money in it. How do they get money? Not just those Jefferson Jackson/Lincoln dinners, thats for sure. They deliver votes. A caucus is designed as an opportunity for party organizations to make money off delivering votes. They make it hard to vote so the numbers are going to be low (compared to a primary) and controllable.

    Iowa even has 2 GOP organizations, the so-called "Evangelical" thing in addition to the GOP regular organization. Trump came out publicly that the leader of the evangelical one, Vanderplats, asked him for $100,000. Cruz has rich backers who can pay those fees. In 2012, Santorum had a billionaire backer. Without that machine, Santorum got 1%.

    How did Rubio get 3rd place? Someone paid some of the GOP regular organization to give him votes. They probably give out something to get people in, maybe even cash. All the committeemen are assigned a number to bring in. People in local politics aren't involved in local politics because they care so much about good government. If the doors hadn't had to close at 7, they'd have kept track of the vote totals and trotted in some more for Rubio to give him a surprise win and both Cruz and Trump would be left with egg on their faces. Rubio is shameless. Watch him go into a spiel to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. The speech they wrote for Rubio was a winners speech not a third place speech.

    Cruz had an established machine bringing in the votes they control. These stories about his "data analytics" are nonsense. Whats wrong with these political reporters? They never read anything about political machines? Or they think machines don't exist any more even with all the money at stake in the first presidential nominating contest?

    Trump achieved something big and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio's benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.
  9. As Steve has pointed out before, when discussed in publications intended for the private consumption of Jews, the information contained in this article is considered interesting and important. If it were published in the New York Times, there would be an outcry about anti-semitism.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dy2fo6E_pI
    , @Ben Tzot-Abrit

    when discussed in publications intended for the private consumption of Jews, the information contained in this article is considered interesting and important
     
    The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, at jta.org, is not "intended for the private consumption of Jews." Nor are most communal Jewish papers, which get by on advertising dollars. The Jewish Journal, which publishes more Stormfront-fodder than JTA, has (or at least had for many years) a Christian as its main religion columnist in hope of getting more non-Jewish readers.

    I know at one point they were also considering ways to get more readers from LA's Koreatown, which sounds strange and was understandably abandoned.

  10. @anony-mouse
    Do I detect a slight frisson of fear in the Trump-o-Sphere here?

    Shouldn't have gone so vigorously against Job (sp?)

    Now is not the time for fear, that comes later.

  11. @alex7
    A Rubio vs. Sanders race might end up being Rubio vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg which may end up resulting in Rubio vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg vs. Trump.

    I’m certain that Trump would not waste any of his money on a fruitless third-party bid. Same with Mike Bloomberg.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Trump is 70 years old and a multibillionaire. What does he have to lose by dumping 9 figures into a third party bid?
  12. • Replies: @Clifford Brown
    Pro Tip- Never trust a lawyer in a black beret and a black leather motorcycle jacket peddling conspiracy theories. Scratch that, never trust anyone in black beret and black leather motorcycle jacket, period.

    Who knows, maybe her little black book reveals that Lindsey Graham is straight.
    , @Glossy
    The DC madam's business was busted in 2006. Cruz and Rubio weren't in Washington yet then. Jeb and Trump have never worked in DC. Kasich, Bernie and Hillary's husband are possibilities.
    , @MaximumCynicism
    Ok, but having (possibly adulterous) sex with random female DC prostitutes is probably one of the least bad things the DC scumbags have done.

    Google what goes on there, and you'll probably have to stop, out of revulsion. The more you Google, the worse it gets.
  13. @alex7
    A Rubio vs. Sanders race might end up being Rubio vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg which may end up resulting in Rubio vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg vs. Trump.

    Bloomie only runs if the race is Trump v. Sanders, an ideal race from my vantage point, but one that underserves the donor class.

    Bloomberg would not run against Rubio because Rubio is the Establishment’s waterboy.

  14. @Anonymous

    Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances.
     
    Wow, that's pretty sad. Rubio hasn't done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn't come out of Braman's pockets.

    What's also really sad is that such shameless people like Braman dominate the political process and are completely shameless about corrupting the system. Note that this is an absolute corruption of the system but doesn't get counted in all those world country corruption surveys and measures.

    “Wow, that’s pretty sad. Rubio hasn’t done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn’t come out of Braman’s pockets. ”

    Since Bush flamed out, Rubio has found a new and even richer sugar-daddy – the hedge-fund manager, sovereign-debt-collector, and gay-rights champion Paul Singer.

    Rubio is the Republican Party’s rent-boy.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Rubio is the Republican Party’s rent-boy.
     
    In opening for introducing Donald Trump tonight in New Hampshire, Ann Coulter took a lavender swipe at Lindsey Graham, and another at Marco Rubio, the latter with a carom at the Current Occupant.
    , @Anonymous
    Marco RentBoyio. Has a bit of a ring to it.
  15. @Anonymous
    Steve, any thoughts on Scott Adams's argument that the Iowa cacuses were rigged?

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong

    As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.

    I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.

    But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.

    If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?

    A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.

    As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.

    I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
     

    I earlier posted about polls showing Rubio rising in Iowa before the caucuses. I just ran across a New Yorker article dated January 29, 20126 (this past Friday, before Monday’s caucuses), which contained the following line:

    “And yet, yesterday afternoon, an NBC News poll put his Iowa support at eighteen per cent, not too far behind Ted Cruz’s twenty-five per cent.”

    Interesting that Cruz climbed from 25 to 27, while Rubio climbed from 18 to 23.

  16. The puppeteering of American politicians by wealthy Jews is progress!

    And don’t you forget it!

    And don’t you talk about it either!

  17. @MG
    OT: Wonder what this is all about.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/02/02/former-lawyer-for-the-d-c-madam-says-names-in-her-records-could-be-relevant-to-election/?tid=sm_tw

    Pro Tip- Never trust a lawyer in a black beret and a black leather motorcycle jacket peddling conspiracy theories. Scratch that, never trust anyone in black beret and black leather motorcycle jacket, period.

    Who knows, maybe her little black book reveals that Lindsey Graham is straight.

    • Replies: @MG
    The scuttlebutt is that one of the self-righteous, moralizing Republican candidates is on the list.
    , @MG
    And there was this tweet earlier today from a Breitbart reporter. Possibly waiting to get it (whatever explosive bombshell he is claiming) vetted by legal.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/LibertarianBlue/status/694560338851815425
  18. @clifford Brown
    Notice that no one is celebrating the success of Latinos in the Iowan Republican Caucus. If a Democratic Latino had won the Iowa Caucus and another Democratic Latino had come in third, it just might have been considered important.

    Notice that no one is celebrating the success of Latinos in the Iowan Republican Caucus. If a Democratic Latino had won the Iowa Caucus and another Democratic Latino had come in third, it just might have been considered important.

    There’s also the White Cuban effect. If either Rubio or Cruz looked like Hoolian “El Chino” Castro….

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Because Rubio isn't really running as "a Latino" (at least not in middle America) and Cruz isn't running at all as one anywhere. It's inconceivable, OTOH for a Latino Democrat to not wear his ethnic identity on his sleeve. Being a Democrat politician in the current year requires making a big show of one's ethnic chauvinism (if considered an ethnic minority) or of one's ethnic anti-chauvinism (if considered among the ethnic majority). This is because the GOP, at least on the surface, espouses universalist values that purportedly should appeal to all ethnic groups, whereas the Democrats are pretty explicitly the party of "white people suck, amirite"
  19. If he were elected, he’d be the most malleable Israel stooge who ever occupied the White House.

    Is it normal in America for someone to pay off a student loan twenty years afterwards? It is indeed fortunate that his book was so good that it earned an $800 000 advance, or the loan might have remained unpaid. I wonder who published it, and how many copies it actually sold.

    • Replies: @Grumpy

    It is indeed fortunate that his book was so good that it earned an $800 000 advance, or the loan might have remained unpaid. I wonder who published it, and how many copies it actually sold.
     
    http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/
    , @AndrewR
    It's not uncommon given high tuition rates and relatively high interest rates, especially if the debtor has profligate spending habits and/or is unable and/or unwilling to earn a lot of money.
  20. @MG
    OT: Wonder what this is all about.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/02/02/former-lawyer-for-the-d-c-madam-says-names-in-her-records-could-be-relevant-to-election/?tid=sm_tw

    The DC madam’s business was busted in 2006. Cruz and Rubio weren’t in Washington yet then. Jeb and Trump have never worked in DC. Kasich, Bernie and Hillary’s husband are possibilities.

    • Replies: @MG
    Wasn't Cruz in town working for W?
  21. @clifford Brown
    Notice that no one is celebrating the success of Latinos in the Iowan Republican Caucus. If a Democratic Latino had won the Iowa Caucus and another Democratic Latino had come in third, it just might have been considered important.

    Do you even “who, whom”, bro?

  22. @Clifford Brown
    Pro Tip- Never trust a lawyer in a black beret and a black leather motorcycle jacket peddling conspiracy theories. Scratch that, never trust anyone in black beret and black leather motorcycle jacket, period.

    Who knows, maybe her little black book reveals that Lindsey Graham is straight.

    The scuttlebutt is that one of the self-righteous, moralizing Republican candidates is on the list.

  23. @Clifford Brown
    Pro Tip- Never trust a lawyer in a black beret and a black leather motorcycle jacket peddling conspiracy theories. Scratch that, never trust anyone in black beret and black leather motorcycle jacket, period.

    Who knows, maybe her little black book reveals that Lindsey Graham is straight.

    And there was this tweet earlier today from a Breitbart reporter. Possibly waiting to get it (whatever explosive bombshell he is claiming) vetted by legal.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/LibertarianBlue/status/694560338851815425

  24. @Glossy
    The DC madam's business was busted in 2006. Cruz and Rubio weren't in Washington yet then. Jeb and Trump have never worked in DC. Kasich, Bernie and Hillary's husband are possibilities.

    Wasn’t Cruz in town working for W?

  25. OT: Another edition of Jews worrying about East Asians wondering about Jews

    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/196382/chinas-secrets-of-jewish-success

    China’s Search for the Secrets of Jewish Success
    In their quest to understand Jews better, popular Chinese authors and bloggers offer up facts and myths about everything from the Talmud to anti-Semitism

    The article is an excerpt from the recently published book The Image of Jews in Contemporary China. Most of the Chinese explanations of Jewish success and anti-semitism will be familiar to readers here, although the following is new to me:

    In his blog post “Why are Jews so clever?” Gao Feng suggests that diet and “fetal education” are keys to Jewish success. He notes that “all Jews firmly believe when meat and fish are mixed together, it will do harm to their body.”

    The above is the only biological explanation. No hereditarian or evolutionary ones are cited. All of the other explanations are essentially culturalist (Judaism, education, parenting, economic segregation, etc).

  26. @Reg Cæsar

    Marco Rubio as the Flamingo Kid
     
    By dropping the Os, he could be Marc Rubi, the Flaming Kid. That would endear him to two excitable minorities with lots of money to donate.

    Its the Flaming-O Kid.

  27. @Mr. Anon
    "Wow, that’s pretty sad. Rubio hasn’t done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn’t come out of Braman’s pockets. "

    Since Bush flamed out, Rubio has found a new and even richer sugar-daddy - the hedge-fund manager, sovereign-debt-collector, and gay-rights champion Paul Singer.

    Rubio is the Republican Party's rent-boy.

    Rubio is the Republican Party’s rent-boy.

    In opening for introducing Donald Trump tonight in New Hampshire, Ann Coulter took a lavender swipe at Lindsey Graham, and another at Marco Rubio, the latter with a carom at the Current Occupant.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    To clarify, I was using the term "rent boy" metaphorically. I wasn't suggesting that Rubio is a catamite. However, given that these politicians sell themselves for money and support to wealthy interests, I think we should flatly call them what they are.............whores. I would like to see them openly held in contempt by their constituents.
    , @MaximumCynicism
    Yes, Anne's gold, isn't she?

    Anne, how about a few more shout-outs to Steve Sailer in front of large (preferably TV) audiences, so Steve can cash some monster checks for his years of work for our side?
  28. The conventional wisdom I’ve been hearing is that Trump would lose in the general election, split the party, and send the R’s into the wilderness for a decade..

    You know the score – The Republitards are going to lose. They will break in half – one part wanna do the Hispanics are natural conservatives, we all hate abortion and gay marriage, and the other part… well call it what you will. The coallish is dead.

    Done. Over. Kaput!

    Jeb, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    one part wanna do the Hispanics are natural conservatives, we all hate abortion and gay marriage
     
    No one on either side of these issues wants to suggest the obvious: outlaw such things for one race, and encourage them in the others.

    Not even here.
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Three Points:

    -A guy who claims to know an ‘insider’ called the Iowa results 4 days ago with uncanny accuracy. He says Trump will win New Hampshire, but ultimately, Rubio will win the nomination – as he is more ‘pliable’.
    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3073132/pg1

    -Bookmakers have 3:1 odds of Hillary beating Rubio for the presidency.
    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

    -PredictWise, a research project led by David Rothschild who is an economist at Microsoft Research in New York City, shows Hillary beating Rubio 2:1 for the presidency.
    http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner

    So there you have it folks.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    Gonna track this for posterity. Wonder if it was rigged for Oba-ma-witz as well. Romney & McCain certainly played their parts well enough.

    "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it."~ Mark Twain
  30. @Anonymous
    Steve, any thoughts on Scott Adams's argument that the Iowa cacuses were rigged?

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong

    As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.

    I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.

    But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.

    If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?

    A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.

    As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.

    I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
     

    I can’t find the link, but Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.

    The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.

    The article didn’t mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections...
     
    No comment.

    ...elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.
     
    Set the devils against one another. You have a better plan?
    , @Dave Pinsen
    My city sends out flyers advertising for election workers. They get $200 for the day, I think.
    , @LondonBob
    In Britain all votes are in paper form and counted in the open. I am very surprised how US elections are conducted, especially considering your history (Nixon when LBJ ballot stuffed Texas, and the Kennedys Illinois).
    , @MaximumCynicism
    To be blunt, I'm skeptical about the results of any election for Federal office, especially that of President, without some kind of truly independent auditing process.
  31. Marco Rubio is the late sleezy salesguy Don Lapre:

  32. More like the Flaming Kid.

  33. There is some irony that the Jew in the race is the least pro Israel. And he is still very pro-Israel.

    Not sure if Bernie is religious at all though, his wife is Catholic.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jewish politicians don't have to be pro-Israel like gentile politicians do.
    , @AndrewR
    She needs to lay off the communion wine and wafers
  34. @Anonymous

    Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances.
     
    Wow, that's pretty sad. Rubio hasn't done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn't come out of Braman's pockets.

    What's also really sad is that such shameless people like Braman dominate the political process and are completely shameless about corrupting the system. Note that this is an absolute corruption of the system but doesn't get counted in all those world country corruption surveys and measures.

    Rubio’s first book that he received the $800,000 advance for, and which has sold a staggering 37,000 copies, was published by Sentinel. Looks like a donation to me though I am not in publishing.

    As the web site says, “Meet Sentinel.”

    http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I need to get me one of those book contracts.
    , @Former Darfur
    Meet Sentinel:

    Adrian Zackheim
    Founder, President, and Publisher

    Will Weisser
    Niki Papadopoulos
    Natalie Horbachevsky

    Nope, no pattern there.
  35. @Rob McX
    If he were elected, he'd be the most malleable Israel stooge who ever occupied the White House.

    Is it normal in America for someone to pay off a student loan twenty years afterwards? It is indeed fortunate that his book was so good that it earned an $800 000 advance, or the loan might have remained unpaid. I wonder who published it, and how many copies it actually sold.

    It is indeed fortunate that his book was so good that it earned an $800 000 advance, or the loan might have remained unpaid. I wonder who published it, and how many copies it actually sold.

    http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/

  36. @Lot
    There is some irony that the Jew in the race is the least pro Israel. And he is still very pro-Israel.

    Not sure if Bernie is religious at all though, his wife is Catholic.

    Jewish politicians don’t have to be pro-Israel like gentile politicians do.

  37. @David
    Rubio's first book that he received the $800,000 advance for, and which has sold a staggering 37,000 copies, was published by Sentinel. Looks like a donation to me though I am not in publishing.

    As the web site says, "Meet Sentinel."

    http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/

    I need to get me one of those book contracts.

    • Agree: Hunsdon
    • Replies: @EriK
    Steve, you'll need to get elected to something first to get a contract like that. For example, Gov. Cuomo got a similar haul as Rubio. Last time I checked, his book had sold less than 4,000 copies.
  38. @asdf
    The conventional wisdom I've been hearing is that Trump would lose in the general election, split the party, and send the R's into the wilderness for a decade..

    You know the score - The Republitards are going to lose. They will break in half - one part wanna do the Hispanics are natural conservatives, we all hate abortion and gay marriage, and the other part... well call it what you will. The coallish is dead.

    Done. Over. Kaput!

    Jeb, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

    one part wanna do the Hispanics are natural conservatives, we all hate abortion and gay marriage

    No one on either side of these issues wants to suggest the obvious: outlaw such things for one race, and encourage them in the others.

    Not even here.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I was banned from facebook for saying white females should be discouraged from aborting and black females should be encouraged to lol
    , @Jimmy Docherty
    You and I are on the same wavelength.
  39. @Ed
    I can't find the link, but Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.

    The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.

    The article didn't mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.

    other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections…

    No comment.

    …elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.

    Set the devils against one another. You have a better plan?

  40. @Anonymous
    Steve, any thoughts on Scott Adams's argument that the Iowa cacuses were rigged?

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong

    As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.

    I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.

    But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.

    If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?

    A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.

    As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.

    I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
     

    You could make a stronger “I’m not saying…” case on the Dem side, with Hillary’s 6 coin toss wins.

  41. @Ed
    I can't find the link, but Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.

    The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.

    The article didn't mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.

    My city sends out flyers advertising for election workers. They get $200 for the day, I think.

  42. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This is just another depressing reminder of how all candidates, unless they’re independently very wealthy, are in the pocket of one faction or another of competing groups of fat cats. Also that having skeletons in the closet are considered a good thing. All the candidates except Trump have expressed enthusiasm for war and have vied with each other in who could be the most hawkish. Does this mean that if it’s not Trump then war is a sure thing in the next administration?

  43. @David
    Rubio's first book that he received the $800,000 advance for, and which has sold a staggering 37,000 copies, was published by Sentinel. Looks like a donation to me though I am not in publishing.

    As the web site says, "Meet Sentinel."

    http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/

    Meet Sentinel:

    Adrian Zackheim
    Founder, President, and Publisher

    Will Weisser
    Niki Papadopoulos
    Natalie Horbachevsky

    Nope, no pattern there.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    Dov Zakheim was a former DoD higher-up. Likely no relation, but it's a memorable name.
  44. “A Rubio-Sanders race might be interesting…”

    I think you confuse the word “interesting” with the word “hideous.”

  45. @Anonymous

    Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances.
     
    Wow, that's pretty sad. Rubio hasn't done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn't come out of Braman's pockets.

    What's also really sad is that such shameless people like Braman dominate the political process and are completely shameless about corrupting the system. Note that this is an absolute corruption of the system but doesn't get counted in all those world country corruption surveys and measures.

    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.
     
    It's there to protect it, not stop it. Does a snake bite it's own tail?
    , @MaximumCynicism
    Oh yes, and thanks to GCHQ and MI5, all British pols are squeaky clean.
    , @dfordoom

    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.
     
    I think the point of it is to make sure that nobody ever investigates such obvious influence peddling.
  46. @Ed
    I can't find the link, but Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.

    The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.

    The article didn't mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.

    In Britain all votes are in paper form and counted in the open. I am very surprised how US elections are conducted, especially considering your history (Nixon when LBJ ballot stuffed Texas, and the Kennedys Illinois).

    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    Each state has different procedures for voting. In fact each county probably does too. In my county in the state of Missouri we still vote with paper ballots that have little ovals next to each candidate's name. You fill in the oval of your choice with a #2 pencil. That's it. It's very lo-tech.

    Other areas are abandoning this system because as with all else in our nation, people are being told they have to computerize everything to keep up with the modern world. Personally I like my paper ballot. It's easy to us and provides a paper trail should a recount be necessary.

  47. anon • Disclaimer says:

    So Fruity Ruby is yet another hand plucked puppet-politician groomed from a young age by a billionaire who probably has dirt on him for control purposes…

    and they all have a raging hatred for Russia.

    ****ing great.

    Does this mean that if it’s not Trump then war is a sure thing in the next administration?

    Sanders maybe not. Otherwise yes.

    Might be even with Trump as although he seems chilled with regard Putin he talks a lot about Iran.

  48. @Steve Sailer
    I need to get me one of those book contracts.

    Steve, you’ll need to get elected to something first to get a contract like that. For example, Gov. Cuomo got a similar haul as Rubio. Last time I checked, his book had sold less than 4,000 copies.

  49. Again with the six-figure advances for a book by a nobody! First Obama, the colored kid protégé of the Pritzkers and Crowns. Now Rubio, the colored kid protégé of Brahman.

    Is this the new way of laundering influence? Give the cute colored kid a six-figure advance on a worthless book to tide him over. Elect him. Then give him $200,000 a speech after he gets out (if he did good).

    Rubio game is even better than Obama game.

    Obama was a part-time law prof for UofC. A little sex appeal, not much.

    Rubio is a Chippendale’s dancer and has the photos to prove it. That goes straight to voter girl gonads.

    To Rubio if you are listening: my gal says you need to use a depilatory on your face to get the perfect boy-band look. Shoot some Putinesque muscle photos, too.

  50. The problem isn’t Rubio backers. The problem is Rubio voters.

    The donor class would have no power, no influence, if not for the myopic self-interest, self-righteousness and stupidity of the white upper middle-class.

    Makes me hope the Left hasn’t been discouraged in their attacks on frat boys. If the parents of those boys are gonna vote for Rubio, I can only hope that Erdaly’s colleagues continue the good fight and draw some real blood next time. Makes me also hope that Zuckerberg gets all the H1B visas his heart could desire.

    The Left would have no power, none, if the Right were united by an unsentimental, non-utopian, communal vision, clearly committed to playing a centuries-long game. That, and if centrist liberals were denied the vote.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Well the Republican Party has never really been about conservatism. It was always the party of corporate fascism. It is just that the Democrats as the agrarian party became the party of the progressives and we have this crappy two party system so there was no place for conservatives to go. If you go back to the beginning of state police forces they were usually under Republican governorships and were usually little more than goon squads used to intimidate union organizers. Admittedly, the union guys weren't all that peaceful themselves.

    Name any real conservative idea that the GOP has put forward. Cutting taxes and borrowing money to pay for it is not conservative. Cutting spending and if there is a surplus then giving it back to the tax payers is. Expanding the list of affirmative action recipients is not conservative. If you are going to have it you need to make sure that only those people who deserve it get it. The list is endless of things the GOP has allowed to happen in order to keep the Democrats from stopping the main GOP policies of corporate welfare schemes (like driving wages down) and keeping billionaires from paying taxes.

    Take for example affirmative action. Do you really think American blacks want to see benefits going to some guy who just walked off an airliner from Africa? Sure there is a lot of hate-whitey out there but if the Republicans had forced AA recipients to be limited to recognized Indian tribe members or blacks who can show ancestors having been born in this country prior to 1900, we would have far less of a problem than we have now and it could be sold to blacks and Indians by pointing that their piece of the pie is bigger if they cut out all those people who don't deserve it. However, the GOP just rolled over and even expanded it to include Subcontinent Indians and Pakistanis as disadvantaged and eligible for set-asides.

    The GOP always had in its hand the ability to unite most of the people. Lots of Democrats rallied around Reagan and he crapped all over them. There is enough support by them for Trump to possibly take some reliably blue states and the GOP leadership doesn't want it.

  51. Great analogy, Steve. Entertaining movie. I’ve always liked Dillon, Crenna is great at playing the sleazy car dealer, and what’s not to like about a young Janet Jones. I assumed Dillon was Italian, but could be wrong.

    Sweet Ginger Brown.

    • Replies: @Gingerbread Man
    One aspect I appreciate most about Steve's political commentary is the connections drawn between cultural references, past and present, and socio/political current events. I was never a big novel reader (preferring nonfiction) or a TV/movie watcher (apart from documentaries). Steve has shown me that if you watch movies and read novels with a discerning eye and a good memory, they can provide deeper insight into the political or social landscape, even decades later.
  52. @syonredux

    Notice that no one is celebrating the success of Latinos in the Iowan Republican Caucus. If a Democratic Latino had won the Iowa Caucus and another Democratic Latino had come in third, it just might have been considered important.
     
    There's also the White Cuban effect. If either Rubio or Cruz looked like Hoolian "El Chino" Castro....

    Because Rubio isn’t really running as “a Latino” (at least not in middle America) and Cruz isn’t running at all as one anywhere. It’s inconceivable, OTOH for a Latino Democrat to not wear his ethnic identity on his sleeve. Being a Democrat politician in the current year requires making a big show of one’s ethnic chauvinism (if considered an ethnic minority) or of one’s ethnic anti-chauvinism (if considered among the ethnic majority). This is because the GOP, at least on the surface, espouses universalist values that purportedly should appeal to all ethnic groups, whereas the Democrats are pretty explicitly the party of “white people suck, amirite”

  53. @tbraton
    I'm certain that Trump would not waste any of his money on a fruitless third-party bid. Same with Mike Bloomberg.

    Trump is 70 years old and a multibillionaire. What does he have to lose by dumping 9 figures into a third party bid?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Well, despite his current billions, Trump back in the early 90's went through a trying financial crisis that forced him to sell many pricy toys, such as his expensive yacht. So I don't think he would relish spending a lot of money for a useless run for office. After all, running as an independent would mean he has little or no likelihood of winning enough states to win an outright victory in the Electoral College, which means the election would have to be decided in the House of Representatives, with each state being given one vote. I believe the House is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.

    I know from personal experience that going through bankruptcy or a financial crisis leaves a real mark on a man. When I was growing up, my family used to vacation in Erie, Pennsylvania, largely because my mother's only relation in the U.S., her older sister, lived there with her husband. Among the circle of acquaintances I and my brothers had was the son of a local businessman, of roughly the same age. The father had moved to Erie in the early 50's with his wife and young son after his first business, a restaurant in a smaller town in Pa., had gone bankrupt. He opened up a small restaurant in Erie and then branched out by opening other, more profitable businesses, including a motel. There were occasions during our summer visits when we would be at our friend's house for dinner on a Sunday night, and his father would be off going through the numbers with his manager about the weekend business at the motel, which catered to the summer tourist trade. He watched that business like a hawk, down to the last penny. I am pretty sure that a large part of that was attributable to the fact that he had earlier gone through the public shame and humiliation of going through bankruptcy. He died a very wealthy man and left his only son instilled with the same values. He translated his own considerable skills, education and hard work into greatly expanding his father's little empire. Despite his much more lavish lifestyle, I see evidence of the same searing experience in Donald Trump.

    BTW, back in 2000, when we had that little brouhaha about the disputed Presidential election, I was able from the start to predict how it would turn out. I recognized that such an important legal dispute would wind up eventually in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was able to count and saw that there were 7 justices appointed by Republicans (even eliminating the pseudo-Republicans Stevens and Souter left 5) and only 2 appointed by Democrats. Therefore I was able to confidently predict that the ultimate decision would result in President Bush being sworn in, as opposed to President Gore. There was no way a Republican dominated Supreme Court was going to allow a Democrat dominated state supreme court to steal a federal election for a Democrat. If you disagree with my analysis above, please set out your reasoning why Trump would like to squander a million or more of his fortune. I would like to see how your analysis goes.
  54. @Rob McX
    If he were elected, he'd be the most malleable Israel stooge who ever occupied the White House.

    Is it normal in America for someone to pay off a student loan twenty years afterwards? It is indeed fortunate that his book was so good that it earned an $800 000 advance, or the loan might have remained unpaid. I wonder who published it, and how many copies it actually sold.

    It’s not uncommon given high tuition rates and relatively high interest rates, especially if the debtor has profligate spending habits and/or is unable and/or unwilling to earn a lot of money.

  55. @Lot
    There is some irony that the Jew in the race is the least pro Israel. And he is still very pro-Israel.

    Not sure if Bernie is religious at all though, his wife is Catholic.

    She needs to lay off the communion wine and wafers

  56. @Reg Cæsar

    one part wanna do the Hispanics are natural conservatives, we all hate abortion and gay marriage
     
    No one on either side of these issues wants to suggest the obvious: outlaw such things for one race, and encourage them in the others.

    Not even here.

    I was banned from facebook for saying white females should be discouraged from aborting and black females should be encouraged to lol

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Shame on you!

    For being on Facebook in the first place.
  57. @Reg Cæsar

    Rubio is the Republican Party’s rent-boy.
     
    In opening for introducing Donald Trump tonight in New Hampshire, Ann Coulter took a lavender swipe at Lindsey Graham, and another at Marco Rubio, the latter with a carom at the Current Occupant.

    To clarify, I was using the term “rent boy” metaphorically. I wasn’t suggesting that Rubio is a catamite. However, given that these politicians sell themselves for money and support to wealthy interests, I think we should flatly call them what they are………….whores. I would like to see them openly held in contempt by their constituents.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Their constituents are fools easily duped and distracted.
  58. @Anonymous
    Steve, any thoughts on Scott Adams's argument that the Iowa cacuses were rigged?

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong

    As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.

    I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.

    But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.

    If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?

    A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.

    As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.

    I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
     

    The Rubio result stinks to high heaven. He’s a Bush surrogate.

    Scott Adams is trying to say it without saying it, but does anyone audit these results?

  59. @Mr. Anon
    "Wow, that’s pretty sad. Rubio hasn’t done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn’t come out of Braman’s pockets. "

    Since Bush flamed out, Rubio has found a new and even richer sugar-daddy - the hedge-fund manager, sovereign-debt-collector, and gay-rights champion Paul Singer.

    Rubio is the Republican Party's rent-boy.

    Marco RentBoyio. Has a bit of a ring to it.

  60. @Ed
    I can't find the link, but Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.

    The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.

    The article didn't mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.

    To be blunt, I’m skeptical about the results of any election for Federal office, especially that of President, without some kind of truly independent auditing process.

  61. @MG
    OT: Wonder what this is all about.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/02/02/former-lawyer-for-the-d-c-madam-says-names-in-her-records-could-be-relevant-to-election/?tid=sm_tw

    Ok, but having (possibly adulterous) sex with random female DC prostitutes is probably one of the least bad things the DC scumbags have done.

    Google what goes on there, and you’ll probably have to stop, out of revulsion. The more you Google, the worse it gets.

    • Replies: @MG
    That is not the point. Cruz has run on this handpicked-by-God image and if he is found to have engaged in 'improper' behavior it punctures that myth and more important, he cannot then go after Trump's indiscretions and the "New York values" babble. In fact, he becomes some kind of a joke himself.
  62. @anony-mouse
    Do I detect a slight frisson of fear in the Trump-o-Sphere here?

    Shouldn't have gone so vigorously against Job (sp?)

    Pool Boy (as he is usually known on Twitter, although Cabana Boy is better) is no threat, any more than Evita.

  63. @Reg Cæsar

    one part wanna do the Hispanics are natural conservatives, we all hate abortion and gay marriage
     
    No one on either side of these issues wants to suggest the obvious: outlaw such things for one race, and encourage them in the others.

    Not even here.

    You and I are on the same wavelength.

  64. @Former Darfur
    Meet Sentinel:

    Adrian Zackheim
    Founder, President, and Publisher

    Will Weisser
    Niki Papadopoulos
    Natalie Horbachevsky

    Nope, no pattern there.

    Dov Zakheim was a former DoD higher-up. Likely no relation, but it’s a memorable name.

  65. @Anonymous
    Three Points:

    -A guy who claims to know an 'insider' called the Iowa results 4 days ago with uncanny accuracy. He says Trump will win New Hampshire, but ultimately, Rubio will win the nomination - as he is more 'pliable'.
    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3073132/pg1

    -Bookmakers have 3:1 odds of Hillary beating Rubio for the presidency.
    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

    -PredictWise, a research project led by David Rothschild who is an economist at Microsoft Research in New York City, shows Hillary beating Rubio 2:1 for the presidency.
    http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner

    So there you have it folks.

    Gonna track this for posterity. Wonder if it was rigged for Oba-ma-witz as well. Romney & McCain certainly played their parts well enough.

    “If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it.”~ Mark Twain

  66. @officious intermeddler
    As Steve has pointed out before, when discussed in publications intended for the private consumption of Jews, the information contained in this article is considered interesting and important. If it were published in the New York Times, there would be an outcry about anti-semitism.

  67. @MaximumCynicism
    Ok, but having (possibly adulterous) sex with random female DC prostitutes is probably one of the least bad things the DC scumbags have done.

    Google what goes on there, and you'll probably have to stop, out of revulsion. The more you Google, the worse it gets.

    That is not the point. Cruz has run on this handpicked-by-God image and if he is found to have engaged in ‘improper’ behavior it punctures that myth and more important, he cannot then go after Trump’s indiscretions and the “New York values” babble. In fact, he becomes some kind of a joke himself.

  68. @Mr. Anon
    To clarify, I was using the term "rent boy" metaphorically. I wasn't suggesting that Rubio is a catamite. However, given that these politicians sell themselves for money and support to wealthy interests, I think we should flatly call them what they are.............whores. I would like to see them openly held in contempt by their constituents.

    Their constituents are fools easily duped and distracted.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Unfortunately, that is largely true.
  69. @AndrewR
    Trump is 70 years old and a multibillionaire. What does he have to lose by dumping 9 figures into a third party bid?

    Well, despite his current billions, Trump back in the early 90’s went through a trying financial crisis that forced him to sell many pricy toys, such as his expensive yacht. So I don’t think he would relish spending a lot of money for a useless run for office. After all, running as an independent would mean he has little or no likelihood of winning enough states to win an outright victory in the Electoral College, which means the election would have to be decided in the House of Representatives, with each state being given one vote. I believe the House is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.

    I know from personal experience that going through bankruptcy or a financial crisis leaves a real mark on a man. When I was growing up, my family used to vacation in Erie, Pennsylvania, largely because my mother’s only relation in the U.S., her older sister, lived there with her husband. Among the circle of acquaintances I and my brothers had was the son of a local businessman, of roughly the same age. The father had moved to Erie in the early 50’s with his wife and young son after his first business, a restaurant in a smaller town in Pa., had gone bankrupt. He opened up a small restaurant in Erie and then branched out by opening other, more profitable businesses, including a motel. There were occasions during our summer visits when we would be at our friend’s house for dinner on a Sunday night, and his father would be off going through the numbers with his manager about the weekend business at the motel, which catered to the summer tourist trade. He watched that business like a hawk, down to the last penny. I am pretty sure that a large part of that was attributable to the fact that he had earlier gone through the public shame and humiliation of going through bankruptcy. He died a very wealthy man and left his only son instilled with the same values. He translated his own considerable skills, education and hard work into greatly expanding his father’s little empire. Despite his much more lavish lifestyle, I see evidence of the same searing experience in Donald Trump.

    BTW, back in 2000, when we had that little brouhaha about the disputed Presidential election, I was able from the start to predict how it would turn out. I recognized that such an important legal dispute would wind up eventually in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was able to count and saw that there were 7 justices appointed by Republicans (even eliminating the pseudo-Republicans Stevens and Souter left 5) and only 2 appointed by Democrats. Therefore I was able to confidently predict that the ultimate decision would result in President Bush being sworn in, as opposed to President Gore. There was no way a Republican dominated Supreme Court was going to allow a Democrat dominated state supreme court to steal a federal election for a Democrat. If you disagree with my analysis above, please set out your reasoning why Trump would like to squander a million or more of his fortune. I would like to see how your analysis goes.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Lol a million is chump change to him. Even a billion would be for a significant chance at the presidency.

    In the early 90s he was much younger. What's his life expectancy now? 10, 15 more years? Might as well go big. Perot got 20% of the vote and, for many, many reasons I think Trump would get far above that. People are sick of the cucks.
    , @AP

    Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.
     
    Bloomberg said he would run, maybe, if it were Trump vs. Sanders. If, as a result, nobody gets more than 50% of the electoral votes in the election (Bloomberg getting New York State, perhaps New Jersey and Florida, might be enough for that to happen) the House chooses the president. The Republicans in congress may prefer a Bloomberg presidency to a Trump one...or enough of them could ally with centrist Democrats to elect Bloomberg.
    , @Pure and Easy
    It's not a matter of money. It's a matter of ego. Trump has plenty and although he showed humility immediately after losing the caucus, he was unhappy. Now he accuses Cruz of stealing.

    If he fails to get the nomination I think it's likely he will. Not based on any calculation but based on a bruised ego. He thinks he should be president. He's getting support to make him think he will. When that's gone he won't take it well and will lash out at those he blames.

    Like your point of the psychological effects of bankruptcy the effects of being wronged will be harsh. Much harsher than his losing a yacht or a few trophies. He's not as rich as he says he is but he can afford to do whatever he wants.
  70. @Reg Cæsar

    Rubio is the Republican Party’s rent-boy.
     
    In opening for introducing Donald Trump tonight in New Hampshire, Ann Coulter took a lavender swipe at Lindsey Graham, and another at Marco Rubio, the latter with a carom at the Current Occupant.

    Yes, Anne’s gold, isn’t she?

    Anne, how about a few more shout-outs to Steve Sailer in front of large (preferably TV) audiences, so Steve can cash some monster checks for his years of work for our side?

  71. @LondonBob
    In Britain all votes are in paper form and counted in the open. I am very surprised how US elections are conducted, especially considering your history (Nixon when LBJ ballot stuffed Texas, and the Kennedys Illinois).

    Each state has different procedures for voting. In fact each county probably does too. In my county in the state of Missouri we still vote with paper ballots that have little ovals next to each candidate’s name. You fill in the oval of your choice with a #2 pencil. That’s it. It’s very lo-tech.

    Other areas are abandoning this system because as with all else in our nation, people are being told they have to computerize everything to keep up with the modern world. Personally I like my paper ballot. It’s easy to us and provides a paper trail should a recount be necessary.

  72. @LondonBob
    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.

    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.

    It’s there to protect it, not stop it. Does a snake bite it’s own tail?

  73. @Anonymous

    Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances.
     
    Wow, that's pretty sad. Rubio hasn't done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn't come out of Braman's pockets.

    What's also really sad is that such shameless people like Braman dominate the political process and are completely shameless about corrupting the system. Note that this is an absolute corruption of the system but doesn't get counted in all those world country corruption surveys and measures.

    A couple of years ago, Braman led a highly-publicized fight against another Miami billionaire, Stephen Ross – the owner of the Dolphins. Ross wanted the taxpayers to foot a mid-nine-figure bill for renovating the football stadium.

    Ross’ timing was awful, though – public anger over the taxpayer-funded $600-million baseball stadium was still high. (Even before the stadium opened, Braman led a successful recall campaign against the city mayor who’d championed the deal.)

    In the end, Braman won – Ross had to pay for the renovations himself.

    So he’s not all bad.

    But, yeah, Rubio is a pathetic puppet with void between the ears.

  74. @anowow
    The problem isn't Rubio backers. The problem is Rubio voters.


    The donor class would have no power, no influence, if not for the myopic self-interest, self-righteousness and stupidity of the white upper middle-class.


    Makes me hope the Left hasn't been discouraged in their attacks on frat boys. If the parents of those boys are gonna vote for Rubio, I can only hope that Erdaly's colleagues continue the good fight and draw some real blood next time. Makes me also hope that Zuckerberg gets all the H1B visas his heart could desire.

    The Left would have no power, none, if the Right were united by an unsentimental, non-utopian, communal vision, clearly committed to playing a centuries-long game. That, and if centrist liberals were denied the vote.

    Well the Republican Party has never really been about conservatism. It was always the party of corporate fascism. It is just that the Democrats as the agrarian party became the party of the progressives and we have this crappy two party system so there was no place for conservatives to go. If you go back to the beginning of state police forces they were usually under Republican governorships and were usually little more than goon squads used to intimidate union organizers. Admittedly, the union guys weren’t all that peaceful themselves.

    Name any real conservative idea that the GOP has put forward. Cutting taxes and borrowing money to pay for it is not conservative. Cutting spending and if there is a surplus then giving it back to the tax payers is. Expanding the list of affirmative action recipients is not conservative. If you are going to have it you need to make sure that only those people who deserve it get it. The list is endless of things the GOP has allowed to happen in order to keep the Democrats from stopping the main GOP policies of corporate welfare schemes (like driving wages down) and keeping billionaires from paying taxes.

    Take for example affirmative action. Do you really think American blacks want to see benefits going to some guy who just walked off an airliner from Africa? Sure there is a lot of hate-whitey out there but if the Republicans had forced AA recipients to be limited to recognized Indian tribe members or blacks who can show ancestors having been born in this country prior to 1900, we would have far less of a problem than we have now and it could be sold to blacks and Indians by pointing that their piece of the pie is bigger if they cut out all those people who don’t deserve it. However, the GOP just rolled over and even expanded it to include Subcontinent Indians and Pakistanis as disadvantaged and eligible for set-asides.

    The GOP always had in its hand the ability to unite most of the people. Lots of Democrats rallied around Reagan and he crapped all over them. There is enough support by them for Trump to possibly take some reliably blue states and the GOP leadership doesn’t want it.

    • Replies: @anowow
    Total agreement.

    The GOP was never about nation or community, beyond maudlin b.s.

    The GOP leaders show where their priorities are. They can git er done for useless votes against Obamacare, awful trade deals, Israeli tribute/"defense" welfare. But battling affirmative action, enforcing laws about hiring employees against employers- all impossibilities. We can remake the Middle East with some muscle, lots of cash and pixie dust. But the illegal situation? Can't be done, just can't.

    They will defund the government, but not "the troops." Heaven forbid we stop funding the Military, Spetsnaz might occupy Cologne, no doubt battling its current rulers( North African thugs) for control of its public spaces.

    I doubt Obama will have much resistance to his European "Defense" spending from the party of small government. They are too busy making sure some poor person doesn't get access to a dialysis machine.

    And they do this because lots of Americans vote them into power because, God help them, they have no choice! The blame isn't to be placed on politicians, it is to be placed on majorities or pluralities of voters, who largely lack vision or imagination.

  75. @LondonBob
    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.

    Oh yes, and thanks to GCHQ and MI5, all British pols are squeaky clean.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I didn't say they weren't. In many ways I think the Conservative/Labour Friends of Israel are even more brazen and there seems to be little push back (probably because we don't matter).
  76. @Steve from Detroit
    Great analogy, Steve. Entertaining movie. I've always liked Dillon, Crenna is great at playing the sleazy car dealer, and what's not to like about a young Janet Jones. I assumed Dillon was Italian, but could be wrong.

    Sweet Ginger Brown.

    One aspect I appreciate most about Steve’s political commentary is the connections drawn between cultural references, past and present, and socio/political current events. I was never a big novel reader (preferring nonfiction) or a TV/movie watcher (apart from documentaries). Steve has shown me that if you watch movies and read novels with a discerning eye and a good memory, they can provide deeper insight into the political or social landscape, even decades later.

  77. Incidentally, over lunch today I had a less-than-edifying conversation with an older middle-aged guy who told me that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio were all acceptable to him.

    He had nothing to say, aside from the standard “mainstream-conservative” talking points. Immigration didn’t even come up. Listening to him was tedious – very tedious.

    I don’t advertise the fact that I harbor iSteve-ish opinions, at least not to random strangers, so there were lots of things I could have said that I didn’t. Mostly I kept my mouth shut.

    I did mention the fact, which reading this post had reawakened in my mind, that Braman was Rubio’s godfather. I didn’t go so far as to call Rubio an empty suit and a puppet of men much smarter than he, but I did make the implication.

    The guy said, “Oh, really?” in a somewhat condescending manner, as if I’d said “You know, the sky is often blue,” and then kept blathering on about Trump’s tax policy.

    “That’s the only reason to vote for him,” he kept saying. “All the other stuff is irrelevant.”

    Yes, that’s what it’s all about – the tax policy. Everything else is irrelevant. The fact that America isn’t America anymore, and may never be America again, doesn’t matter. Who cares if we’re being invaded? Who cares if we’re well on our way to becoming another Brazil, at best? The tax policy is more important.

    No, I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a bad idea to base one’s rationale for voting for a particular candidate on his tax policy. But doesn’t this man care about the larger issues that Trump has sledgehammered into the national discourse? He probably has a grandkid or two – doesn’t he care whether or not the country that they’ll inherit will bear any resemblance to the one that he grew up in? Does he ever wonder whether they’ll have any wealth to tax?

    I could have asked him that, but I was already done with my lunch and didn’t want to drag out the (non-)conversation. So I bid him good day and left.

    Reading Steve is good for my brain, but bad for my morale. It makes my social interactions in meatspace even more unbearable.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    It's all very depressing, isn't it? I go for months without talking to a single person who can make any real sense. People have told me that Hillary should be the president because she's female. That's it, that's what it's based on, nothing more. Where's the real people?
  78. @AndrewR
    I was banned from facebook for saying white females should be discouraged from aborting and black females should be encouraged to lol

    Shame on you!

    For being on Facebook in the first place.

  79. @tbraton
    Well, despite his current billions, Trump back in the early 90's went through a trying financial crisis that forced him to sell many pricy toys, such as his expensive yacht. So I don't think he would relish spending a lot of money for a useless run for office. After all, running as an independent would mean he has little or no likelihood of winning enough states to win an outright victory in the Electoral College, which means the election would have to be decided in the House of Representatives, with each state being given one vote. I believe the House is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.

    I know from personal experience that going through bankruptcy or a financial crisis leaves a real mark on a man. When I was growing up, my family used to vacation in Erie, Pennsylvania, largely because my mother's only relation in the U.S., her older sister, lived there with her husband. Among the circle of acquaintances I and my brothers had was the son of a local businessman, of roughly the same age. The father had moved to Erie in the early 50's with his wife and young son after his first business, a restaurant in a smaller town in Pa., had gone bankrupt. He opened up a small restaurant in Erie and then branched out by opening other, more profitable businesses, including a motel. There were occasions during our summer visits when we would be at our friend's house for dinner on a Sunday night, and his father would be off going through the numbers with his manager about the weekend business at the motel, which catered to the summer tourist trade. He watched that business like a hawk, down to the last penny. I am pretty sure that a large part of that was attributable to the fact that he had earlier gone through the public shame and humiliation of going through bankruptcy. He died a very wealthy man and left his only son instilled with the same values. He translated his own considerable skills, education and hard work into greatly expanding his father's little empire. Despite his much more lavish lifestyle, I see evidence of the same searing experience in Donald Trump.

    BTW, back in 2000, when we had that little brouhaha about the disputed Presidential election, I was able from the start to predict how it would turn out. I recognized that such an important legal dispute would wind up eventually in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was able to count and saw that there were 7 justices appointed by Republicans (even eliminating the pseudo-Republicans Stevens and Souter left 5) and only 2 appointed by Democrats. Therefore I was able to confidently predict that the ultimate decision would result in President Bush being sworn in, as opposed to President Gore. There was no way a Republican dominated Supreme Court was going to allow a Democrat dominated state supreme court to steal a federal election for a Democrat. If you disagree with my analysis above, please set out your reasoning why Trump would like to squander a million or more of his fortune. I would like to see how your analysis goes.

    Lol a million is chump change to him. Even a billion would be for a significant chance at the presidency.

    In the early 90s he was much younger. What’s his life expectancy now? 10, 15 more years? Might as well go big. Perot got 20% of the vote and, for many, many reasons I think Trump would get far above that. People are sick of the cucks.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    I forget. How many electoral votes did Perot get?

    Perot was a wacko who had some personal grudge against GHWB. I noticed that he gave GWB a pass and an endorsement. He surely must have known that GWB was an idiot since GWB was a two-term Texas governor. I guess they must have found out something damaging to Perot or threatened to do something damaging to him if GWB were elected.
  80. @tbraton
    Well, despite his current billions, Trump back in the early 90's went through a trying financial crisis that forced him to sell many pricy toys, such as his expensive yacht. So I don't think he would relish spending a lot of money for a useless run for office. After all, running as an independent would mean he has little or no likelihood of winning enough states to win an outright victory in the Electoral College, which means the election would have to be decided in the House of Representatives, with each state being given one vote. I believe the House is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.

    I know from personal experience that going through bankruptcy or a financial crisis leaves a real mark on a man. When I was growing up, my family used to vacation in Erie, Pennsylvania, largely because my mother's only relation in the U.S., her older sister, lived there with her husband. Among the circle of acquaintances I and my brothers had was the son of a local businessman, of roughly the same age. The father had moved to Erie in the early 50's with his wife and young son after his first business, a restaurant in a smaller town in Pa., had gone bankrupt. He opened up a small restaurant in Erie and then branched out by opening other, more profitable businesses, including a motel. There were occasions during our summer visits when we would be at our friend's house for dinner on a Sunday night, and his father would be off going through the numbers with his manager about the weekend business at the motel, which catered to the summer tourist trade. He watched that business like a hawk, down to the last penny. I am pretty sure that a large part of that was attributable to the fact that he had earlier gone through the public shame and humiliation of going through bankruptcy. He died a very wealthy man and left his only son instilled with the same values. He translated his own considerable skills, education and hard work into greatly expanding his father's little empire. Despite his much more lavish lifestyle, I see evidence of the same searing experience in Donald Trump.

    BTW, back in 2000, when we had that little brouhaha about the disputed Presidential election, I was able from the start to predict how it would turn out. I recognized that such an important legal dispute would wind up eventually in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was able to count and saw that there were 7 justices appointed by Republicans (even eliminating the pseudo-Republicans Stevens and Souter left 5) and only 2 appointed by Democrats. Therefore I was able to confidently predict that the ultimate decision would result in President Bush being sworn in, as opposed to President Gore. There was no way a Republican dominated Supreme Court was going to allow a Democrat dominated state supreme court to steal a federal election for a Democrat. If you disagree with my analysis above, please set out your reasoning why Trump would like to squander a million or more of his fortune. I would like to see how your analysis goes.

    Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.

    Bloomberg said he would run, maybe, if it were Trump vs. Sanders. If, as a result, nobody gets more than 50% of the electoral votes in the election (Bloomberg getting New York State, perhaps New Jersey and Florida, might be enough for that to happen) the House chooses the president. The Republicans in congress may prefer a Bloomberg presidency to a Trump one…or enough of them could ally with centrist Democrats to elect Bloomberg.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run. If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York. Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY. Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. They are restricted to choosing among the top three finishers in the Electoral College. So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party's nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain't going to happen.
  81. @officious intermeddler
    As Steve has pointed out before, when discussed in publications intended for the private consumption of Jews, the information contained in this article is considered interesting and important. If it were published in the New York Times, there would be an outcry about anti-semitism.

    when discussed in publications intended for the private consumption of Jews, the information contained in this article is considered interesting and important

    The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, at jta.org, is not “intended for the private consumption of Jews.” Nor are most communal Jewish papers, which get by on advertising dollars. The Jewish Journal, which publishes more Stormfront-fodder than JTA, has (or at least had for many years) a Christian as its main religion columnist in hope of getting more non-Jewish readers.

    I know at one point they were also considering ways to get more readers from LA’s Koreatown, which sounds strange and was understandably abandoned.

  82. Flamingo Kid – highly underrated movie. Also enjoyed Oliver Stone’s remake of it three years later.

    “What I see in you spells crap!”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yes, "Wall Street" has a lot of similarities to "Flamingo Kid."
  83. @Anonymous
    Flamingo Kid - highly underrated movie. Also enjoyed Oliver Stone's remake of it three years later.

    "What I see in you spells crap!"

    Yes, “Wall Street” has a lot of similarities to “Flamingo Kid.”

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I've seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).
  84. @Steve Sailer
    Yes, "Wall Street" has a lot of similarities to "Flamingo Kid."

    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I’ve seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    He was real good as a cop in Crash.
    , @Mr. Anon
    He was pretty good in "Wild Things" too, a movie with no redeeming value and a shamelessly lurid piece of trash (It was great!).
    , @Steve from Detroit
    He was great in Beautiful Girls. I thought the whole cast, minus Rosie O'Donnell, was great.
    , @Seneca
    He was absolutely hilarious as the sleazy detective in Something About Mary. In my opinion he made the movie. I still laugh when I think about his character in that movie. He can play serious and funny.
    , @flyingtiger
    The world's worse movie. Just recently, the author of the book revealed that the novel was not based on the Gregg Smart murder case. She waited two and a half decades to reveal this. Meanwhile his innocent widow is still in prison and the murders walk free and swagger down the street. Many involved in this murder have never been inside a jail cell.
  85. @Anonymous
    Steve, any thoughts on Scott Adams's argument that the Iowa cacuses were rigged?

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong

    As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.

    I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.

    But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.

    If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?

    A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.

    As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.

    I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
     

    Adams is making it too complicated. Iowa doesn’t just have a governor and a few congressmen and senators; there are loads of jobs throughout the whole state that are by political connections. They exist all the time; during the quadrennial presidential caucus, they go into overdrive because theres lots of money in it. How do they get money? Not just those Jefferson Jackson/Lincoln dinners, thats for sure. They deliver votes. A caucus is designed as an opportunity for party organizations to make money off delivering votes. They make it hard to vote so the numbers are going to be low (compared to a primary) and controllable.

    Iowa even has 2 GOP organizations, the so-called “Evangelical” thing in addition to the GOP regular organization. Trump came out publicly that the leader of the evangelical one, Vanderplats, asked him for $100,000. Cruz has rich backers who can pay those fees. In 2012, Santorum had a billionaire backer. Without that machine, Santorum got 1%.

    How did Rubio get 3rd place? Someone paid some of the GOP regular organization to give him votes. They probably give out something to get people in, maybe even cash. All the committeemen are assigned a number to bring in. People in local politics aren’t involved in local politics because they care so much about good government. If the doors hadn’t had to close at 7, they’d have kept track of the vote totals and trotted in some more for Rubio to give him a surprise win and both Cruz and Trump would be left with egg on their faces. Rubio is shameless. Watch him go into a spiel to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. The speech they wrote for Rubio was a winners speech not a third place speech.

    Cruz had an established machine bringing in the votes they control. These stories about his “data analytics” are nonsense. Whats wrong with these political reporters? They never read anything about political machines? Or they think machines don’t exist any more even with all the money at stake in the first presidential nominating contest?

    Trump achieved something big and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio’s benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Iowa used to have the "Ames Poll" where the vote-buying was quite open. In order to participate (vote), you had to pay a certain amount of money, which each campaign put up. In 2008, Romney spent a considerable amount and "won" the Ames Poll, only to get swamped by Huckabee in the caucuses 4 or 5 months later. In 2012, Romney knew better and refused to participate in the Ames Poll, which, as I recall, was won by Michele Bachmann. Romney also decided to cut back in his investment in the caucuses in terms of time and money but still wound up being declared the winner election night (only to have Santorum declared the actual winner a few months later after a recount). I gather the Ames Poll has been discontinued, since I didn't hear anything about it this past year, but, while it existed, it symbolized the whole mercenary aspect of Iowa politics. Like playing Monopoly with real money.

    BTW thanks for the description of the Iowa caucus system of voting, which always struck me as a bit unusual. I have long thought that it was goofy to give such an unrepresentative state the first shot in our presidential election system, but the fact that the result of the Iowa caucuses generally have had little effect on subsequent contests apparently has sunk in with serious politicians (witness Romney in 2012) and diminished their importance. A couple of weeks ago, I became highly suspicious when some MSM types decided to switch gears and proclaim Trump the clear favorite in Iowa. I was going to post something along those lines but never got around to it. The reaction of the MSM after the Iowa caucuses reveals the strategy. Everybody is writing about how disappointing Trump's performance was, since he was expected to win and didn't. They built him up for the fall and then celebrated the fall.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    Rubio’s benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.
     
    Interesting, as is Adams's theory.

    An additional observation: on his Tuesday radio show, Hugh Hewitt was playing a clip of himself being interviewed on one of the Sunday TV talk shows, in which, when asked to predict the Iowa caucus results, he immediately replied 'Cruz wins; Trump second; Rubio a strong third'.

    Hewitt was of course crowing over his prescience, but then he is certainly a Republican party insider . . . .

    , @tbraton
    From an article in today's NY Times re "The Way Ted Cruz Won in Iowa Suggests Trouble Ahead":

    "In entrance and exit polls from 2008 and 2012, there was no primary state where the G.O.P. electorate was as conservative as it was in Iowa. Only Nevada had a similar ideological composition.

    It is not a coincidence that Iowa and Nevada stand alone with so many “very conservative” voters and so few “moderates.” They’re both low-turnout caucuses, which tend to attract the most committed Republican and conservative activists. The Iowa electorate might look a lot more like the one in neighboring Wisconsin if it adopted a primary system.

    As it is, “very conservative” voters outnumbered the combined total of self-described “moderate” and “liberal” voters by a 32-point margin in Iowa in 2012 — but by no more than 15 points in any primary state (Louisiana). Even in primary states with well-justified conservative reputations, like Texas or Alabama, “very conservative” voters outnumbered the total of self-described moderates and liberals only by a four-point margin. In the north, “moderate” and “liberal” usually outnumber “very conservative” voters, and often by a wide margin." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/upshot/the-way-ted-cruz-won-in-iowa-suggests-trouble-ahead.html?ribbon-ad-idx=17&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article
  86. @Jim Don Bob
    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I've seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).

    He was real good as a cop in Crash.

  87. @AndrewR
    Lol a million is chump change to him. Even a billion would be for a significant chance at the presidency.

    In the early 90s he was much younger. What's his life expectancy now? 10, 15 more years? Might as well go big. Perot got 20% of the vote and, for many, many reasons I think Trump would get far above that. People are sick of the cucks.

    I forget. How many electoral votes did Perot get?

    Perot was a wacko who had some personal grudge against GHWB. I noticed that he gave GWB a pass and an endorsement. He surely must have known that GWB was an idiot since GWB was a two-term Texas governor. I guess they must have found out something damaging to Perot or threatened to do something damaging to him if GWB were elected.

  88. @MarkinLA
    Well the Republican Party has never really been about conservatism. It was always the party of corporate fascism. It is just that the Democrats as the agrarian party became the party of the progressives and we have this crappy two party system so there was no place for conservatives to go. If you go back to the beginning of state police forces they were usually under Republican governorships and were usually little more than goon squads used to intimidate union organizers. Admittedly, the union guys weren't all that peaceful themselves.

    Name any real conservative idea that the GOP has put forward. Cutting taxes and borrowing money to pay for it is not conservative. Cutting spending and if there is a surplus then giving it back to the tax payers is. Expanding the list of affirmative action recipients is not conservative. If you are going to have it you need to make sure that only those people who deserve it get it. The list is endless of things the GOP has allowed to happen in order to keep the Democrats from stopping the main GOP policies of corporate welfare schemes (like driving wages down) and keeping billionaires from paying taxes.

    Take for example affirmative action. Do you really think American blacks want to see benefits going to some guy who just walked off an airliner from Africa? Sure there is a lot of hate-whitey out there but if the Republicans had forced AA recipients to be limited to recognized Indian tribe members or blacks who can show ancestors having been born in this country prior to 1900, we would have far less of a problem than we have now and it could be sold to blacks and Indians by pointing that their piece of the pie is bigger if they cut out all those people who don't deserve it. However, the GOP just rolled over and even expanded it to include Subcontinent Indians and Pakistanis as disadvantaged and eligible for set-asides.

    The GOP always had in its hand the ability to unite most of the people. Lots of Democrats rallied around Reagan and he crapped all over them. There is enough support by them for Trump to possibly take some reliably blue states and the GOP leadership doesn't want it.

    Total agreement.

    The GOP was never about nation or community, beyond maudlin b.s.

    The GOP leaders show where their priorities are. They can git er done for useless votes against Obamacare, awful trade deals, Israeli tribute/”defense” welfare. But battling affirmative action, enforcing laws about hiring employees against employers- all impossibilities. We can remake the Middle East with some muscle, lots of cash and pixie dust. But the illegal situation? Can’t be done, just can’t.

    They will defund the government, but not “the troops.” Heaven forbid we stop funding the Military, Spetsnaz might occupy Cologne, no doubt battling its current rulers( North African thugs) for control of its public spaces.

    I doubt Obama will have much resistance to his European “Defense” spending from the party of small government. They are too busy making sure some poor person doesn’t get access to a dialysis machine.

    And they do this because lots of Americans vote them into power because, God help them, they have no choice! The blame isn’t to be placed on politicians, it is to be placed on majorities or pluralities of voters, who largely lack vision or imagination.

  89. @tbraton
    Well, despite his current billions, Trump back in the early 90's went through a trying financial crisis that forced him to sell many pricy toys, such as his expensive yacht. So I don't think he would relish spending a lot of money for a useless run for office. After all, running as an independent would mean he has little or no likelihood of winning enough states to win an outright victory in the Electoral College, which means the election would have to be decided in the House of Representatives, with each state being given one vote. I believe the House is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.

    I know from personal experience that going through bankruptcy or a financial crisis leaves a real mark on a man. When I was growing up, my family used to vacation in Erie, Pennsylvania, largely because my mother's only relation in the U.S., her older sister, lived there with her husband. Among the circle of acquaintances I and my brothers had was the son of a local businessman, of roughly the same age. The father had moved to Erie in the early 50's with his wife and young son after his first business, a restaurant in a smaller town in Pa., had gone bankrupt. He opened up a small restaurant in Erie and then branched out by opening other, more profitable businesses, including a motel. There were occasions during our summer visits when we would be at our friend's house for dinner on a Sunday night, and his father would be off going through the numbers with his manager about the weekend business at the motel, which catered to the summer tourist trade. He watched that business like a hawk, down to the last penny. I am pretty sure that a large part of that was attributable to the fact that he had earlier gone through the public shame and humiliation of going through bankruptcy. He died a very wealthy man and left his only son instilled with the same values. He translated his own considerable skills, education and hard work into greatly expanding his father's little empire. Despite his much more lavish lifestyle, I see evidence of the same searing experience in Donald Trump.

    BTW, back in 2000, when we had that little brouhaha about the disputed Presidential election, I was able from the start to predict how it would turn out. I recognized that such an important legal dispute would wind up eventually in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was able to count and saw that there were 7 justices appointed by Republicans (even eliminating the pseudo-Republicans Stevens and Souter left 5) and only 2 appointed by Democrats. Therefore I was able to confidently predict that the ultimate decision would result in President Bush being sworn in, as opposed to President Gore. There was no way a Republican dominated Supreme Court was going to allow a Democrat dominated state supreme court to steal a federal election for a Democrat. If you disagree with my analysis above, please set out your reasoning why Trump would like to squander a million or more of his fortune. I would like to see how your analysis goes.

    It’s not a matter of money. It’s a matter of ego. Trump has plenty and although he showed humility immediately after losing the caucus, he was unhappy. Now he accuses Cruz of stealing.

    If he fails to get the nomination I think it’s likely he will. Not based on any calculation but based on a bruised ego. He thinks he should be president. He’s getting support to make him think he will. When that’s gone he won’t take it well and will lash out at those he blames.

    Like your point of the psychological effects of bankruptcy the effects of being wronged will be harsh. Much harsher than his losing a yacht or a few trophies. He’s not as rich as he says he is but he can afford to do whatever he wants.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    So you're guessing that, if Trump fails to secure the nomination, he will cast reason to the win and, despite the history showing all third party runs are futile, will decide to run third party with a miniscule chance of winning. Well a lot of people guessed that TSLA stock would continue to climb to the sky. They also cast all reason to the win. You may turn out to be right, but I'm not betting on it.
    , @Hersh
    Trump is always strategic. Like that woman who worked with him when he started out said, he's "the least chaotic person I know." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-strategy-20151223-story.html

    He's been taking opponents out 1 by 1 and then the neocon brainiacs did him the favor of taking out 4 opponents in one swell foop in Iowa. Bush, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina - how does anyone explain that they got 3, 2, 1% as anything other than that they have no appeal to voters?
  90. @Hersh
    Adams is making it too complicated. Iowa doesn't just have a governor and a few congressmen and senators; there are loads of jobs throughout the whole state that are by political connections. They exist all the time; during the quadrennial presidential caucus, they go into overdrive because theres lots of money in it. How do they get money? Not just those Jefferson Jackson/Lincoln dinners, thats for sure. They deliver votes. A caucus is designed as an opportunity for party organizations to make money off delivering votes. They make it hard to vote so the numbers are going to be low (compared to a primary) and controllable.

    Iowa even has 2 GOP organizations, the so-called "Evangelical" thing in addition to the GOP regular organization. Trump came out publicly that the leader of the evangelical one, Vanderplats, asked him for $100,000. Cruz has rich backers who can pay those fees. In 2012, Santorum had a billionaire backer. Without that machine, Santorum got 1%.

    How did Rubio get 3rd place? Someone paid some of the GOP regular organization to give him votes. They probably give out something to get people in, maybe even cash. All the committeemen are assigned a number to bring in. People in local politics aren't involved in local politics because they care so much about good government. If the doors hadn't had to close at 7, they'd have kept track of the vote totals and trotted in some more for Rubio to give him a surprise win and both Cruz and Trump would be left with egg on their faces. Rubio is shameless. Watch him go into a spiel to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. The speech they wrote for Rubio was a winners speech not a third place speech.

    Cruz had an established machine bringing in the votes they control. These stories about his "data analytics" are nonsense. Whats wrong with these political reporters? They never read anything about political machines? Or they think machines don't exist any more even with all the money at stake in the first presidential nominating contest?

    Trump achieved something big and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio's benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.

    Iowa used to have the “Ames Poll” where the vote-buying was quite open. In order to participate (vote), you had to pay a certain amount of money, which each campaign put up. In 2008, Romney spent a considerable amount and “won” the Ames Poll, only to get swamped by Huckabee in the caucuses 4 or 5 months later. In 2012, Romney knew better and refused to participate in the Ames Poll, which, as I recall, was won by Michele Bachmann. Romney also decided to cut back in his investment in the caucuses in terms of time and money but still wound up being declared the winner election night (only to have Santorum declared the actual winner a few months later after a recount). I gather the Ames Poll has been discontinued, since I didn’t hear anything about it this past year, but, while it existed, it symbolized the whole mercenary aspect of Iowa politics. Like playing Monopoly with real money.

    BTW thanks for the description of the Iowa caucus system of voting, which always struck me as a bit unusual. I have long thought that it was goofy to give such an unrepresentative state the first shot in our presidential election system, but the fact that the result of the Iowa caucuses generally have had little effect on subsequent contests apparently has sunk in with serious politicians (witness Romney in 2012) and diminished their importance. A couple of weeks ago, I became highly suspicious when some MSM types decided to switch gears and proclaim Trump the clear favorite in Iowa. I was going to post something along those lines but never got around to it. The reaction of the MSM after the Iowa caucuses reveals the strategy. Everybody is writing about how disappointing Trump’s performance was, since he was expected to win and didn’t. They built him up for the fall and then celebrated the fall.

    • Replies: @Hersh
    Yes the MSM is gloating and maybe they really are dumb and think political machines are a thing of the past or only exist in big cities. Hard to believe they are that dumb but political reporters are all Ivy Leaguers nowadays.

    The results of the Iowa caucus are very likely to turn out to be a plus for Trump. Having diminished Bush, Kasich, Christie and Fiorina to politicians who got 3, 2, 1%, Trump now only has to get rid of Cruz to get to the contest he wants: Trump vs Gang of 8. Cruz has to lift his numbers in the kind of state where he'll make voters gag with his oily persona and "Body of Christ" talk.

    Bush and Christie probably spread some money to the GOP regulars themselves and they ended up getting stiffed. They must be very angry, Christie especially. He raised money for Branstad and Branstad stiffed him.
  91. @LondonBob
    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.

    What is the point of this enormous national security apparatus you Yanks have if not to investigate such obvious influence peddling.

    I think the point of it is to make sure that nobody ever investigates such obvious influence peddling.

  92. @Hersh
    Adams is making it too complicated. Iowa doesn't just have a governor and a few congressmen and senators; there are loads of jobs throughout the whole state that are by political connections. They exist all the time; during the quadrennial presidential caucus, they go into overdrive because theres lots of money in it. How do they get money? Not just those Jefferson Jackson/Lincoln dinners, thats for sure. They deliver votes. A caucus is designed as an opportunity for party organizations to make money off delivering votes. They make it hard to vote so the numbers are going to be low (compared to a primary) and controllable.

    Iowa even has 2 GOP organizations, the so-called "Evangelical" thing in addition to the GOP regular organization. Trump came out publicly that the leader of the evangelical one, Vanderplats, asked him for $100,000. Cruz has rich backers who can pay those fees. In 2012, Santorum had a billionaire backer. Without that machine, Santorum got 1%.

    How did Rubio get 3rd place? Someone paid some of the GOP regular organization to give him votes. They probably give out something to get people in, maybe even cash. All the committeemen are assigned a number to bring in. People in local politics aren't involved in local politics because they care so much about good government. If the doors hadn't had to close at 7, they'd have kept track of the vote totals and trotted in some more for Rubio to give him a surprise win and both Cruz and Trump would be left with egg on their faces. Rubio is shameless. Watch him go into a spiel to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. The speech they wrote for Rubio was a winners speech not a third place speech.

    Cruz had an established machine bringing in the votes they control. These stories about his "data analytics" are nonsense. Whats wrong with these political reporters? They never read anything about political machines? Or they think machines don't exist any more even with all the money at stake in the first presidential nominating contest?

    Trump achieved something big and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio's benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.

    Rubio’s benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.

    Interesting, as is Adams’s theory.

    An additional observation: on his Tuesday radio show, Hugh Hewitt was playing a clip of himself being interviewed on one of the Sunday TV talk shows, in which, when asked to predict the Iowa caucus results, he immediately replied ‘Cruz wins; Trump second; Rubio a strong third’.

    Hewitt was of course crowing over his prescience, but then he is certainly a Republican party insider . . . .

  93. @AP

    Last I checked there were no members of the Trump Party. Ergo any election that wound up in the House would result in a Republican President. The same logic applies to any Bloomberg candidacy, which is why I think it is highly unlikely either Trump or Bloomberg would run as a third party candidate.
     
    Bloomberg said he would run, maybe, if it were Trump vs. Sanders. If, as a result, nobody gets more than 50% of the electoral votes in the election (Bloomberg getting New York State, perhaps New Jersey and Florida, might be enough for that to happen) the House chooses the president. The Republicans in congress may prefer a Bloomberg presidency to a Trump one...or enough of them could ally with centrist Democrats to elect Bloomberg.

    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run. If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York. Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY. Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. They are restricted to choosing among the top three finishers in the Electoral College. So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party’s nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain’t going to happen.

    • Replies: @AP

    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run.
     
    Yes, though AFAIK he opened up the possibility of running if Clinton were chosen too (I suspect, in case there is an indictment).

    If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York.
     
    He would get disgruntled, mostly Northern, neocon and pro-business Republican votes as well as centrist Democratic votes. Bloomberg would get nowhere in the South other than Florida (with its large northern and Jewish retiree population) but would be competitive in NY, NJ. Getting maybe 15% of the popular vote in the general election plus New York State would be enough to get himself chosen by the House.

    Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY.
     
    I haven't seen polls Bloomberg vs. Trump in New York state.

    Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.
     
    Correct. I suspect Bloomberg will be commissioning, if he hasn't already, some sort of polls to see if he can at least win New York State or New Jersey before he decides to run.

    So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party’s nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain’t going to happen.
     
    1) Unlikely unless an indictment comes down.
    2) See above. He may be competitive in NY, NJ or Florida.
    3) Trump is the one nominee that establishment Republicans in the House would abandon.

    Unlikely, sure. But possible. I suspect Bloomberg knows what he is doing and if (1) occurs and he enters the race the possibility is greater than unlikely.
    , @AP
    I guess Bloomberg's chances might be higher than either of us assumed:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267403-luntz-bloomberg-can-win-the-presidency
  94. @AndrewR
    Their constituents are fools easily duped and distracted.

    Unfortunately, that is largely true.

  95. @Jim Don Bob
    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I've seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).

    He was pretty good in “Wild Things” too, a movie with no redeeming value and a shamelessly lurid piece of trash (It was great!).

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  96. I think it was “ha-aretz” newspaper. They spent several scores of journalist pay-hours on trying to find out, at which kibbutz Bernie volunteered at.

    Bernie doesn’t answer questions about it; his brother claims that he (the brother) cannot remember; the kibbutz-movement volunteer-organizing office doesn’t even try to archive old records forever; and there is no kibbutznik in Israel who has come forward remembering the kid.

    Kibbutz’im run through lots of volunteers during harvest time. If you don’t marry a local, or make a lot of trouble, or be an EXCEPTIONAL worker…. you’re just another swinging dick

    • Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
    Agreed. I doubt you could verify Sanders's kibbutz experience, but it seems unlikely that he'd make it up.

    21 years ago I spent two months on a kibbutz. If you can find one kibbutznik who remembers me, I'll give you a thousand dollars. If their rusty filing cabinet still has my paperwork in it, I'll give you a million.

    And it's mutual. Half the time I get the name of my old kibbutz mixed up with the name of my kibbutnik sister-in-law's kibbutz, and the other half of the time I don't remember either kibbutz name.

  97. @MaximumCynicism
    Oh yes, and thanks to GCHQ and MI5, all British pols are squeaky clean.

    I didn’t say they weren’t. In many ways I think the Conservative/Labour Friends of Israel are even more brazen and there seems to be little push back (probably because we don’t matter).

  98. @Pure and Easy
    It's not a matter of money. It's a matter of ego. Trump has plenty and although he showed humility immediately after losing the caucus, he was unhappy. Now he accuses Cruz of stealing.

    If he fails to get the nomination I think it's likely he will. Not based on any calculation but based on a bruised ego. He thinks he should be president. He's getting support to make him think he will. When that's gone he won't take it well and will lash out at those he blames.

    Like your point of the psychological effects of bankruptcy the effects of being wronged will be harsh. Much harsher than his losing a yacht or a few trophies. He's not as rich as he says he is but he can afford to do whatever he wants.

    So you’re guessing that, if Trump fails to secure the nomination, he will cast reason to the win and, despite the history showing all third party runs are futile, will decide to run third party with a miniscule chance of winning. Well a lot of people guessed that TSLA stock would continue to climb to the sky. They also cast all reason to the win. You may turn out to be right, but I’m not betting on it.

  99. @Stan Adams
    Incidentally, over lunch today I had a less-than-edifying conversation with an older middle-aged guy who told me that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio were all acceptable to him.

    He had nothing to say, aside from the standard "mainstream-conservative" talking points. Immigration didn't even come up. Listening to him was tedious - very tedious.

    I don't advertise the fact that I harbor iSteve-ish opinions, at least not to random strangers, so there were lots of things I could have said that I didn't. Mostly I kept my mouth shut.

    I did mention the fact, which reading this post had reawakened in my mind, that Braman was Rubio's godfather. I didn't go so far as to call Rubio an empty suit and a puppet of men much smarter than he, but I did make the implication.

    The guy said, "Oh, really?" in a somewhat condescending manner, as if I'd said "You know, the sky is often blue," and then kept blathering on about Trump's tax policy.

    "That's the only reason to vote for him," he kept saying. "All the other stuff is irrelevant."

    Yes, that's what it's all about - the tax policy. Everything else is irrelevant. The fact that America isn't America anymore, and may never be America again, doesn't matter. Who cares if we're being invaded? Who cares if we're well on our way to becoming another Brazil, at best? The tax policy is more important.

    No, I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad idea to base one's rationale for voting for a particular candidate on his tax policy. But doesn't this man care about the larger issues that Trump has sledgehammered into the national discourse? He probably has a grandkid or two - doesn't he care whether or not the country that they'll inherit will bear any resemblance to the one that he grew up in? Does he ever wonder whether they'll have any wealth to tax?

    I could have asked him that, but I was already done with my lunch and didn't want to drag out the (non-)conversation. So I bid him good day and left.

    Reading Steve is good for my brain, but bad for my morale. It makes my social interactions in meatspace even more unbearable.

    It’s all very depressing, isn’t it? I go for months without talking to a single person who can make any real sense. People have told me that Hillary should be the president because she’s female. That’s it, that’s what it’s based on, nothing more. Where’s the real people?

  100. @tbraton
    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run. If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York. Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY. Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. They are restricted to choosing among the top three finishers in the Electoral College. So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party's nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain't going to happen.

    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run.

    Yes, though AFAIK he opened up the possibility of running if Clinton were chosen too (I suspect, in case there is an indictment).

    If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York.

    He would get disgruntled, mostly Northern, neocon and pro-business Republican votes as well as centrist Democratic votes. Bloomberg would get nowhere in the South other than Florida (with its large northern and Jewish retiree population) but would be competitive in NY, NJ. Getting maybe 15% of the popular vote in the general election plus New York State would be enough to get himself chosen by the House.

    Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY.

    I haven’t seen polls Bloomberg vs. Trump in New York state.

    Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.

    Correct. I suspect Bloomberg will be commissioning, if he hasn’t already, some sort of polls to see if he can at least win New York State or New Jersey before he decides to run.

    So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party’s nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain’t going to happen.

    1) Unlikely unless an indictment comes down.
    2) See above. He may be competitive in NY, NJ or Florida.
    3) Trump is the one nominee that establishment Republicans in the House would abandon.

    Unlikely, sure. But possible. I suspect Bloomberg knows what he is doing and if (1) occurs and he enters the race the possibility is greater than unlikely.

    • Replies: @Hersh
    I don't think Bloomberg would get 4% of the national vote. Maybe not 2%. When we're talking about "neocons," thats the most the 20% of Jews who are Republicans and Jews totally are less than 2% of the population. Is it even 1/100 of 1% of the population who are neocons? Like Seymour Hersh said, 9 people in Washington DC got us into the Iraq War.

    I live in New Jersey and the only thing I know about Mayor Bloomberg is his effort against Big Gulp sodas. He is not Donald Trump and he is not Ross Perot. After the '92 election, Brian Lamb of CSPAN said that since the founding of CSPAN, the most requested transcripts (back then it was only printed transcripts) had always been transcripts of Ross Perot speeches. I think there was even a movie about Ross Perot saving hostages or something.

    Bloomberg doesn't have enough money to win New York State, IMO.
    , @tbraton
    Some quotes from the January 23, 2016 article in the NY Times re Bloomberg's announcement that he was weighing an independent run for President:

    "He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states."

    "Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and a past Democratic National Committee chairman, said he believed Mr. Bloomberg could compete in the race if activist candidates on the left and right prevailed in the party primaries.

    “Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders,” said Mr. Rendell, a close ally of Mrs. Clinton’s who is also a friend of Mr. Bloomberg’s. “If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.” "

    "Alan Patricof, a financier and longtime donor to the Clintons who is also friendly with Mr. Bloomberg, said it would be “a terrible thing” for the Democratic Party’s prospects of winning the White House if the former mayor ran as an independent.

    “If it was President Trump or President Bloomberg, I’d certainly rather have President Bloomberg,” Mr. Patricof said. “But it certainly can’t help the Democrats.” " http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0

    So, there appears to be a deadline of early March for Bloomberg to make a decision if he wants to qualify in all 50 states. He could wait longer if he is content to run in fewer than 50, but that would just add to the impression that he is not a serious candidate. I don't know what the deadlines are for NY, NJ and Florida, but, if those were the only states he qualified to run in as a candidate, it would be obvious that his candidacy was a vanity project.

    There are a couple of problems if Bloomberg appears likely to only win in one or two states. First, there is the matter of participating in the Presidential debates. The rules applying to Presidential debates would appear to bar Bloomberg's participation. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates:

    "Under the 2016 criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations. . . ." http://debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=58&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

    If it appeared that Bloomberg didn't even have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College (270), he could justifiably be excluded from the debates. That would be only fair since, unlike Trump or Sanders, Bloomberg would not have gone through a grueling, months-long nomination process to secure the party's nomination but would be viewed as simply buying his way onto the national stage with his billions earned on Wall Street. That would be quite a message to send to the world about our so-called democracy. Of course, if Bloomberg were justifiably barred from the debates, his very slender chances of winning the Presidency would shrink to virtually zero.

    A second problem would arise if Bloomberg succeeded in winning one electoral vote. How in the world could those turncoat Republicans justify casting their votes for Bloomberg, with the electoral votes of the one, two or even three states you mention (NY, NJ and Florida comprise just three of the 50 states and together account for just 72 electoral votes out of a total of 538 or 13%.). I think Americans would have a very hard time swallowing such an absurd result. I think citizens of those states would wonder why their Republican or Democratic congressmen would be voting in favor of some New York billionaire rather than for the candidate of the party that actually carried their state. (For the record, any vote that goes to the House for decision would be based on one vote for each state, "the representation from each state having one vote," meaning that you have to add the two Senators to the Representatives. NJ and NY have Democratic majorities (NJ, 8 to 6; NY, 20 to 9) while Fla. has a Republican majority (18 to 11), so the only state which would affect the vote in the House would possibly be Florida. It wouldn't matter to Trump if he lost NJ and NY to Sanders or Bloomberg.)

    Of course, I am of the firm belief that Bloomberg would not carry his home state of NY since he would be splitting the Democrat-inclined vote with his fellow Jew Bernie Sanders. The same applies in Florida. I can't see Bloomberg winning enough votes there to beat both Trump and Sanders. I feel sorry for the poor Jewish voters of Florida being forced to choose between two Jewish candidates. I think they would opt for their traditional choice, the Democratic Jew who used to be a Socialist. That combination would be like a wet dream for Florida's Jewish voters---almost as good as having Leon Trotsky on the ballot. But having Joe Lieberman on the ticket did not win Florida for Gore in 2000 and may have cost him the election. I do know that if I were Bernie Sanders, I would be really pissed at Bloomberg, for his entry into the race as an independent would eliminate Sanders' good chance of becoming not just President but the first Jewish President. Without Bloomberg in the race, Sanders has a chance of winning. With Bloomberg in the race, Sanders has no chance. All that hard work against the overwhelming odds to secure the Democratic nomination, I think I would be really pissed at Bloomberg.
  101. @Jim Don Bob
    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I've seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).

    He was great in Beautiful Girls. I thought the whole cast, minus Rosie O’Donnell, was great.

  102. @Jim Don Bob
    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I've seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).

    He was absolutely hilarious as the sleazy detective in Something About Mary. In my opinion he made the movie. I still laugh when I think about his character in that movie. He can play serious and funny.

  103. @Jim Don Bob
    Matt Dillon was good in every movie I've seen him in. Drugstore Cowboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugstore_Cowboy) was good, but his finest role IMNSHO was To Die For (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Die_For).

    The world’s worse movie. Just recently, the author of the book revealed that the novel was not based on the Gregg Smart murder case. She waited two and a half decades to reveal this. Meanwhile his innocent widow is still in prison and the murders walk free and swagger down the street. Many involved in this murder have never been inside a jail cell.

  104. @Karl
    I think it was "ha-aretz" newspaper. They spent several scores of journalist pay-hours on trying to find out, at which kibbutz Bernie volunteered at.

    Bernie doesn't answer questions about it; his brother claims that he (the brother) cannot remember; the kibbutz-movement volunteer-organizing office doesn't even try to archive old records forever; and there is no kibbutznik in Israel who has come forward remembering the kid.

    Kibbutz'im run through lots of volunteers during harvest time. If you don't marry a local, or make a lot of trouble, or be an EXCEPTIONAL worker.... you're just another swinging dick

    Agreed. I doubt you could verify Sanders’s kibbutz experience, but it seems unlikely that he’d make it up.

    21 years ago I spent two months on a kibbutz. If you can find one kibbutznik who remembers me, I’ll give you a thousand dollars. If their rusty filing cabinet still has my paperwork in it, I’ll give you a million.

    And it’s mutual. Half the time I get the name of my old kibbutz mixed up with the name of my kibbutnik sister-in-law’s kibbutz, and the other half of the time I don’t remember either kibbutz name.

  105. @tbraton
    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run. If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York. Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY. Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. They are restricted to choosing among the top three finishers in the Electoral College. So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party's nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain't going to happen.

    I guess Bloomberg’s chances might be higher than either of us assumed:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267403-luntz-bloomberg-can-win-the-presidency

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Frank Luntz is a whore. He works for Fox News, whose owner Rupert Murdoch has expressed enthusiasm for a Bloomberg independent run. So he is either working at the direction of Murdoch and Ailes, or he is angling for a hire by Bloomberg.
  106. @tbraton
    Iowa used to have the "Ames Poll" where the vote-buying was quite open. In order to participate (vote), you had to pay a certain amount of money, which each campaign put up. In 2008, Romney spent a considerable amount and "won" the Ames Poll, only to get swamped by Huckabee in the caucuses 4 or 5 months later. In 2012, Romney knew better and refused to participate in the Ames Poll, which, as I recall, was won by Michele Bachmann. Romney also decided to cut back in his investment in the caucuses in terms of time and money but still wound up being declared the winner election night (only to have Santorum declared the actual winner a few months later after a recount). I gather the Ames Poll has been discontinued, since I didn't hear anything about it this past year, but, while it existed, it symbolized the whole mercenary aspect of Iowa politics. Like playing Monopoly with real money.

    BTW thanks for the description of the Iowa caucus system of voting, which always struck me as a bit unusual. I have long thought that it was goofy to give such an unrepresentative state the first shot in our presidential election system, but the fact that the result of the Iowa caucuses generally have had little effect on subsequent contests apparently has sunk in with serious politicians (witness Romney in 2012) and diminished their importance. A couple of weeks ago, I became highly suspicious when some MSM types decided to switch gears and proclaim Trump the clear favorite in Iowa. I was going to post something along those lines but never got around to it. The reaction of the MSM after the Iowa caucuses reveals the strategy. Everybody is writing about how disappointing Trump's performance was, since he was expected to win and didn't. They built him up for the fall and then celebrated the fall.

    Yes the MSM is gloating and maybe they really are dumb and think political machines are a thing of the past or only exist in big cities. Hard to believe they are that dumb but political reporters are all Ivy Leaguers nowadays.

    The results of the Iowa caucus are very likely to turn out to be a plus for Trump. Having diminished Bush, Kasich, Christie and Fiorina to politicians who got 3, 2, 1%, Trump now only has to get rid of Cruz to get to the contest he wants: Trump vs Gang of 8. Cruz has to lift his numbers in the kind of state where he’ll make voters gag with his oily persona and “Body of Christ” talk.

    Bush and Christie probably spread some money to the GOP regulars themselves and they ended up getting stiffed. They must be very angry, Christie especially. He raised money for Branstad and Branstad stiffed him.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Correct. Trump wants it to come down to him and the guy who most represents what he's running against.
  107. @AP

    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run.
     
    Yes, though AFAIK he opened up the possibility of running if Clinton were chosen too (I suspect, in case there is an indictment).

    If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York.
     
    He would get disgruntled, mostly Northern, neocon and pro-business Republican votes as well as centrist Democratic votes. Bloomberg would get nowhere in the South other than Florida (with its large northern and Jewish retiree population) but would be competitive in NY, NJ. Getting maybe 15% of the popular vote in the general election plus New York State would be enough to get himself chosen by the House.

    Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY.
     
    I haven't seen polls Bloomberg vs. Trump in New York state.

    Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.
     
    Correct. I suspect Bloomberg will be commissioning, if he hasn't already, some sort of polls to see if he can at least win New York State or New Jersey before he decides to run.

    So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party’s nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain’t going to happen.
     
    1) Unlikely unless an indictment comes down.
    2) See above. He may be competitive in NY, NJ or Florida.
    3) Trump is the one nominee that establishment Republicans in the House would abandon.

    Unlikely, sure. But possible. I suspect Bloomberg knows what he is doing and if (1) occurs and he enters the race the possibility is greater than unlikely.

    I don’t think Bloomberg would get 4% of the national vote. Maybe not 2%. When we’re talking about “neocons,” thats the most the 20% of Jews who are Republicans and Jews totally are less than 2% of the population. Is it even 1/100 of 1% of the population who are neocons? Like Seymour Hersh said, 9 people in Washington DC got us into the Iraq War.

    I live in New Jersey and the only thing I know about Mayor Bloomberg is his effort against Big Gulp sodas. He is not Donald Trump and he is not Ross Perot. After the ’92 election, Brian Lamb of CSPAN said that since the founding of CSPAN, the most requested transcripts (back then it was only printed transcripts) had always been transcripts of Ross Perot speeches. I think there was even a movie about Ross Perot saving hostages or something.

    Bloomberg doesn’t have enough money to win New York State, IMO.

    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @AP

    I don’t think Bloomberg would get 4% of the national vote. Maybe not 2%.
     
    If it were Trump vs. Sanders he'd probably get 10% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats, plus independents.. I'd guess 15% or so of the votes total. His votes would be skewed in the NY area (and perhaps Florida) and he would have a good chance of winning NY State and NJ. I'd even add CT to the possible mix. I live on the outer edges of metro NYC and there are a lot of people who like Bloomberg out here, from both parties (and independents).

    . When we’re talking about “neocons,” thats the most the 20% of Jews who are Republicans and Jews totally are less than 2% of the population.
     
    Sorry for the confusion. By neocons I meant not card-carrying neocons but neocon voters. Pro-military, pro-war, pro-Israel Republicans. Most Republican voters, unfortunately, were neocons in the 2000s in this sense, and while this number has dwindled there are still many of them.

    Bloomberg doesn’t have enough money to win New York State, IMO
     
    He's got perhaps ten times more money than Trump. I also suspect that while the Democratic and Republican Establishments wouldn't openly support Bloomberg, they would help him as much as they can.

    Personally, I'm ambivalent about Bloomberg. He was a great mayor of New York, but policies such as strict gun control and stop-and-frisk while good in NYC have no place in, say, Idaho. Or even upstate.

  108. @Pure and Easy
    It's not a matter of money. It's a matter of ego. Trump has plenty and although he showed humility immediately after losing the caucus, he was unhappy. Now he accuses Cruz of stealing.

    If he fails to get the nomination I think it's likely he will. Not based on any calculation but based on a bruised ego. He thinks he should be president. He's getting support to make him think he will. When that's gone he won't take it well and will lash out at those he blames.

    Like your point of the psychological effects of bankruptcy the effects of being wronged will be harsh. Much harsher than his losing a yacht or a few trophies. He's not as rich as he says he is but he can afford to do whatever he wants.

    Trump is always strategic. Like that woman who worked with him when he started out said, he’s “the least chaotic person I know.” http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-strategy-20151223-story.html

    He’s been taking opponents out 1 by 1 and then the neocon brainiacs did him the favor of taking out 4 opponents in one swell foop in Iowa. Bush, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina – how does anyone explain that they got 3, 2, 1% as anything other than that they have no appeal to voters?

    • Replies: @Pure and Easy
    Trump is very smart and strategic. The field on both sides is weak and he's been able to capitalize on social media and basically talk straight. And Xenophobia. Next week will be interesting. I think he'll probably get a bump. I just think he's emotional and if if doesn't win the nomination he'll run solo. I agree with your assessment on Bloomberg. He won't run and doesnt' have a chance.
  109. @AP

    First, if Trump is the Republican nominee and Sanders the Democratic nominee, that is the only condition Bloomberg said would cause him to run.
     
    Yes, though AFAIK he opened up the possibility of running if Clinton were chosen too (I suspect, in case there is an indictment).

    If he decided to run against Trump and Sanders, that would assure a Trump victory. There are no states Bloomberg could carry if he splits the Democratic vote with Sanders, including New York.
     
    He would get disgruntled, mostly Northern, neocon and pro-business Republican votes as well as centrist Democratic votes. Bloomberg would get nowhere in the South other than Florida (with its large northern and Jewish retiree population) but would be competitive in NY, NJ. Getting maybe 15% of the popular vote in the general election plus New York State would be enough to get himself chosen by the House.

    Trump is also from New York, and I can safely say he is far more popular than Bloomberg, especially in upstate NY.
     
    I haven't seen polls Bloomberg vs. Trump in New York state.

    Without any electoral votes, Bloomberg could not be selected by the House as President, according the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.
     
    Correct. I suspect Bloomberg will be commissioning, if he hasn't already, some sort of polls to see if he can at least win New York State or New Jersey before he decides to run.

    So your fanciful scenario depends on (1) the highly unlikely event of Sanders beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination, (2) Bloomberg winning at least one state to secure electoral votes and (3) Republicans in the House abandoning their own party’s nominee and joining Democrats to elect the third place finisher in the Electoral College. Ain’t going to happen.
     
    1) Unlikely unless an indictment comes down.
    2) See above. He may be competitive in NY, NJ or Florida.
    3) Trump is the one nominee that establishment Republicans in the House would abandon.

    Unlikely, sure. But possible. I suspect Bloomberg knows what he is doing and if (1) occurs and he enters the race the possibility is greater than unlikely.

    Some quotes from the January 23, 2016 article in the NY Times re Bloomberg’s announcement that he was weighing an independent run for President:

    “He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.”

    “Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and a past Democratic National Committee chairman, said he believed Mr. Bloomberg could compete in the race if activist candidates on the left and right prevailed in the party primaries.

    “Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders,” said Mr. Rendell, a close ally of Mrs. Clinton’s who is also a friend of Mr. Bloomberg’s. “If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.” ”

    “Alan Patricof, a financier and longtime donor to the Clintons who is also friendly with Mr. Bloomberg, said it would be “a terrible thing” for the Democratic Party’s prospects of winning the White House if the former mayor ran as an independent.

    “If it was President Trump or President Bloomberg, I’d certainly rather have President Bloomberg,” Mr. Patricof said. “But it certainly can’t help the Democrats.” ” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0

    So, there appears to be a deadline of early March for Bloomberg to make a decision if he wants to qualify in all 50 states. He could wait longer if he is content to run in fewer than 50, but that would just add to the impression that he is not a serious candidate. I don’t know what the deadlines are for NY, NJ and Florida, but, if those were the only states he qualified to run in as a candidate, it would be obvious that his candidacy was a vanity project.

    There are a couple of problems if Bloomberg appears likely to only win in one or two states. First, there is the matter of participating in the Presidential debates. The rules applying to Presidential debates would appear to bar Bloomberg’s participation. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates:

    “Under the 2016 criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations. . . .” http://debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=58&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

    If it appeared that Bloomberg didn’t even have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College (270), he could justifiably be excluded from the debates. That would be only fair since, unlike Trump or Sanders, Bloomberg would not have gone through a grueling, months-long nomination process to secure the party’s nomination but would be viewed as simply buying his way onto the national stage with his billions earned on Wall Street. That would be quite a message to send to the world about our so-called democracy. Of course, if Bloomberg were justifiably barred from the debates, his very slender chances of winning the Presidency would shrink to virtually zero.

    A second problem would arise if Bloomberg succeeded in winning one electoral vote. How in the world could those turncoat Republicans justify casting their votes for Bloomberg, with the electoral votes of the one, two or even three states you mention (NY, NJ and Florida comprise just three of the 50 states and together account for just 72 electoral votes out of a total of 538 or 13%.). I think Americans would have a very hard time swallowing such an absurd result. I think citizens of those states would wonder why their Republican or Democratic congressmen would be voting in favor of some New York billionaire rather than for the candidate of the party that actually carried their state. (For the record, any vote that goes to the House for decision would be based on one vote for each state, “the representation from each state having one vote,” meaning that you have to add the two Senators to the Representatives. NJ and NY have Democratic majorities (NJ, 8 to 6; NY, 20 to 9) while Fla. has a Republican majority (18 to 11), so the only state which would affect the vote in the House would possibly be Florida. It wouldn’t matter to Trump if he lost NJ and NY to Sanders or Bloomberg.)

    Of course, I am of the firm belief that Bloomberg would not carry his home state of NY since he would be splitting the Democrat-inclined vote with his fellow Jew Bernie Sanders. The same applies in Florida. I can’t see Bloomberg winning enough votes there to beat both Trump and Sanders. I feel sorry for the poor Jewish voters of Florida being forced to choose between two Jewish candidates. I think they would opt for their traditional choice, the Democratic Jew who used to be a Socialist. That combination would be like a wet dream for Florida’s Jewish voters—almost as good as having Leon Trotsky on the ballot. But having Joe Lieberman on the ticket did not win Florida for Gore in 2000 and may have cost him the election. I do know that if I were Bernie Sanders, I would be really pissed at Bloomberg, for his entry into the race as an independent would eliminate Sanders’ good chance of becoming not just President but the first Jewish President. Without Bloomberg in the race, Sanders has a chance of winning. With Bloomberg in the race, Sanders has no chance. All that hard work against the overwhelming odds to secure the Democratic nomination, I think I would be really pissed at Bloomberg.

    • Replies: @AP
    I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, because although I think Bloomberg's chances of becoming president are better than you do , I still think it's unlikely he could become president. That being said...

    If it appeared that Bloomberg didn’t even have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College (270), he could justifiably be excluded from the debates. That would be only fair since, unlike Trump or Sanders, Bloomberg would not have gone through a grueling, months-long nomination process to secure the party’s nomination but would be viewed as simply buying his way onto the national stage with his billions earned on Wall Street.
     
    Perot got into the debates, simply because he was polling high enough to matter. Bloomberg with his media connections would be more likely to get into the debates than the strange Texan Perot.

    A second problem would arise if Bloomberg succeeded in winning one electoral vote. How in the world could those turncoat Republicans justify casting their votes for Bloomberg, with the electoral votes of the one, two or even three states you mention (NY, NJ and Florida comprise just three of the 50 states and together account for just 72 electoral votes out of a total of 538 or 13%.). I think Americans would have a very hard time swallowing such an absurd result.
     
    Establishment Republicans already more or less openly hate Trump. Voting for an independent who presents himself as a centrist "unity candidate", a former Republican, wouldn't be a huge step for them. Certainly a lot of Republicans, particularly those in the Deep South and in the West, wouldn't do it. But I think those lost votes would be compensated for by moderate Democrats. These "turncoats" would spin their choice to other Democrats as saving America from a Trump presidency, because there is no way any Republicans would vote for Sanders.

    Indeed, knowing that there would be zero chance of Sanders getting elected by the House, it wouldn't be surprising if, say, 80% or more of Democrats vote for Bloomberg strategically because he isn't Trump, which would mean only a minority of Republicans would have to vote for Bloomberg in order for him to become president.


    Of course, I am of the firm belief that Bloomberg would not carry his home state of NY since he would be splitting the Democrat-inclined vote with his fellow Jew Bernie Sanders.
     
    Deblasio seems to have spoiled the brand of progressive idealistic lefty in NY, to an extent. Giuliani prefers Trump over Cruz; I'm not sure if he would endorse Trump over Bloomberg.
  110. @AP
    I guess Bloomberg's chances might be higher than either of us assumed:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267403-luntz-bloomberg-can-win-the-presidency

    Frank Luntz is a whore. He works for Fox News, whose owner Rupert Murdoch has expressed enthusiasm for a Bloomberg independent run. So he is either working at the direction of Murdoch and Ailes, or he is angling for a hire by Bloomberg.

    • Replies: @AP
    That may be. Do you think his poll is totally wrong then?
    , @LondonBob
    I've seen Luntz described as a push pollster. I remember when paleoconservative anti Iraq war David Davis was beating neocon David Cameron for the Conservative leadership, Luntz did a highly publicised focus group that lavished praise on Cameron propelling him to victory. Cameron then failed to win the next election outright, something I expect Davis would have done.
  111. @Hersh
    Trump is always strategic. Like that woman who worked with him when he started out said, he's "the least chaotic person I know." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-strategy-20151223-story.html

    He's been taking opponents out 1 by 1 and then the neocon brainiacs did him the favor of taking out 4 opponents in one swell foop in Iowa. Bush, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina - how does anyone explain that they got 3, 2, 1% as anything other than that they have no appeal to voters?

    Trump is very smart and strategic. The field on both sides is weak and he’s been able to capitalize on social media and basically talk straight. And Xenophobia. Next week will be interesting. I think he’ll probably get a bump. I just think he’s emotional and if if doesn’t win the nomination he’ll run solo. I agree with your assessment on Bloomberg. He won’t run and doesnt’ have a chance.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    "I agree with your assessment on Bloomberg. He won’t run and doesn't have a chance."

    Ditto.
  112. @Hersh
    I don't think Bloomberg would get 4% of the national vote. Maybe not 2%. When we're talking about "neocons," thats the most the 20% of Jews who are Republicans and Jews totally are less than 2% of the population. Is it even 1/100 of 1% of the population who are neocons? Like Seymour Hersh said, 9 people in Washington DC got us into the Iraq War.

    I live in New Jersey and the only thing I know about Mayor Bloomberg is his effort against Big Gulp sodas. He is not Donald Trump and he is not Ross Perot. After the '92 election, Brian Lamb of CSPAN said that since the founding of CSPAN, the most requested transcripts (back then it was only printed transcripts) had always been transcripts of Ross Perot speeches. I think there was even a movie about Ross Perot saving hostages or something.

    Bloomberg doesn't have enough money to win New York State, IMO.

    I don’t think Bloomberg would get 4% of the national vote. Maybe not 2%.

    If it were Trump vs. Sanders he’d probably get 10% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats, plus independents.. I’d guess 15% or so of the votes total. His votes would be skewed in the NY area (and perhaps Florida) and he would have a good chance of winning NY State and NJ. I’d even add CT to the possible mix. I live on the outer edges of metro NYC and there are a lot of people who like Bloomberg out here, from both parties (and independents).

    . When we’re talking about “neocons,” thats the most the 20% of Jews who are Republicans and Jews totally are less than 2% of the population.

    Sorry for the confusion. By neocons I meant not card-carrying neocons but neocon voters. Pro-military, pro-war, pro-Israel Republicans. Most Republican voters, unfortunately, were neocons in the 2000s in this sense, and while this number has dwindled there are still many of them.

    Bloomberg doesn’t have enough money to win New York State, IMO

    He’s got perhaps ten times more money than Trump. I also suspect that while the Democratic and Republican Establishments wouldn’t openly support Bloomberg, they would help him as much as they can.

    Personally, I’m ambivalent about Bloomberg. He was a great mayor of New York, but policies such as strict gun control and stop-and-frisk while good in NYC have no place in, say, Idaho. Or even upstate.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    And capping the size of Slurpees ain't gonna fly in West Virginia.
  113. @tbraton
    Frank Luntz is a whore. He works for Fox News, whose owner Rupert Murdoch has expressed enthusiasm for a Bloomberg independent run. So he is either working at the direction of Murdoch and Ailes, or he is angling for a hire by Bloomberg.

    That may be. Do you think his poll is totally wrong then?

    • Replies: @tbraton
    Oh, give me a break. Frank Luntz, as I said, is a whore, just like Megyn Kelly. Do you remember before the first Republican debate back in August which was hosted by Fox? There were articles written before the debate about how Fox was preparing questions in order to take down Trump. That explains that incredibly stupid question Megyn Kelly posed to Trump about all the nasty things he had said about women over the years. Well, after the debate, they featured one of Frank Luntz's famous staged "focus groups" which opined that Trump had lost the debate. Well, guess what? Polls taken after the debate showed Trump had actually won the debate. That's when Trump started taking off. (I recently posted the Reuters poll for July 2015 showing Trump at around 17% with Jeb!!! second at around 15%. They have since headed in different directions. That was the month before the first debate.) Luntz is a desperate, overweight hack who is desperate for paying customers. I wouldn't believe any poll he took or any "focus group" he assembled. BTW have you seen the details of the poll? When it was taken? How many people were in the poll? Anything other than the result? I would venture a guess that Mike Bloomberg is not especially well known by Americans around the country. His predecessor, Rudi Giuliani, a more effusive personality, also did not dare run for the governorship of New York State or for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. We saw how far his presidential bid went.
  114. @tbraton
    Some quotes from the January 23, 2016 article in the NY Times re Bloomberg's announcement that he was weighing an independent run for President:

    "He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states."

    "Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and a past Democratic National Committee chairman, said he believed Mr. Bloomberg could compete in the race if activist candidates on the left and right prevailed in the party primaries.

    “Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders,” said Mr. Rendell, a close ally of Mrs. Clinton’s who is also a friend of Mr. Bloomberg’s. “If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.” "

    "Alan Patricof, a financier and longtime donor to the Clintons who is also friendly with Mr. Bloomberg, said it would be “a terrible thing” for the Democratic Party’s prospects of winning the White House if the former mayor ran as an independent.

    “If it was President Trump or President Bloomberg, I’d certainly rather have President Bloomberg,” Mr. Patricof said. “But it certainly can’t help the Democrats.” " http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0

    So, there appears to be a deadline of early March for Bloomberg to make a decision if he wants to qualify in all 50 states. He could wait longer if he is content to run in fewer than 50, but that would just add to the impression that he is not a serious candidate. I don't know what the deadlines are for NY, NJ and Florida, but, if those were the only states he qualified to run in as a candidate, it would be obvious that his candidacy was a vanity project.

    There are a couple of problems if Bloomberg appears likely to only win in one or two states. First, there is the matter of participating in the Presidential debates. The rules applying to Presidential debates would appear to bar Bloomberg's participation. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates:

    "Under the 2016 criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations. . . ." http://debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=58&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

    If it appeared that Bloomberg didn't even have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College (270), he could justifiably be excluded from the debates. That would be only fair since, unlike Trump or Sanders, Bloomberg would not have gone through a grueling, months-long nomination process to secure the party's nomination but would be viewed as simply buying his way onto the national stage with his billions earned on Wall Street. That would be quite a message to send to the world about our so-called democracy. Of course, if Bloomberg were justifiably barred from the debates, his very slender chances of winning the Presidency would shrink to virtually zero.

    A second problem would arise if Bloomberg succeeded in winning one electoral vote. How in the world could those turncoat Republicans justify casting their votes for Bloomberg, with the electoral votes of the one, two or even three states you mention (NY, NJ and Florida comprise just three of the 50 states and together account for just 72 electoral votes out of a total of 538 or 13%.). I think Americans would have a very hard time swallowing such an absurd result. I think citizens of those states would wonder why their Republican or Democratic congressmen would be voting in favor of some New York billionaire rather than for the candidate of the party that actually carried their state. (For the record, any vote that goes to the House for decision would be based on one vote for each state, "the representation from each state having one vote," meaning that you have to add the two Senators to the Representatives. NJ and NY have Democratic majorities (NJ, 8 to 6; NY, 20 to 9) while Fla. has a Republican majority (18 to 11), so the only state which would affect the vote in the House would possibly be Florida. It wouldn't matter to Trump if he lost NJ and NY to Sanders or Bloomberg.)

    Of course, I am of the firm belief that Bloomberg would not carry his home state of NY since he would be splitting the Democrat-inclined vote with his fellow Jew Bernie Sanders. The same applies in Florida. I can't see Bloomberg winning enough votes there to beat both Trump and Sanders. I feel sorry for the poor Jewish voters of Florida being forced to choose between two Jewish candidates. I think they would opt for their traditional choice, the Democratic Jew who used to be a Socialist. That combination would be like a wet dream for Florida's Jewish voters---almost as good as having Leon Trotsky on the ballot. But having Joe Lieberman on the ticket did not win Florida for Gore in 2000 and may have cost him the election. I do know that if I were Bernie Sanders, I would be really pissed at Bloomberg, for his entry into the race as an independent would eliminate Sanders' good chance of becoming not just President but the first Jewish President. Without Bloomberg in the race, Sanders has a chance of winning. With Bloomberg in the race, Sanders has no chance. All that hard work against the overwhelming odds to secure the Democratic nomination, I think I would be really pissed at Bloomberg.

    I’m sort of playing Devil’s Advocate here, because although I think Bloomberg’s chances of becoming president are better than you do , I still think it’s unlikely he could become president. That being said…

    If it appeared that Bloomberg didn’t even have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College (270), he could justifiably be excluded from the debates. That would be only fair since, unlike Trump or Sanders, Bloomberg would not have gone through a grueling, months-long nomination process to secure the party’s nomination but would be viewed as simply buying his way onto the national stage with his billions earned on Wall Street.

    Perot got into the debates, simply because he was polling high enough to matter. Bloomberg with his media connections would be more likely to get into the debates than the strange Texan Perot.

    A second problem would arise if Bloomberg succeeded in winning one electoral vote. How in the world could those turncoat Republicans justify casting their votes for Bloomberg, with the electoral votes of the one, two or even three states you mention (NY, NJ and Florida comprise just three of the 50 states and together account for just 72 electoral votes out of a total of 538 or 13%.). I think Americans would have a very hard time swallowing such an absurd result.

    Establishment Republicans already more or less openly hate Trump. Voting for an independent who presents himself as a centrist “unity candidate”, a former Republican, wouldn’t be a huge step for them. Certainly a lot of Republicans, particularly those in the Deep South and in the West, wouldn’t do it. But I think those lost votes would be compensated for by moderate Democrats. These “turncoats” would spin their choice to other Democrats as saving America from a Trump presidency, because there is no way any Republicans would vote for Sanders.

    Indeed, knowing that there would be zero chance of Sanders getting elected by the House, it wouldn’t be surprising if, say, 80% or more of Democrats vote for Bloomberg strategically because he isn’t Trump, which would mean only a minority of Republicans would have to vote for Bloomberg in order for him to become president.

    Of course, I am of the firm belief that Bloomberg would not carry his home state of NY since he would be splitting the Democrat-inclined vote with his fellow Jew Bernie Sanders.

    Deblasio seems to have spoiled the brand of progressive idealistic lefty in NY, to an extent. Giuliani prefers Trump over Cruz; I’m not sure if he would endorse Trump over Bloomberg.

  115. @AP
    That may be. Do you think his poll is totally wrong then?

    Oh, give me a break. Frank Luntz, as I said, is a whore, just like Megyn Kelly. Do you remember before the first Republican debate back in August which was hosted by Fox? There were articles written before the debate about how Fox was preparing questions in order to take down Trump. That explains that incredibly stupid question Megyn Kelly posed to Trump about all the nasty things he had said about women over the years. Well, after the debate, they featured one of Frank Luntz’s famous staged “focus groups” which opined that Trump had lost the debate. Well, guess what? Polls taken after the debate showed Trump had actually won the debate. That’s when Trump started taking off. (I recently posted the Reuters poll for July 2015 showing Trump at around 17% with Jeb!!! second at around 15%. They have since headed in different directions. That was the month before the first debate.) Luntz is a desperate, overweight hack who is desperate for paying customers. I wouldn’t believe any poll he took or any “focus group” he assembled. BTW have you seen the details of the poll? When it was taken? How many people were in the poll? Anything other than the result? I would venture a guess that Mike Bloomberg is not especially well known by Americans around the country. His predecessor, Rudi Giuliani, a more effusive personality, also did not dare run for the governorship of New York State or for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. We saw how far his presidential bid went.

  116. @Pure and Easy
    Trump is very smart and strategic. The field on both sides is weak and he's been able to capitalize on social media and basically talk straight. And Xenophobia. Next week will be interesting. I think he'll probably get a bump. I just think he's emotional and if if doesn't win the nomination he'll run solo. I agree with your assessment on Bloomberg. He won't run and doesnt' have a chance.

    “I agree with your assessment on Bloomberg. He won’t run and doesn’t have a chance.”

    Ditto.

  117. @tbraton
    Frank Luntz is a whore. He works for Fox News, whose owner Rupert Murdoch has expressed enthusiasm for a Bloomberg independent run. So he is either working at the direction of Murdoch and Ailes, or he is angling for a hire by Bloomberg.

    I’ve seen Luntz described as a push pollster. I remember when paleoconservative anti Iraq war David Davis was beating neocon David Cameron for the Conservative leadership, Luntz did a highly publicised focus group that lavished praise on Cameron propelling him to victory. Cameron then failed to win the next election outright, something I expect Davis would have done.

  118. @Hersh
    Yes the MSM is gloating and maybe they really are dumb and think political machines are a thing of the past or only exist in big cities. Hard to believe they are that dumb but political reporters are all Ivy Leaguers nowadays.

    The results of the Iowa caucus are very likely to turn out to be a plus for Trump. Having diminished Bush, Kasich, Christie and Fiorina to politicians who got 3, 2, 1%, Trump now only has to get rid of Cruz to get to the contest he wants: Trump vs Gang of 8. Cruz has to lift his numbers in the kind of state where he'll make voters gag with his oily persona and "Body of Christ" talk.

    Bush and Christie probably spread some money to the GOP regulars themselves and they ended up getting stiffed. They must be very angry, Christie especially. He raised money for Branstad and Branstad stiffed him.

    Correct. Trump wants it to come down to him and the guy who most represents what he’s running against.

  119. @AP

    I don’t think Bloomberg would get 4% of the national vote. Maybe not 2%.
     
    If it were Trump vs. Sanders he'd probably get 10% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats, plus independents.. I'd guess 15% or so of the votes total. His votes would be skewed in the NY area (and perhaps Florida) and he would have a good chance of winning NY State and NJ. I'd even add CT to the possible mix. I live on the outer edges of metro NYC and there are a lot of people who like Bloomberg out here, from both parties (and independents).

    . When we’re talking about “neocons,” thats the most the 20% of Jews who are Republicans and Jews totally are less than 2% of the population.
     
    Sorry for the confusion. By neocons I meant not card-carrying neocons but neocon voters. Pro-military, pro-war, pro-Israel Republicans. Most Republican voters, unfortunately, were neocons in the 2000s in this sense, and while this number has dwindled there are still many of them.

    Bloomberg doesn’t have enough money to win New York State, IMO
     
    He's got perhaps ten times more money than Trump. I also suspect that while the Democratic and Republican Establishments wouldn't openly support Bloomberg, they would help him as much as they can.

    Personally, I'm ambivalent about Bloomberg. He was a great mayor of New York, but policies such as strict gun control and stop-and-frisk while good in NYC have no place in, say, Idaho. Or even upstate.

    And capping the size of Slurpees ain’t gonna fly in West Virginia.

  120. @Hersh
    Adams is making it too complicated. Iowa doesn't just have a governor and a few congressmen and senators; there are loads of jobs throughout the whole state that are by political connections. They exist all the time; during the quadrennial presidential caucus, they go into overdrive because theres lots of money in it. How do they get money? Not just those Jefferson Jackson/Lincoln dinners, thats for sure. They deliver votes. A caucus is designed as an opportunity for party organizations to make money off delivering votes. They make it hard to vote so the numbers are going to be low (compared to a primary) and controllable.

    Iowa even has 2 GOP organizations, the so-called "Evangelical" thing in addition to the GOP regular organization. Trump came out publicly that the leader of the evangelical one, Vanderplats, asked him for $100,000. Cruz has rich backers who can pay those fees. In 2012, Santorum had a billionaire backer. Without that machine, Santorum got 1%.

    How did Rubio get 3rd place? Someone paid some of the GOP regular organization to give him votes. They probably give out something to get people in, maybe even cash. All the committeemen are assigned a number to bring in. People in local politics aren't involved in local politics because they care so much about good government. If the doors hadn't had to close at 7, they'd have kept track of the vote totals and trotted in some more for Rubio to give him a surprise win and both Cruz and Trump would be left with egg on their faces. Rubio is shameless. Watch him go into a spiel to avoid giving a direct answer to a direct question. The speech they wrote for Rubio was a winners speech not a third place speech.

    Cruz had an established machine bringing in the votes they control. These stories about his "data analytics" are nonsense. Whats wrong with these political reporters? They never read anything about political machines? Or they think machines don't exist any more even with all the money at stake in the first presidential nominating contest?

    Trump achieved something big and the political professionals all know it. Those were self-motivated voters. Rubio's benefactors thought they knew the number of votes they had to get but they needed more than that. It was actually a great showing.

    From an article in today’s NY Times re “The Way Ted Cruz Won in Iowa Suggests Trouble Ahead”:

    “In entrance and exit polls from 2008 and 2012, there was no primary state where the G.O.P. electorate was as conservative as it was in Iowa. Only Nevada had a similar ideological composition.

    It is not a coincidence that Iowa and Nevada stand alone with so many “very conservative” voters and so few “moderates.” They’re both low-turnout caucuses, which tend to attract the most committed Republican and conservative activists. The Iowa electorate might look a lot more like the one in neighboring Wisconsin if it adopted a primary system.

    As it is, “very conservative” voters outnumbered the combined total of self-described “moderate” and “liberal” voters by a 32-point margin in Iowa in 2012 — but by no more than 15 points in any primary state (Louisiana). Even in primary states with well-justified conservative reputations, like Texas or Alabama, “very conservative” voters outnumbered the total of self-described moderates and liberals only by a four-point margin. In the north, “moderate” and “liberal” usually outnumber “very conservative” voters, and often by a wide margin.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/upshot/the-way-ted-cruz-won-in-iowa-suggests-trouble-ahead.html?ribbon-ad-idx=17&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article

  121. @Anonymous

    Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances.
     
    Wow, that's pretty sad. Rubio hasn't done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn't come out of Braman's pockets.

    What's also really sad is that such shameless people like Braman dominate the political process and are completely shameless about corrupting the system. Note that this is an absolute corruption of the system but doesn't get counted in all those world country corruption surveys and measures.

    To be fair the political process, defined as that part of politics affected by elections and elect officials doesn’t count for all much. Which isn’t to say you and thousands of people can’t get rich off of corrupting it. But that’s peanuts compared to things like Social Security, which people freely call ponzi schemes yet aren’t considered to be corrupt. And indeed, they aren’t corrupt in the usual sense. They are “beyond (or above) politics.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS