I'm not a fan of revolutions

Super Tuesday is upon us, and I am truly grateful. I look forward to much less bitter infighting between the Bernie/Hillary camps on Facebook, for one thing. I guess I should be thankful that in Minnesota, we haven't had to go through the gauntlet that some early primary states have endured. For example, I've seen a total of one Hillary and one Bernie political ad as of today. Oh, and one Ted Cruz! Stand for liberty!!

As for me, I'll be voting for Hillary. I think Bernie has great ideas and great arguments. But his notion of a revolution amongst American voters is simply not realistic. I don't believe the majority of Americans are fully comfortable with the type of changes he's talking about. I think he's less electable than Clinton, for all her baggage. And if he were elected, I don't see any way he'd get his reforms through a Congress that is almost certain to be controlled, at least in the House, by very conservative Republicans.

Revolutions sound great but they're messy in reality, as Markos pointed out today. And those on the left *always* overestimate how much support their heroes have. All those people flocking to Trump are not an optical illusion. There really are a lot of Americans with, shall we say, less-enlightened views of the world. They were not ready for a moderate black president. They are not going to be accepting of a socialist white one.

And speaking of Trump, his revolution is continuing to flabbergast anyone who thought we were better than this. There is a very good chance that he will be trounced in the general. But the fact that he is winning easily among the Republican base is a testament to how base those voters have become, after decades of following false prophets like Limbaugh and Fox News. And it's not just the tea partiers, I'm afraid. There really are voters in this country who are willing to vote for an obvious huckster, just to shake things up. It's incredible.

So let them have their revolution. Hopefully, enough Americans can see through the manufactured discontent to understand that we need to bring down the barricades, not man them. Voting for Trump would make us as great as your average reality TV show. And one of the first things we teach our kids about television is this: what you see there is not how the world really works. Let's all remember that, OK?

As far as predictions, there's no reason to think Trump won't continue to roll on Super Tuesday. Rubio's rather pathetic stab at besting Trump in the sandbox won't help, or at least it won't help much. My question is whether Cruz survives after tomorrow. Where else can he turn to for a victory, after the southern states have mostly voted?

Also, why is Ben Carson still talking to us? Tell me how to make it stop.

An eventful weekend

Over the weekend, I was driving across Wisconsin, the land of snowmobiles, camo as high fashion, and prisons (we saw three, which I found notable. Is Wisconsin really such a high-crime state?). Apparently some stuff happened while I was on the road.

First, we had a sandbox riot/debate by the leading GOP presidential candidates. Secondly, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly. The first event is worth commenting on, but the second is an earthquake, which is shaking up not only the Supreme Court's foreseeable future but the presidential race itself.

As far as the debate, well, the kids are definitely not all right. We've gotten to shouting and name-calling among these men who would be President. Can holding their breath until they turn blue be far behind? I was fortunate that I did not have to sit through this debate but just reviewing parts of it is pretty distasteful. Hopefully this is the low point of the campaign. But I wouldn't count on it.

In thinking about Scalia's passing, it occurred to me that he shares some things in common with GOP front-runner Donald Trump. (Please forgive my liberties with the present tense) Both are bombastic, larger-than-life figures. Both are very smart guys, though probably not as smart as they think they are. Both are entertaining, with Scalia's writing usually being a highlight of court decisions in recent years. I enjoyed reading the guy's take on cases, even when I thought he was totally wrong, which was often. And both can be wildly inconsistent; Trump has changed his positions 180 degrees on several issues, while Scalia would claim to represent tradition and disparaged "legislating from the bench" but at the same time threw out decades of precedents and sometimes his own rulings in order to reach decisions that fit his very partisan politics.

Scalia's passing means that another battle will be joined: Obama will try to do his job and appoint a new Justice, while the the leadership of the GOP will do what it sees as its job (oppose Obama at any cost) and try to run out the clock on BO's presidency before a Justice is appointed.

But aside from the presidential politics, the passing of Scalia means that a large number of SC cases that looked like they were going to turn out very badly for progressive causes will now have much less of an impact. There is some confusion, from what I've read, of exactly what will happen, but at the very least, many of the cases will not get a definitive SC ruling in the next term. The issues at hand affect unions, reproductive rights, affirmative actions, and other hot-button topics. The exit of Scalia is a huge deal for people following these cases.

For more, I urge you to read this in USA today and this in Scotusblog. Scotusblog in general is very likely the best authority on all things SCOTUS.

Will New Hampshire narrow the field?

Well, my Iowa predictions weren't so great, so it's time to double-down and see if I can get New Hampshire wrong as well...

The big question to me is whether Marco Rubio's meltdown at last Saturday's debate will stop or reverse his momentum after Iowa. Rubio did well enough in Iowa that it seemed moderate voters might rally round him to finally create a strong "establishment" GOP candidate that could challenge the really radical candidates such as Cruz and Trump.

But oh boy, did Rubio blow it in the debate. His repetition of a talking point about Obama was not only robotic, he used it to duck a question that had nothing to do with Obama. We *could* call this just a brain freeze that could happen to anyone, but to me it was up there with Rick Perry's "Oops" moment; a screw-up so revealing that it could derail the entire candidacy. And I *liked* Rubio as a candidate.

On the other hand, it's possible that the average New Hampshire voter, having been bombarded with information on the candidates, won't pay too much attention to one mis-step, or maybe enough  people have already made up their minds.

But I'll be watching for--and expecting--decent results for Christie and Kasich in the final vote totals. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if even Bush outperforms his recent polls. If those establishment candidates do better than expected, this ungainly, over-populated field of Republican candidates will lurch on to the next state with nothing resolved. Which just helps Trump, and to a lesser extent, Cruz. If Trump underperforms again, as he did in Iowa, Ted Cruz could end up in a very strong position.

On the Democratic side, there won't be any big surprises, I expect. Bernie will win, Clinton might get within 10 points, and they'll move on to states much less likely to feel the Bern. I still think Clinton is the strong favorite for the nomination, but she has to be very careful not to alienate the young voters who love Sanders.

On the whole, the New Hampshire primary may bring a lot less clarity than some expected. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing probably depends on how much you're enjoying this spectacle.

Iowa Predictions

Yes, Mod Lang is back for another boring, run-of-the mill election year, with the usual politicians making their typical prom---waitaminute, this isn't a normal election year at all!!

Well, rather than bore you with yet another rundown of how crazy this year is, I'll cut right to the chase and make some predictions for the first big primary/caucus of the 2016 election year.

Thank God the voting is finally starting.

On the Republican side, I expect Trump to win; one of the big questions is how close Cruz can keep it, but Cruz has apparently decided to accelerate his schedule for self-implosion and has been looking pretty bad for the last couple weeks. (It had to happen, though. I mean, anyone who looks at this guy closely--that is, anyone who isn't a very particular type of conservative Christian voter--is going to quickly see the flaws in Ted Cruz. He's kind of a mixture of Richard Nixon and a TV evangelist, except he lacks Nixon's warmth and humanity.)

Rubio is positioned to do well enough to claim momentum going into New Hampshire. He looks to grab third place pretty easily, might even get close to Cruz' totals. And I honestly don't think anyone's going to care much about who comes in 4th-23rd. Maybe Kasich pulls into, like, 5th place... that might be a minor story.

On the Dem side, I think Hillary should win. Bernie has a lot of support among younger voters, but I'm not sure that will be enough. Hillary has got to have a pretty good ground game in Iowa by now. If Bernie were leading by a bit in a few polls, I'd say he might pull off the upset. But Clinton is leading in 7 of the top 9 polls listed by Real Clear Politics. She should win this one, concede New Hampshire to Bernie, and then roll the rest of the way. Probably.

And yes, Trump is a horribly bad pick for president. But that's where the R voters are, at least at this point with a fractured field of way-too-many candidates. Very likely that the anti-Trump vote will come together around Rubio or Kasich. Not sure it will be enough to stop him. Yikes.