on electability. ok when trump decided to take out jeb, or cruz, he had two or three things to tweet about (i think we're going to see that he's been successful with cruz). you know: low energy, canada, goldman-sachs. if he was up against hillary he'd have fifty things. i want you to imagine that: every news cycle, another devastating implication, another not-quite-sly innuendo, another label. she was born to be his victim, and by the end she will slink away in defeat. seriously. 

i want bernie to edge hillary in iowa, thump her in nh, get elizabeth warren's endorsement, and roll into the socialist south. i do not believe that minority communities will turn out to have any particular loyalty to hillary clinton. no reason for them to, anyway.

if trump wins iowa (and i think he will), chaos is unleashed in the republican party. first, there had better be a crazy-fast consolidation of the field. but i don't think they can really stop trump's hostile takeover, though it's still true that trump, who does take chances every day, could still disintegrate. but if he rolls to the nomination, he will be replacing the republican party hierarchy with his own management team. and then, really what are they going to do? i'm really hoping for a collapse of this two-party thing. my fave scenario would be a chaotic general signaling a realignment of american party politics: trump, bloomberg, sanders. or there could be four. i actually think that sanders should re-secede from the dem party if he doesn't make it, but perhaps he wouldn't do that. really, how about a general of trump (i), sanders (i), clinton (d), cruz (r), romney/graham (i), bloomberg ,(i) gary johnson (l). haha! well, maybe not, and maybe these pathetic, mumbling parties can re-assert party discipline; they have a million methods for keeping other candidates away. but what do you think is going on in the mind of reince priebus and debbie wasserman-schultz right now as they smile tightly?