In 2008, Hillary Clinton was broadly seen as the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president over a little-known, first-term Illinois senator… and lost. Coming into the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination contest, Hillary was once again labeled the prohibitive favorite over a little-known, self-described septuagenarian socialist from tiny Vermont.

Hillary Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary yesterday to the white-haired, fiery Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. But that is not the real news as his victory was widely expected. The deflating fact for Clinton is that she got trounced. Sanders won with 60% of the vote to Clinton’s 38.3% … a difference of 21.7%!

The Clinton camp had hoped to keep Sanders’ margin of victory in the high single to low double-digit range. Instead, she got beaten by a margin very few pundits had predicted. The Democrat voters of New Hampshire were feeling the Bern.

What has to be most alarming for Clinton, she lost to Sanders in almost every demographic group. Clinton’s only win was among people with incomes above $200,000. Sanders carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He won 83% of the youth vote, virtually identical to the percentage of young people he attracted in Iowa.

The next primary will be held in South Carolina on February 27. The state has been dubbed Clinton’s “firewall.” She is currently leading in the polls by nearly 30% over Sanders. But with a little over two weeks to go and with Bernie’s momentum following his blowout win in New Hampshire, the margins are sure to tighten.

At her concession speech last night, a sullen looking Bill Clinton watched as his wife tried to put a positive spin on a devastating loss. You could almost see the wheels turning … “Damn, not again!”

President Obama won in 2008, despite all the polling and political punditry that labeled him unelectable, primarily because he was able to generate energy and enthusiasm. There is no doubt Hillary Clinton is the most experienced presidential candidate in either party. But she is not able to generate the excitement the 74-year-old Vermont Senator brings to the contest.

While Clinton talks about carrying on the Obama legacy, Sanders is talking about a political revolution. That message seems to be resonating across the board.

Could Bernie Sanders be this year’s Barack Obama? Just look at Bubba’s face.

Click to show your support

Click to sign up for email

Photo | outsidethebeltway.com

MSNBC hosted a one-on-one Democratic presidential debate last night that I doubt many people watched. It was added to the debate schedule at the last minute, no thanks to Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

With Martin O’Malley having withdrawn from the race only a few days before, we finally got the match-up we had hoped for: Clinton v. Sanders … mano-a-mano … may the best man (woman) win.

The DNC originally refused to sanction the debate but later relented when both candidates agreed to attend the debate moderated by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd. The debate was held at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, New Hampshire.

If you did watch the debate, you were treated to what a presidential debate should look like. Substantive issues were discussed without any acrimony or name-calling. The evening was more like Masterpiece Theater than the Jerry Springer show offered by Republicans.

The question after any debate is always “Who won?” In last night’s debate both candidates won. They each showed a deep understanding of the issues and communicated their answers effectively. Some pundits thought Clinton needed a knock-out punch because of her poor poll numbers heading into the New Hampshire primary this coming Tuesday, February 9. Time will tell.

Each candidate got rousing rounds of applause during the debate but the loudest came towards the end of the evening when Bernie said of himself, and Hillary, “On our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”

Truer words were never spoken.

Democrats are blessed with two candidates who are both presidential material. Some progressives have stated they will only vote if Bernie gets the nomination. I say to those ardent Sanders supporters, listen to Bernie. If you’re a Democrat, the bottom line needs to be this: vote for your party’s nominee whoever that may be.

For those who are going through Republican-reality-show-withdrawal, their next debate is this Saturday, February, 6, at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire.

Unlike the Democrats, Iowa Republicans picked a clear winner in last night’s state caucus: Ted Cruz. But should the word “winner” be used to describe Cruz?

If history is any guide, Rafael Edward Cruz will not be the Republican nominee for president. Lest we forget, the last two Republican primary winners in Iowa were Rick Santorum (2012) and Mike Huckabee (2008). Enough said.

Do you see a pattern here? If you look at the last three Iowa “winners,” you see a common thread: the candidates’ religiosity. Santorum is well known for his deep Christian beliefs and has even questioned the separation of church and state. Before entering politics, Mike Huckabee was a pastor who preached for 12 years from Arkansas pulpits. Ted Cruz has been quoted as saying any candidate who doesn’t start “every day on his knees” in prayer isn’t fit to be president.

Evangelical Christians make up a large portion of the Iowa Republican base. By picking Cruz, they are following in the tradition of choosing the most religious candidate they could find; a candidate who will be shunned by other Republicans in less evangelical states.

Too bad for Cruz … and the Democrats. Cruz is the one candidate most Democrats want to see get the Republican nomination. It is a toss up as to who detests Cruz more: establishment Republicans or Democrats.

The next primary state is New Hampshire. Ted Cruz is stuck in a statistical tie for second place along with Kasich, Bush and Rubio with roughly 11% of the vote. Donald Trump comfortably leads in New Hampshire with 34% of the vote according to the latest statistics.

Pundits, analysts and the media, in general, like to place great emphasis on the Iowa caucus winners. But with the state’s history of picking Republican “winners,” we ironically have the first loser of 2016… Ted Cruz.

Photo | AP/ChrisCarlson

You have to hand it to Republicans; they are a fearless bunch. They refuse to be intimidated by facts. They will stubbornly defend their statements no matter how patently false they may be.

In last night’s Fox News presidential debate, Ted Cruz was confronted with a video showing his support for a pathway to legalization of undocumented immigrants. This video was from very early in his political career. But now, in a deliberate and dishonest effort, he maintains he never held such a position.

It doesn’t seem to matter to Cruz that the amendment to the immigration bill calling for legalization (i.e. legal status as opposed to citizenship) was his own! He maintains his amendment was meant to be a “poison pill” designed to kill the immigration bill.

But this is what Cruz is seen saying in the video:

“I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically. … I believe if the amendments I introduced were adopted that the bill would pass and my effort in introducing them was to find a solution that reflected common ground and that fixed the problem. … If the proponents of this bill actually demonstrate a commitment not to politics, not to campaigning all the time, but to actually fixing this problem, to finding a middle ground—that would fix the problem and also allow for those 11 million people who are here illegally a legal status with citizenship off the table.”

Of course, Ted Cruz is not the only Republican candidate who is trying to walk away from policy positions he once advocated and championed. For Marco Rubio, his current anti-amnesty position flies in the face of his having co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill calling for a pathway to citizenship.

It was extremely satisfying to see Fox News play old clips of both Cruz and Rubio making statements that directly contradict their current claims. But it is doubtful such lying (flip-floppery) will make any difference to the loyal Republican voters who support the two amigos. For in the GOP world these days, facts or anything that even smacks of truth, are just part of a large liberal media conspiracy.

For Republicans, it is: are you going to believe me or your lying ears and eyes? Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Photo | telegraph.co.uk

I just finished reading a Huffington Post article entailed, “Evangelical Voters Don’t Care That Trump’s Not Religious.” At first I thought it was satire. Yea right, I said to myself!

But no, the group that normally applies a religious “litmus test” to any political candidate is cutting Donald Trump some major slack. Talk about unconditional love! (For Trump Supporters, It’s Unconditional Love).

According to a new report from Pew Research, Trump is viewed as the least religious of all the GOP presidential candidates — but evangelical voters don’t really care!

Despite his low marks on religiosity, 56 percent of Republicans say Trump would make a good or great president. That proportion rises to 59 percent among white evangelical Protestant Republican voters. How can this be, I keep asking myself?

Could it be because Trump has stated the Bible is his favorite book? Is it because Trump has said, if elected president, he would mandate the saying of “Merry Christmas? Is it because he believes there is a war against Christians? Is it the endorsement he just received from Liberty University president Jerry Falwell jr.?

Or could it just be that evangelicals are a bunch of simple-minded hypocrites like those defenders of the Constitution who pick and chose which parts of the document they will follow?

What is most ironic about all this is that the anti-immigrant, family values evangelicals have no clue that if Trump becomes president, we would have the first immigrant First Lady … and the first First Lady to have posed nude for a spread in GQ. (Why “The Donald” Will Not Be President).

I wonder how that will go down with the patriotic, good-Christian, American-as-apple-pie bible toters?

Photo | alanrudnick.org

I have always given Jeb the benefit of the doubt. My take on George W’s younger brother has always been that he is a decent, intelligent man; just a bad politician. I bought into the myth of “George the bumbler, Jeb the thinker.” After watching Jeb self-destruct over the course of his presidential campaign, I’ve now come to believe he is no smarter than his dim-witted older brother; just another Forest Gump, you know, “I’m not a smart man.” (Yes, I’ll admit, he may know what love is.)

After one of the worst governmental actions ever taken by a state governor, Jeb has come out in praise of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. This is the man who, through his appointed “emergency manager” for the city of Flint, is ultimately responsible for poisoning the city of nearly 100,000.

As governor, Snyder named an “emergency manager” to run the city of Flint. This non-elected czar is granted powers to disband unions, corporatize city services, abolish school districts, and dissolve local elected governments.

In a cost-cutting move, Snyder’s appointee decided the clean and safe drinking water Flint was getting from nearby Lake Huron did not fit the corporate financial model. Snyder approved the manager’s decision to switch Flint’s water source to the well-documented and historically toxic waters of the Flint River. For nearly two years, this “man-made catastrophe” forced residents, including small children, to ingest filthy, corrosive and lead-poisoned water.

“I admire Rick Snyder for stepping up right now,” Bush said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He’s going to the challenge. He’s fired people and accepted responsibility to fix this.”

Jed’s ludicrous and insensitive statement shows he “is not a smart man.” Many are calling for Snyder to resign as governor; some are calling for his arrest. Jed’s defense of Snyder is like praising your kid for the way he picks up shattered pieces of glass from the vase he just broke.

For me, this latest head-scratching, head-shaking statement is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Yes, there is no doubt Jed is surrounded by the most incompetent campaign advisors money can buy. But even a candidate with half a brain would know not to play loyal partisan politics with such a serious man-made fiasco. An entire generation of kids is now suffering from IQ-reducing, permanent lead poisoning.

Snyder’s decision to approve the switch of Flint’s drinking water source to the polluted Flint River was aimed at saving $5 million but now, almost two years later, the cost to treat the water supply carries a tag of $45 million and climbing. And that is only the financial toll; the human toll will not be known for years.

My advice to you, John Ellis Bush, is to save whatever honor and credibility you still have left and exit the race. You have proven yourself totally unqualified for any public office. All that donor money being spent on useless ads (Mama Bush To The Rescue … Sort Of) could be used for better purposes … like helping the people of Flint recover from Snyder’s Katrina.

Photo | freedom works.org

In an effort to breathe life into his moribund campaign, Jeb Bush has convinced his mother to make an ad for him. If you remember, it was not too long ago she famously advised Jeb not to run for office, saying, “We’ve had enough Bushes” in the White House.

Viewing the ad, you can tell Mama Bush’s heart isn’t really into it. Here endorsement is less than stirring:

BARBARA BUSH: Jeb has been a very good father, a wonderful son, a hard worker. His heart is big. When push comes to shove, people are going to realize Jeb has real solutions. Rather than talking about how popular they are, how great they are. He’s doing it because he sees a huge need and it’s not being filled by anybody. Of all the people running, he seems to be the one who could solve the problems. I think he’ll be a great president.

Why is it that politicians think voters have such short memories? I mean, really!

A better ad would have looked something like this:

BARBARA BUSH: Before the start of the Republican presidential campaign season, I advised my son not to run for office. I thought the country had had enough Bushes in the White House. That was before I saw the current crop of Republican candidates. Oh my! A divisive reality TV star, with no experience, is the leading Republican candidate, followed by a sitting Senator who helped engineer the shutting down of our government? I can tell you this, my son is a good father, a wonderful son and a hard worker. Of all the people running, I know he is the one who can solve our problems. I think he’ll be a great president.

I doubt there has ever been a more poorly run, incompetent presidential campaign than that of Jeb Bush. And while he may be a good man. I can’t imagine a worse campaigner than Jeb.

The bottom line is that no amount of money … no amount of advertising … can cure Jeb Bush’s most fatal flaw, his name. There is perhaps nothing more toxic in the political world than the “Bush” brand.

Photo | usatoday.com

The GOP establishment has made it clear for months they can’t stand Donald Trump. Their hope that he would have his 15 minutes of fame and then fade into the sunset has turned into wishful thinking. Trump is the Republican presidential frontrunner and it does not appear he will relinquish that title anytime soon.

Trump, to everyone’s utter amazement, has been able to singlehandedly kidnap the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan. Fellow Republicans have called him a buffoon, loudmouth, loose cannon … and those are some of nicer things said about him!

But it appears as much as the GOP brass hates Trump, their hatred for Ted Cruz runs even deeper. They viscerally, resoundingly loathe the man.

And so it has come to pass that the Republican Party is beginning to view the celebrity billionaire in a new light. While he is the still the embodiment of everything they hate, at least he is not Cruz.

“Cruz has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way in D.C., whereas Trump hasn’t, and Trump up until this year was pretty much a player,” said Craig Shirley, a longtime GOP strategist and charter member of the establishment. “Ultimately, the Washington establishment deep down — although they find Trump tacky or distasteful — they think that they ultimately can work with him. Deep down, a lot of people think it is an act.”

Cruz looks at the universal hatred of him as a badge of courage: proof that he is doing something right. He is taking a page out of FDR’s playbook, when he famously said of bankers, “They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.” In Cruz’s case, just substitute Republicans for bankers (irony alert… Cruz is married to a Goldman Sachs banker.)

The latest Iowa polling has Trump and Cruz in a statistical death heat. But nationally, Trump remains the probative favorite to win the Republican nomination. If all goes according to Hoyle, the Republican establishment, as much as they will be thrown into a panic, may have to live with their new darling … the lying, racist, sexist, xenophobic Trump.

It is often said that elections come down to choosing the lesser of two evils. With the Republican establishment these days, it may come down to the lesser of two psychopaths.

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Last night’s Democratic debate promised to produce sparks, as it was the last debate before primary voting begins with the Iowa caucuses in a few weeks. The debate lived up to its billing. It certainly was the liveliest, most spirited debate up to this point in the campaign season. The question asked after any debate is always the same: who won, who lost?

My question after watching the NBC debate is, “How many people, besides political geeks like myself, actually watched the debate? Sunday, after all, was a long day of NFL playoff football. There is only so much TV watching a person can take.

As with past Democratic debates, I thought the winner was the Democratic Party. Unlike the circus performances that have become the hallmark of Republican presidential debates, real issues were discussed in a civil and respectful manner. You did not hear any candidate accuse another of having a mother who wears army boots.

Yes, the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from one another but basically what you got were core Democratic principles framed in different ways. Hillary tried to paint Bernie Sanders as having a weak voting record on gun control, accusing him of voting, on some bills, with the NRA. Sanders reminded Clinton that he has a D+ rating with the NRA, hardly the ranking of someone who is loved by the gun advocacy group.

Clinton and Sanders also clashed on healthcare. While Sanders asked voters to think big (i.e. true universal healthcare), Clinton praised the president’s historic Obamacare and simply suggested it needed to be improved, not scrapped. Sanders, of course, retorted that he did not advocate for the elimination of Obamacare but that “single payer” is his goal.

I doubt many minds were swayed after last night’s performances. If you were for Bernie, you still are for Bernie. If you were a Hillary fan, she is still your woman. And for the 5-6 O’Malley supporters, I doubt any lost faith in their candidate.

Personally, I believe Bernie Sanders needs to win both in Iowa and New Hampshire to have any chance at becoming the Party’s nominee. Bernie’s other path to the nomination would be a new Hillary scandal or the worsening of one already out there. With the Clintons, you never know.

The next Democratic presidential debate will be on February 11, hosted by PBS … two days after the second primary voting in New Hampshire!

Great work DNC chair, Debbie “Madusa” Wasserman Schultz! (Debbie “Madusa” Wasserman Schultz May Have Done Bernie A Favor)

Photo | REUTERS/Randall Hill

If you knew nothing about Constitutional law and were watching last night’s Republican presidential “debate,” it would be perfectly reasonable to think Obama was pulling an FDR and running for a third term.

Of course, the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution limits a president from being elected more than twice. But you would never guess that from the many attacks leveled against the President by almost every Republican candidate on the “debate” stage.

Obama is weak on ISIS; Obama doesn’t know how to negotiate; Obama doesn’t understand foreign policy; Obama doesn’t want our country to succeed… blah, blah, blah.

Gov. “Bridgegate,” Chris Christie, launched the night’s best assault on non-candidate Obama. Speaking of our president, at the end of a long tirade, he said, “… and we are going to kick your rear-end out of office this fall.” Of course the conservative, Obama-hating South Carolinian crowd roared with approval at the ludicrous remark.

There were a few moments when Hillary Clinton’s name popped up, but mostly when it was connected to Obama.

For anyone who watched the entire two and one half Fox “debate,” like me, I can only describe it as the closest thing to “cruel and unusual” punishment outside a prison setting. But leave it to Fox to churn out as much ad revenue as possible from what has now become the best, most lucrative realty show on TV.

Many will talk about who won, who lost. It really doesn’t matter at this point. The first primary voting will take place in Iowa on February 1, and the voters will finally have their say; not the pollsters.

I don’t know if President Obama watched the “debate.” Hopefully he had better things to do with his time. But if he caught any of the shameful spectacle, he not doubt had a good laugh or two watching a group of dimwits, none of whom will ever see the inside of the White House, embarrass themselves.

For Republican kingmaker, Rupert Murdoch, he was laughing also… all the way to the bank.

Photo | jamaicatakeout.com