Happy Monday

Battleground Super Tuesday: Oklahoma

Oklahoma rarely gets much attention outside of the American right-wing, in part because it's possibly the most conservative state in the union. President Obama never won a county in the state, much less was competitive. The state is normally dark red, but tomorrow, it's highly competitive.

Republicans
This is one of the few spots that could trip up Donald Trump tomorrow, but he does hold a clear lead. The whole state is solidly Republican, so it's not a primary that will be highly "regionalized" in any way. Ted Cruz is from neighboring Texas, but it seems as though Rubio and him have split the anti-Trump vote up enough to allow him a double-digit victory, even in the low to mid 30's. Expect Trump to win.

Democrats
This is the state by which we will probably end up judging Bernie Sanders performance tomorrow. Monmouth puts him ahead in the last poll out, and he's been working this state hard on the ground, and on the airwaves. Clinton did win big in 2008 here, but this election has shown a reversal of electorates, and this is a very white electorate on the whole here. Clinton will need big numbers out of Oklahoma City and a few other enclaves of diversity, while Sanders needs it out of the college campuses.

The Coolest Thing in Hip Hop This Week

Battleground Super Tuesday: Colorado

Colorado stands out amongst tomorrow's primaries and caucuses because it's the only state that is only a Democratic contest. The caucuses in Colorado eight years ago produced a Barack Obama victory, with one of the youngest electorates in the nation. These voters are likely to be more supportive of marijuana, immigration reform, gun control, and student loan reform.

Metro Denver is likely to be the most concentrated block of votes. It's also the main hub of the young, liberal voters who Senator Sanders will need to carry him across the line. By the same token, it's a center of Hispanic voters that Clinton is banking on. In the rural areas, Colorado is a bit older, and Clinton should excel there.

There are no major polls since November in this state. Clinton lead huge then. This electorate would seem to give Sanders a shot though. This is one of the few states he is buying television time in. Expect this to be a very close state.

Republican Events are Very Different

Last week, Northampton County Executive John Brown had a nice little event at Williams Restaurant in Palmer Township. Since I received a mailer inviting me, I decided to join him. I'm not sure if the mailer was from his Auditor General campaign or from his official office, but that's no matter to me now.

This event was so different than anything you see at Democratic events. Instead of questions about education, gun control, the environment, expanding access to health care, and immigration reform, you get questions about veteran's benefits, cutting taxes, protecting the Second Amendment, cutting spending, and "people getting free stuff." During a discussion of the county prison, I heard a person say "give them bread and water." Most of the questions came from the angle that we need to get rid of programs. When Brown was talking about the "Cadillac Tax" portion of the ACA, he called it money that just goes to the federal government, where "it goes to people who get free stuff." You don't hear this stuff at Democratic events.

The people were different too. The crowd was very good, probably 50-60 deep when I was there. It was older, I'd say averaging in the mid-60s, and virtually all white. It was fairly suburban, and actually fairly middle class. Brown connected well to them, talking about how the recovery of the economy hasn't reached them, not in their home values or in their 401K's. You could see he knew how to speak their language.

Republicans speak a different political language than Democrats, and that was clear in this event. It's always good to take some time to see how the other side operates. I sure did in this case.

Battleground Super Tuesday: Minnesota

One of the states that both sides are citing as competitive on Super Tuesday is Minnesota. For the Republicans, any hope of stopping Trump will begin by pulling out this very close state tomorrow. For the Democrats, this is one of the few states that Senator Sanders can win. Here's my analysis.

Democrats
If this were a primary, it's likely that Hillary Clinton would win. It's a caucus though, and for that reason, Bernie has a shot. Even so, the only polling out there on this race shows Clinton with a lead between 18 and 34%. Even so, Sanders thinks the state is competitive enough that he spoke from Minnesota after the South Carolina Primary.

The bulk of President Obama's 2012 victory came out of the northeast, southeast, and Minneapolis area. Clinton is likely to do well in the Twin Cities, where she's organized well and has the support of most of the establishment. Sanders did pick up the endorsement of Congressman Ellison, which should help him in Minneapolis. Expect Clinton to win the Twin Cities though.

Sanders will need big victories along the river, in suburban areas, and in more white, liberal areas.

Republicans
This state is very close to a three-way tie. The key for Minnesota Republicans is usually in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and this year is not different. The question is whether or not Trump or his rivals come out of that region with a victory.

My guess is that we will see some similarities to Iowa in Minnesota. Evangelicals will probably vote for Cruz, but the western portion of this state will be a battleground between Cruz and Trump. Rubio will battle Trump closer in the suburban areas near the cities. Rubio has picked up several big endorsements in the state in the past week or two, and this may be his best shot to win.

Battleground Super Tuesday: Massachusetts

Tomorrow, one of the closest watched primaries on Super Tuesday will be in Massachusetts. On the Democratic side, this is going to be one of the closest primaries of the night. On the Republican side, there is a question of whether Donald Trump will win by an overwhelming margin, or not. Here's my take on this primary:

Republicans
I don't know that anyone expects Donald Trump to lose here. Suffolk University suggests that Trump has a 23% lead in the state, beating Rubio 43-20%. Rubio's biggest problem is that John Kasich is actually getting some support, at 17%. On the flip side, one could argue that Trump would pick up the 9% supporting Cruz or the 4% supporting Carson if they dropped out.

The Republican vote is most concentrated in the Boston suburbs, particularly south of the city where Mitt Romney did his best in the 2012 election. Trump will have some success amongst the working class white population in this state, certainly enough to win a convincing victory tomorrow. Expect him to win by double-digits in this state.

Democrats
This could be one of the hardest states to call in this election. Eight years ago, Hillary Clinton road the working-class white vote in this state to victory. Eight years later, that appears to be more fertile ground for Bernie Sanders. Sanders should do very well in the western part of the state, some of the more liberal enclaves in the state. Clinton enjoys the support of most of the Boston political machine, but her lower performance amongst the blue-collar white voters this time might prevent her from maximizing her performance in that region.

Even with so many factors pointing towards a potential Bernie win here, WMUR shows Clinton ahead 49-44, and Emerson shows the race as a tie. This may come down to regional turnout. If it's high in the western end of the state, Bernie may get it done. If not, this is moving away from him right now.

Stop Pretending Trump is Worse Than the GOP's Alternatives

I don't think the New York Times likes Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump:

The bombastic governor may not fully realize that while he damaged Mr. Rubio in New Hampshire with his attack, it also showed voters who Mr. Christie really is. He may help his new best frenemy forever take Mr. Rubio down, but it’s near certain that Mr. Christie will further cement his national reputation as a venal, vindictive political bully in the process. His endorsement has already demonstrated that Mr. Christie will say anything in service of his ambition. Asked what he hopes to get in return, Mr. Christie played coy, saying that after his term ends in 2018, he wants to “go into private life and make money like Trump.”

After his performance on Friday, Mr. Christie had better hope that Mr. Trump, wherever he winds up, can find a little something for his new apprentice to do. If Mr. Trump should win the presidency, he might want to consider Mr. Christie for transportation secretary, since he already knows so much about traffic patterns on commuter bridges.

Here's my problem with the New York Times, Nikki Haley, or Carly Fiorina criticizing Christie's endorsement- what's the alternative. Marco Rubio, the choice of Haley, has yet to win a state, and has several times shown himself to be incapably dumb. Ted Cruz is insane, and hated by virtually everyone who works with him. John Kasich, for whatever strengths he has, is just as extreme on policy, and has yet to excel anywhere but New Hampshire.

I get it- Trump is running a white-nationalist campaign. It's terrible. Let's stop pretending he's worse than the alternatives.

You Can't Beat It- Baseball is Back

I spent my Sunday doing something I hope to do for months to come- watching baseball. The Phillies played their exhibition opener against Tampa University, and this time they beat the #1 ranked Division II team (last year they lost). They scored eight runs, put up eight scoreless innings pitching, and generally caught the ball. It was a good day.

Forget the player stats though- this is actual baseball being played. On a beautiful Sunday up here, I sat and watched the Phillies play baseball. I can't think of anything better to do. Sure, I like the other sports, and I get that talk radio only wants to discuss a 7-9 football team, but Philadelphia in recent years has been a baseball town. The Phillies are my team. I can't wait for hot Summer nights at the ballpark. Yesterday only reminded me that it's not too far away now.

Battleground Super Tuesday: Vermont

Tuesday is Super Tuesday, and Vermont will be one of the states voting. On the Democratic side, it is probably the safest pro-Sanders state on the calendar. On the Republican side, expectations hold that this is a Trump state. Here's my breakdown.

Democrats
This is Bernie Sanders' home state, and if he loses it, I'd be shocked. It is one of the most liberal states in the country, as Barack Obama won every county in the state, and 66.57% of the vote in the 2012 election. In addition to electing Bernie to the Senate, the state also has elected Howard Dean and Pat Leahy to statewide offices. Every county but one gave President Obama over 60% of the vote in 2012. Every county is pretty white. This makes this primary an anomaly on Super Tuesday.

There is only one Congressional District, and Bernie will probably win it easily. The only question is whether his win looks like his New Hampshire win, or Clinton's South Carolina win. My sense is that there's not a whole lot of regionalism to dig through here- Sanders should win across the board.

Republicans
No one expects anything but a Donald Trump win. Based on his huge win in New Hampshire, that seems to make sense. This state is again a very white state for Republicans too, and they are best described as the libertarian breed. Gun rights are a big issue here, and there are some weird types that may come out to vote in this.

Trump is most likely to win across the board here. He is also likely to only be in the 30's here, not close to 50%. That leaves the door at least partially open to an upset. If it happens, it's because the Romney voters that gave him a win with 39% in 2012's primary move over to Marco Rubio or John Kasich. I don't see any way for Ted Cruz or Ben Carson to appeal here. The fact that no one but Trump has lead a New England poll this year in a GOP Primary tells me though that Donald should win easily.

Oh the Places You Will Go- Politico Edition

I have a busy week ahead of me- one that will take me all over Northeast PA, down to Philadelphia for a debate, and out to Hershey for the State Democratic Committee meeting this weekend. I figured that after petitions had ended, I would get a slight breather from the grind of it all, but that has not happened, and actually that has been good. I enjoy this stuff, even the ups and downs. It's fun.

This week is super busy though, so I wanted to let anyone who reads this know about two events-

• Tuesday, March 1st, 8:30 pm at College Hill Tavern- We're inviting local Democrats to get together and watch the Super Tuesday returns in Easton. 
• Thursday, March 3rd, 5:30 pm at Roosevelt's- The Lehigh Valley Young Democrats will hold their first meeting to attempt to charter a new group. 

If you're out in Hershey this weekend, shoot me a line as well. I'd love to see any readers at any of these events.

That Time When Marco and Teddy Made Fools of Themselves on the Way to Defeat

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are running around the country crowing about Donald Trump's tax returns, how he "might have mob ties," and all other sorts of madness. They are hoping to derail Donald Trump, something they thought they had done in the other night's debate- though it's now clear that no one was moved by that.

Let's be clear- Rubio and Cruz are losers. Let's be more clear- they're actually more extreme than Trump, even if they are more politically correct. Ted Cruz has actually had to campaign in his home state for their primary on Tuesday, a true embarrassment if I've ever seen one. Marco Rubio hasn't won anywhere yet, and isn't really favored to win anywhere either. A couple of key points here:

• Marco Rubio has made "victory" speeches in Iowa and South Carolina, states where he got a lower percentage of the vote than Bernie Sanders did last night in South Carolina, and Bernie had left the state already when the polls closed. Despite these pre-packaged, canned victory speeches that the Beltway Republican class then tries to artificially turn into momentum for their guy, he just doesn't sell. He wasn't very close to winning in Iowa, he finished third. He finished fifth in New Hampshire. He finished more than ten points behind in South Carolina, despite finishing second. He lost by over 20% in Nevada as well, also finishing second. He claims he is the strongest suited candidate to appeal to Hispanics and youth, and yet Trump crushed him in both in Nevada, the first state with a good percentage of both. Marco is just a bad candidate. 
• Ted Cruz did win Iowa, as he reminds us all. Since then, he hasn't been very good. He's finished third in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. His share of the Evangelical vote has gone down in each state since Iowa. He has not a single endorsement from within the Republican conference of the U.S. Senate, and really no establishment support at all, despite being a sitting U.S. Senator. He hasn't defeated Marco Rubio in either of the last two states, which is closing in on a month ago. His one win, while convincing, was also aided by his campaign telling caucus goers that Ben Carson was dropping out. He couldn't even win that cleanly. His campaign is in disarray, firing his communications director. Again, he's had to campaign in Texas this week- his home state.

So as these two losers continue to campaign, I find them both rather sad and pathetic. If they are the "future" of the Republican Party, not having the White House for 12 years is the least of their worries. Beyond all of this, I'm amused by the Republicans who really want to nominate these guys. Rubio is picking up establishment support without a single victory, while saying things like how he wants a confrontation with the religion of Islam. He's just as nuts as Trump, if not more, and really wouldn't do much better in November. Same for Cruz. In fact, they are less dangerous to Democrats in the Fall, because they are both heavily scripted, career politicians, who won't fire up the GOP base the way that Trump does. In short, these guys should stop throwing wild accusations out, and perhaps step back and contemplate where they really are politically, because they aren't where they think they are.

Donald Trump is About to Destroy the Republican Establishment for Good on Tuesday

Donald Trump is winning in the race for the Republican nomination, and the only way the GOP can stop him is to pray for miracles at this point. He's winning, by a lot. He won "yyyyuuuugggggeee" in New Hampshire, won comfortably in South Carolina (and won every delegate), and crushed everyone in Nevada. He's picking up actual endorsements now, from people like Chris Christie and Jan Brewer, and he has big leads in Tuesday's Super Tuesday polls. We're less than 60 hours from Donald Trump possibly destroying the Republican establishment for good.

There's a small chance that Trump sweeps Tuesday. Even if he doesn't, he is likely to win the majority of the states, and the lion's share of the delegates. He may beat Ted Cruz in his native Texas, and he will likely beat Marco Rubio in his neighboring states of Georgia and Alabama. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia will cast their votes in the Republican contest this week, and only really a few of them are even competitive in the polls. Georgia, Texas, and Virginia could be competitive, but many states like Alabama are already set to be blowouts.

After Trump has a big day on Tuesday, the GOP's establishment, professional wing will be left with tough choices. They will almost certainly have to unite behind one of Rubio, Cruz, or Kasich in order to even force him into a brokered convention, and even if they somehow get to that point, just forcing all the non-Trump delegates to back whoever the power's that be pick is going to be troublesome, and probably cause an ugly division in the Republican Party. By my estimation, they are running out of acceptable ways to block this man from winning the nomination, and that's even assuming they can get themselves together enough to pick a person to do it with.

Given the toxic brand of politics that Trump carries with him, and the complete wild card of how that will play electorally, the GOP's "elite" may be forced to ponder a different path forward- abandonment. They might have to simply not do anything to help their nominee, or else face being associated with him. There is, of course, a non-zero chance that Trump's politics will work in November and elect him President. I'd like to believe America is a better, smarter, more decent place than that, but that's just me. Even if that happens though, does the GOP want to attach their lot in Congress to banning Muslims and building walls along the Mexican border? Maybe they do- but I suggest they don't. Which leads them to the unthinkable- punting away a Presidential Election against Hillary Clinton. I think it is tactically the right thing to do, but my guess is that the GOP will fold to their base, and go along with Trump. If that happens, you are officially watching the death of anything resembling a "GOP Establishment."

The Game Changer in the Palmetto State?

With all the votes counted, it's fair to make a characterization of what happened in yesterday's South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary- Hillary Clinton won an epic landslide. Her 73.5%-26% win over Bernie Sanders was a route in every way- she won white women, African-Americans of all ages and genders, every county, and just about any other sub-section of the electorate you want to discuss.

When your win is in the neighborhood of 50%, you get to claim momentum. She did not close the process out last night, but she won at least 43 of the state's 59 delegates to Philadelphia this Summer, and proved that she is dominant amongst African-American electorates that will dominate on Tuesday. Her victory far dwarfs Senator Sanders' win in New Hampshire, both in size and in what it means for the future of this race. Perhaps most importantly, Hillary has now won the two states that did the most to derail her 2008 race- Iowa and South Carolina. She even has answered questions about her relationship to the African-American community after winning 87% of their votes in South Carolina.

The race isn't over, not yet at least. Senator Sanders won at least 14 delegates yesterday, meaning the day was not the total loss it seems to be. When you couple her South Carolina and Nevada wins though, Hillary has taken control of this race. Super Tuesday is certainly favorable to her on paper, and she has the momentum. For Bernie Sanders, a pathway to victory needs to start with an immediate turn around, or the race will be over.

Pictures of the Day- Throwback to '08

Man, I was plump in 2008.

Kind of how the whole experience felt- left to yourself, but at least it's paradise.

Debate day.

The beaches are kind of nice.

Debate day.

Badges of Honor- South Carolina Edition

It's not often that you think back on times you lost in a campaign and remember them fondly, but last night I had one of them. If you read me semi-normally, you know that I remember my Hillary Clinton-South Carolina experience very fondly. Last night though, that was an ego boost.

As you can see above, MSNBC put up the 2008 primary map, and showed how Barack Obama waxed everyone there. There's one red county there in the upper right-hand corner. That's Horry County. That's the only county Hillary won in 2008 in the whole state. Guess who was there?

I felt cool for a second, so just humor my ridiculousness here.

The End of the Streak in Easton

In sports, we tend to celebrate a lot of milestones that aren't really all that significant. It's a way to keep things interesting for fans. In the grand scheme of things, you could argue that Easton's 68 year streak of having at least one District 11 Champion in wrestling isn't that significant. The district tournament is merely a qualifier to get to the regional tournament to qualify for states. Ultimately, if you have a PIAA Champion or not is what matters. This is a qualifier.

The other side of that is that there is simply nothing like Easton's 68 year run in high school wrestling, and today it is over. The District 11 region of Pennsylvania has long been a hot-bed of wrestling, from Lehigh's college excellence, to Easton and the other great high schools in this region at the Pennsylvania state level. To have one kid be the best in this region every year in the existence of the program is amazing. To make sense of how stupid-good it is, understand that Nazareth, Northampton, Liberty, Parkland, and Bethlehem Catholic have all done many things in their wrestling history, and none of them have a streak that has even begun to challenge Easton's. It's that remarkable.

As I said, yesterday that streak ended, which is truly rather surprising to me. Easton had a pretty good team this season, certainly a top ten in the state team, and had a couple of returning district champions who had a combined record in the neighborhood of 70-1. Even still, when the brackets were out on Friday morning, they had no number one seeds, and you could see how they might come up short. They did, leaving this pretty good squad with the dubious distinction of being the season that the streak died in. Even so, Easton will take eight kids to regionals, a crop most schools would kill for, and a good chunk of those eight will likely move on to the state tournament. While i'm sure some will question if Easton should have dropped down a weight, or wrestled a tougher schedule, or done whatever else, the truth is that sometimes winning just isn't in the stars. Easton had lots of tough kids enter the districts who could have won a title, if they were in the right weight. None of them happened to be in the right weight this year. Ironically, I had heard people all season saying next year this would happen. I guess this saved the re-building squad for 2016-2017 from having to wear this one.

It's sad to see a streak like this end, but such is life. It was an amazing run, one that many times came down to the last one or two kids in finals, and yet always seemed to survive. If Easton is to start off another 68 year run next season, I would be 100 when they get there. In other words, I'll never see anything like "the streak" again.

The Amazing, Durable Clinton Team

On Saturday, Hillary Clinton is likely to win the South Carolina Primary. Almost a quarter-century ago, her husband did that too. I'm 32 years old- she was First Lady, and he Governor, five years before I was born. He was running for Congress almost a decade before I was born. She was elected to the U.S. Senate while I was in high school. He was elected President when I was in elementary school. In short, they have been politically durable.

They have very few peers. The Kennedys and Bush Family come to mind, but no one else in recent times has had their durability. The Doles were significant, but not on the Clinton level. You can go back to Richard Nixon, who had an amazingly long and durable run on the national level, and FDR too. In both of their cases though, it was one person's career, which is easier to stretch out than two.

We really don't appreciate the problems this creates. You hear a lot of sniping at the Clintons today over things like the Crime Bill or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but you never get the context of then vs. now. In 1994, we were coming out of the crack epidemic, and even in our inner cities, in neighborhoods that are largely African-American, the Crime Bill signed by President Clinton would have been more popular then than the position that is emerging in Democratic politics as today's consensus. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is demonized today as anti-LGBT, but in 1993 it was the most progressive LGBT rights position you could have had on the military. You go through a litany of issues, and realize how much politics has changed since Bill Clinton was elected President (forget Governor), and it's fairly amazing that she has remained relevant, given the movement in our politics. We often don't appreciate that. I suppose in the case of Hillary Clinton, it fits who she is though- a pragmatist. She'll push as far as she can. She'll get some things done.

We often don't want to appreciate the passage of time. It brings us closer to mortality. The Clintons have used their time well though. They are the most significant political duo of our time, and they still have some miles in front of them.

It's Time for Beltway Republicans to Accept the Reality of Trump

Donald Trump won big- again. At least at last look, he's coming in with a lead over 20%. He almost won a majority tonight. He gained even more delegates. Donald Trump took another step towards winning the Republican nomination. It is even more likely than it was this morning that Trump is going to march to the nomination.

All I've heard from my Republican activist/operative friends is how Trump will be stopped. They will slowly fall into line behind Marco Rubio, and suddenly he will be beating Trump and win this nomination. It gets beyond wishful thinking, into flat out fantasy land.

The GOP is running out of time to stop Trump. No matter how offensive this guy is, his lead is still strong. Super Tuesday is now under a week away, and Trump leads big. Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia will hold Republican contests, and Trump will be favored in most of them. The worst thing that can happen to Rubio is likely to happen, a Cruz victory in Texas that keeps him in the race. As long as the race stays multi-candidate, Trump is collecting huge sums of delegates. Marco Rubio can get all the endorsements he wants, it's probably too late. The conservative media created this monster, and now they're stuck with him.

Marco Rubio hasn't won a single primary yet. Ted Cruz is falling. John Kasich is staying in, likely to lose badly. Ben Carson isn't serious. If Donald Trump can keep this up for just another week, the GOP may not be able to do better than a convention fight. If he keeps it up through March 15th, the nomination might be over.

I Love Easton- But Here's My Updated for 2016 Bucket List

A police helicopter over downtown Easton.

I think Greater Easton, PA is the greatest area in the world. I love the people, the places, the entertainment, and everything about it. It's also the place I've lived most in my life. With that said, I have one real regret about my life to this point- the lack of travel. I really want to travel more. I've had bucket lists in the past, but it's time for an update. If I had the money, the time, and the ability, this is the list of places I want to go:

• My great-grandmother's village in Slovakia, Udol.
• Wrigley Field in Chicago.
• A fight night in Las Vegas.
• The Kremlin.
• A night out in Glasgow.
• A beach in Singapore.
• The Vatican.
• Bethlehem in the Middle East.
• The top of the Freedom Tower.
• Hollywood.
• A pyramid in Egypt.
• The ruins of the Berlin Wall.
• Hong Kong.
• Berkeley, California.
• The French Quarter in New Orleans.
• A night out in Beirut.
• London.
• The Eiffel Tower.
• Jerusalem.
• The Hamptons.
• Cape Town.
• Nashville.
• South Bend for a Notre Dame game.
• A night out in South Beach.
• Havana.
• Tokyo for a baseball game.
• London.
• The Bill Clinton Presidential Library.
• Montreal.
• Yellowstone National Park.
• Athens, Greece.
• Vieques.
• The Jesus Statue in Rio.
• Roswell, New Mexico.
• A night out in Tel Aviv.
• Mount Rushmore.
• A hockey game in Toronto.
• The Acropolis.
• The Dominican Republic.
• Honolulu.
• Christchurch.
• Istanbul.
• San Diego.
• Sydney.
• The Grand Canyon.
• The Rocky Mountains.

That's a good list for now. I'll never get it done, but we'll see.

Nice One, Johnny...

Happy Monday

Confessions of a Political Road Warrior

Former boss, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman announcing re-election.

Philadelphia. New York. Bethlehem. Wilkes-Barre. Trenton. Nyack. Washington, DC. Harrisburg. Shamokin. Pottsville. Hazleton. Scranton. Stroudsburg. Allentown. Back home in Easton. This is a taste of what my travel schedule has been like for the past couple of months. From swearing-ins that began in December, through petitions to get people on the ballot, and probably through April or June primaries, my life will be crazy busy. I went into the consulting world after the 2015 elections, and consulting can be lucrative, provided you are willing to work pretty hard to make it so. There are trade-offs though. Some are good, some are bad. Here's a few confessions of mine about the business:

1. No, it's not glamorous. I'm serious, unless you think eating a Wawa hoagie in your car for lunch, between meetings with two different clients is a "Hollywood lifestyle." The hours are long, you're not writing State-of-the-Union speeches or coming up with new, cutting edge policies all day, and often times even the candidates don't appreciate the work you do. 
2. The people can be really petty. I'm talking about the colleagues. In a business where ass-kissing takes many people as far as actual ability and merit, the hired help still seems intent on tearing each other down, very often. To be real for a second, I don't know anyone who actually worked on a campaign who I wouldn't recommend for any other job in society- these are the hardest working people alive. They are working, and plotting, even when you think they are asleep. I don't get the need for self-promotion and tearing down others, but it still seems to happen often.
3. This life strains almost every relationship you have. I don't know how people manage to hold onto marriages and relationships, let alone friendships, on this schedule. Sometimes you're just too busy to spend the five minutes you need to spend talking to someone to make them happy. You really have to try hard, and even then things might become strained.
4. Most of the people are really different. First off, I'm not going to call my colleagues weird, even if having passion is weird. Second off, I'm saying different as a good thing. It's great to meet smart, passionate, engaged people in the process. They are, for the most part though, different than the rest of society. They would rather talk tax policy than the ball game last night. God bless them for caring, but it's a bit jarring still for me.
5. Politics are really diverse. I'm a white, straight, somewhat-Catholic, suburban raised, male. That makes me part of the traditional "majority" in this country. It also makes me odd in politics. Perhaps this is because people like me have not needed passion (it's great for most to live ignorantly in a rigged system), and everyone else has. Politics has been great to me, in that it has given me a more diverse group of friends, and exposed me to different perspectives. I doubt I'll ever be a full-time "Social Justice Warrior," but the experience of campaigning has opened my eyes to many issues I would have never treated as important. This may be the best benefit of the job, actually.
6. You fight more with the people you agree with. The most brutal, nasty, long fights are not between Democrats and Republicans, like the public likes to think. They get mad about a month or two of negative ads. The internal fights in each party are far worse, last much longer, and often times play out behind the scenes before the public sees them. Remember, some candidates spend years preparing for a major primary, and jousting behind the scenes for the support they need to win them. You don't start fighting the other party's winner until you're in the general election.
7. Our rhetoric is actually way over-heated. "So and so is the devil." We hear that kind of talk in politics all the time. We spend so much time demonizing opponents that we almost de-humanize them. Most Republicans really aren't nasty, awful people. I have sat down and had drinks with Republican operatives and elected officials, and believe it or not, they are human. I have friends I grew up with who are Republicans, and I don't think they are all racist, heart-less, crazies. A lot of this is operatives preying on the passions of our activists, and trying to convince them that this is "the most important election of our lifetime," every time, so we can pry their money out of them. We should swear off several things at the outset- any references to our opponents as Hitler, saying the opposition hates America, and ever agreeing that "the whole system is corrupt." We feed these awful tendencies with this language.
8. I feel bad for my car. No, for real. With all the travel, I pack the miles onto my poor Mazda. It gets cleaned every few months inside, it usually gets the oil changes it needs, but late, and I've had more than one blown tire this year. This car's life-span has been cut way down by my job.
9. You don't get rich doing this, at least not quick. You want to make a lot of money? Politics isn't the field for you, unless you're patient. I suppose if you own a firm that makes campaign commercials, you might do alright. Same for direct mail. Stick around long enough as a manager, finance director, or communications director, and you'll start to make good money. You won't make the kind of money you would in the "private sector" though, at least not for the same experience.
10. Politics can be an adrenaline rush unlike any other. I grew up as an athlete. My sports of choice were wrestling and track by high school, super-individual sports where you have to be very competitive to survive. My athletics career ended at the outset of my freshman year of college, when I was diagnosed with mono and decided not to come back. Not so coincidentally, my political career began then with my first internship. That was 14 years ago, and the competitive juices have ebbed and flowed, I have to admit. The rush of the final month of a competitive campaign though is unlike anything else you'll get to experience. Debate nights, election nights, major fundraisers, and getting out the vote is amazing. I'm not sure I'd have any real purpose in life if not for that part of this. The will to compete is the greatest gift this business gives, and it's something I'd suggest anyone who wants to get in it, should have.

When Supposedly Smart People Start Sounding Dumb About Trump

For the record, before I write this, I would not vote for Donald Trump, ever. I don't agree with the campaign this man has run. With that said, I don't think he's simply "touched a nerve" in the Republican electorate- I think he's exposed it for what it is. I think a lot of conservative pundits hate that, because they want it to be about other things, like small government, or other "high-minded," intellectual conservative things. As a result, I think a lot of them are trying to "will him away," and get to a Republican nominee that is a little less inconvenient in their cause.

John Fund of the National Review is not a stupid guy. He's a conservative guy, so I don't agree with him on much, but he's not a stupid man at all. He writes after South Carolina about Trump:

Trump is the front-runner, but he has to find a way to win a majority of the delegates, and the kind of campaign he’s running is making it harder for him to crack a ceiling of about a third of the vote. In the run-up to South Carolina, Trump came out in favor of the health-care mandate, defended Planned Parenthood, accused George W. Bush of lying about the Iraq War, and stood by his call to impeach Bush. (He later retreated on the mandate and on Bush’s supposedly lying.) His consistent inconsistency helps explain why only four in ten GOP voters in a new Associated Press poll view Trump in a positive light. He will have trouble growing his coalition to win a majority of delegates, even as more candidates drop out.

Fund says a lot more in his piece- talking about how Trump's coalition at the moment is about a third of the GOP electorate, about how the "winner take all" states are not nearly as much a part of the math as we think, about how the contraction in this race and it's calendar conspire against Trump, and how he's really unlikely to win a brokered convention.

Ok, if you got all that, good. He isn't lying in his piece, nor is he grossly missing anything. If you constrict Fund's arguments to- 1. Trump is not winning a majority of the primary electorate yet, 2. Trump is not the likely choice of a brokered convention, and 3. Trump is not likely to rap this up soon- I'm not going to disagree. The problem is, Fund is seeing this through rosy-red GOP establishment glasses. A few points here:

1. The period of time to beat Donald Trump before the convention is closing. Ted Cruz has one win right now. Marco Rubio and John Kasich have none. I have no idea what the argument for Ben Carson staying in is. None are expected to win Nevada. None are going to run the table on Super Tuesday. By March 15th, Trump may not be close to winning the majority, but he'll probably have closed off many pathways for the others to get there either.
2. The field isn't likely to close further very quickly now. At a bare minimum,  even the most hopeful Rubio supporter has to admit that Ted Cruz is staying in the race through Super Tuesday, and has the money to stay in much longer, unless he quickly grows a conscience. Rubio isn't dropping out to help Cruz either, at least not before March 1st, and almost certainly not before March 15th in Florida, unless he were in a position to lose his home state. In short, neither is dropping out quick. John Kasich could potentially fall out of this race, but he seems intent on running through Michigan and Ohio. Ohio is a winner-take-all state on March 15th, and he's highly likely to win it. In other words, these three aren't dropping out.
3. The net result of a field that will be three or four deep through mid-March is Donald Trump can continue to win a lot of states with 30-40% of the vote. The one thing we know about voters is that they tend to gravitate towards winners, making it possible that his vote share could grow. Even if it doesn't, it means that Trump will continue to take up oxygen and delegates from the other candidates for weeks. In short, the status quo is likely to hold for a bit, and that favors Trump.
4. You don't have to win the majority of the vote to win the majority of the delegates in many cases. Trump won 29 of the 50 delegates from South Carolina at the moment he won the state. At last look, he won all of the Congressional districts (seven of them), and was closing in on 40 of the 50 delegates. Obviously Cruz and Rubio combined for more votes than Trump. Obviously he won under a third of the voters, but he won around 80 percent of the delegates. If he continues to win decisive minority vote shares and get first place in states, he is going to win a lot of delegates. Will he win the majority? Maybe, maybe not. He could though.
5. Regardless of what the establishment types like to say in national politics, it is very hard to deny the first-place finisher the nomination of either party. Just as Democrats dread a scenario where they have to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination based on super-delegates, Republicans denying Trump the nomination in some "grand coalition" of all the other delegates is a nightmare scenario for them. He may run third-party, or not, but his voters are just the types to not vote in November if denied their will in an "under-handed" manner. I doubt they really want this.

It is far from given that Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee. The expectation though that some sort of establishment is going to ride in and take this nomination from him is silly. It is an over-simplification that many people make, that somehow the parties are so strong that they can overturn the will of the voters. It doesn't quite work that way.

I think that Fund and other pundits on the right are very unhappy to see that such a large group of GOP Primaries are buying Trump's red-meat. They see a winnable election for them, drifting away behind absolute lunatic talk from a guy who has no connection to their intellectual movement. Here's Trump, exposing some of the more nutty elements of their party, and undercutting much of their argument for American conservatism. Like it or not though, right now this guy is the only candidate one can call a "front-runner."

Front-Runners Always Run "Terrible Campaigns," and the Reasons are Obvious

Jeb Bush once raised $100 million plus in a quarter, but on Saturday he dropped out of the Republican nomination fight, a stunning fall from grace that has some people calling his campaign one of the worst ever. You could hear Democratic activists sniping at the Clinton campaign before Saturday's Nevada win, just as they did when she shockingly lost in 2008. Mitt Romney's campaign was largely panned during both the primaries and general elections of 2012, and John McCain's 2008 campaign literally imploded before he got the nomination. Go back further, and you'll read a lot of not-so-nice things about John Kerry's campaign, Bob Dole's campaign, the George H.W. Bush campaign of 1988, and others.

Why does every front-runner run a crappy campaign? Glad you asked.

Front-runner, establishment campaigns, are not creatures of the general American public. They are created out of Washington. They hire Beltway insiders, who cost a good chunk of coin, and carry big names within the industry. On the plus side, they usually bring experience, networks of people, and a winning pedigree (at least in their past). On the down side, they are expensive and are generally from the bubble that is Washington, D.C. Politics within Washington are largely interest-group driven. Issues that don't really get a lot of play in most of America get a ton of play to them. More people are engaged in politics in DC, and sometimes there is a misguided belief that this is normal amongst Washingtonians. In short, front-runners hire Washingtonians to run their campaigns, and Washingtonians, for lack of any better way to put it, aren't like the rest of Americans. They just don't connect, because their politics are different. They care about things that normal voters don't care about.

Contrast that with say, Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, which while very wonky, was very disconnected with the Beltway crowd, compared with the Clinton campaign. This is not to say that this is the only reason front-runners always run underwhelming campaigns, but it's to say that it's a clear and present reason why these things happen. While setting up outside of Washington (like say, Chicago) might seem to fix this problem, if you bring a bunch of Washingtonians to Brooklyn or Boston, they're still Washingtonians. Geography doesn't heal all wounds.

Dear Candidates- You're Not Special

Chances are, candidates out there, you're not these guys.

There's a little primary going on in the Lehigh Valley for a state house seat in the Northampton/Whitehall area. Initially it had three Democrats and three Republicans. One of those original Republicans dropped out, and was replaced by a younger one. When it's all said and done, only one of the three original Democrats will be on the ballot. One turned in badly defective petitions that did not have the year, office being sought, or district number on it. That candidate is apparently livid that someone would challenge them for these errors. The third Democrat says they are running as an independent now, because the party leaders were being mean to them. Of course, they announced this with two days left in petitions, leading me to believe they didn't have 300 valid signatures. Of course, there are plenty of hard feelings on this matter. Of course, the one candidate that Democratic leaders in the region liked is the one who printed their petitions correctly and collected enough valid signatures. Those damn party leaders are clueless!

The GOP is split along county lines behind two of the candidates, while the Democrats have settled behind one. I know how much people hate party leaders and their damned heavy-handed tactics, especially when it wasn't long ago that Lehigh Valley Democrats (like myself) complained about the "boss" picking our candidates for office. It's not just here in the Lehigh Valley, people hate the DCCC's picks for seats in Congress all over. Activists would love wide-open primaries, where a purely Democratic system plays out, and they get to pick candidates free of any of those damn procedural constraints. I get it. No one wants to be told how to vote. No candidate wants to be told they aren't the right person, at the right time, for the job they think they can do best. That's common sense, as why would someone run if they didn't think they were the best person for the job? I guess my perspective has changed now that I'm on the state committee, but even I have to admit that sometimes the party picks candidates terribly wrong. It happens all over the country, every year, and sometimes it's not even one specific person's fault.

The problem with the idea of stopping party leaders from tilting the scales in favor of their anointed candidates is that usually the party leaders get it right. Not all the time, obviously, but most of it. You see, it is important that a candidate be able to raise money, or be willing to knock on doors, or maybe know a bit about policy, or be viewed as enough of an adult to fill a seat. These things aren't all nonsense. Sometimes, the most progressive candidate isn't the right candidate, and sometimes the youngest, most articulate candidate is not ready to be the right messenger. Party leaders, generally, are the people most engaged in their regions' politics, and generally have seen enough races to know what does and doesn't sell in their areas. Some basic barriers to being the establishment pick, like a lack of institutional support or fundraising ability, is basically universal. While no one likes to be told they shouldn't run because of money, there's no sense nominating someone who will get drowned in a general election by the opponent. The idea is to get the objectively best candidate, not to make everybody feel good.

Of course, back to the primary I mentioned above- the irony is that the Democratic Party in Northampton County has a basic, blanket open primary policy, and the chairman actually fought to get voter file access for the "outsider" candidates (I can vouch for it)- so I find the charge that the party was less than hospitable to be pretty funny. Brushing that aside, at least one (if not both) of the other Democrats who wanted in couldn't print petitions correctly. Who should be blamed for that?

I have a really radical thought here for candidates- for the most part, you're not Robert F. Kennedy. You're not Bill Clinton. You're not Barack Obama. I know, they weren't who they ended up as, at least at one point, and we should all get the shot to do that. One of the ways you earn the privilege of being a serious candidate is taking the time to go out and be a part of the process, make the relationships you need, and learn what you're doing. Even "outsider" primary challengers like Joe Sestak or Matt Cartwright had built up relationships, had friends ready to advocate for their candidacy, and had the profile to be taken seriously from the start. Build relationships with labor, with LGBT groups, with women's groups, with environmentalists, and with other groups, and watch how your problems raising money, getting signatures, and finding tangible support go away. Yes, you'll have some growing pains, but for the most part, these groups expect that. Taking the time, and doing the work, will be appreciated in due time.

In politics, you can be one of two things- actively a part of the process, or on the sidelines complaining. That choice is up to you. You're not special though. No one is. If you can't do what's needed, you won't find people lining up behind you. Such is life.

No One With a Brain is Afraid of Incompetent Marco

Marco Rubio's campaign team deserves a raise. Somehow, Rubio has not won any of the first three primaries, but yet he is "one of the final three," and viewed by many as "the likely nominee." He finishes third in Iowa and second in South Carolina, and gives "victory" speeches after both. They have convinced major figures in the GOP to endorse Rubio, and have all of official Republican Washington pushing as hard as possible to get him to the front of the pack. Again, all of this with no victories. All of this with no real talent.

You see, when Marco Rubio dropped his whopper debate performance in New Hampshire, a lot of other people acted shocked. I was not amongst them. I view Marco as an idiot, a person not capable of getting through a general election campaign, or for that matter, probably the primary. That Marco had his brain lock-up on stage isn't a shock at all, if you've listened to this guy talk. Way back, months ago, a Gawker article summed up Rubio perfectly:

This queer store-bought concept of newness is Rubio's shtick. "Yesterday is over, and we are never going back," Rubio said to canned cheers yesterday upon announcing his candidacy, just after attacking Democrats for "looking backward" and before declaring that his novel vision of a future America involved militarism, banning abortion, school vouchers, and celebration of "family—not government."

It was obvious last Spring that Rubio was an idiot, long before he started talking about "a clash of civilizations" with Islam, but he sells well. First off, the media likes that he is young, Hispanic, and Republican, so he is somehow "different." Second, his opposition in this race is either crazy (Trump and Cruz), boring (Bush and Kasich), or irrelevant (Carson). Third, the media keeps insisting he has something in common with Barack Obama, because apparently both of them are young (never mind that one was a Harvard law grad and the other is Marco Rubio). The fact that someone this stupid can get this close should scare anyone who doesn't want a neanderthal for a President. It does scare me, to the extent that elections are unpredictable and anything can happen. He really doesn't scare me though.

First off, let's be clear, Marco Rubio is nothing new. Rubio has flip-flopped from supporting an Iran Nuclear Deal to saying he'd back out of it. He has flip-flopped on his own immigration reform legislation, and now opposes it. He has called for a basic war with Islam. He's a foreign policy illiterate. Unfortunately, he's even more ridiculous on domestic policy. He pushed through Florida's "Scarlet Letter Law," forcing mothers who want to put their children up for adoption to publish their sexual history in the paper (for real). He's pro-life, even in cases of rape and incest, a flip-flop from his previous positions. He bought a gun to "defend his family from ISIS," in case you thought he might be a reasonable person on gun rights. He does not support universal background checks. He proposes huge tax-cuts for the wealthy, not unlike Republicans have for forty years, while pushing a "consumption" tax. Marco Rubio also opposes virtually all LGBT rights, including the settled matter of marriage equality. His record on women's rights, both at work and in the health care world, is awful.

In other words, Marco Rubio is no different than Mitt Romney:

But strip away Rubio’s rags-to-presidential contender biography, and his candidacy has more than a little in common with Romney’s — from policy platforms that are largely in sync to a brain trust that boasts a number of the same key figures. When it comes to the substance of what he’d try to do in the job, at least, Rubio is not promising a sharp break from the last establishment favorite the party put forward.

"I think that they are very much on the same place on most of the issues," Vin Weber, a former House member and special adviser to Romney in 2012, said. On foreign policy, taxes and economic growth, “their positions are very similar, and on most of the other domestic and social issues they come down the same place as well.”

He's really no different than any other recent Republican, either. He's pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-tax cuts for the rich, pro-war, pro-school vouchers, and anti-immigration, to name a few issues he's just a basic Republican. There is no moderation to him. In fact, he's probably more conservative than past conservative candidates we've faced. In short, there's nothing new here.

So, is he just a better candidate? Well, he certainly wasn't better in New Hampshire. Going all the way back to the Fall, the Republican elite in Washington have tried to boost him up to the front of the field. They realize that Trump and Cruz are dangerous bets for them, and that the other candidates have no real energy. The guy has had every major endorsement, particularly in South Carolina, and still has yet to win a single primary, and it will probably take all the GOP's establishment has to knock down either Trump or Cruz enough to get Marco to the finish line. Every time they get Marco close to the front, he gets in his own way. Whether it's not showing up to work, or a bad debate, things keep coming up for him.

I get it- Marco Rubio isn't the cookie-cutter, old white guy Republican candidate. He's younger and claims to be cool, and while I don't believe that, it gives reporters something different to write. The problem with Rubio is that he's all sizzle and no steak. He's a cookie-cutter Republican in terms of what he will do if elected. The myth that he's a political genius is undercut by the struggle he's having getting to the nomination. I don't see anything to fear.

Don't get me wrong, I do fear the idea of Rubio being President- I think he would be the worst President of anyone running. He's crazy on foreign and domestic policy, and he's the most corrupt candidate out there, actually being personally bankrolled by billionaires. The guy is incapable, which is scary. I just fear Trump, particularly, more as a candidate. He's further outside of the box, and therefore not as obvious in how to oppose him. If our Democratic nominee runs a good campaign, they will beat Marco Rubio. Marco does not scare me as a potential candidate at all.

Start of Spring Training Predictions for 2016

Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

I just did my 2016 MLB "Start of Spring Training" Predictions. All are subject to change for my Opening Day predictions (when we have injury info to use). Here's what I have:

Current NL East prediction- 1. @Mets 91-71 2. @Nationals 89-73 3. @Marlins 81-81 4. @Phillies 70-92 5. @Braves 67-95

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current NL Central Predictions- 1. @Cubs 100-62 2. @Pirates 92-70 3. @Cardinals 90-72 4. @Brewers 64-98 5. @Reds 60-102

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current NL West Predictions- 1. @SFGiants 95-67 2. @Dodgers 92-70 3. @Dbacks 87-75 4. @Padres 69-93 5. @Rockies 63-99

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current AL West Predictions- 1. @astros 98-64 2. @Rangers 94-68 3. @Angels 81-81 4. @Mariners 72-90 5. @Athletics 65-97

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current AL Central Predictions- 1. @Royals 96-66 2. @Indians 90-72 3. @Twins 84-78 4. @whitesox 71-91 5. @tigers 68-94

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current AL East Predictions- 1. @RedSox 91-71 2. @Yankees 88-74 3. @BlueJays 85-77 4. @Orioles 73-89 5. @RaysBaseball 63-99

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

AL Playoffs Current Predictions- WC Game- @Rangers over @Indians, Divisional Round- @Royals over @RedSox, @Rangers over @Astros.

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current NL Playoff Predictions- WC Game- @Pirates over @Dodgers, Divisional Round- @Cubs over @Pirates, @SFGiants over @Mets.

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current ALCS Prediction- @Royals over @Rangers; Current NLCS Prediction- @SFGiants over @Cubs; WS Current Prediction- @Royals over @SFGiants

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

Current @MLB MVP Predictions- NL @TheCUTCH22 and AL @TeamCJCorrea; Cy Youngs- NL @Max_Scherzer and AL @DAVIDprice24

— Rich Wilkins (@TheRichWilkins) February 21, 2016

#GOPSC Re-Cap: Republicans in Denial

There are three main stories that come out of yesterday's South Carolina Republican Primary:

1. Donald Trump is dominating this race. Second in Iowa, landslide win in New Hampshire, landslide win in South Carolina. Reports say he has another double digit landslide coming in Nevada on Tuesday too. Republican operatives keep trying to will Marco Rubio to the front, and maybe it will eventually happen, but the truth is that Trump is dominating this field, and is the front-runner to be the nominee. Even if they figure out a way to get Rubio past Trump eventually, think about the lift they had to give him, celebrating second and third place finishes as true victories, to get him by a candidate who's proposing bans on Muslims, a wall with Mexico, torture, and all other sorts of crazy. Donald Trump embodies who the GOP is at this point.
2. John Kasich and Ben Carson can stay in if they want, but this is a three way race. Ted Cruz is the candidate of the movement conservatives and religious right-wing extremists. Donald Trump represents the anti-government, outsider lane of this race, the sort of "man of the people" track. Marco Rubio is the DC Beltway, insider track candidate. Everyone else doesn't matter.
3. Jeb Bush's decision to suspend his campaign marks the end of one of the great political dynasties of our history. No one ever thought they'd see this day. I thought up until 7 pm last night that he would pull out 15% and move on. It may take months to write the post-mortem on this one, but this truly is a historic outcome with huge implications on the future of the Republican Party. 

The GOP does not like my storylines, I'm sure. I basically see a race where over a third of their voters want someone not of their establishment ranks, someone proposing unserious ideas for our future, while the GOP establishment tries to pull a weakened Rubio across the line in front of this nut. This is not the race they thought they'd have a year ago. It's not the race they thought they'd have when Jeb Bush raised $100 million plus in his first three months in the race. This is not how they wanted things to go.

The Democratic Race: Hillary in Control

There are two competing narratives after Nevada's Caucus. One is that Bernie Sanders has done a lot better than expected. The other is that Hillary is in great shape to win the nomination, and is considerably better off than she was in 2008. The first one has some truth to it, though it was inevitable that someone would rise as Hillary's chief challenger. The second is completely true, and yesterday was the key to coming to that conclusion.

Bernie Sanders has run a great campaign and defied all expectations I had of him. I thought initially that we would be talking about Martin O'Malley, and not Bernie, as the top challenger now. Bernie seemed like he was selling something the country wasn't ready for. Here we are now, and the man won New Hampshire and did very well in Iowa and Nevada. There is no doubt he is a voice to be heard now.

The problem for Bernie is that he's had two opportunities for a win that would change the race, and Hillary has survived, twice. In Iowa, Bernie winning would have meant a likely sweep of the first two states, and a possible political tidal wave that blew her campaign over. Whether you say he tied or lost, he didn't get the momentum that he needed out of there. Yesterday in Nevada was a second chance for him. He had just won a huge victory in New Hampshire, and now he was in another caucus state, one with great diversity too, in a race that was very close. Perhaps the worst thing that happened to Bernie Sanders last week was close polling, because the expectations rose up on him. He had a shot to win it, but she won Nevada. Had he won yesterday, perhaps his momentum would have closed the gap in South Carolina, and given him more momentum into Super Tuesday. Now he didn't win though, and the momentum is stopped.

This leaves us with a race where the door is open for a Hillary tsunami to effectively end this race. She managed to reverse her crushing 2008 loss in Iowa, and is likely to do the same next Saturday in South Carolina. She may win the Palmetto State by a large margin, and will be expected to win by double digits now. If she does that, she will have won three of the first four, going into Super Tuesday, where the map favors her. She could open up a sizable delegate lead in early March, and essentially be on her way to the nomination. The pressure was on her to hold on in Nevada and Iowa, and she did that, and now the pressure is on Sanders to survive in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. Clinton is now the one hunting down the nomination, and has a clear pathway to do it.

Yesterday's win was a very big win for Hillary. I have no doubt that Bernie Sanders has the support, money, and staff to run this race until June. I also have no doubt though that right now it doesn't appear he can quite get over the top in this race. Yesterday's six point win has changed the entire narrative for Hillary, both in spin and reality. She's in good shape to be the nominee.

First Look- the 2016 Phillies and IronPigs Roster Projections 2/21

Believe it or not, this has the potential to be the most fun Spring Training any of us have ever seen as Phillies' fans. No, this is not a World Series team, though I'd agree with the notion that we're not "tanking." No matter that we're not going to be good, Spring Training isn't about being good anyway, no real games are played. This camp has the potential to be entertaining because of all the other things that are going on, and how they could play into the future of this team.

First off, look at all the players the Phillies brought to camp. There aren't enough mounds for all of these pitchers, and in the end there are only 40 spots on the 40-man roster and 25 spots on the Opening Day roster. People are fighting for jobs in this camp, which is much more exciting than camp was in 2011, per se, when we knew most of the team from the jump. Then there's the matter of who is in camp this year. Crawford, Quinn, Thompson, Williams, Appel- some of the names we're being sold as our future. They're all in camp, and maybe they have no shot at making the team, but they are here. We can see them. It's fun.

The Phillies have 36 pitchers in camp, and maybe 12 jobs to hand out (Harrison is not in camp). They have seven catchers in camp, and two jobs to hand out. They have 13 infielders in camp, and six or seven jobs at the most to hand out. They have eight outfielders in camp, and at most five jobs. All in all, there are 64 players in camp, and only 25 opening day spots, 40 roster spots, and 25 AAA spots for them. This camp will be competitive.

So who makes the team? Let's start by saying who won't. Despite being in camp, I don't see the Phillies actually considering the following for spots on the 25 man roster:

• Outfielders- Nick Williams, Roman Quinn*, David Lough
• Infielders- J.P. Crawford, Brock Stassi, Angelys Nina, Ryan Jackson
• Catchers- Andrew Knapp, Jorge Alfaro*, Gabriel Lino, Logan Moore
• Pitchers- Jake Thompson, Reinier Roibal, Edubray Ramos*, Colton Murray*, Yoervis Medina, Chris LeRoux, Bobby LaFromboise, Gregory Infante, Frank Herrmann, Zach Eflin, Greg Burke, Mark Appel, Jimmy Cordero*

Right there, we've taken 64 down to 40. I've noted the five guys on the 40 man roster who I sent down to start, all of whom are in no danger of losing their spots right now. With the remaining 40 players in camp, there are 25 jobs, some of which are basically locks right now. I see them as:

• Pitching- Aaron Nola, Jeremy Hellickson, Jerad Eickhoff, and Charlie Morton are rotation locks, if they are all healthy on Opening Day. Brett Oberholtzer had a good year last year, and they just got him, so I doubt they will put him through waivers (he's out of options), so lock him in as either the lefty-long man or the fifth starter. I don't think Luis Garcia, Elvis Araujo, Jeanmar Gomez, or David Hernandez, all now major league veterans, are in danger of not making the bullpen. If there are twelve pitching spots, consider nine of them filled.
• Catching- I'd be surprised if Carlos Ruiz and Cameron Rupp aren't basically locks. J.P. Arencibia should be given consideration, but he's not currently on the 40 man roster.
• Infielders- Maikel Franco is the biggest lock on the team, and you can basically put Freddy Galvis and Cesar Hernandez as highly likely to be locks too. While I don't think everything is completely settled at first base, Ryan Howard and Darin Ruf are probably going to platoon. Andres Blanco seems set to be the utility man. That leaves one more spot, at most.
• Outfielders- Odubel Herrera and Aaron Altherr appear set to start. I would be very surprised if Peter Bourjos and Cody Asche don't make this team easy, though they are basically battling to be the third starter in this outfield. Tyler Goeddel would seem heavily favored to also win a spot, which would basically close out the roster, though I think he has to show something in camp.

So, with that 21 of the 25 spots are absolutely set, if not 22. That leaves only a few real battles-

• Fifth starting spot- Vincent Velasquez seems to be the favorite for me. If he has a good camp, the spot is his. Oberholtzer seems to be the top other challenger. Adam Morgan and Alec Asher have a shot coming to camp, but it would be tougher for them to win. David Buchanan and Severino Gonzalez are in camp with 40 man spots, but both are probably pitching to keep that spot, not take a 25 man.
• Two to three bullpen spots- This will be crowded. Mario Hollands returns after missing 2015 after Tommy John surgery, and appears to be the favorite amongst the lefties to win a spot. Rule 5 pick Daniel Stumpf has to make the team to stay in the organization, and he would appear to be a top challenger for Hollands. James Russell is in camp as a non-roster invitee, and also could challenge for a lefty spot. Non-roster righty former closers Edward Mujica, Ernesto Frieri, and Andrew Bailey come to camp with a chance to not only win a righty spot, but also end up as the closer. Dalier Hinojosa pitched well last year for the big league club, and he comes to camp with a shot to make it too, as you could also say for Hector Neris. Michael Mariot is also in camp with a shot at the two spots. I believe there will only really be two spots open, and I assume the Phillies will pick one lefty and one righty amongst this group, so I give the early edge to Hollands and Mujica, who I'm also predicting will close here.
• Final bench spot- I basically assume Goeddel is set to win this spot, but he will face a challenge from Darnell Sweeney, Taylor Featherston, and non-roster invitee Emmanuel Burriss. Ultimately, the Phillies keep five outfielders instead of seven infielders. 

With this all said, the Phillies also have a AAA team to pick. The Ironpigs will be a lot of fun to watch this year, with so much talent passing through. Right now, I see that roster looking like:

• Starting Rotation- Adam Morgan, Alec Asher, Mark Appel, Jake Thompson, Zach Eflin
• Bullpen- Dalier Hinojosa, Hector Neris, Michael Mariot, James Russell, Colton Murray, Chris LeRoux, Ken Roberts
• Outfielders- Roman Quinn, Nick Williams, David Lough, Cam Perkins
• Infielders- Brock Stassi, Darnell Sweeney, Angelys Nina, Taylor Featherston, Tommy Joseph, Ryan Jackson
• Catchers- Andrew Knapp, Gabriel Lino, Jake Fox

I do see Crawford starting out in AA, which I know will disappoint many people. I also don't really see room for a number of players on the 40 man roster. I see David Buchanan and Severino Gonzalez being in real danger to win spots here. I believe this roster, on the whole, will be constantly changing.

It's important to remember this is just my first crack at this. Injuries, contract clauses, and roster spots will still change this. The minor league rosters are almost impossible to pick, as there are many factors beyond baseball talent to factor in. Even the Major League roster will inevitably change a lot over the course of the camp. It will be a lot more fun to watch than in years past, as a real competition is underway in Clearwater.