Place your bets!



Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to

Related Post Roulette

107 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    I’ve been wrong about freaking everything so far this cycle. For one, I thought that the Republicans would nominate a former governor. Can we tell the difference between “here’s what I think will happen” and “here’s what I want to happen” at this point?


    1. Trump (by, like, one freaking point)
    2. Cruz (I demand a recaucus!)
    3. Rubio

    1. Bernie
    2. Clinton
    3. That Other Guy I Forget Who He IsReport

  2. Avatar Will Truman says:

    Hillary is going to destroy Sanders. 70/30.

    I think Cruz is going to pull it off at 29% to Trump with around 25% with Rubio at 17% or so. I expect Paul to surprise by beating Carson for fourth.

    Huck will leave the race and endorse Trump.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Will Truman says:

      You really think Hillary has the slut vote that locked up?
      (by slut, we mean men who are thinking with other portions of anatomy rather than their heads)

      … manipulating caucuses is a fine art, ain’t it?Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

      It will be funny if, at the end of the day, the caucus is decided by little more than logistics, phone banks, and the team that shows up with more baked goods (“join us, we have cookies!”).

      If that’s the case, yes. Hillary has a ground game machine that will chew through Bernie like John Kerry through Howard Dean.

      And I imagine that Trump’s ground game sucks. SUCKS. He’d need Jeb Bush’s team to come in third. To come in fourth.

      If everything made sense, that is.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Jaybird says:

        Ground game’s important, but it’s as much made up of boobs as anything else.
        Don’t discount the underdog’s ability to … motivate throngs of college students to show up wearing skimpily clad shirts and shorts in February.Report

  3. Avatar Autolukos says:

    Cruz 28%
    Trump 26%
    Rubio 20%
    The rest: who cares?

    Clinton 55%
    Sanders 43%
    Carcetti: 2%

    The two things that could shake up the current narrative are:
    1. Trump drops into third on the Republican side: Rubio probably gets a big wave of establishment support
    2. Sanders wins: legitimates him as a candidate who can win and almost ensures he takes New Hampshire as wellReport

    • Avatar North in reply to Autolukos says:

      Sanders win is possible but not so earthshaking. He has to face Nevada and South Carolina after the first two states and he polls horribly there. The first two states are packed to the gills with white liberals, Sander’s strongest constituency; he can’t ride that to the nomination.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to North says:

        Plenty of places white/liberal enough to get Sanders votes… he just has to get there. Still, if Hillary decides to fight a bloody war, I don’t see Sanders getting the nomination. Proportional representation’s good that way.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Kim says:

          He’s not getting the nomination if he just wins Iowa, New Hamshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and that family grouping of states Kimmie; he won’t even get close. There aren’t enough people there.Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to North says:

            Obama ran up the score in places like Montana and Colorado… that long March of caucus states out west after Super Tuesday.

            Caucus favors the determined and the devout, much more than primaries do — the caucus is such a lower turnout affair. Liberals love to turn out and vote, much more than the conservadems (please note: most of this is actually currently explainable by economics… I have no doubt that if the Conservadems had more childcare/money to not be working during the caucus, that they’d be out in force too).Report

            • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Kim says:

              Obama also punted on Michigan and Florida due to the cut of the delegate count. Clinton probably had the advantage in Michigan, but Obama would have won Florida if he thought it was worth it.

              Clinton was, for all those intensive porpoises, mathematically eliminated pretty early in 2008, which then was the controlling factor in both side’s strategy running up to the final hail mary pass by Ickes to get Michigan & Florida back to full strength.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Kolohe says:

                Yes, definitly, she was overconfident and wasn’t paying attention and her the mind meltingly idiotic Penn was running things and didn’t even fishing know how the various states apportioned their delegate counts. I see no indication, however, that she’s making the same error this go round.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe in reply to North says:

                I agree. That’s why Bernie has no chance, over the stretch.Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Kim says:

              Hillary won’t be conceding the caucus states to Sanders, you can be sure of that.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to North says:

                You can say many bad things about hillary (I’d say the same about GWB, for the same reason — that “virtue that isn’t” called loyalty), but she’s not making the same mistake twice.Report

      • Avatar Autolukos in reply to North says:

        Sanders will tighten the polling gap in later states naturally by improving his name recognition. Winning Iowa would maximize this benefit and suggest that he’s on the right side of the turnout battle.

        I still expect Clinton to show the Republicans what an establishment candidate is supposed to look like as she buries him under waves of fundraising, endorsements, and clockwork organization, but whatever chance he has of winning the nomination more or less requires that he win Iowa.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Autolukos says:

          I agree entirely with your analysis except for the first sentence. He could easily win both of his early states and see little benefit for the later ones. Iowa and New Hampshire are simply unrepresentative of the majority of the country and especially unrepresentative of the majority of the Democratic Party’s national constituency.Report

    • Avatar Autolukos in reply to Autolukos says:

      Not bad on the Republican side, if I do say so myself.Report

  4. Avatar North says:

    Iowa: Clinton 51%, Sanders 48%, O
    Mally 3%.

    Republicans: I honestly have no idea. A Trump win or a Cruz win is interesting primarily in a “can the establishment hurt Cruz as much as they want to?” way but the big question is Rubio: If he finishes in the high teens or ekes out a second place finish then he’s probably going to win the nomination. If he gets low teens or single digits then all someone had better remove all sharp objects from Reince Priebus’s office and make sure he’s never alone in a room.

    I’m predicting Cruz wins, a strong 2nd place for Rubio and Trump dissapoints with a third place finish just because I have never been convinced Trump is real.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

      The issue here is that O’Malley supporters are required to place their lot with HRC or Sanders if O’Malley goes lower than 5 percent. This could give HRC or Bernie a victory. iIrc O’Malley supporters go for Sanders more.Report

  5. Avatar Kim says:

    I’ll bet Clinton 53/Saunders 47.
    Trump for the Republicans, more out of a sense of trollish irony than anything else.Report

  6. Avatar Kim says:

    Anyone putting real money on these bets?Report

  7. Avatar Chris says:

    Trump wins both the Democratic and Republican caucuses, finishing in first, second, and third in both. He also wins the caucuses of the Whigs, the Anti-Masonic Party and the Freemasons, the Federalists, the Democratic Socialists, the Communists (by repudiating the Democratic Socialists), and the Pizza Party (to which he brings the keg). When the dust settles in Iowa, in perhaps the greatest electoral feat in human history, Trump will have won the general election 10 months before it takes place and will have been inaugurated immediately. America will be great again by Thursday.Report

  8. Avatar Lurker says:

    Trump wins yuge.

    Trump 27
    Cruise 21
    Ruby Red (Unbelievable!)19

    Hilz over Berno by 1 pt.Report

  9. Avatar Kolohe says:

    Trump 26
    Cruz 25
    Rubio 18
    Carson 8
    Bush 5
    Paul 4
    Huckabee 4
    Kasich 3
    Christie 3
    Fiorina 2
    Santorum 1


    Clinton 50
    Sanders 47
    Carcetti 2Report

  10. Avatar Marchmaine says:

    I predict that Trump will get all of the votes, so many votes that the vote counters will get tired of counting the Trump votes.

    He will win so many votes that Hilary and Bernie will lose some of theirs.

    He will be named President tomorrow.

    [Bookmarking for told-you-so rights]Report

  11. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    I’m taking Denver and the points.Report

  12. Avatar Zac says:

    1. Clinton
    2. Sanders (he’ll lose by a bit here but run the table in New Hampshire)
    3. Is there someone else running?

    1. Trump (but not by a lot)
    2. Cruz
    3. Rubio

    Boring and safe, I know.Report

  13. Avatar Morat20 says:

    Clinton over Sanders by at least 3 points.

    As for the GOP, I can’t decide — an utter flameout from Trump due to lack of a ground game OR a fairly solid (+5 or so) victory based entirely on the fact that his supporters seem pretty solid and angry, and angry people show up to complain in person.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Morat20 says:

      Oddly, I don’t care whether Trump or Cruz wins, I just want Rubio to do badly, like 9% badly would make my week. Or if God(ess?) loves me if he places behind Carson, oh please oh please!Report

      • Avatar CK MacLeod in reply to North says:

        Don’t know what level you put EmailGate as a potential threat to the chances of your preferred nominee, but the further from zero-threat you place it, along with other hazards – major terrorist attack, economic catastrophe, assassination, aliens landing, Trump as Mule, etc. – the more you might want to hedge your bets and less you might want to favor “the most beatable because most obviously beyond consideration to people like me.”

        In the words of GHWB, or Dana Carvey as GHWB, “Wouldn’t be prudent!”Report

        • Avatar Will Truman in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          Trump as The Mule is a tragically under-done metaphor this election.Report

          • Avatar Zac in reply to Will Truman says:

            If Trump is the Mule, does that make OurTod Hari Seldon?Report

            • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Zac says:

              Nope. Tod has been predicting Trump for some time and Seldon famously didn’t see The Mule coming. The psychohistorians are the political science everybody.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                {{Has he? I recall a couple-few comments/posts explicitly saying Trump will NOT be the nominee…}}Report

              • Avatar Zac in reply to Stillwater says:

                Yes, it was to this I was referring in my analogy.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                Tod didn’t have it exactly right, but The Party Belongs To Trumpism Now has been his song for quite a while and he did not see Trump in particular as a passing manifestation of the party’s ills (which was the most common view) but an important thing in itself (and one without a clear end).Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                This was what he wrote in August:

                As many people will no doubt rightly point out, the election is still over a year away and there is plenty of time for the party to correct itself and produce a candidate with general-election appeal. That, after all, is the way the script goes — the way the script always goes — in POTUS primaries. Everyone who knows anything about politics knows that this is the way things work.

                The thing is, though, we’re already in some pretty uncharted territory. Everyone who knows anything about politics knew when his advisors got caught calling black people “n**ger” and defending spousal rape that Trump was sunk; everyone who knows anything about politics knew knew when Fox News openly decided to take him down a notch and sink his momentum that Trump was sunk; everyone who knows anything about politics knew when he pulled of his Kaufman-esque debate performance that Trump was sunk; everyone who knows anything about politics knew when he went on live television and dismissed a female Fox News anchor for being on her period that Trump was sunk; everyone who knows anything about politics knew that when the breaking news of a pay-for-play scandal with a well-known right-wing news organ hit the press that Trump was sunk. Everyone who knows anything about politics knew that this was the case, because the way national politics work is that any single one of these things sinks candidacies, kills them in the polls, and forces withdrawals.

                Except that now, apparently, they don’t.

                And so here we are.

                At what point do we stop trying force this story into “politics as usual/we’ve all seen this before” narrative? At what point do we say that because the election is a year away that all of this means nothing? At what point do we begin to question out loud if the Republican Party isn’t just overly extreme and radicalized, but fundamentally and permanently broken?

                I will admit, the answer to all of those questions is very likely still “Not Yet.” But I’m starting to think that this particle “Not Yet” is a hell of a lot closer to “Now” than everyone is pretending.

                He doesn’t say in the OP that he’s really worried that Trump is going to win, but that’s definitely where he was headed: That the comfortable order would simply not re-establish itself. Which it hasn’t. There is still time for it to do so, but even assuming it does it wasn’t supposed to take this long. That’s something every psychohistorian knew.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Well, not a lot hinges on this issue, but the reason I remember him repeatedly saying that Trump will NOT!! be the nominee and will be done by next Tuesday!!! is because I teased him about it just as repeatedly.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                I think that was his stance… until it wasn’t anymore. Which seemed to me to be the case back around August.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                A flip-flopper, eh? 🙂

                {{Also, I think he held that view later than August. I’d have to look for corraboration, acourse, but I’d say he held that view at least into early November, which is when my internal “tease meter” last registers a direct hit.}}

                Alsotoo: is there a record of his actually saying that Trump WILL win? I’ve not read that.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                He might have held that view later on, I’m not sure. But he was, by that point, accounting for the possibility of it happening in a way that Seldon never accounted for The Mule. When other people were arguing that Trump would come and go without much significance, Tod was saying from the start that Trump was significant (nomination or no).

                Which, to take it back to The Mule, is very different. Seldon never accounted for The Mule at all. It was completely out of nowhere. Meanwhile, Trump fit like a glove into Tod’s view of the trajectory of events and the party.

                So I think Tod fairly escapes the Seldon label.

                Whether Trump actually gets the nomination or not isn’t of the utmost significance. Trump still hasn’t gotten the nomination and probably won’t get it. To go back to Asimov… even The Mule failed (ultimately).Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Well, this is getting a bit silly, so I’ll end it with this. Tod never considered Trump’s nomination seriously (he pretty consistently said that Trump wouldn’t get it), but he DID argue that for the significance of Trump. But, unfortunately, along a strange trajectory. Here’s a post from the time-frame you’re referring to – August 27 – in which Tod says Trump won’t get the nom. (“He will not even be the Republican nominee”), in which he diagnosed Trumpism as follows:

                What Trump’s candidacy has shown is that all that base really wants is someone to shout, act outraged, make fun of people who have more money/power/education than they have, and spout politically incorrect wisecracks about women and minorities on live television and Twitter.

                I took him to task back in August for proposing this view, and it’s possible that THAT is the totality of significance Tod attributes to Trump’s candidacy currently. But if so I think he’s an outlier, and – to your point – misdiagnosed the significance of Trump back then.

                But look, there’s nothing wrong with a person changing their mind. And nothing hinges on any of this.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                You seem to be attaching a lot of importance on Tod believing that Trump won’t win the nomination and Trump winning the nomination.

                I’m assuming that Trump does not win the nomination. Merely that he wrecked the process just as The Mule wrecked the expected order of galactic events.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                No, I’m attaching importance to your words – that Tod has been predicting Trump for some time. He hasn’t. Either electorally or politically.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

                Alrighty. I think Tod’s writing from August holds up remarkably well. Especially compared to what else was being written at the time.

                So if I’m looking for a Seldon, he isn’t it.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Forgetting the thing about Seldon, I strenuously disagree. So let’s agree to disagree, yeah?Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

                FTR I remain unconvinced that Trump will be the nominee, strongly unconvinced though I have doubts that I didn’t have before.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to North says:

                I put his odds at about 25%, maybe 30%. Which would have seemed crazy in August. Beyond crazy.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Will Truman says:

                I’m a sell at those numbers. I’d put his chances at 15% on my generous moments. That is up a lot from where I did have him. Honestly I’d like to be wrong on the matter. As I noted below as a partisan I’d consider Trump one of the least awful GOP wins the Presidency outcomes (and also the least likely).Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North says:

                Yeah, you’ve been constant on that prediction. We’ll see if you’re right!!

                {{I’m hoping he gets it, but I can’t make a prediction. This is a GOP primary, afterall.}}Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

                Well, I hate being right.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          Don’t know what level you put EmailGate as a potential threat to the chances of your preferred nominee,

          I think she’ll receive a severe beating about the head and shoulders about it, but that all on its own won’t sway voters, in my view (since we all fully expect the GOP to attack her over any-and-everything they can lay their PAC money on). The question, to me, is how well she handles the attacks, and she’s got a pretty poor track record at playing that type of game. And that’s especially the case given some of her on-record remarks about it.

          Personally, sitting here right now, I don’t see how it doesn’t hurt her chances.Report

          • Avatar North in reply to Stillwater says:

            She came through the hearings on the matter with flying colors. It all depends on what/if that can find anything a lot more concrete than what they’ve found so far.Report

            • Avatar Morat20 in reply to North says:

              Which requires first there being something the GOP Congressmen in charge of the hearing didn’t see, unless we assume absolute incompetence.

              They got it all, did they not? What’s going on now is FIOA requests to the public at large, as I understand it.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Morat20 says:


                Unfortunately, that’s wrong. Stickiness exists irrespective of the facts (and in this case the facts are slowly compiling…) and is only dispelled by playing that weird political game Reagan (for example) was so good at. Dude was Teflon.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North says:

              Well, it’ll all be part of the grand marketing roll out come general time, but I’d be surprised if it hasn’t played a role already by tipping undecideds in Bernie’s direction. I know that in my own case it’s a knock against her.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          Yes. The Mule. That’s exactly who Trump is.

          We went from knowing that it was going to be Bush vs. Hillary to not knowing *ANYTHING*.

          I guess, tonight, we find out if Asimov put his thumb on the scale by having Seldon win anyway.Report

        • Avatar El Muneco in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          The problem is that, among the big three, their “chance of winning the general election” and “how much of a disaster would they be in office” is proportional.

          Rubio is highest in all three, Trump lowest. At least among the top contenders.

          Even Kasich (not disaster, no chance) and Bush (mediocre, mediocre) fit the pattern.

          Carson (big disaster, no chance) is the outlier.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to El Muneco says:

            Heh. Nice analysis.

            One quibble: I think Cruz would be the biggest disaster in the history of the known universe, including fictional ones.Report

            • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Stillwater says:

              I think that, in isolation, Cruz would be. I just get the feeling that Rubio is, while not really all that much less extreme, much better at getting people to go along with him, and better able to pick the fights he knows he can win while not looking bad for avoiding the fights he can’t.

              Basically, he’d be 90% as bad, but 150% as effective at getting bad implemented.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          Oh you must have missed this discussion I’ve had before. If I was informed that one of the current slate of GOP candidates would be elected President of the US of A and I had to pick who it would be I’d select Trump in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t even hesitate.

          He’d be embarrassing, ineffective and would fight with his own party about as much as he’d fight with mine. From my point of view that’d all be a good thing. I have no expectations that he could do a particularly material amount of harm to the country. His abilities to act in domestic policy would be hamstrung by a potentially hostile congress/senate and on foreign policy where he isn’t utterly incoherent he’s flat out dovish and isolationist.

          Now “emailgate” is a tempest in a teacup as far as I can see. There’s a lot of angel on the head of pin debating going on about how atrocious or how inane it may be. The consensus seems to be that the Hillary hunters have a snowballs chance in hell of bringing actual charges against her and now that the media has maumau’d the matter to death I get the vibe that it’d take something on the level of actual charges to get anyone in the electorate who isn’t already dead set against HRC to pay the matter much more mind. So on a venal election level I am not particularly concerned though I grant that the uncomfortable part of the whole mess is the question of what unknown unknowns remain lurking in the wings.Report

          • Avatar Will Truman in reply to North says:

            I think this is a very short-sighted way of looking at it. If Trump becomes president, he becomes the leader of the party. Everything changes and realigns. As tempting as it might seem to say that “There’s really not that much daylight between Romney’s GOP and a Trump GOP” … I don’t think that’s even a little bit true.

            Now, in the event that this occurs, from a political standpoint I become a Democrat so it becomes Someone Else’s Problem… except its not because one of the two parties is the National Front. That’s… not a good thing. Even if one thinks “Oh, it’s okay because the Democrats will always be winning then” relies on facts not in evidence.

            A worst case scenario for this country is that as whites become a minority they start voting in solidarity like one. A Trump nomination – and worse yet, a Trump presidency – brings that possibility considerably closer to reality.

            A lot of the giddiness at the prospect of a Trump nomination seems to assume that his support base will shrink over time because they’re so yesterday. I don’t see any particular reason to believe that’s actually true past an election or two. Even as things stand, the easiest way for Romney to have won in 2012 would have not been through the Hispanic vote or the black vote, but a rather modest increase in the white vote.Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Will Truman says:

              I’m not viewing this in the sweeping manner I think you’re ascribing to me. I’m simply looking at it in simple practical matters. Of all the GOP candidates the one least likely to simply rubberstamp decisions the GOP congress makes… is Trump. The one most likely to get very little done and least likely to roll back policies I support or enact policies I despise… is Trump. And certainly if he’s nominated the one most likely to lose in the General is Trump or Bush and I’d certainly love for Jeb! to get the nod but I’m trying to be plausibly realistic.
              As to what Trump would do to the GOP and conservatives in general? It’s not really my problem, you’re spot on there. But they’ve been rank poison and cynicism since at least 2004 on. I’d rather they wear it rather than try and hide it under the standard GOP fan dance.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to North says:

                Be careful what you wish for. A party that tries to walk a line with the darkness is not the same as a party that embraces it.

                Trump is more likely to lose in 2016 than any other candidate, but if the party goes Full Trump, that party will win eventually. And that party will make Dubya’s look good by comparison.

                Everyone assumes that a reformed GOP trying to come out of the darkness is one that aspires to increase its share of Hispanics and such by softening their social views. There is a much darker path, that past the short term seems no less likely to me to succeed.Report

              • Avatar north in reply to Will Truman says:

                Ahh I gotcha. Yes there is that danger but I trump as more Dukakis than Hitler.Report

              • Avatar CK MacLeod in reply to North says:

                Seems foolhardy to me.

                Trump strikes me as a Wild Card. So, we have to imagine tens of millions of our fellow citizens across the country voting for a Wild Card. We don’t know what his message and mandate would finally be, but we do know he’d be running as the nominee of a party that currently controls both the House and Senate and a majority of governorships and state houses. So, one temptation for him, or path of least resistance, might be to be enough of a “good Republican” and pass enough of their program to consolidate support, while choosing major, emotionally resonant elements of his platform to push for, keeping the True Trumpists behind him. The worse he did from his current supporters’ point of view, as in your favored scenario, the greater his temptation to focus on areas of executive responsibility – so, four years of a Wild Card Commander in Chief with building motivation to find a crisis not to waste. Maybe he’d be kept under control, but, even if he was hemmed in everywhere, the chances of a real crisis occurring would also remain. Even if we were luckier than in that scenario we deserved to be, it could still be a terrible four years for the country and not just this country – and then what?

                I’m not in favor of a next four+ years that interesting politically. However, even though I do not rate any of the available nightmares as necessarily likely even in the unlikely event that he wins, or impossible if he doesn’t, I still rate the former as objectively more likely in the event of the latter. The day that the former conventional wisdom becomes conventional and wisdom again will be the day I will breathe a sigh of boring relief, and start looking for the next slouching beast.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to CK MacLeod says:

                Well yes but you’re conservative by inclination so you would not view the other candidates who have a 99-100% chance of simply rubber stamping whatever the House and Senate dream up with the horror I would. Compared to that, and taking into account their (with the exception of Ryan) collective inclination to have themselves an Iraq III I’d prefer to roll the dice with a Trump wild card presidency if I had to choose. When you factor that Trump is enormously more likely to crash and burn in the general than the alternatives rooting for him to prosper and sow further confusion in the degenerate ranks of the GOP is pretty slam dunk from my POV.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          Well, let’s see:

          1) Congressional Republicans had access to all of it, and spent 11 hours getting made to look like idiots over it. While you won’t go broke overestimating the intelligence of House Republicans, if there was a “there” there, they’d have used it gleefully rather than let themselves be made to look like idiots with nothing.
          2) The public is inured, vaccinated if you will, against Clinton scandals because 30 years of “BIGGEST SCANDAL EVER” that went nowhere means nobody gives a flying f*ck anymore except Republicans. Boy who cried wolf. Seriously, she’s been accused of murder for Pete’s sake.

          So I rate it low. There’s always going to be a Clinton scandal, because Republicans exist. Hillary could have an actual halo, a glowing endorsement by Jesus, and be followed by choirs of angels and the GOP would still insist she committed arson, treason, murder, and jaywalking.

          The public, by and large, knows this. Claims of a Clinton scandal are geneally viewed with yawns of contempt, with one exception: The voters who would never, ever, ever, ever vote Democrat anyways. It is among that sub-group that you find people certain that this time, THIS TIME, the witch Hillary has finally been exposed. Sure, they’ve been wrong every other time for 30 years, but this is the gold ring fellows.

          Remember: Bill Clinton got impeached, and his poll numbers improved and the GOP suffered massive electoral losses.Report

        • Avatar rmass in reply to CK MacLeod says:

          I think if there was something to emailgazigate even a stumbling idiot like darryl issa would have found it right? Not to mention the monomanical obsession of what 9 separate investigations?

          Repeat after me. If the house and senate republicans could not actually find something there, maybe theres nothing thereReport

  14. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    I honestly have no idea. Trump supporters are an enigma because they are usually non-voters. The question is whether Trump motivated them enough to show up and caucus. If not, I predict Rubio or a surprise victory for Kaisch because Cruz pushed everyone away with his mailer.

    On the Democratic field the victory will be within the margin of error. HRC has the more likely caucus goers though.Report

  15. Avatar Jesse Ewiak says:

    1. Trump 30%
    2. Cruz 27%
    3. Carson 14%
    4. Rubio 12%

    1. Clinton 53%
    2. Sanders 45%
    3. O’Malley 2%Report

  16. Avatar Damon says:


    “If you don’t vote or participate, your government will just impose rules, regulations, restrictions, benefits, and taxes upon you. Except in exceptional circumstances, the same outcome will occur regardless of how you vote or what policies you support.”Report

  17. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    Oh, wait. This wasn’t about Super Bowl L.

    I predict that FiveThirtyEight’s projections from this morning will be within a 3% margin of error as to all three Democrats and any Republican projected at 5% or more.Report

  18. Avatar Kolohe says:

    The very best thing that could happen for Rubio, down the line in this year’s contests, is to finish clear of the field, but not win the nomination. That way, he’s in the the driver’s seat to beat Clinton in 2020.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Kolohe says:

      Potentially, yeah, he’s young enough to do it but there are risks. If Clinton wins and the economy keeps putt-putting up to and past full employment the GOP could get branded as the party of war and ruin and that’d complicate his race in 2020 pretty badly. Also, let’s face it, Clinton would be an ideal opponent for him to face right here and now. It’s probably a safe bet that the Democrats will have a younger different candidate in 2020.Report

      • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to North says:

        HRC one and done? Hmmn, hadn’t considered that. If she does get elected and does decide not to run for a second term, is it ok to hope that her announcement not to run again will be under a “Mission Accomplished” sign?

        Those are a lot of variables to weigh on where to not cast my symbolic vote.Report

  19. Avatar Tod Kelly says:

    Trump and Clinton win.

    Trump is just a guess. This will be his first test of going from a candidate that someone tells a pollster they like to someone actually going to a booth and pulling a lever, or a bar, or a chad, or a cow teat, or whatever the hell it is people pull in Iowa.Report

    • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      It’s a caucus rather than a primary, so there is more pushing than pulling of anything.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Will Truman says:

        People? Buttons? Envelopes? Heroin? Cows, over?Report

        • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          People push for their candidate. Especially o the Dem side, but also the GOP side.

          The Dems vote by physical placement. Republicans by a secret ballot.

          My father caucused for Obama in 2008. The process he talked about seems similar to Iowa on the Dem side. Republican process more like a primary, but you can campaign for your guy and it takes a lot longer.Report

        • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          My understanding of a caucus race is everyone runs in a circle until the whistle, like roller derby. So pushing of people, presumably.Report

          • Avatar Chris in reply to dragonfrog says:

            Musical chairs. In a caucus, at least the Iowan version, supporters of each candidate walk around until the music — usually Lee Greenwood’s “Proud to be an American” or Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” in the Republican, and Billy Bragg’s rendition of “The Internationale” in the Democratic — stops, at which point they rush for the chairs. In each round there are enough chairs for each candidate less one, and whichever candidate’s supporter fails to sit in a chair is out. It can be quite dramatic when it’s down to too, and each primary year there are no shortage of ass injuries in later rounds.

            In the rare case that two candidates’ supporters are judged to have sat in the same chair at the same time, the tie is resolved by AR-15s at ten paces (Republican) and rock paper scissors (Democratic).

            In all, it seems an entirely fair way to choose a candidate for the President of the United States, though in previous years there has been some grumbling about the unfair timing of music stoppage.Report

            • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Chris says:

              I have Billy Bragg’s Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards on one of my spotify mixes… and its there only semi-ironically.

              Man, I’ve been waiting *years* to trot that out in context and get some Ordinary Times street cred.Report

  20. Avatar Michelle says:


    Okay, it’s probably just wishful thinking that Cruz will come in less than second but that guy makes my skin crawl and I’d love to see him humiliated.

    Clinton (by a small margin)

  21. Avatar KatherineMW says:

    Nice performance by Bernie (essentially a tie, within less than half a percentage point between him and Hillary), and Trump loses on the GOP side. It’s been a better evening than I expected.

    I don’t Bernie as having as good a chance in the long run as he did a few weeks ago (some of his supporters being assholes has likely sabotaged him definitively with the non-white vote, reducing his chances of winning enough support), but the first two states are looking good. Ugh. With backers like that, who needs enemies?Report

    • Avatar North in reply to KatherineMW says:

      He needed commanding wins in both of these states, team Hillary isn’t going to loose too much sleep over him unless things start shifting heavily in SC and Nevada and I’m skeptical that they will.Report