Will Donald Trump Be The Nominee? Another Quantitative Analysis

Pundits love to speculate as to whether Donald Trump can or will win the Republican nomination. After his crushing loss in Wisconsin, Trump has suffered a setback, because Wisconsin was a winner-take-all state. (A silly arrangement, in my opinion.) But now, how does the delegate math work out? Once again, a quantitative analysis is called for. And just like I did in my last blog post, I sat down and crunched the numbers to provide a very good insight into how good Donald's chances really are.

We begin with Donald's current running total of 746 delegates (according to CNN). Using current polling data, it's likely that Trump will win New York on April 19th. However, since this is not a winner-take-all state, he will come away with only, at most, 60% of the delegates. There are 95 delegates at stake. We'll give him a conservative estimate of 50 delegates. Running total: 796.

Next comes a big day on April 26th, with five states voting. Connecticut and Rhode Island are not winner-take-all states, but the other three, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware, are. Actually, Delaware is winner-take-all, while Penn. and Mary. are winner-take-most. In all these states, Trump is showing a current, comfortable lead. If we grant conservative totals (a bit more than half) for Conn. and R.I., and give him all of Delaware and most, but not all, of Pennsylvania and Maryland, Trump comes away with 128 more delegates altogether. Running total now: 924.

And here's where it gets really interesting. Next up are Indiana on May 3rd, and Nebraska on May 10th. Neither of these states has any recent polling data, so it's anybody's guess what may happen. Indiana has 56 delegates, and Nebraska has 36. Indiana is winner-take-most, while Nebraska is winner-take-all. If Trump loses both these states, then he will fall just shy of the grand total of 1,237 needed to clinch the nomination, even assuming Trump runs the table the rest of the way! On the other hand, if he wins just one of those states, then he will be able to potentially clinch the nomination on June 7th, when California, New Jersey, and three other states weigh in. All but one of these is winner-take-all or winner-take-most. If he loses either Indiana or Nebraska, he will need all the remaining states to clinch. On the other hand, if he wins both Indiana and Nebraska, the only realistic way to stop Trump will be to defeat him in California.

California! California! California! Will be the #nevertrump rallying cry!

So it comes down to Indiana and Nebraska! Nebraska's demographic is similar to Iowa's, but Indiana is more similar to Wisconsin. Trump should be very careful not to insult Indiana's governor this time!

So! Indiana and Nebraska! Watch them carefully, May 3rd and May 10th, and see if I'm not right. Remember, you heard it here first!


Eric

*

2016 vs. 2008 - A Quantitative Analysis

Lots of comparisons have been made in the media between Hillary's run against Barack Obama in 2008, and her run against Bernie Sanders now in 2016. For example, then as now, One candidate took an early lead, and refused to give it up. Then as now, the trailing candidate refused to quit, and fought tooth and toenail, even when it seems hopeless. Then as now, the fans of the losing side accused the winning side of having things rigged, playing the race card, being a horrible choice, etc. etc. Then as now, those on the losing side then (Hillary) and those likely on the losing side now (Bernie) issue(d) pledges to never vote for the winning candidate.

But one comparison seems lacking, and that's a real analysis of just how far ahead Hillary is over Bernie in contrast to how far ahead Barack Obama was at this point in the campaign eight years ago.

I know why. Doing a quantitative analysis of this kind is hard. VERY hard. It requires a lot of time spent in front of a spreadsheet, crunching boring numbers and accounting for anomalies, of which there are plenty. When it's finally done, you get different answers depending on how you turn the numbers. But I'm returning to accounting one way or another, and so it seemed a fair exercise for me to do exactly that, and then to share the results with you, my adoring seven readers. Here's what I found.

First, it's necessary for there to be two ways to do the analysis, because the primary structure in 2008 was radically different from the primary structure in 2016. For starters, it was much earlier back then. The primaries began on January 3rd, and were largely concluded by March. It was designed to be over relatively quickly. A whopping 22 states voted on Super Tuesday, February 5th, 2008! By contrast, the 2016 campaign began on February 1st, and won't conclude until June, giving much more time for the candidates to campaign. Also, the order in which the states held their primaries is radically different today than it was in 2008. Aside from the first four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina), the order in which the states voted has shifted wildly. So there can only be two ways to do a true comparative analysis: 1) We can compare the delegates won in 2008 with the delegates won in 2016 on a state-by-state analysis. An "apples to apples," comparison, if you will. Or, 2) we can compare where the candidates were when a comparable number of states had completed voting. As of the Wisconsin primary, 36 out of 57 primaries and caucuses for 50 states, 6 U.S. territories, and 1 voting day for citizens abroad. We can measure where Obama and Hillary were after 36 contests and compare that with today's numbers. A "step by step" comparison.

For both these steps, there are two possible avenues of analysis. We could compare the percentage of votes won, or we could compare the number of delegates won. We could also do both. For brevity, I have limited this to a comparison of delegate numbers, because that's easier for me to calculate and for you to digest. Also, I have left off any "super delegates," because those delegates can and often do change their vote. In 2016 so far, most of them are for Hillary, but that could change if Bernie catches up. By leaving all the supers out of this calculation, I remove any criticism people might have about these delegates throwing off my results.

First, the "apples to apples" comparison. By adding up the delegate totals from each state, we can see where Hillary vs. Obama stands in comparison to Hillary vs. Bernie today. There are, however, a few complications. First, There was a third candidate, Senator John Edwards, who did  not drop out of the race until February, several states into the contest. Those delegates he won were re-apportioned later, causing some problems with the grand totals. For simplicity, I have excluded all his delegates as well.

At this juncture, following the results of the yesterday's primary vote in Wisconsin, Bernie trails Hillary by 252 pledge delegates. (CNN puts her lead at 229 pledge delegates.) He will need to win 57% of all remaining pledge delegates to catch up, and persuade the super delegates to come over to his side. But where was Hillary in terms of trailing Barack Obama at this same juncture in 2008? At this same point in 2008, adding up the delegate totals of each state in 2016's voting order, Hillary trailed Obama by only 156 pledge delegates, and needed to win only about 53% of the remaining delegates to catch up. In other words, at this juncture, Hillary had much more reason to be optimistic back in 2008 than Bernie does in 2016. And back then, the media was also calling it all but over, despite Hillary winning a string of victories over Obama in many smaller states, just like Sanders is doing today. Hillary's lead over Bernie is 62% larger than Obama's lead over Hillary in '08.

Of course, there are a few problems with this analysis. For starters, by the time Wisconsin voted in 2008, a number of key states had already voted which haven't yet in 2016. New York, New Jersey and California had all voted by the time Wisconsin voters got a chance to have their say in 2008. So pundits who were calling for Hillary to get out were doing so knowing that the biggest states which could play to her favor were already behind her, and she had little to look forward to except many states where Obama was polling in the lead. Today, with California, Pennsylvania and New York still to come, there's plenty for Sanders to hope for, even with Hillary holding a nearly 2/3 larger lead than the one Obama had over her eight years ago.

That brings us to the "step by step" analysis, where we compare the same number of states in both electoral contests. By the time contest number 36 had taken place in 2008, Obama led Hillary by only (and this is reasonably stunning) 50 delegate votes! That's an amazingly small lead! And yet with Obama having all the momentum, pundits still said that Hillary should get out. She would have none of it, however, and stayed to the bitter end. She had every reason to, the way she saw it.

Of course, it's not that simple, either. By contest number 36, a number of states held their primary on that same day in 2008. That day was February 12th, and the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia all held their primaries on that same day. Also, the Mariana Islands have a delegation in 2016, which wasn't present in 2008, meaning that we would have to figure one less contest from 2008 in a step-by-step analysis. Including only D.C. in our calculations, Obama only held a 50 delegate lead. But this doesn't seem fair, because contests held that same day should really be included. After all, everyone else was voting at the same time. So, including the results from Maryland, Obama's lead jumps to 66. It jumps up to 94 if one includes Virginia. That's quite a bit of variation, but it's still not insurmountable, and Hillary would have needed only (roughly) 52% of remaining pledge delegates to win.

So, depending on your viewpoint, Obama had anywhere from a 50, to 94, to 156 delegate lead over Hillary at this point in the nomination process back in '08. At this point, pundits were calling it over for Hillary. Some pundits today are singing a similar funeral dirge for Bernie, because the hole he is in is so very much deeper. But the number of delegates yet available in big states is what gives him a glimmer of hope.

Based on this comparison, the conclusion is clear: Bernie needs to win New York, and win it by 57% or more. If he loses it, it's over. If he wins by a slim margin, it won't be enough because he gains no significant ground and would need to win the Pennsylvania and California by margins well in excess of 60% or even 65%. That's doable, but extremely difficult. And nearly impossible if New York is a loss.

So there you have it. Today vs. the thrilling days of yesteryear. My prediction? The Bernie movement will not win the presidency, but will win a solid voting bloc that will pull the Democratic party further to the left and make it more committed to ending corruption. Hell, it's won this already! It will be able to hold Hillary to her promises, and possibly even beat her in a primary fight after one term if she doesn't keep them.

Bernie has been coy about using his power to help the entire Democratic ticket. He said recently to Rachel Maddow, "We'll see."

But he'd be a fool not to wield the power he's won. I think he will.

The old symbol of the Democratic Party is a donkey. The new symbol of the Democratic Party is a sparrow.


Eric

*

Why Bernie Edged Out Hillary In Michigan

What do I know that the pundits don't regarding why Bernie Sanders beat out Hillary Clinton in Michigan by one point? Quite a bit, as it turns out, because unlike them, I'm actually paying attention to the local newspapers in Flint and Detroit.

First, let me recap what a huge upset this was. Polls going into this gave Hillary a more than 20 point lead going into the primary as recently as the day before. That should have translated to a huge win for Hillary, and a coast to the nomination afterward. But that didn't happen. What sort of shenanigans could have happened to cause such a huge swing in less than 24 hours?

I don't think much happened in the way of shenanigans. I also don't think only one thing caused such a big change in expectations vs. outcome. Instead, a matrix of factors weighed in all at once. Let me break down what those were.

1.) Turnout!
This, more than anything else, could skew the pre-election polls. Typically, pollsters work with an expectation of likely voters, and turnout for primaries is typically much lower than for a general election. But this primary shattered records and exceeded all expectations. The disaster in Flint has pissed off Michigan voters, and they mean business against anyone seen as establishment! They came out to support the anti-establishment candidate in droves! Pollsters never saw it coming.

2.) Hillary's debate points didn't hit the way pundits thought.
Last Sunday, at the Democratic debate in Flint, when Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary for supporting trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP, Hillary had a ready response, pointing out how Bernie had voted against the General Motors bailout. She, and all the pundits, saw that as a tete-a-tete, and called it a wash. Clearly, voters disagreed, perhaps on the rationale that GM wouldn't have needed bailing out if it weren't for NAFTA in the first place.

3.) The Bloomberg Factor.
There was only one significant news story involving the election other than Sunday's debate, and that was the announcement by Michael Bloomberg that he would not run as a third party candidate. The Bloomberg factor (as I called it in this blog), threatened to act as a spoiler if Bernie Sanders was the candidate, thus creating an avenue for Donald Trump to win the presidency with less than a majority. A respectable percentage of Hillary's supporters undoubtedly backed her because they wanted to prevent exactly that sort of thing from happening. But with Bloomberg ruling himself out, many Michigan voters must have decided that it was "safe" to support Bernie Sanders now. And did so!

4.) Late-breaking deciders.
There were a lot of undecided voters hovering in the middle. Pollsters must have thought that they would split down the middle, just as they have in every other Midwestern state which has voted so far. They didn't. They went almost universally for Sanders.

5.) Problems at the polls.
Hillary may have a legitimate gripe when it comes to the polling stations. News stories broke out during the night of polling stations running out of ballots because turnout was so high, and some voters being improperly turned away. Now, Detroit news sources have verified and legitimized the stories, so that they cannot be denied as coming from tabloid sources. You can read about it yourself in the Detroit News here. Certainly, many voters had to wait in long lines before they could vote, and large numbers of them got mad and left. How many votes Hillary lost this way is impossible to quantify, but this happened mostly in big urban areas which favored Hillary. She could argue that this amounted to the barely 1% difference that Sanders won by. This is a huge problem for Bernie, because it de-legitimizes his surprise win.

So, all five of these happened all at once, and the result was a huge last-minute swing for Bernie Sanders, and the most embarrassing failure of pre-polling in living memory. But does that give Bernie a win for the day? As all the other news pundits have already recognized, the answer is no.

Bernie lost Mississippi that same night. Not only did he lose it, he lost it BIG. It was a bloodbath! Not even close. 83% to 16%. Hillary takes nearly all that state's delegates. Meanwhile, Bernie's surprise win, while eye-catching, merely splits the delegate vote nearly down the middle. Bernie gets 7 more delegates that Hillary for winning Michigan. But he looses a difference of 25 delegates to Hillary because she beat him so soundly in Mississippi. That gives a net gain to Hillary of 18 delegates, and so Bernie falls behind with his Michigan victory instead of catching up.

It is the very definition of Pyrrhic victory.

These close victories aren't enough for Bernie. He has to not only win a big state like Michigan, he has to win a big state BIG!

And if he doesn't, then this is just going to end up being one long, drawn out primary battle that serves no purpose except to drain financial resources which could better be spent fighting Donald Trump. I, of course, argue that the Democratic party ought not emerge from the primaries bruised and battered.

But, of course, with Bloomberg out, the prospect of a Sanders comeback seems like it might not be so much of a disaster.


Eric

*

Oh, Nevada? You Really Need Hillary! Here's Why:

Scalia is dead.

Holy fucking shit. Scalia is dead. Honestly, I thought he would be the last hyper-conservative to go. I thought he would live to be 97 and still be on the court. For a man aged 79, he looked more like a man aged 65. I never thought he'd be the first SCOTUS death on Barack Obama's watch.

And what a death! Say what you will about his being evil, he was a giant of a man, larger-than-life in so many ways. Even Ruth Bader-Ginsburg gave him a touching obituary.

Conservatives will never be able to replace him.

Perhaps this is why they've gone completely ape-shit in a way nobody has ever seen before. They know that this is a loss that will inevitably swing the court to the left. Even if a Republican president were to somehow to select his replacement, they could never find another Scalia. They could never find someone so staunchly committed to ridiculous ideas who defends them with such eloquence. Never.

Even the wildest conservative justice is a moderate next to him.

And so we see the dying Republican machine digging in its heels like never before. Within hours of the announcement that Scalia was dead, leaders on Capital Hill and presidential candidates all said that Obama should not even think of naming a replacement. No, don't you dare, Mr. President! No! Don't do your job! Don't even try!

Because this signals the end. A moderate is enough to end the culture war. This is it. This is the end of the conservative court. This puts SCOTUS out of reach for conservatives. If Obama names one more, moderate or not, that's it. Kiss your conservative court goodbye. Kiss overturning Roe v. Wade goodbye. Forget about overturning anything having to do with ACA. Forget overturning gay marriage. It's over. The culture war has been won.

Of course, it's been won for quite some time now. It was won back in 2012. And in denial, pissed off republicans elected an even more obstructionist congress. But it's been done. They know it's over.

Oh, and by the way, the Republican race for president has not been going very well, either.

So, finally, here's my message, and it goes directly to the people of Nevada. Yes, you, you wonderful people of Sin City and Reno. Yes, you where everyone goes to do everything Republicans want to oppose. You who revel in the sex, drugs and gambling that they hate. It's up to you.

You need Hillary.

You see, a supreme court justice is far more likely to get through the Senate if Hillary can wield her might to help get it done. She can go to various legislators and say, "You vote against Barack's pick, and there will be consequences!" And she has the juice to do it, too! You can bet on it!

But she won't be able to do this if Bernie (and I still love Bernie) keeps the nomination of Hillary as an ongoing question. The longer Hillary remains doubtful, the longer it will be before Obama can get a SCOTUS pick through.

Yes, it's that simple.

And here, you see the real difference in ability between Hillary and Bernie. For all his merits, Bernie cannot go to legislators and say, "Look, Mr. ____, I've been in the D.C. Prayer Group with your wife for years. I know about your (insert scandal here), and I'm willing to use it! I'll undoubtedly be the next president. Are you sure you want to fuck with me?! You'll vote for Obama's pick, or else!"

Nope. And I doubt Bernie would ever do that, even if he had the intel.

So let's do the right thing, and give Hillary a sweeping victory in Nevada this Saturday, okay? Our next Supreme Court pick depends on it. And perhaps the next, and the next.

Oh, sure, the Republicans could conceivably gum up the works for a whole year in the hopes that they can get a conservative candidate into the White House and vote for their own man. But that's a long shot, and they know it. It's far more likely that they would stall for a year, lose the House, lose the Senate, and then only be able to sit back helplessly as liberal after liberal got named to the Supreme Court. They would watch Ruth Bader-Ginsburg retire. They would watch Anthony Kennedy Retire. They would watch Stephen Breyer retire. They would watch, powerless, as John Roberts and Clarence Thomas were the only ones left.

But while that outcome gives me warm fuzzies inside, it is not a done deal, yet, and Bernie could still upend everything without meaning to do so. The basic objections I have with Bernie still apply, none of which have to do with his policies. Aside from his inability to play dirty politics (and lack of firepower to do so), I still say that he's 1.) too old, 2.) too inexperienced, 3.) likely to get outspent by a ton without accepting superpac money, 4.) vulnerable to a "Red Scare" attack as opponents highlight the word 'socialist' on his resume, 5.) also vulnerable to an "atheist" attack, because as a secular Jew, he practices no particular religion.

Republicans have seen this. A lot of his support comes from conservative cross-over votes because they see Bernie as more beatable than Hillary. And they're right!

And now we have yet another Bernie liability I haven't yet spoken about, namely, the Bloomberg factor. Yes, Michael Bloomberg could toss his hat into the ring as an independent if Hillary doesn't win. That could conceivably mean a three-way split of the vote where Trump could win with only 34% of the electorate! Oh, the horror!

Bernie will adequately represent my desires and wishes as the Democratic nominee, should he win. If he does, I'll put my 100% effort into making sure he wins. But damn, what a gamble! I wish I didn't need to keep making my case for Hillary this way.

So are you hearing me, Nevada? Give Hillary a convincing win. Make it look like she's gotten through the storm. Let her help Obama give us a nice left-leaning moderate on the Supreme Court. You can do it! Yes, YOU!

Because otherwise, we could be waiting a long, long, time for our next justice.


Eric

*

'Hillary Schill' or 'Bernie Blind?'

I've gotten very little blow-back from my previous post regarding Bernie Sanders, and I suppose that's a good thing. But I do get a high degree of blow back on social media when I support Hillary. The sense that I'm getting from the Bernie Sanders camp is a kind of star-struck euphoria that's typical of a rock-star following. And while I don't for a second believe that Bernie has the kind of electoral magic that Barack Obama had in 2008, I do think that Bernie's followers are rather blind. I sense this, because my pro-Hillary posts are often met with vitriolic comments like, "anyone but Hillary," or simply, "Bye!" as if, by supporting the only candidate I feel has a realistic shot of winning, I've somehow disqualified my opinion from even being considered.

Look, I like Bernie. And for the hundredth time, if he's the nominee, he will have my full support. But I find it silly to be so completely blind about the man! He's human! And the downsides I pointed out last time still apply. He is:

1.) Highly vulnerable to a "Red Scare" attack.
2.) Quite likely to get outspent by a fuck-ton of money.
3.) Simply too old.
4.) Politically untried outside of relatively quiet Vermont.

In short, a vote for Bernie is a gamble. And a BIG one!

So let's go easy on the Hillary supporters, shall we? I mean, it's hardly irrational to believe that the woman who has been attacked, and attacked, and attacked, and is STILL standing, has every realistic expectation of enduring just a little bit longer!

And if you don't think she's gotten all the dirt on every politician through her weekly prayer groups with the other politicians' wives, you're naive! And an even bigger fool for thinking we don't need that kind of ammunition in the years to come. Don't casually dismiss that.

And STOP being so BLIND when it comes to Bernie! He's a nice old Jew who would make a nice old Jewish president. But I believe we don't need nice.

I believe we need a complete bitch who is feared!

Eric

*

More On Hillary Vs. Bernie

In terms of candidates, the Democrats have already won. The two finalists, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are both outstanding choices. No matter who wins, we win.

Ah, yes, but which one?

I'm growing more accustomed to the idea of a Sanders candidacy. Back in August, I argued very strongly for Hillary being the candidate. But, as I said then, if Bernie somehow wins, I'll back him 100%. I still feel that way. But I have some grave concerns which I hear no one in the media talking about, which, I feel, means that I and this little blog need to address them. At least all seven of my readers will be in the know.

In my August post for Hillary, I focused on her attributes and why we need them. In this post, I'm focusing on Bernie's faults. I do this not out of malice, but because they are genuine, and need to be addressed now before we take the Big Plunge with the Iowa Caucuses. Bernie seems to be the ideal leftist. But is he? Let me voice my concerns here so that I can backpedal over to the pro-Bernie side, if the time should come, knowing I did my dirty, but necessary, civic duty.

First of all, and I for one am not afraid to say it, Bernie is too old. The oldest president ever to start his inaugural term was Ronald Reagan, who was 69, and turned 70 only three weeks after being sworn in (he was born Feb. 6, 1911). Towards the end of his second term, he was manifestly beginning to show signs of Alzheimer's disease. By contrast, Bernie just turned 74 back on September 8 (he was born in 1941). Assuming he wins the nomination and the presidency, he would be 75 at the time he took office, and nearing 80 when running for his second term. The risks for dementia increase exponentially after 70, and this is a grave concern when it comes to our commander-in-chief.

Is Bernie a severe risk? Certainly, I don't want to be ageist, and if a man has all his marbles, he should be allowed to use them in the best possible way. But he is manifestly beginning to slip. In each of the four Democratic Party debates I've watched, Bernie has had a moment where he lapsed. In the first debate, a question was posed to all the candidates (there were five at the time), and then the moderator called upon Bernie Sanders to answer it first. He jerked up as if startled, and said, "Excuse me, could you repeat the question?"

Oh, dear.

Now, as gaffs go, getting caught woolgathering is pretty light. Hell, I've been caught woolgathering in class ever since I was five years old. But this man was on stage with all the world watching him as a man with a serious chance to win the office of President of the United States! That's no time to be daydreaming! And what's more, he'd done this in each debate. Granted, only once each time, and only a slight lapse each time, but on occasion, his focus and  his ability to hear things clearly have abandoned him at key moments. Now, if he can't maintain during a three-hour presidential debate, is it not fair to ask if he can do so over an entire four-year stressful grind as president?

Now, I should emphasize that I have no solid evidence that Bernie is losing it, nor do I have any inkling about whether or not he will go senile in the coming years. But it is not just his marbles I'm concerned with. The stresses of campaigning take their toll on the entire body. In the most recent debate (January 17th), Bernie was beginning to lose his voice towards the end. Sheesh! We haven't even started in Iowa, and Bernie's voice box is already going?

Back in 1996, when the 73-year-old Bob Dole was the Republican nominee, he was plagued with physical maladies which went beyond the old war wound in his right shoulder - one which forced him to always shake hands left-handed. A bout with the flu would take him out during a key campaign swing, or cancel a particular speech. At one point, he fell off the stage, leaving him with an awful eye-wound which turned the white of his left eye blood-red, making for a very gruesome picture to show the news cameras. Yes, voters might look past such things, but historically, they never have. Bob Dole lost by a mile to a younger and more vibrant Bill Clinton. Bob Dole was slightly younger then than Bernie Sanders is now. I would hate to see Bernie's campaign fizzle out in a similar way (although I highly doubt he is capable of polling as low as Dole did).

The media can't say it, but I can. A geriatric senator who has never had to contend with political rigors outside of relatively quiet Vermont might just be too far past his prime to be able to adequately perform on a nationwide stage.

And Hillary? She's no spring chicken, either. But assuming she wins the nomination and the presidency, she would be only slightly older than Reagan was when he took office. Factor in the biological fact that women live longer and hang onto their marbles a bit better, and age no longer becomes much of an issue.

Oh, and lest we forget, we Democrats were begging for Hillary to run ever since 2012. My, how fair-weather fans have bailed!

But I digress. The other factor not in Bernie's favor is money. Yes, he doesn't have any super-pac money. That's great in principle, and it just might work for getting nominated, but what good does it do to be the nominee when you get buried by the post Citizens' United avalanche of contributions from the ultra-rich? The Koch brothers alone have pledged half a billion! And while it's true that money can't buy you love (look at Jeb Bush, for example), it can buy up all the airtime available and price you out of the market. Bernie's voice could literally get washed out in the din of all the negative political ads.

Finally, there's the S-word: "Socialist." This one, at least, the media has been talking about. We who have been following things know that Bernie has drawn a distinction between "Socialist" and "Democratic Socialist." But will the electorate see things that way? I don't think society has cured itself of the stigma that it's held for Socialism, and even I, firmly on the left, have a knee-jerk reaction to the word. So have other leftists such as Chris Hayes, who famously ranted about it on numerous occasions. All the Republicans would have to do is play the "Red Scare" card, and Bernie could very conceivably lose. Yes, polls show him beating any Republican candidate more so than Hillary, but that's for now. Polls shift! And after a Red Scare tactic, they could very well shift a significant amount.

Hillary has baggage, yes, but she's strong enough to carry it. And she has many scars, but she's been battle-hardened. She has survived, and even thrived, on a national stage which has tried to knock her out at every opportunity - and failed. She'll win. Period.

That having been said, let me highlight my official qualifier. I'll still enthusiastically take Bernie over any of the idiots on the Republican side who are pretending to be candidates. A man with a good heart and a feeble mind or body is far superior to one with all his faculties and no heart whatsoever.

Eric

*

But Is It True?

Seems like in recent days, terrorism is all the vogue. I've often posted about how we ought not judge Muslims based on the actions of a few lone radicals, but I hold no such restriction upon Islam itself. So let me take a quick swipe at the creed which some dare to kill innocents over. After all, if one commits an act of terrorism over a creed, it becomes more than fair to ask if that creed is even true.

The essence of Islam is that there is one God, and Muhommed is his prophet. So what do we know of Mohammed? He is revered as the ideal man in the Muslim world. But was he? Even the most generous depiction of Mohammed must admit that he waged war to spread his creed, tortured political opponents, married multiple wives (at least one of whom was underage even by ancient standards), and put believers of other religions to the sword (in Medina, if nowhere else). In other words, this guy was an asshole by any metric, ancient or modern. This, we must conclude that if there is a true religion, it must lie elsewhere - at least in the words of a different prophet.

There are five pillars of Islam according to the Sunni tradition. One is the declaration of one God, and Muhommed as prophet, which I just dealt with above. The second is obligatory prayer five times a day. Ridiculous! The very notion that any God would require such endless adulation so constantly is ludicrous in the extreme. Were I God, I would tell people. "Shut up, already!" The third pillar is charity. I don't really have too much of a problem, there. The fourth is fasting for Ramadan. I really don't think that not eating is particularly gracious or holy, and it isn't healthy, besides. And the fifth and last pillar is the pilgrimage to Mecca. This one refutes itself, as the annual logistic nightmare that takes place in Saudi Arabia every hajj makes my case for me.

So, out of five pillars, four are ridiculous.

And people kill over this shit?

And that is merely today. Only a few centuries ago, Christianity tortured people to death in order to save their souls, all over a tautological blood redemption allegedly done by a man born of a virgin who walked on liquid water.

It's easy to ridicule others' beliefs. But your own beliefs are just as ridiculous.

Why believe when you can know?

My commitment to the truth is absolute. When I left Christianity, I did so because the evidence was incontrovertible that it was false. As a result, I lost nearly everything. I lost my golden-boy status, my career in the ministry, and my direction in life. I had to start all over again. Furthermore, were I to announce a return to Christianity after years of being an atheist, I would become a celebrity. I could write best sellers, do lectures, and become a millionaire! The reason I don't do so is because truth means more to me than millions of dollars. 

What's your excuse?

So when I am confronted by people who not only will not face the truth of their religion's falsehood, and on top of this, not face it to the point of inflicting it upon others, and on top of this being willing to kill others over it, I'm baffled!

How much does truth mean to you?

The real question, for all of us, is this: If evidence presents itself runs contrary to your beliefs, are you willing to change your beliefs as a result?

If your answer is no, then I argue, you are the true harbor of terrorism. Because terrorism thrives in such cognitive dissonance.

Eric

*