bernie is surging in the polls. i'm rooting for him, anti-socialist though i am, because i regard him as a person with content. i'd be a little worried that he is peaking a week or two too early. for one thing, the clinton operation fights dirty, and you can't tell what might break between now and iowa. but anyway, though the sanders thing is for real, i think the fundamental explanation of the most recent oscillation is actually trump's attacks on the clintons. and i'll say again that in a general election he would shatter her like a glass ceiling.
and then i think this morning the cruz loan thing is being underplayed. i figured 'goldman-sachs' was where donald would go after 'natural-born', though for all i know trump is all wound up in goldman-sachs or in debt to it, so he might not be the right messenger. but for whomever, now it is time to whip out the whole history, for starting in the clinton admin and running through 2010 at least, there was literally no distinction between goldman-sachs and the treasury department. if you want to know why income inequality keeps increasing, start with stuff like that. you say 'robert rubin,' 'henry paulson', 'establishment,' 'corruption,' 'great recession,' 'clinton clinton clinton,' 'cruz.' that's enough to break off 10% and kill ted in the iowa caucuses, at a minimum.
but i feel even within the story, if you start peeling back layers, where ms. cruz is taking loans at good terms from her employer, the mega-potent investment bank, many many questions arise, of influence among other things. goldman-sachs financed ted cruz's political rise. you don't know how something like this will break. i could be wrong. i think this halts the ooze. then you get either chaos in iowa, or trump trouncing the field. there is still time for a wild swing, and paul or previous winners huckabee and santorum might benefit from a cruz meltdown.
