Jeb Bush: Nice Guys Finish Last - Especially in 2016

 So, everyone has decided to write a eulogy for Jeb Bush's dead campaign. Because I felt particularly moved by him over the last months, I shall provide my personal thoughts.

First and foremost, I want it to be clear: when this election began many many moons ago, I was fully prepared to go to battle with Jeb Bush - or at least his supporters. I didn't want him for the nominee of the GOP. For one, I was far from confident he could beat Hillary Clinton. Secondly, I find that he turns to big government solutions more often than he should and can tend to be a spender (much like his brother). Then, entered Donald Trump. In an election that has shown us what a real asshole running for President looks like, Jeb highlighted what a really decent and thoughtful human being looks like running for President. And, really, it is no wonder he got eaten alive in the polls and in perception.


Starting out, Jeb didn't have enough fight. I think he thought his record would speak for itself. Trump was flash. Rubio and Cruz were new exciting, but he was a Governor - a well liked Governor - from a swing state with a decent (not perfect) record. Conventional wisdom dictated that, implications of his name aside, he would be a clear favorite for the nomination.

However, it quickly became clear that record meant nothing. Donald Trump had pointed out that GOP voters could be just as susceptible to following a 'Cult of Personality' and emotional crazes as Democrats had proven they were in 2008. But this was much much worse. For all his faults, Obama at least always took the office of the Presidency seriously. And, despite his petty partisan nonsense, he's almost always attempted to be civil and adult. Trump, however, lowered the discourse to that of a 10-year-old school yard bully and, frankly, Jeb Bush was not prepared for that. None of them were.

I think, perhaps, Jeb Bush was at a particular disadvantage because his personality is one that doesn't like to interact the way Trump is prone to. He wants to talk about issues, and decency, and what is right, and how to make things better for more people. He doesn't want to talk about arcane Senate motions, or Twitter, or who said what about whom, or empty platitudes. It frustrated him. And for a while, it took him time to figure out how to navigate this new world order of Primary Politics.

But, in my opinion, he did finally get his footing. Starting with the Iowa Debate, Bush began hitting back and hitting back well. He went toe-to-toe with Trump, Cruz, and even Rubio with accuracy and impact. But it was too little too late, and at that point, there was nothing much that could save his campaign.

He and his campaign had suffered ridicule before that point, but nothing would lead to a nationwide simultaneous cringe like his 'Please Clap' moment where, at a speech in New Hampshire he had to ask his own supporters to clap for him. I can barely watch that moment. Once was enough. It was painful, sad, and, for those of us with a heart, it was the moment that you began to really feel sympathy for this man - a man who had tried, in vain, to keep dignity and civility in the discourse of this election.


There were other moments, like the time Jeb ran to hug a single voter who told him he earned her vote, or the countless twitter posts where he reminded us all he could be our awkward dad, or his painfully awkward answers to questions like 'what is your favorite superhero' or 'would you kill baby Hitler'. To be fair, those questions are moronic to begin with, but Bush never had it in him to be smooth in handling them.

It was endearing, in my opinion. These moments made me root for him - a guy I had, only months ago, vowed would be my Primary enemy. By the time he gave his speech Saturday night, I felt an uncomfortable pang in my chest at realizing that this very good, very decent, very honest and thoughtful man was dropping out of the race, most likely confused and embarrassed. And what is annoying is, he didn't really do anything wrong. Sure, he's wrong on some policies. None of the candidates are perfect and besides, he and I just have ideological divides that will likely never be overcome. But as for who he is, what he stands for, and how much respect he'd give the office - he showed himself to be Presidential. He just happens to be unlucky enough to have an unpopular last name and be running in an election year where being as unpresidential as possible is considered a selling point.

I stand in exactly the same place I always did on his policies. He's too willing to take a federal dollar and he's too willing to believe we need government to fix problems. He wouldn't be my first choice for President. But, I will say this: I'd be proud to be a citizen of a country that had a leader as decent, honest, and thoughtful as Jeb Bush. Until our electorate takes its job more seriously in the voting booth, I doubt we will, though. For now, I just think I want to give Jeb a hug and tell him that he's okay.

Justice Scalia: His Legacy and What Comes Next...

If you haven't been living under a rock for 24 hours, you have by now heard of the sad passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. At 79, he was found dead in Texas on February 13th. Given that it is an election year, you don't need the 24 hour news media to tell you why this is a big deal. And the political implications are incredibly important - I'll get to those in a moment - but first, I think we should remember the man.

'Interesting' is a common word used to describe Scalia. His majority opinions and dissents are notoriously entertaining for those of us who can be entertained by such things. 'Flamboyant' is another word often attributed to his comments and writings, as he did not mince words. While considered a 'staunch conservative' (more on that later), he was well liked by many of his liberal colleagues not the least of which, notoriously leftist, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. By those who know him, he will be greatly missed. Given the gut instinct to immediately discuss the political implications of anything in this insane campaign season, I want it to be clear that Justice Scalia's death is sad and I do appreciate he is a person, not just a political pawn. Do a light google search and you'll find countless people, left and right, who believed Scalia to be a great Justice and a man of integrity, personal opinions on rulings aside.

Now, in the wake of his death, and with the 'what next?' question hanging in the balance, we will hear the pundits talk about a lot of different things involving what is 'fair' in the appointment process, and whether it's 'right' to wait on a confirmation or not. Most of all, you'll hear them talk about 'styles' of justices or, more academically, 'judicial philosophy'. Words like 'Originalist', 'Strict Constructionist', 'Legal Realism', 'Judicial Activist', 'Conservative Judge', 'Liberal Judge', and 'Legislating from the bench', will be thrown around regularly. Get use to it. But first, let's define them:

Originalist: Originalists (which Scalia considered himself to be) belong to a judicial philosophy that The Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written and within the context of it's original publication. That is to say, rulings should be consistent with the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. There is, of course, some subjectivity here. For issues that would never have faced the Founders, one must use the context clues of the Constitution to discern what they would have intended.

Strict Constructionist: Similar to Originalism, the Strict Constructionist limits judicial interpretation to the written text of the Constitution. This term has come to mean, in the modern age, any judicial philosophy that is conservative in its leaning - not politically conservative, but rather conservative in interpreting. Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are both considered 'strict constructionists' in general terms.

Legal Realism: Legal realists find the Constitution and official legal apparatus insufficient to make judgements on all cases. Often they cite the changing times and the complexity of cases that reach the appellate courts as grounds to look outside the Constitution in forming an opinion about intent. In other words 'the constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity'. 

Judicial Activist: This is considered someone who, regardless of legal precedent or Constitutional interpretation, rules how they wish to see the law rather than how the laws should, reasonably, be interpreted.

Conservative Judge: This is a subjective term. It mostly means a judge that rules in line with the other Conservative judges. These judges usually lean toward strict constructionism though can often become activists where social issues are involved.

Liberal Judge: This is a subjective term. It mostly means a judge that rules in line with the other Liberal judges. These judges are usually legal 'realists' and often activist judges, though they can tend toward strict constructionism where criminal justice is concerned.

Legislating From the Bench: This means using your position as a judge to go over the heads of the legislative branch to either protect laws you like, without Constitutional grounds (see Obamacare), or strike down laws you don't like regardless of compelling Constitutional grounds.

Now that we have these terms generally defined (and I encourage you to read more about these terms and philosophies), I can explain what we should be searching for and why no justice will likely meet the criteria but the likes of Judge Napolitano.

As libertarians, generally speaking, what you want is a justice that interprets the law as it was intended to be interpreted by the Lockean Founders. Sorry, 'legal realists', as logical as it may sound to believe that the Founders couldn't provide insight on issues in the 21st Century, it's not really true. The Constitution is set up the way it is to LIMIT the powers of the Government. If it's not in there, then the Government doesn't have the right to prohibit it. But that's a tough pill to swallow for Statists.

That's not to say all rulings are cut and dried. Black and White. There are plenty of sides that can be argued, even within the strictures of the Constitution. And most cases before the Supreme Court are multifaceted and complex. Let's look at Roe v. Wade for a moment. This is, primarily, a battle between a woman's right to privacy and a fetus' right to life. Depending on how you extend Constitutional Rights, the fetus could have no legitimate right to life and therefore the ruling could be 'Constitutional'. Or, the fetus could have rights to life and therefore its explicit rights trump the implied rights to privacy of the mother. It's hard to wonder how anyone could even make a ruling about abortion without letting activism creep in.

But, generally speaking, the vast majority of cases that come to the Supreme Court are nothing like Roe v. Wade. More of them look like Kelo v. New London, and in that case, Judicial Activism ruled unconstitutionally to extend Eminent Domain to private companies that might want to take your land by force of the government (see: Donald Trump).

Anyway, you get the idea. So long as we let personal bias determine Constitutional Rights, we don't have any Constitutional Rights. All you need is five justices ruling as they see fit. Judicial Activism is a slippery slope into tyranny. Better to be conservative in your interpretation of the Constitution and side with individual liberty - as the Constitution does.

When a pundit says 'strict constructionist' he usually means 'Conservative', though. Certainly Scalia and Thomas have ruled outside their personal beliefs in order to provide the best interpretation of original intent of the Constitution. I'd argue that 'Conservative Judges' have shown a willingness to do this far more often than 'Liberal Judges' but that's debatable. On the other hand, even as they consider themselves 'strict constructionists' or 'originalists' Scalia and his conservative colleagues willfully ignored the 14th Amendment's intent in their dissent of Obergefel v Hodges (gay marriage ban ruling).

Scalia has been accused by liberals of being an 'authoritarian' justice, always siding with the government. Certainly that's unfair. I would say you could argue that he had in instinct to assume prosecutors and police were acting in due diligence. That is not to say his opinion could not change as the facts of the case came out. In reality, Scalia was a great defender of the Bill of Rights, more so than his liberal counterparts.

Where he got in the weeds was on social issues, homosexuality in particular, where he could not separate his personal bias of homosexuality as a destructive 'lifestyle' and often failed to uphold the civil liberties of gay people. And it is on this point that liberals feel they have the upper hand. You don't want a 'Conservative' justice. He will scale back all the social progress we've made!

But do not let this argument fool you. If Scalia and his Conservative colleagues have been backward and misguided in their attempt to pretend that civil liberties do not apply to a gay 'lifestyle', liberal activists judges have done irrevocable harm to liberty across the board. As previously mentioned, Liberal judges (and swing vote Kennedy) ruled that  Eminent Domain constitutionally extends to private businesses wishing to force people off their land. There is no such Constitutional protection for private companies. If you can take the whiplash for a moment, the stock of liberal judges also dissented in the Citizen's United case that a Company didn't even have the right of free speech. So, following along, they have the right to force you off your land for a Walmart, but once they do, they can't freely and transparently donate money to campaigns.

The Obamacare ruling, too, was a nothing more than legislating from the bench. In order to protect a wildly unpopular and wildly contested Federal Mandate that free citizens be forced to buy insurance or be punished, the liberal justices (and inexplicably, Chief Justice Roberts) said that, essentially, the government can fine you however they wish so long as they call it a tax. The implications of that are obvious. And the motivation to protect legislation of a Congress and President they are politically aligned with is also obvious.

Legal books are filled with examples of liberal judges, operating under the guise of 'Legal Realism', and setting unconstitutional precedent, but often people don't get as excited about eminent domain,  constitutionality of income tax, the moving of rights from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch, etc as they do about gay marriage or sodomy laws. However, it could be argued that the erosion of individual liberty by liberal judicial activists has been far more extensive than by conservative activist judges.

So now, what to do? If Scalia had died this summer, it's likely everyone would accept that the Republican Controlled Senate would wait out the election before confirming any appointments. But it's February. Terrible timing. That said, I don't see Republicans accepting any of Obama's appointments. It would be changing out a revered Conservative semi-strict constructionist for someone who can reasonably be assumed will be a 'legal realist' with activists designs. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has already witnessed the sort of justices the Obama Administration promotes.

And thus, the Supreme Court just became one of the biggest issues in the 2016 election. I think we can all agree that no justice we get will be perfect. Realistically speaking, though, if there is a chance of stoping a majority of liberal activists judges who wish to legislate from the bench one must take it. The Gay Marriage ruling will not be overturned. Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere. I promise you. But another case like Obamacare most certainly will face the Supreme Court and the liberal justices have made it more than clear that they will put their opinion of the legislation over what is actually Constitutionally protected.

It's scary to think of what kind of Justice Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump would appoint. While Trump and Clinton's appointment would likely support Corporatist measures and Government overreach. Sanders's appointment would likely support the eradication of individual liberty for individuals who make over a certain income. Neither scenario is ideal. The rest of the GOP candidates would most probably put up someone like Scalia or Thomas or Alito. Given what we know about these justices, they are the best possible scenario when you look at the alternative. In my opinion, Scalia's death just gave the Republican Party an opportunity to explain the importance of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution and how that perspective is precariously close to being nullified even in the Governmental body that should be free of political bias and a faithful servant of the Constitution.

Talking about Roosh Valizadeh's Misogyny on the Internet: A Tutorial

Often, I do not wade into the scary nightmare that is Men's Rights Activists vs. Third Wave Feminists on the internet. It's a frustrating task whereby you find yourself wondering if you can call them both nuts and refrain from weeping into your cereal bowl about the state of discourse in the social media age. But sometimes, not often, I find myself so completely on the side of those 'reactionary' Third-wave 'feminazies' and I feel the uncontrollable compulsion to become part of the conversation.

One such case happened just this week after the announcement of the since canceled International Meet-up of misogynists - oops, I mean Men's Rights Activists - a la Roosh Valizedeh's web page www.returnofkings.com. Announced earlier this week, he explained he wanted to allow men to come together to 'serve men in a way that the internet sites do not'. I can only imagine they mean a circle jerk of sexist woman hating where you can see your paramour's face rather than just read his catchy social media handle. "Oh, womenarewhores69, you make me feel like a whole new man!"

This announcement, of course, took social media by storm. Anytime known misogynsts admit they are going to gather together in public, the wheels start turning about how to counter their moronic drivel. Soon after, he posted a list of cities these meet-ups would take place, and you know the rest. Counter-protests were planned, governments started to scour their rule books to see if they could ban their assembly...the usual. Only, apparently that very obvious reaction was not foreseen by Master of his Universe, Roosh. Because after less than 24-hours, he's cancelled the meet-up citing that he can "no longer guarantee the safety and privacy of men" who attend. Someone should remind him that when you attend a PUBLIC meet up that is advertised on the internet, you have no presumption of privacy. Also, someone should remind him that the safety he is hand-wringing over is precisely the fear women live with every day just walking down a street alone. But I digress.

Much of the controversy with good 'ol Roosh is his 'Modest Proposal' that in order to stop rape we should just legalize rape on private property. He fancies himself Jonathan Swift, railing against the English for leaving the Irish to starve. In fact, you'll find a number of Roosh-apologists trolling the internet calling you an idiot for not recognizing 'How to Stop Rape' is as obvious and genius a work of art as Swift's epic and sarcastic bit of satire from 1729. This is an easy argument to deflate.

While Swift expertly and ingeniously pointed out the English crimes against the Irish by treating them as less than second class citizens and leaving them to starve, Roosh V is pointing out nothing but the fact that he thinks 'rape culture' is silly and that women are partially responsible for their own rapes. He posits that if rape were legal on private property, women would avoid private property and there would be no rapes. This is not quite the brilliant satirical argument of Swift. Not even close. In fact, trying to compare the two is like trying to compare the Twilight fanfiction of a thirteen year old to War and Peace.

Of course, his 'How to Stop Rape' is only tip of the iceberg. His website is full of slut-shaming, victim blaming, misogynistic nonsense. Part pick-up artist, part modern day philosopher for the downtrodden male, he can't decide is he wants to have sex with as many women as possible or he wants to believe that all women willing to have sex with him are sluts. He and his contributors generally hold both positions simultaneously. Moreover, he and contributors have mused that women should not vote or hold office, should not 'abandon' their children to work, should not be fat or ugly, and have a deceitful nature. It is a cornucopia of every harmful stereotype about women and sexuality since the dawn of time. And please, do not wade into the comment section if you want to keep your sanity and protect your day from being ruined.

Committed MRAs cannot be reasoned with. It's a waste of your time to even bother. But there are men who might be inching toward Men's Rights Activism that may still open to reason. In those cases, all you can do is point out the logical errors in an ideology that believes it is now at a 'disadvantage' by society equalizing the sexes. Men are not disadvantaged by women who are their equals, but after centuries of patriarchal rule if can seem that way. It's hard to remember that going from a place of power to an equal can feel like disadvantage.

And don't forget cases of legitimate concern on behalf of men. It is true that boys and men are as harmed by sexism as women. The idea that being a woman is bad and that 'feminine' behaviors are negative only contributes to boys and men who do not feel comfortable in their own skin should they enjoy typically 'feminine' behaviors. The obvious reaction can be to overcompensate their 'masculinity'. There is, too, a bias in marriage and family courts. We still live in a time when men have to pay alimony to wives who have moved on and found better economic footing, but the same rules to not apply to ex-hubands. The natural bias to favor moms over dads in court is becoming less pronounced but it is still there. These are issues that hurt men and women alike. But don't let the MRA brigade fool you into thinking these issues are what the Men's Rights movement is about. Scant few entries at 'Return of Kings' deal with any of these legitimate and complex issues, rather focusing on asserting that wives are all conniving backstabbers ready to steal your money and your free-will.

In short, these men are sad and disturbed. I'm not sure how they got there. Maybe they were turned down by too many women they felt entitled to being with. Maybe they went through nasty divorces. Maybe they spent too much time surfing the net for the most insane Third-wave feminists to work up a righteous anger about all women. Motivation really doesn't matter. The point is, these dudes are ridiculous, their grievances infantile, and their organization dangerous to women. I do not support silencing them. On the contrary, I wish them to speak out loudly. That way I know every troubling and moronic thought that comes to their minds. And I'm legitimately sad they canceled their little pow-wow. I think the counter protests would have been fun to organize as well as enlightening to the few hundred neanderthals they managed to assemble. I guess we'll have to wait until they put on their big-boy pants and feel 'safe' enough to be misogynists in the face of adversity. I think we'll be waiting a while.

Rand Paul Drops Out of 2016 GOP Primary

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.

Across the country thousands upon thousands of young people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy. Brushfires of Liberty were ignited, and those will carry on, as will I.  

Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term." -Rand Paul

It's a sad day for me and anyone else who was rooting for individual liberty and constitutionality in one of the two major parties. Rand certainly wasn't perfect. No candidate is. Not even Gary Johnson. But he was a bright shinny star of libertarian-leaning conservatives that invigorated young people and independents alike. However, the GOP base is an insurmountable force that cannot be reasoned with. The base demands hawkish foreign policy, intrusive protection of 'christian principles', protection of 'American' jobs, and harsh immigration laws.

There are glimmers of hope in some other GOP candidates. Ted Cruz has battled Federal Spending and occasionally encouraged caution in foreign policy. Rubio has taken on a more compassionate and reasonable immigration policy than even some Democrats. He has shown that you can take on issues one at a time without caving to 'party think' across the board. But, for the most part, without Rand Paul, the GOP race looks a lot like the same tired politics that Republicans and Democrats have been promoting for decades. More government. More protection. More safety. Less freedom. Less personal responsibility. Less individual liberty.

And, sure, we can argue that Democrats are worse. They, not only, want to start wars in other parts of the world for 'our protection' and play world negotiator, but they also want to limit economic freedom and upward mobility. But Rand Paul was a chance for all of us to believe that you didn't have to support the lesser of two evils. You could support a guy who might be wrong about some things, but overall never wavered from the position of optimal liberty for all and strict adherence to the only document that stops our government from oppressing us: The Constitution.

Now, Rand Paul supporters are faced with a difficult question. What's next? A lot of us were realistic enough to believe he was not going to win the nomination. However, we didn't expect to be in this position so early. I respect that Dr. Paul has to focus on his Senatorial Campaign. Kentucky needs him. The U.S. Senate need him. But what now?

There are people who will give up on the two parties and support a Libertarian, probably Gary Johnson. This is reasonable. The 'lesser of two evils' style voting that too many Americans have found themselves boxed into is frustrating and maddening. Many of us are utterly sick of it. Hillary Clinton is abysmal, but is she so much more abysmal than another divisive candidate like Cruz? Or worse, a tyrant demagogue like Donald Trump? Maybe, but it's getting harder and harder to believe that. Gary Johnson can clear your conscience. He's a principled Libertarian who is even more dedicated to individual liberty than Rand Paul by some standards. He's someone you can vote for, rather than defensively vote in opposition to someone else.

There are many, I presume, who will move to Ted Cruz. He and Paul, after all, have worked well together in the Senate. I caution people, though, to remember that Ted Cruz isn't the principled Libertarian he'd like you to believe. He flips. He flops. He is a political opportunist that, while being a Conservative, can be whatever he needs to be to win an election. And we mustn't forget that the base who owns his vote are many people who believe the government should be legislating morality. This is a scary thing for those of us who do not think your personal relationship with Jesus Christ has anything to do with being an effective executive. One of the most important things an executive must do is hold true to his convictions while working together with people with whom he or she might disagree. Cruz's ability to do this is highly suspect.

And maybe you are thinking of hedging toward Rubio. I can certainly understand why you wouldn't. Rubio is one of the most hawkish candidates in the mix. This issue has been a major point of contention between Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. But, if you are still in the business of 'lesser of two evils' voting, Rubio should be your guy, in my opinion. Why? For two very important reasons. 1) He is likable and reasonable. He can be changed. He can be reasoned with. He can compromise. He isn't a divisive ideologue. 2) He can win. It's time for Cruz supporters to swallow a bitter pill. Other than the people who already like Cruz, he's not likable. He's not electable. His strategy in the Senate has done a great job of making him the 'real' Conservative, but it's also made it clear that he is so married to ideology,  he cannot be reasonable nor can he play well with others. If Cruz wins the nomination, you are hoping enough people hate Hillary Clinton that they will vote for him. But enough people hate Cruz that there is a good chance that strategy will not work. I certainly wouldn't risk four more years of Obama - Ooops, i mean Clinton - on such a suspect assumption.

I'm still torn. Part of me is ready to give up on the GOP and the two-party system completely. I like Gary Johnson a hell-of-a-lot. But part of my still can't help but be so worried about four more years of the status quo (and a permanency of Obamacare, in particular) that I'm willing to give this 'less of two evils' one more go. I might not decide until Nov. 8th.

IOWA: Predictions and Pre-Caucus Commentary

It's that time. After what seems like an endless campaign we are about to get the first real numbers in on any of the candidates in this 2016 Presidential Primary Election. Let me start out by cautioning anyone who seeks to look to Iowa as a guidepost for the nomination - Iowa gets it wrong - often. Iowa GOP is much more socially conservative than the rest of the country. It also has a hard-on for corn subsidies which many Republicans in the rest of the country would see as a bad thing. For reference, don't forget Mike Huckabee won the GOP Caucus in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012.

Also, let's not forget that polls are not nearly as accurate for the Iowa Caucus as they are for traditional primaries. The very nature of caucusing makes votes a little more fluid and open to manipulation. But, let's first look at what the polls are saying. Added together, it looks like Iowa will come down roughly like this:

GOP

Trump
Cruz
Rubio
Carson
Bush
Paul
Huckabee
Kasich
Florina
Christie
Santorum


DEM

Clinton
Sanders
O'Malley

Personally, I'm not exactly sure about these rankings. I can easily see Trump winning, but I think by a lesser margin than predicted. I also think Rand Paul will do better. He caucuses well. His father before him caucused well. With the right turnout, and with the number of Independents registering as Republicans in this particular state, Paul has a good chance of making headlines tomorrow.

Cruz will remain strong, but I think Rubio will too. If Rubio pushes into second place, he's the story of the night. If he gives a strong third place performance, he ends up doing well enough to make it to the New  Hampshire primary in a strong place. If Bush finishes fifth or lower, it's bad news for him. I anticipate he'll stay in until Florida, which he's hoping to be able to win, but a fifth place or lower in Iowa and New Hampshire will probably kill his chances. The last candidate that waited out until Florida to be competitive paid for it dearly (see: Rudy Giuliani).

This is how I see it shaking out:

GOP

Trump
Cruz
Rubio
Paul
Bush
Kasich
Carson
Christie
Huckabee
Florina
Santorum

DEM

Sanders/Clinton - toss up. Not going to call this one because I really don't know.
O'Malley

You might be surprised to see how far Carson come in on my list as he's polled 10% in one poll (i seriously question that number). Frankly, I think Carson has nowhere to go but down. He's a nice guy, but in comparison to his fellow candidates, he's not compelling. That whole 'outsider' credential he has is already being eaten up by other candidates. He's plummeted in the most recent polls, and I do not think he's doing nearly as well as the media believes.

But here is what you can expect to hear in terms of 24 hour news media.

1. Democratic pundits will be way overstating Trump's win, if he wins. They want Trump as the GOP nominee. He's an incredibly easy target and allows for their favorite talking point - Republicans are racist, sexist, Islamaphobes - to resonate better than ever before. Take what they say with a grain of salt. They will downplay any progress made by Rubio or Paul, as both candidates have a reasonably good chance or winning against Hillary Clinton.

2. Democratic pundits will downplay a win by Bernie Sanders. If Sanders wins or comes very close to winning Iowa, Democratic talking heads will be very quick to remind that he cannot do well in other states and Iowa isn't that important anyway. Note the difference between to tone here. If Trump wins, it's a done deal. If Sanders wins, oh...who cares?

3. GOP pundits will be cautious about Trumps chances unless they are Trump supporters. Likely you'll see people looking to Cruz as the savior from Trump and they will belabor that point.

4. The media itself will desperately try to make Iowa relevant. The momentum candidates get from Iowa and New Hampshire is almost entirely media created. In reality, neither state should have much baring on what you, as a voter, do or think. Trump can win both and still easily lose the Primary. You do not have to buy the narrative that these particular slices of public opinion have relevance to you specifically.

So, there you have it. I anticipate a decent night for Paul and Rubio. I think Trump will eek out a win but barely, and that is bad news for him, in my humble opinion. We'll see if I'm right.