Ben Carson checks in from Iowa

A lot of people are making fun of Trump's HUD Secretary Ben Carson for riding on Trump's campaign plane back from Iowa in a position that is not QUITE the "wingman":

Well, Carson is not taking this lying down, as he has shown on his Twitter responses to some of the people.

First, he said he was in the middle of the action:

That's me, loud proud and in the middle of the action, Ben Carson! https://t.co/ShnHJNhQ0u

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

And NOT "the back of the bus":

I am NOT in the "back of the bus."

I'm in the "middle of the plane."

Back in DC, I'll later be "stuck on an elevator."

I'm Ben Carson and I approve this message.https://t.co/cKgt9Kjzso

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

That's that.

Second, to anybody implying he was a token, he Tweeted:

I, Ben Carson, am PROUD to be "the black one!"

That means that within #MAGA land, I am HNIC!https://t.co/qnOhwsn9xU

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

THE black one, Carson should have capitalized.

Next, he said he had good reason for that spot:

See, these folks knew to put the brain surgeon (that's ME, Ben Carson) in the middle of the action.

>>taps head<<https://t.co/3coldY4mII

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

And dain bramage is a real thing.

Next, he went after the "uncle Ben" comments:

That's real funny, Mr. Tariq (is that a Muslim name?) calling me, Ben Carson, "uncle Ben."

Bet you thought that would stick like white on rice!

But I got your number! If I can remember where I put it.https://t.co/kkfqPEkwqM

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

Just like that.

And this:

I am NOT in the "back of the bus."

I'm in the "middle of the plane."

Back in DC, I'll later be "stuck on an elevator."

I'm Ben Carson and I approve this message.https://t.co/cKgt9Kjzso

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

There's more at that account.

Where's this come from? Jealousy, Carson said:

You black folk laughing at me, Ben Carson?

You just being jealous!https://t.co/kkRN9vYiQF

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 4, 2020

And, who wouldn't be jealous of Ben Carson, of course?

Update. Carson now tells us he found out why he was on that plane.

Ben Carson here again.
I just got off the #TrumpPlane from the #IowaCaucuses. Everybody flying with me started giving me dollar bills;  fives even. I thought I got plenty of money, I don't need this.
Then one of them pointed at the baggage tram & said "Put mine in the cab trunk."

— BensWorld!BensWorld! (@BenCarsonSr) February 5, 2020

Sorry, Ben.

Des Moines Register calls shenanigans in the #IowaCaucus (updated)

Voters sign in before the Democratic presidential caucus
at Simpson Barn in Johnston Monday, February 1, 2016.
Brenna Norman/For The Register

This is NOT a conspiracy theory about coin flips, so sit down, Clintonistas.

The Des Moines Register, the paper that endorsed Hillary Clinton, let us note, is saying something is definitely rotten in the state of the Iowa Democratic Party, to the point it's calling for a full audit of Iowa Democratic caucus results. And, per the editorial, so far, Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the party, is digging in her heels and saying no, which is going to add fuel to claims of actual conspiracies.

And, CNN is now picking up on this.

So is Change.org, which has a petition drive demanding a recount or audit.

The main point:

First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states.

Is pure and simple.

From there, the Register notes:

Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. 

So, the need for an audit.

Meanwhile, per McGuire digging in her heels?

Her actions only confirm the suspicions, wild as they might be, of Sanders supporters. Their candidate, after all, is opposed by the party establishment — and wasn’t even a Democrat a few months ago.

Bingo. And, as long as the Democratic hierarchy in Iowa digs in, the more and more willing I am to throw gasoline and extra matches on this tire fire.

And, beyond digging in her heels, she's now outrightly lying.

She's claiming the raw votes aren't available, when they were in 2008. McGuire is claiming that is based on "journalistic estimates." Really, down to the exact number?

Does Pinocchio live in Des Moines?

Finally, to its credit, even though it might affect Iowa’s midwinter economy every four years, the Register calls on (presumably, both parties, eventually), to take a new look at the whole caucus idea.

 

And, it gets worse. Per a post on the Iowa DP's Facebook page, this comment:

The Iowa Democratic Caucus needs deep reforms. It's bad when the Iowa Republican Caucus is more democratic (every vote actually counts, and the Iowa Republican party actually releases the vote number). Maybe it should be changed to a primary. Either way, the voters deserve better.

Is hugely damning. 

Speaking of Facebook, here's the home page of the Iowa Democratic Party. (Its Twitter account seems pretty inactive.) Go give it hell.

Related? This is yet more reason why I refuse to vote Democratic in the general election. And, I'll trumpet that ever more as part of adding yet other gasoline and matches to fires.

Quick thoughts on #IowaCaucus as we hit #IAToday

First, the Democrats. My prediction is Sanders 50, Clinton, 46, MOM 4.

A Quinnipiac poll shows Sanders has moved in front. (I know Bernie's not a classic retail politician in some ways, but even if he's not a great schmoozer, his staff could learn to play the "manage expectations" game better.) Surges are often good. Signs of momentum. (More on that later.) And, per the poll, more Sanders backers than Clinton backers are "locked in."

Can it actually happen?

Per the Economist, Iowa favors Sanders in another way, namely in that the harder-liberal Dems (and harder-conservative GOPers) turn out more strongly for the caucuses than the general election.

Speaking of momentum, a Sanders win refudiates both Nate Silver (a refudiation of him is almost always good, in my book) and Sam Wang as well.

And, the momentum issue could raise his win in New Hampshire — which then addresses the "superdelegates are all for Clinton" problem.

More good news elsewhere in polling, too. Sanders is above 25 percent now, nationally, with African-American voters. Still plenty of room for growth, but that figure, and the fact that it has a "surge" as well, may at least ease the "connecting with blacks" concern. (It would be nice to see something similar on Hispanic polling numbers pre-Nevada.) Dick Morris says the surge in Sanders' black numbers may be part of why Clinton is tying herself more closely to Obama.

Looking ahead in other ways? Just to New Hampshire and not Nevada or South Carolina, the DNC and Dancing With the Schultz have agreed, as the three candidates have already done, to both a town hall (Wednesday, 7 p.m. Central) and a debate (Thursday, 8 Central). Maddow (or a nickname I won't yet put here) could add a bit of spice to the debate, but only if — without any public endorsing by her, of course — if she's one of the feminists who in no way would vote for Clinton.

No matter, in general, though. Maddow was instrumental in getting more debates, not just now, but further out. And, that's what Democrats need. It also surely is what Sanders needs. But, that name recognition is already starting to boost; the momentum could boost more tonight.

==

GOP side? Let's call it a semi-draw.

Trump 29, Cruz 27, Rubio 16, Carson 8, Bush 4, Paul 4, Kasich 3, pocket lint after that. I don't think Trump will do better until I see that he's mastered the Iowa caucuses turnout.

Morris offers other insight, per my blogging that this isn't (yet) a two-person race. He notes that it starts becoming that on Super Tuesday, where half the available delegates come from states with 15 percent or 20 percent vote thresholds to get any delegates at all. (This winnowing is only on the GOP side, and is kind of like the superdelegate tool on the Dem side.) It rises to 60 percent of available delegates for the rest of March, after Super Tuesday.

Flip side is that the anti-Trump hatred is so high among so many that his bubble could still easily burst, and fringe-pollers have motivation to stay in if Trump shows any signs of trouble.

More GOP prez candidates face drop-out point

You'll notice that I have a poll at the top left corner of this blog. It asks which Republican presidential candidates are likely to drop out before the Iowa caucuses.

I put it up before Scott Walker surprised us all by doing so, even though he seemed to have money in the bank while still struggling.

Well, five of the six in that poll — Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, and Lindsey Graham (figure out who he is) — along with Rand Paul, are all going politically broke, some rapidly.

Paul and Graham both have some reserves, but, by percentage of overspend, they're two of the three worst.

My venture is that, due to the nature of the Iowa caucuses, and that their overspend percentage isn't too high, Huckabee and Santorum hold on, hoping for a boost from the Protestant and Catholic Religious Right, respectively.

Pataki and Jenga (heh, heh) are both running "vanity" campaigns and we all know it. As soon as other people refuse to refund their vanity, those two are out.

Rand Paul may figure out a way to re-energize his daddy's supporters.

Butchmeup? What, the Log Cabin Republicans aren't backing him? Well, they could, if he'd openly give them a reason to do so.

Anyway, the poll's still up; cast your vote!

Partisanship fights democratic ideas

And this time, it's Democrats who are being partisan.

Frankly, I think it would be great if Pennsylvania joined Nebraska and Maine and gave only it's two "senatorial" electoral votes to the statewide winner and apportioned its "representative" electoral votes by winner of the territory covered by each Congressional district. Yes, the Pennsylvania state senate leader and governor are pushing this, at the same time as the GOP majority is drawing up Congressional districts, but ... if blatant gerrymandering has a racial fallout (and with Pennsylvania having multiple major cities, this can happen), then the Congressional reapportionment can be fought in court.

Here's the allegedly "partisan" angle by the GOP:

One Pennsylvania-based Republican consultant who spoke on condition of anonymity because he has clients on both sides of the controversy, noted that a Republican presidential candidate has only carried Pennsylvania once in the past 25 years, in 1988. He thinks that's likely to remain the pattern for years to come.

Since Democratic presidential candidates will usually win the state, switching to a Maine-Nebraska system would help the GOP over the long term. “From a strictly partisan point of view, we are going to benefit,” he said.

At the same time, as the story notes, when Colorado looked more on the reddish than bluish side of purple, Democrats were pushing for the same deal.

Reality? Nebraska's state government is officially nonpartisan, with a unicameral legislature. Maine has a strong degree and history of independent, even third-party, voting. Those conditions don't exist elsewhere very much. Iowa comes to mind as a state where Maine and Nebraska ideas would duplicate more easily.

That said, I like the idea in general. It potentially increases voter participation, and in a state with rural as well as metropolitan swing districts, forces candidates to get outside major TV markets.

Because of that, it also has the potential to take a small edge off money in politics.

And, in a place like Pennsylvania (or Maine, or Iowa) might open the door to third-party or independent presidential candidates, whom both halves of the bipartisan duopoly would call "spoilers."

So, for that reason alone, it's worth touting.

Obama and the ghost of 1968

Will yet another undeclared war launched by President Barack Obama potentially make 2012 his 1968, as in the 1968 of LBJ?

Steve Chapman, in a good column, argues it's at least a possibility.

Liberal Democrats are already pushing to get us out of Afghanistan by the end of this year, even as Obama wants us there until 2014.

With U.S. troops, still around 100,000, in Afghanistan next January, while snow is on the ground in Iowa and active voters are caucusing in Des Moines and Waterloo, will Obama get a Eugene McCarthy? If so, whom?

Chapman says yes to that first question, too, and speculates Russ Feingold from his left. Or maybe Jim Webb from his right, and rear.

Webb, I kind of doubt. Feingold? Iowa IS next door to Wisconsin.

Other than Feingold, Denny the Dwarf Kucinich could mount another challenge, but, the "seriosness" factor would hurt him, unfortunately.

Howard Dean's not that liberal, and he's on Obama's side. No current or former Democratic governor jumps off the pages at me.

Iowa: 3 down, 47 to go on gay marriage

Iowa, by unanimous state Supreme Court ruling, is to legalize gay marriage.

Sidebar note to California gay activists who did the wrong thing last year in “doubling down” to try to get a ballot-box win over Prop. 8 rather than forcing it to go through California Assembly approval for ballot access is now in order.

NONE of the early black civil-rights wins came by vote at all, rather than court action. And, any later ones came from inside Congress, not via public referendums. Take notes.

Flooded Iowa farms may be self-inflicted

Mass monoculture agriculture is biting farmers in the butt for getting too cozy with Big Ag.

Kamyar Enshayan, director of an environmental center at the University of Northern Iowa and … Cedar Falls City Council member … suspects that this natural disaster wasn't really all that natural. He points out that the heavy rains fell on a landscape radically reengineered by humans. Plowed fields have replaced tallgrass prairies. Fields have been meticulously drained with underground pipes. Streams and creeks have been straightened. Most of the wetlands are gone. Flood plains have been filled and developed.

Many Iowans, whether farmers or not, don’t want to think, or talk, about the idea. But Enshayan isn’t alone:

“I sense that the flooding is not the result of a 500-year event,” said Jerry DeWitt, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. “We’re farming closer to creeks, farming closer to rivers. Without adequate buffer strips, the water moves rapidly from the field directly to the surface water.”

Also, both corn and soybeans have shallow roots.

Of course, that means when major floods do come, they eat away more soil, because you corn and beans can’t hold it in place well.

That, in turn, sediments up rivers. Which, then, back up flood waters.

Read the full story for more details.

Ethanol, beef, Cokes and corn flakes just got pricier

Even a week or so ago, corn and soybean futures were pushing higher due to all the Midwestern flooding. Well, now that the details of the Iowa flooding start to come in, rest assured those commodities futures will go higher yet.

owa alone is estimated to have lost between 1 million and 3 million acres of corn production. That's about 7-21 percent of the overall production by the nation's top corn producing state.

Corn futures hit a record intra-day high Monday. And, with flooding on the Mississippi still expected, I’ll bet corn futures go up at least another 5 percent by Friday.

Why Clinton lost – in one word

Iowa.

Specifically, the prognostication of advisors like Harold Ickes that she had an excellent chance of winning Iowa, combined with the orchestrated outrage that she might skip it.

She should have said “screw it” to the faux outrage, and like Bill in 1992, skipped it.

But, the decision to “cave” to Iowa Dems’ outrage and get back into full campaign mode there at a late stage showed, even before Dodd nailed her in the debate, that she was vulnerable.

It also showed her campaign still wasn’t organized. She didn’t have a series of talking points about WHY to stay out of Iowa.

Other possible factors? Dodd exposing her vulnerability to attack, not inevitability, specifically over then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses.

As for the caucus vs. primary issue, the story linked above notes that she actually won the Nevada caucuses, so that’s a myth as much as reality.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has a round-up of pundits with their takes on her demise’s causes. Worth a read.