Let's start with the schadenfreude just for a laugh. Or to show we know one word of German, whichever. The best part of the New Hampshire primary was watching Marco Rubio finish fifth after giving the most exuberant victory speech maybe ever, despite finishing third. He sounded like he was celebrating actually winning the presidency, not finishing third in one state. The first state, but just one state. From the dribbles of rumor from the Senate to the public, apparently he is spared the disdain of his Republican colleagues only by the noxious presence of Ted Cruz. Avoid Rubio and you might have to talk to Cruz, so...
Yet there's another contender in the race for the "You're celebrating THAT?" award. John Kasich, delighted at finishing a distant second to an insult comic, saying, "Maybe, just maybe, we are turning the page on a dark part of American politics because tonight, the light overcame the darkness of negative campaigns." The "light" got 15% and the --- well, I infer Kasich's opponents are the "darkness" --- got 85%. This is apparently a use of the word "overcame" I was previously unfamiliar with.
A phrase I hope goes away when the election is over is "the establishment". What is the establishment? Does it give out membership cards? It seems the halls of power in DC are crawling with people bragging of how they defy the establishment and the establishment hates them. I would have guessed that when you're a congressman or a governor or a billionaire or some such, you are the frikkin' establishment. I'd like to dump "the establishment" into the trash bin of meaningless old buzzwords, but I'll settle for an unwritten rule that no one says "the establishment" without saying who the hell they're talking about.
Something strange got missed in the analysis of the Republican results in Iowa. The press seemed utterly baffled by how Trump could move down while Cruz and Rubio moved up. Most seemed to attribute it to debate performances, but Rubio supposedly did well in the last pre-Iowa debate while Cruz did poorly, yet both moved up. I may be wrong that this explanation is obvious, but what seemed obvious was it was a matter of alacrity at pandering to the religious right, which is pretty much the same as the Republican base in Iowa. Rubio and Cruz pander to Christian conservatives very well, while Trump's attempts were comic. How do grow up in America and, no matter how non-religious, not know the difference between a collection plate and communion plate? But hey, my faith is so important to me, it's just huge, you wouldn't believe it. The two Corinthians, weren't they just the best Corinthians ever? Hmm, I guess pandering is a skill.
Going back to Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie's evisceration thereof, I wasn't surprised Rubio had his one phrase to repeat. He's never spoken an original sounding sentence. I had noted in the live blog of the Jan. 28th debate that he kept referring to ISIS regardless of the subject. I was a bit surprised he repeated his line after being called on it. But let's dispel this fiction that Marco Rubio doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's ... oh wait, that's not fiction. I'm starting to think that when Rubio says he's the candidate Democrats don't want to face, he might be wrong.
Before getting into a catch up on who is still in and who is still worthy of our attention, I'm going to do something ironic for a post about the presidential election, and complain about --- too much coverage of the presidential election. I'm referring specifically to liberal media, the real liberal media, not the corporate media conservatives like to label as "liberal" media, but the media like liberal web sites admittedly like us, or liberal talk radio. Not that the nomination race between Hillary and Bernie isn't important and interesting, but there are a whole lot of races down the ballot where candidates are being chosen now, just with less attention than the presidency. Democrats not only have a big dropoff problem in midterms, but we even have presidential voters who skip the rest of the ballot. Last year I was going on about local elections because we don't just have a midterm dropoff problem, but a non-presidential dropoff problem. Earlier this week, we lost a Minnesota state house seat in as special election, district 50B, which is purple but leaning blue. The incumbent who resigned won easily in 2014. This seat isn't a safe seat, but definitely the odds favor the Democrat. Yet we lost the special election, because in a special election, turnout drops off from general elections, and our dropoff was a lot worse the the MNGOP's. Democrats lose because if it isn't the presidency at stake, we don't pay attention. The real "liberal" media isn't helping when it's all-presidency all the time.
Now that I've just complained about paying too much attention to the presidential race --- back to the presidential race. Some Hillary and Bernie supporters are getting chippy in regards to the other candidate, and many Democrats are getting ticked off about it. Count me among them. The US Supreme Court's stay in the EPA climate rules case illustrates why. Another five conservtives to four liberals decision is based on extreme right ideology and screws up something. In this case, the court issued a stay in West Virginia et al v. EPA to stop enforcement of the EPA's new climate regulations even though the case is still in the appeals process, and the appeals court panel declined to issue a stay. The case hasn't even been heard by the full appeals court, but that's the sort of disregard for precedent or process or facts this court has. So to those turning into bitter partisans of their preferred candidate, especially those who won't vote or, really just as bad, won't donate and volunteer if their candidate loses the nomination, keep in mind how a conservative court has been more destructive than a president or Congress. Citizens United, Heller, and probably the most damaging decision of my lifetime, Bush v. Gore, have done the country great harm, which won't stop unless we flip the conservative majority. That won't happen without a Democratic president, and neither Hillary nor Bernie will nominate justices like the court's five conservatives. Skip the election out of pique, and you might just give us another generation of a court run by the likes of Scalia and Alito.
To catch up on the Republican clown car, it has several clowns fewer, and not all remaining clowns are worth your time. I grouped them according to whether they could win the nomination (assuming any nominee will have a chance in the general election) and whether they're likely to continue in public office or seek it again. Of those who recently dropped out, the only one I ever thought had a shot was Rand Paul, and that was quite a while ago. And I remain hopeful Kentucky is less red than we thought (though 2015's results are a bit of a reality check I fear), so maybe Paul can be denied reelection to his Senate seat.
Not worth following, because they're highly unlikely to either win the nomination or run for something else (maybe another pointless campaign for president): Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, George Pataki. I un-struck Gilmore because despite getting so few votes he doesn't need all his digits to count them, Gilmore is still out there seeking interviews and playing candidate.
Follow while they have a shot at the nomination, but they are unlikely to run for anything else: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson. I'm almost ready to move Carson into the not worth following group.
Follow because they're in office or might run for something else, though they won't be the nominee: Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina. I still see Fiorina as a VP possibility, though I can't see her running for anything else, and after this lousy campaign, she's moved to the long list of candidates. The really long list.
Might win the nomination, and they're either in office or might run for something else: Scott Walker, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio.
So unless you insist on counting Gilmore, the clown car is down to six charlatans, lunatics, narcissists, and fools. Republicans have to pick one of them, and Democrats keep stressing the popcorn supply.
Click here to catch up and to keep up.
Cross-posted at MN Progressive Project.