Sanders and the Republican Establishment in New Hampshire?

Bernie Sanders could be the key to whether an establishment Republican candidate emerges with any strength coming out of New Hampshire in February.


That’s right – Bernie Sanders’ strength as a campaigner over the next month may well have an impact on the Republican race.  Among the rules that are left unsaid around this time of year is that Iowa does a middling-to-poor job of choosing Republican nominees, whereas it has done a pretty good job of choosing Democratic nominees.  For the Republicans, think back to 2012 – not Santorum, but Romney; 2008, not Huckabee, but McCain; 1988, not Dole, but Bush; 1980, not Bush, but Reagan.  For the Democrats, let’s remember that Carter emerged from Iowa in 1976; Mondale won there in 1984; Gore in 2000; Kerry in 2004; and Obama in 2008.

New Hampshire, on the other hand, is where Republican nominees frequently find their footing – Romney, 2012; McCain, 2008; Bush, 1988; Reagan, 1980 – especially where a more hard-line conservative wins in Iowa.  In those years, New Hampshire acts as the counteracting force.

But New Hampshire has another wrinkle to it.  Undeclared voters, i.e., those who are not registered in either the Republican or Democratic Party, may vote in either primary.  So in order to read the tea leaves, it is important to look at the dynamic on both sides.  They currently represent approximately 40% of the New Hampshire electorate.  In 2008, the last-minute shifting of independents may have been the decisive factor in handing the nomination to John McCain after he had been declared a dead-man walking in the fall of 2007.  When Barack Obama emerged as the surprise winner of the Iowa Caucus in 2008 (remember, many pundits had Edwards edging out Clinton in a close race), it in effect took some pressure off of independent voters to find their “anybody but Clinton” – Clinton didn’t win.  Meanwhile, conservative Mike Huckabee did win in Iowa, which sent independents in New Hampshire to find their establishment pick.  I haven’t seen any stats on it, but I’m willing to guess that more independents broke to vote in the Republican primary after Huckabee’s win in Iowa, and that this last-minute break gave an advantage to McCain.

How does this all play in 2016 race?  I’m not willing to make any predictions, but I think it’s worth thinking about the dynamics of independent voters in New Hampshire.

Right now, Cruz and Trump seem to be running a tight race in Iowa, and that could truly go either way.  If Trump wins, it is possible that the result in Iowa will have little effect on New Hampshire, where Trump is ahead in double digits in the latest poll.  A conservative Cruz victory, on the other hand, might drive more independents into the Republican primary.

But what is more interesting is the Bernie Sanders quotient, especially when one considers the theory that Sanders and Trump – from opposite sides of the aisle, loosely speaking, since neither is a true party regular – are both tapping into the same base of dissatisfied voters.  They are much more similar as candidates in terms of their economic populist, anti-partisan, anti-establishment spirit than they are different – especially if you are looking at them through the lens of an independent voter.

Sanders is a New Englander, which gives him a huge edge in New Hampshire.  Clinton looks like she has a lock on Iowa, so the anti-Clinton voters among the independents in New Hampshire may have a greater interest in breaking for the Democratic primary in New Hampshire to support Sanders.  Current polls show Clinton winning there, too – which is why the next month is key for Sanders.  Can he make a strong closing enough argument to New Hampshire independents to attract them to the Democratic primary?  As a vote against the establishment?

If he does, then the New Hampshire primary will lean more to the Republican base, which might very well favor an establishment candidate.  Trump still holds a good lead in New Hampshire, but is helped there by a fractured lineup of establishment Republican candidates, all clustered together in the latest polls – Rubio, Christie, Kasich and Bush.  If Sanders takes independents to the Democrats, the party regulars may be left in New Hampshire with enough juice to propel one of those establishment candidates into the challenger position against Trump.  Today it is still difficult to see who might emerge – and perhaps the establishment field is too fragmented for this dynamic to have any effect at all – but regulars could well galvanize around Rubio or Christie at the last minute, making one of them look like a credible alternative.  If Cruz wins in Iowa and Trump wins only weakly in New Hampshire, there’s still an opening for a Rubio or a Christie if they show surprisingly well in New Hampshire.

Perhaps the establishment PACs would do well to throw some pro-Sanders ads into the mix in New Hampshire …

Ben Carson on the Rapture

“Carson was recently put in the position of reassuring voters that yes, he does believe in a Rapture, just not the exact same Rapture as other evangelicals.”  OK, but does he believe there’s an Antichrist in the Democratic field?




I know I’ve been sleeping on the job here for several years, dear readers, but I did manage to wake the other day to notice … oh … I dunno … that we were bombing Syria and Iraq … that the Israelis shot down a Syrian plane … that Vladimir Putin was denouncing U.S. bombing of Syria … and meanwhile Russia is basically invading the Ukraine .. and ebola is apparently out of control in West Africa.  And that’s just to name a few of the noisy interruptions to my REM slumber.

It may be time to get this cocktail party started again, my friends.

In light of the heartbreaking tragedy at Newtown, I am reposting a talk I gave in 2007 after the Virginia Tech shooting.

June 28, 2007 – SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS — The tragic events that occurred last April at Virginia Tech rendered all of us speechless. The best I am able to offer to the families of the victims and to members of the Virginia Tech community is to join the rest of the nation in offering my condolences.

In the painful analysis of what happened in Blacksburg, we are left with more questions than answers. We ask, how is it possible that a quiet middle class suburb can produce such violence and hatred? We ask, shouldn’t it be harder to acquire guns? Shouldn’t we ban violent video games? Is it something we’re eating?

It is easy to be distracted by the misuse of guns, and the tastelessness of certain music, video games, websites, TV shows and movies. In some sense, though, all of these are reflective of some rather powerful social dynamics that have been shaping American culture during the past century. Ultimately, the guns and the shows of violence in pop culture are like the rocks that end up hitting us in the avalanche. They can hurt us and they can even kill us – but it does us no good to outlaw rocks. We have to examine what started the avalanche.

Allow me to point out a few interesting generalizations about our country.

  • Around 1915, the population of the U.S. shifted so that a majority of Americans lived in large cities rather than in rural areas. From 1970 to 2000, however, suburbanites began to displace city dwellers; the percentage of Americans living in suburban areas shifted from 38% to 50%, while the urbanites dropped to just 30% of the American population.
  • While most Americans still live within 100 miles of their birthplace, at least one out of five families changes its residence each year.
  • In 19th century literature, the iconic American family living under one roof most often consisted of middle aged parents and their multiple children, along with grandparents and occasionally a spinster aunt or bachelor uncle.In 1970, less than 18% of American households consisted of just one person, and households with five or more people represented about 20% of all households; but by 2000, large households now only represent about 11% and one-person households represent 26% of all households. The iconic American family is now fairly often represented in our culture as the single parent with one or two children.
  • Affordable air conditioning for the home was introduced in the 1930s. By 1997, 93% of all housing units in the warmer climates of the South had air conditioning, a circumstance which appears to have had a pronounced effect on the increase in population in the Southern half of the U.S.
  • As late as 1969, one fifth of American households did not own a single car.Meanwhile, between 1990 and 2000, however, 30 million vehicles were added to American households on a net basis, and it is common for Americans to spend 60 to 90 minutes alone in their cars going to and from work.
  • More than a quarter of all Americans watch television every night, and one third of those go online while they are watching TV. One group projected that in 2006 the average American will have spent 575 minutes a day – over 9 hours – consuming various types of media, including TV, radio, the internet, recorded music, DVDs and video games. Books and magazines represent a mere 37 minutes per day of that total.
  • Look on any residential city street with homes built from 80 to 100 years ago, and you will see rows of tightly collected houses, with ample front porches for sitting and taking in the sights and sounds of a neighborhood.Look on any suburban street today, and you will often have a hard time finding the front doors of the houses; the most prominent feature will be a driveway, or a garage, or a gated wall. Is anybody home? You be the judge.

To crystallize all this – in a century, we went from being a people who rarely moved; lived within multi-generational extended families, mainly in small towns or rural areas; enjoyed homes with front porches on which we actually spent time; and generally worked within a short distance of our places of employment …

… to being a more transient people, collected within fractured nuclear families; living in suburban homes with hidden front doors, often located a significant distance from our jobs, spending significant hours of each day seated within our cars or barricaded with our air conditioning, watching TV, surfing the Net or playing video games.

One thing that small town America did very well was provide moral stability. Living out in the open, within a community of acquaintances, there was a certain built-in deterrent to doing harm to your neighbors. It was the glare of community disapproval.One learned early that actions had consequences – and generally speaking, that good actions have good consequences, and bad actions have bad consequences.

What happens in the dark? The cockroaches come out and do their work, until someone turns on the kitchen lights and sends them scattering. Fungus grows. You can spread out your arms, but you can’t see what you might be hitting with them.

I don’t mean, by pointing out every-day differences between America Today and America Past, to promote the idea that we need to reorder ourselves into a kind of mythical Leave it to Beaver or Little House on the Prairie lifestyle — that would be a vacuous suggestion. When the spirit of an age passes away, there’s no returning to it; you simply have to do the best you can within the spirit of your own age. And I do not intend, by the way, to indict the Internet or air conditioning as the roots of all evil. They are not.

I do wish to point out, though, that in America we have gone from being primarily social actors to being de facto solitary figures, and that we should not be surprised that a certain kind of unremitting solitude produces anti-social behavior.

If your child spends all of his or her non-school time poking around in Internet chat rooms or playing video games, they are engaging in the practiced avoidance of social consequences for their cruelest actions. In the meta-interaction of a video game, we can whack away at virtual human beings without meaningful punishment – the only bad consequence is losing the game, pushing the cancel button and starting over again. In chat rooms, we can be shunned for being obnoxious, but we can always rejoin under a new identity. Participating as a voyeur in the daily violence that television has to offer has no readily identifiable, immediately admonishing consequence at all.

In some children, these circumstances merely create sloth or apathy toward social goals; in the worst situations, they can create a habit of sociopathic behavior. The outdoor, public precedents of each of these activities, on the other hand – beating up people, being obnoxious, even witnessing crime — provided immediate consequences that tended to teach better manners and higher ethical standards.

Is it chat rooms or video games that I deplore? No, other than to remark that they evidence a race to the bottom, fed by value-neutral commerce. What I deplore is a generation of lives structured around institutions and habits that are inherently anti-social, fueled by one of the greatest public frauds perpetrated upon American citizens over the last 100 years: the self-righteous misapplication of a right to privacy as a right to remain isolated and uninvolved.

You have a right to avoid publicity, generally. You have a right to make decisions about the conduct of your health care and to conduct your spiritual affairs outside of the public eye. You have a right to keep your financial information private in order to avoid the misappropriation of your identity and your credit. I want to assert to you today, though, that as an American citizen, you have no right to secede from your community. You have no right to avoid the warning signs of anti-social behavior. You have no right to fail to exercise moral authority within your community simply because you don’t want to get involved. You have no right not to intervene.

We’ll never hear a constitutional scholar say it, but a community simply does not work unless people are willing to participate in it. Or, more importantly, a community in which the inhabitants do not meaningfully interact with each other on matters of ethics and social welfare is not a community at all. Rather, it is simply a mob, an anonymous random selection of human lives inevitably subject to the moral ambiguity of “mob rule,” in which sociopathic behavior is unfortunately often rewarded.

In this context, it is easy to see that the Sixth Amendment right to confront one’s accuser does not exist simply to benefit defendants. It is emblematic of the moral function inherent in the idea of community – the effective exercise of moral authority is always personal and confrontational, it cannot be enforced with anonymity. I believe our founding fathers implicitly recognized that.

It has been discussed, ad nauseum, that the teachers and other officials at Virginia Tech felt powerless, within a maze of privacy regulations and potential liability, to do anything about what they perceived to be a troubling situation involving the young man who ultimately committed mass murder in their community.

So, we are starting with the disadvantage of a physical and social milieu in which, without effort, isolation prevails, and in which socialization is therefore weak. Adopting “isolation” as a kind of ersatz public virtue, we have built around ourselves a fortress of laws, regulations, common law misjudgments and bad habits that actually discourage the very behavior that keeps a community running smoothly.

And all of that is shrouded by the misguided notion that the poverty of my neighbor, my neighbor’s illness, the consequences of my neighbor’s advanced age or of his or her hard times are not my problem. The notion that these are problems that the politicians in Washington, or the financiers on Wall Street, or the capitalists in their board rooms, should be solving – not me.

Well, it is really no wonder that our society is breaking down around our ears and elbows.

There is no morality in society unless I can also get it through my head that I am my brother’s keeper. That is the essence of an ethical relationship. Community moral authority is not solely about restricting behavior – moral authority in the absence of practical human charity and compassion is empty and ultimately meaningless.

I know we want to remain secure in our hermetically sealed cars with our satellite radios, drowning out the ugliest noises; we want to remain comfortable on our couches, watching our TVs and sending emails; and we want to elect Presidents who tell us that we should just sit tight and they will solve our problems. That’s a lie that we’re all participating in on some level.

The tragedy at Virginia Tech shows that, fundamentally, beneath all the manifestly ungovernable debris of pop culture, our communities are not working the way they should. We’re not producing real citizens.

The solution to all of this is not a simple one. Each of us has to examine our own role in providing moral authority within our communities, and we need to exercise courage in seizing the initiative. We need our legislators to examine ways in which we can liberate those of us who would rise to community leadership, to help bridge the gap between the forces that isolate us and the necessity of self-stewardship. And we need a President and a federal apparatus that uses its authority to enable communities to take the leading role in solving their own problems. Our nation’s leaders have to stop pretending they have all the answers, and instead show real leadership in providing us with the tools to help our communities coalesce and flourish.

There is no Superman, there is no Wonder Woman. There’s only you and me, and we’ve got to get busy.

I thank you for listening, and I’ll be seeing you along the trail.

The polls have held, and President Obama has been re-elected. Frankly, the hysteria and the hand-wringing are a little more than I can bear, since I can find little difference between the incumbent and the moderate Northeastern ex-Governor who implemented Obamacare in his own state before Obamacare was called Obamacare.

So what can be done with a White House won definitively by the President (303-235 electoral votes), a House won definitively by the Republicans despite modest Democratic gains, and a Senate stubbornly held, with an improved majority, by the Democrats?

Possibly nothing, if recent history is an indicator.

On the other hand, there are two areas that, pragmatically speaking, really should be attacked by all of the above without delay. They are areas of natural compromise among our divided leaders.

First, it is time to enact the bi-partisan Simpson Bowles budget recommendations — $200 billion reduction in discretionary spending per year, $100 billion in increased tax revenue, raising the payroll tax and retirement age to strengthen Social Security. During the lame duck session, tacticians in the White House and in Congress have the perfect opportunity to cherry pick among retiring congressmen, those who were not re-elected, and those who won by large margins to take a patriotic stand and show the world that we Americans are serious about responsible, balanced deficit reduction. Some of those who won re-election by small margins can be forgiven if they sit this one out.

Second, a natural area for compromise by the White House would be in the area of energy. Specifically, if we can all agree that coal is dead (not actually dead, by the way; it will continue to operate in the U.S. on a smaller, more sustainable level, serving export markets, and people will still make money from it), then the President has no choice but to lend some support to clean, American natural gas. You can’t kill coal unless you have a credible fuel with which to replace it. If coal-fired power plants are coming off line, gas-fired plants are really the only thing available to replace them. Supporting natural gas development and the development of independent gas-fired power generation in the U.S. is the President’s best hope for articulating a practical, meaningful energy policy, and it is an initiative that conservatives should be able to get behind as well.

Time to stop all the childish nonsense. Time to work together to govern. After all, that’s why you’re there.

Severe droughts could devastate sub-Saharan Africa following a recent decades-long drought that killed 100,000 people in Africa’s Sahel region, scientists say.

Sub-Saharan Africa often suffers droughts, but the group of specialists reported on Thursday that global climate change will make these dry periods more severe and more difficult for the people who live there.

The prediction is contained in a study published in the journal of Science by the scientits at the University of Arizona, US.

“Clearly, much of West Africa is already on the edge of sustainability, and the situation could become much more dire in the future with increased global warming,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a climatologist and co-author of the study.

Via Aljazeera English.

Pirates commandeered a United States-flagged container ship with 20 American crew members off the coast of Somalia on Wednesday, the first time an American-crewed ship was seized by pirates in the area.

The container ship, the Maersk Alabama, was carrying thousands of tons of relief aid to the Kenyan port of Mombasa, the company that owns the ship said.

The ship was taken by pirates at about 7:30 a.m. local time, 280 miles southeast of the Somali city of Eyl, a known haven for pirates, a spokesman for the United States Navy said. It is owned and operated by Maersk Line Limited, a United States subsidiary of A.P. Moller – Maersk Group, the Danish shipping giant.

The Maersk Alabama was at least the sixth commercial ship commandeered by pirates this week off the Horn of Africa, one of the most notoriously lawless zones on the high seas, where pirates have been operating with near impunity despite efforts by many nations, including the United States, to intimidate them with naval warship patrols.

Via New York Times.  Arrrr.  Obviously, we hope our American crew and all aboard are allowed to return home unharmed.

I have an idea about a way to curtail these activities:  send them ships filled with reality TV stars, one after another after another.  Imagine a ship filled with Real World/Road Rules alumni, or perhaps another one with the contestants from a new series of Survivor, “Survivor: Somalia.”  When the pirates find themselves unable to collect ransom on them, they’ll soon grow weary of the whole venture.  Then perhaps they’ll retire to dry land and fall into Internet scamming, or another less violent hobby.

UPDATE, from the New York TimesAt about noon Eastern time, some twelve hours after the hijacking, a Pentagon official speaking on condition of anonymity said that “it is our understanding that the crew has taken back control of the vessel.”

WASHINGTON — Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, these officials said, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls. The intruders haven’t sought to damage the power grid or other key infrastructure, but officials warned they could try during a crisis or war.

“The Chinese have attempted to map our infrastructure, such as the electrical grid,” said a senior intelligence official. “So have the Russians.”

The espionage appeared pervasive across the U.S. and doesn’t target a particular company or region, said a former Department of Homeland Security official. “There are intrusions, and they are growing,” the former official said, referring to electrical systems. “There were a lot last year.”

Via Wall Street Journal.  Seems like an awful lot of time and money invested in disrupting our electrical supply when we are more than capable of doing that ourselves.  On a regular basis.