Bashar al-Assad sucks at conspiracy theories

There was recently a sarin gas attack in Syria, perpetrated by the Syrian government against a rebel-controlled area. Over 80 people were killed, including children. In response, the United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the facility thought to house the country’s chemical weapons. But, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims the sarin attack didn’t actually happen. How do we know it did? Simple: Bashar al-Assad sucks at conspiracy theories. He may kill me for saying that, but at least everyone will know it was him – dude couldn’t make it look like someone else stole a pencil, much less killed somebody. So, if you’re still alive, give that pencil back to him, because Bashar al-Assad’s about to go to Conspiracy School…

Conspiracy Lesson 1: Make your conspiracy theory sound logical.

The most recent conspiracy theory being pushed by Assad is that the United States somehow staged the recent gas attack as a pretext to attack Syria. The problem here is that Trump spent the entire campaign running against attacking Syria, had previously said Obama shouldn’t attack Syria even if they used chemical weapons, and was even talking about not going into Syria a few days before the attack. Add in the fact that he sometimes makes split-second decisions based on what he just saw on TV, and what’s more likely – that the US staged a big gas attack so they could shoot at buildings, or that the Syrian government killed a bunch of people with gas, Trump saw the terrible aftermath on TV, and he and his advisers decided to attack where more gas was stored?

Conspiracy Lesson 2: Don’t leave fingerprints all over your conspiracy theory.

The gas attack is the most recent example of an Assad conspiracy theory, but it’s not the first. As a brutal dictator, Assad lives in a patented Dictator Echo Chamber (DEC), which means it’s incomprehensible that people could dislike him (because, you know, they all get killed). When the Syrian Civil War started, he claimed all the people fighting against him were either from outside of Syria or were being persuaded not to like him from outside of Syria. At the same time, he was playing all the Syrian rebel groups against each other to weaken them and doing things like releasing terrorists from Syrian prisons to radicalize them. In other words, Assad A) is a terrible guy who most Syrians hate, B) actively tried to make the people who hate him hate each other more, C) tried to radicalize the people who hated him so the international community wouldn’t get involved, and D) tried to blame everything on international conspiracies. Of course, outside countries and groups now support various rebel groups in the country. But, the war started because Syrians hated Assad, not because non-Syrians did.

Conspiracy Lesson 3: Make sure everyone pushing your conspiracy theory is on the same page.

It has to be killing Assad’s biggest ally, Russia, that he’s so bad at conspiracy theories. During the Cold War, Russia perfected conspiracy theories to an art form. Now, they can’t even get a dictator they’re basically propping up on the same page. Worse, Assad’s claim that the whole attack was faked undercuts his own army, which said that “terrorists” carried out the attack. Certainly, there are times when conflicting conspiracies can muddy the waters about what actually happened, but when you’re trying to make it look like you’re not guilty of something, the opposite is true. In this case, Russia’s claim (Syria struck a building that had rebel-controlled gas, releasing it) and the army’s claim (The rebels intentionally released the gas) already don’t match up, so adding a third view may as well be removing the mud altogether.

Conspiracy Lesson 4: If you’re going to deny the facts on the ground, at least have some kind of explanation for discounting them.

If you’re claiming the opposite of everything that actually happened is what actually happened, you have to come up with some alternative explanation. Think, “magic bullet,” or “Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” – two classic examples of ridiculous explanations designed to make it look like the facts don’t add up. When Assad claims there was no sarin attack at all, he discounts the dead people, the people who examined the dead people, the injured people, the people who examined the injured people, the video evidence, the satellite evidence, and all the other evidence. He’s also discounting the fact that he’s carried out chemical attacks before, although he claimed those attacks were actually carried out by rebel groups. Which brings us to…

Conspiracy Lesson 5: Be consistent.

Like I said before, it’s important to be on the same page as other people pushing your conspiracy theory. It’s also important to be on the same page AS YOURSELF. See, this isn’t the first time Assad’s used chemical weapons against Syrians. It’s not even the first time he’s tried to come up with a conspiracy theory to claim he didn’t do it. It is, however, the first time he’s claimed a chemical attack was completely fake. In the past, he’s said rebel groups committed attacks to try and frame him, so the international community would get involved on their side (Hey, I told you he sucks at these things.). Now, he’s suddenly saying an attack was fake? Dude, nothing’s going to make you look like a Syrial killer more than changing your story every time you’re obviously the one carrying out an attack. People who think Americans never landed on the moon don’t randomly say the fifth mission there was real but the rest were fake; they stay consistent.

Had Assad followed these simple rules, he might have been able to turn his conspiracy hypothesis into a conspiracy theory. But, I guess when you’re a brutal dictator who always gets his way, you get used to doing things the easy way…

Sex fear rights: A time-tested method for defeating civil rights

President Trump recently reversed an Obama executive order that said schools had to let transgender students use the restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities of the sex they identify with. This reversal marked a landmark achievement for the coalition of states’ rights and sex fear rights. However, while a major victory, it was far from their first. You see, when a historically discriminated minority pushes for civil rights, it’s tough to argue they shouldn’t have them. Civil rights are supposed to be for everybody, so how can you deny them to a specific group? Well, centuries of denying rights to various minorities have produced at least two effective arguments. The first is states’ rights: The right of a state to decide who to discriminate against and who not to. The second is what you could call, “sex fear rights”: If the minority is given equal rights, it will somehow result in the rape, molestation, or sexual assault of some other group or groups.

Perhaps the most well-documented example of the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition (SRSFRC) involves discrimination against blacks. For centuries, white people used the argument that if black people were freed/integrated/allowed into society, they would quickly use the opportunity to rape white women. Indeed, the longevity of the white-women-will-be-raped argument is amazing. The states’ rights argument lasted as long, but it had to adapt every time the federal government came in and changed something. States can’t decide to have slaves anymore and have to let blacks vote? No problem – we’ll just pass harsh laws that only apply to black people, and put up obstacles that make it impossible for them to vote. States have to provide services to white people AND black people? No problem – we’ll just separate them and give white stuff more funding.

But, what if you can’t convince people that civil rights will rape white women? What if you’re denying rights to, say, gay people? Have no fear – well, actually have lots of fear. For, what at first seems like a challenge turns out to be a boon. Are gay people trying to get into the military? Just say that they’ll sexually assault members of their own sex. Are they trying to get into positions of authority over children? Just say they’ll molest those children. And, since women can be gay, you can extend sex fears from WHITE women to ALL women. And, since homosexuality has to do with sexual attraction, you can make up whatever sex act you want and attach it to gay people. Want to stop gay marriage? Say allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will inevitably lead to polygamy, animalygamy, and toasterovenygamy. Don’t want gay people to be seen as human? Just make up some sexual acts with things no one ever dreamed of, and you’re good. The states’ rights argument is pretty straightforward – say that your state doesn’t want to allow gay rights because, well, just look at all that stuff the sex fear rights people are saying. Also, once you’ve got people good and propagandized, have them vote against it. Indeed, both these arguments have proven so successful, there are still many legal discriminations against gay people.

Unfortunately for the SRSFRC, fighting gay rights has increasingly been seen as a losing battle. So, they moved on to another group: transgender people. Although the transgender community has been included in some legislation protecting other LGBTQ groups, they still have a long way to go, and there are some issues unique to them. That’s why so much of the press in recent years has been about access to restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that match their gender of preference.

Here’s where sex fear rights proponents really showed their creativity: Instead of directly attacking transgender people, they targeted phantom child molesters. You see, transgender people want to use restrooms that identify with their gender of preference, because they identify with that gender. There’s a bunch of science behind why that is, but if there are two things that trump science, they’re sex fear rights and states’ rights. Proponents of sex fear rights decided, rather than target the imaginary perversity of transgender people themselves, they’d say that child molesters might PRETEND to be transgender, so they could go to the wrong restroom and molest children. There’s no evidence this ever happened, but there’s no evidence a gay person ever had sex with an electrical outlet, either. The states’ rights side didn’t have much trouble: Obama signed that executive order, and nothing gases up the states’ rights tank like the federal government telling states what to do. The original anti-transgender state bills that had passed (popularly known as “bathroom bills”) were based on the phantom child molester argument, but when Trump rescinded the federal order, he invoked states’ rights.

Transgender rights are proving to be a fertile ground for the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition, and they’re still having some luck fighting gay rights. But, if history is any guide, these wells will eventually dry up. What minority group will they fight next? And, what people will they pretend are at risk of sexual assault if that group gets rights?

To understand why we have the Electoral College, just remember the Three C’s

​The Electoral College has officially selected Donald Trump to be president, which means it can go back to not existing for the next four years.  This year was pretty rough for the EC, largely because Trump won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.  It’s not the first time that’s happened: John “Quincy ME” Adams, Rutherford “Bye Bye Reconstruction” Hayes, Benjamin “I’m Totally Going to Get Reelected You Guys” Harrison, and George W. “Unfinished Business” Bush also won the popular vote without winning the Electoral College.  But, I’m not bringing up the EC because I like to give forgotten presidents nicknames.  I’m bringing it up because this whole situation has gotten a lot of people asking, “Why do we have the Electoral College?”

That’s simple.  If you want to know why the Framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College, all you have to do is remember the Three C’s: Closing Time, Compromise, and Can’t Everybody Just Be George Washington?

Closing Time: As with most colleges, procrastination played a major role in the Electoral College.  Indeed, so many things were put off in the Constitutional Convention, they had their own committee: The Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters.  Strange as it sounds, the method for selecting the president didn’t get much attention until the very end.  Throughout the Convention, most members just assumed the president would either be elected by state legislatures or by Congress.  Which brings us to…

Compromise: If you’ve ever wondered why so much of the Constitution is vague, ambiguous, or unusually focused on fractions of slaves, this is why.  Convention attendees were obsessed with compromise.  This was partly because they weren’t actually SUPPOSED to be writing a new constitution – they were just supposed to be fixing problems with the existing one, the Articles of Confederation.  They also wanted something more stable than the Articles, so they needed to get everyone on board.  When they finally got around to how to elect the president, some members objected to having Congress pick the president (It would make the president too beholden to Congress) or to having state legislatures pick them (It would make them too beholden to state legislatures.).  At the same time, proponents of these methods objected to a popular vote, as they felt it could result in a demagogue being elected.   It was in this atmosphere that everyone asked the question…

Can’t Everybody Just Be George Washington?: Although Washington was at the Convention, he didn’t contribute much to the actual writing.  However, he was so highly respected that whenever it seemed he disapproved of something, members scrambled to change it more to his liking.  Also, everyone assumed Washington would be the first president, and everyone assumed he’d be a good one.  In addition to having a compromise between the popular vote and the not popular vote, the writers wanted to make sure that subsequent presidents would be as good as it was assumed Washington would be.  The Electoral College was created in this atmosphere.  Electors would be a line of defense between voters, whose passions frequently change, and the presidency.  As political parties didn’t yet exist and campaigning for one’s self was looked down upon, the EC could also be a way to help select the best candidates.

As with many things in the Constitution, current arguments for and against the Electoral College are way different now than they were at its writing.  Sure, the one about how someone can win the popular vote and lose the presidency is still there, but no one’s arguing Congress or state legislatures should choose the president instead.  But, as society changes (Political parties didn’t exist when the Constitution was written; campaigning for one’s self was looked down upon; only white landowning males could vote), so do justifications for and against the EC.  And, it’s not like the EC itself hasn’t changed: Its numbers are based on the number of senators and representatives, which was originally supposed to continue to grow with the country’s population.  Instead, various laws have resulted in that number being capped at 538, instead of continuing to grow (which would have resulted in several thousand more representatives and electors).  Finally, it should be noted that states are free to develop their own methods for choosing electors.  While most have gone with a winner-take-all system, a few go by congressional district instead, and in some states it’s illegal for electors to go against the state’s popular vote, while in others it’s not.  Due to these and other factors, arguments for and against the Electoral College – as well as who is on which side of the debate – have changed throughout its history.

Are we entering a new Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories?

Election Season is over, but that doesn’t mean conspiracy theories have to be. Why, just the other day I heard that protesters are being paid to protest election results. Journalists who’ve investigated these claims have found no evidence for them, but like I always say, “The absence of evidence is the evidence of evidence.” After all, people in America never protest, especially over election results. What other explanation is there? They MUST have been paid.

But wait – there’s more. Even President-Elect Trump has gotten in on the action. While the official vote count has Mr. Trump winning the electoral vote and losing the popular vote, he insists he actually won both, because millions of people voted illegally. What evidence does he have that millions of people voted illegally? You guessed it – none. Put another way, Mr. Trump has as much evidence for his claim of massive voter fraud as I have for my claim that he’s the King Midas of Truth.

So, are we entering a new, Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories? I certainly hope so. The real world is just so boring, random, and factual. Or is it? Maybe that’s just what they WANT me to think…

What happens if Donald Trump loses? Donfirmation bias, that’s what.

If Donald Trump loses tomorrow, will he concede? Will he contest? Will he say the whole process was rigged? It all depends on what he said he’d do. That may sound simple enough, but you have to remember that only Mr. Trump can tell you what he said – not his campaign, not the media, and certainly not recordings.

While most politicians have mastered the arts of plausible deniability, false equivalence, and basic damage control, newcomers to the political scene don’t always have that luxury. They must develop their own ways to deal with inconvenient news cycles, opponent attacks, and unforced errors. Such is the case with Mr. Trump, who has established his own method: Donfirmation Bias.

Donfirmation Bias means never having to say you’re wrong. When Mr. Trump says something, even if all evidence appears to the contrary, he has to either stick with what he said or deny having said it in the first place. He has to find sources that agree with him and ignore or attack those that don’t. Neutral or nuanced stories must be interpreted to agree. This is why scandals that sink other politicians don’t sink Mr. Trump: He either didn’t do them, they were misreported, or they were the right thing to do. But, don’t confuse Donfirmation Bias for hardheadedness. A lot of work goes into it. When a claim Mr. Trump has made appears to be false, he has to put in a lot of time and effort to find sources that agree with him. It also requires being a principled chameleon, so when he does change his mind, he does it so completely, he can later deny it.

The closer a presidential election gets to Voting Day, the more supporters of a candidate will close ranks and defend their candidate against anything negative. Voters are also more likely to focus on the negatives of the opposing candidate when challenged on the negatives of their own. Thus, Mr. Trump’s (and Ms. Clinton’s) own supporters feed into the notion that what they are doing must be right. In other words, voter confirmation bias reinforces Donfirmation Bias.

Donfirmation Bias may at first appear to be a bad way to run a campaign. But, what at first appears to be a fatal flaw – that Mr. Trump is always right – is in fact its greatest strength. You see, Mr. Trump has contended that the election is rigged, and he has said that the only way he can lose is if Ms. Clinton, the media, and/or the establishment has rigged it in her favor. Therefore, even if he loses, he wins. It’s as true now as it was when he said it in the primaries. Ms. Clinton may have an arsenal of non sequiturs and the best crisis management team money can buy, but she has conceded that, if Mr. Trump wins the election, he will have won the election.

But, what if Mr. Trump concedes? That’s an easy one – it’s what he will have said he’d do all along…

What I’ll miss most from the election

I don’t know how many crazy things from this election will continue after it’s over, but I’ve certainly enjoyed the ride. I’d hate to have to say goodbye to things like:

The Comey-22
The FBI finished its investigation of Clinton’s email practices in July and recommended not charging her with anything. But, a few weeks ago, some Clinton emails appeared in an entirely unrelated investigation. There wasn’t yet a warrant to search them, so no one knew if there was anything there. But, it was a new development. The FBI generally doesn’t like to do anything that might influence an election, especially a presidential one. But, if it was discovered after the election that they hadn’t been publicized, they might be accused of the same thing. FBI Director James Comey had a decision to make: Release the information and be accused of trying to affect the election, or don’t release it and be accused of trying to affect the election. Of course, what he did was say that it was happening but that they didn’t know anything about it yet. We still don’t know what’s in the emails, other than a potential pink slip for Comey if Clinton gets elected…

The Lord’s Way
Comey may have had a difficult decision to make, but Jeffrey Lord never has that problem. Lord is a CNN contributor and Donald Trump supporter extraordinaire, and whenever Mr. Trump says, does, or doubles down on anything ridiculous, he’s there to clean it up. How does he do it? Simple: When Lord is asked a question about a negative thing Trump has said or done, he either a) compares him to Ronald Reagan without answering the question, or b) accuses Democrats of being racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted without answering the question. It doesn’t matter if the question has nothing to do with any of those things, because the Lord’s Work must be done. Say, for example, someone asks Lord if Donald Trump can win in the general election, since he’s said so many things that turn so many people off. Of course he can win, Lord will say, because Ronald Reagan said things that turned people off, and he won in a landslide. If pressed for specifics, Lord will specifically say that Reagan was great and that Trump is great, and if pushed for even more specifics, he will even more specifically say that Reagan was great and that Trump is great. But, sometimes Reagan just isn’t enough, so Lord has to go to Plan B: Operation History. You or I may have learned in history class that, up until about the 1930’s, the Democratic Party ardently defended slavery, was heavily involved in the KKK, and Jim Crowed about everything. And, until about the 1960’s or ’70s, Southern Democrats were pretty much still doing that. However, while we might have also learned that the Democratic Party started appealing to blacks in the ’30s, passed various civil rights laws in the ’40s, passed the Civil Rights Act in the ’60s, and has actively tried to appeal to blacks since, the Lord’s Professor wants you to know that’s all wrong. As it turns out, the Democratic Party is still the Party of Racism for the simple reason that it was in the past. Lord also makes plenty of other “historical” appeals to portray Democrats as the party of sexism and pretty much everything else that Trump gets accused of throughout the campaign.

The Clinton Calculator
Quick: What’s the biggest non-biological difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton? That’s right – charisma. Bill Clinton used polls and focus groups all the time to figure out what to talk about and how to talk about it, but he was so good at communicating, no one really cared. Outside of a debate stage, Hillary seems overly-scripted, overly-calculating, and overly-rehearsed. I’m not sure how she does so much better in front of debate audiences than in front of other audiences, but I’m sure a focus group could tell us. Indeed, if the T-800 was Hillary Clinton, it would probably pay more attention to polls to find out why John Conner cries than to life experience and terrible ’90s slang.

Law & Order: DJT
If you want to see a political phrase used to maximum potential, take a look at how Richard Nixon talked about “law and order” in the 1968 campaign. If you want to see the opposite of that, take a look at how Donald Trump talks about “law and order” in the 2016 campaign. Sometimes, he uses it as a vague rallying cry. Sometimes, he just says it as a quick answer to a very specific question on law enforcement or the legal system. And, sometimes, he’ll just say it when something law- or law-enforcement related happened, with no real explanation as to what it means. Put another way: In the 2016 Election, the Donald is represented by two separate yet equally important words: law, which comes before order, and order, which comes after law…

Election 2016 – Episode IV: A New Slippery Slope

It is a period of GOP civil war.  Khizr Khan, striking from the Democratic National Convention, has won his first victory against the heroic Donald J. Trump.

During the battle, Future President Trump managed to crudely copy Khan’s ultimate weapon, MAKING SACRIFICES FOR AMERICA, a tweetable phrase with enough power for Trump to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Pursued by the Mainstream Media’s sinister agents, Future President Trump races home aboard his private plane, custodian of the secret tweets that can save his reputation and restore freedom to America…

Tenth Republican Debate: Everyone’s a Superhero

Between the shouting, fighting, and overall chaos, it’s pretty clear Thursday night’s Republican Debate was originally the script for a comic book movie. So, what superheroes were you guys trying to be?

Marco Rubio: The Flash

No one can speak as fast as me, and by the time I’d listed the 400 scandals Trump’s been involved in, he couldn’t even remember enough of them to answer. Of course, the best thing about talking fast is that I cangetenoughtalkingpointsinforyoutoforgetthatI’mcontradictingmyvieswwitheachnewdebate. And, that’s the kind of greatness I’ll bring to this New American Century. I’ll also bring a new respect for thesauruses, because since I started using them, I can repeat my talking points with different words. President Obama still knows exactly what he’s doing as he destroys America, but I know exactly what I’m doing to fix it, and I’ll continue to show that Flash Rubio is superior to Robo Rubio.

 

Donald Trump: Iron Man

I am a YUGE fan of comic books, and I’m really successful, like Iron Man. I’m going to build a wall, which I’m sure he did, because he’s a winner, and I’m going to beat Sweaty Rubio, like he did. Think about it – you got Choker Rubio, Liar Cruz, and I’m Iron Trump. And, when I’m president, we are going to do so much winning, and we are going to make this country great again.

 

Ted Cruz: Green Lantern

I have a ring of conservatism that can fix any problem. My ring is unwavering. It can make the shape of a door to welcome others into Reagan’s America. It can make the shape of an Emancipation Proclamation to abolish the IRS. It can make the shape of a filibuster to prevent my 99 colleagues from instituting liberal policies that will bring America to its knees. My ring of conservatism can solve any problem, and when I’m president, it will undo every one of President Obama’s illegal executive actions and institute the ring’s conservative principles. Obama’s America will fall, and in its place will be the Conservative America the Founders intended.

 

John Kasich: Superman

Well, jeez, I don’t like to compare myself to anyone, but since Superman could fly, he’d probably fly above the fray, like I’m doing. And, I guess I’ve been successful at getting things done, like Superman, who works well with others. What’s my kryptonite? Look, I don’t like to talk about that kind of thing, but I guess everyone else is too busy throwing kryptonite at each other to figure out mine is being 20th Century Electable, when I should be 21st Century Electable. But, let’s not squabble over superheroes, because Superman never really sounded all that exciting when he talked.

 

Ben Carson: The Phantom

Moderators are unfairly treating me like a phantom on stage. Still, though they may try to stop me, my message will carry on, and my jokes about not being called on will only get funnier. Like the Phantom, I will make people think my message is immortal, even though it changes from time to time. And, as the Phantom relied on his wits to fight crime, I will rely on my wits to fight the accusation that I’m unelectable. Super Tuesday may come and go, but Super Carson will carry on, until people realize how much he’s learned about foreign policy…

New Words and Phrases for the 2016 New Hampshire Primaries

The New Hampshire Primaries were Tuesday, and some interesting story lines developed. Here are some words and phrases to help make sense of them:

The Trumpening
The inevitability of Trump – at least, in his own mind. According to exit polls, Trump won just about every demographic and opinion group that voted in the Republican primary, and he garnered a whopping 35.3% of the vote. As other candidates drop out, we’ll see whether the Trumpening is real, of if it turns into the Great Disatrumpment.

Crossing the Rubion
To raise expectations to such an extent that you will almost certainly fail to meet them. Rubio has crossed the Rubion at least twice: Once when he assumed his repetitive talking points would take him to victory in New Hampshire; and once after he failed to place higher than fifth in New Hampshire, after which he said he would never perform poorly in a debate again. He failed the first crossing; we’ll see if he fails the second.

Kamichristie
To destroy one’s own political standing while also destroying someone else’s. At the last debate, Christie hammered Rubio on repeating his talking points over and over. Rubio responded by repeating his talking points over and over. This weakened Rubio by making him look fake. At the same time, it did no favors for Christie, whose entire campaign seemed to become criticizing Rubio. The end result: Rubio disappointed in New Hampshire, bringing new life to his establishment rivals – except for Christie, who disappointed worse in New Hampshire and has since dropped out.

Sandonald
Seeing two completely unrealistic things – completely opposed to one another – back to back. Sanders gave his victory speech, then Trump gave his, meaning the completely unrealistic specific was immediately followed by the completely unrealistic vague.

Clin and Tonic
What Hillary Clinton will probably need to handle all the criticism between now and the next set of primaries. But, a strong Clin and Tonic might not even be enough to get over losing almost every demographic in New Hampshire to Sanders. For that, she’ll probably need a combination of refined messaging and Sanders continuing to have no luck appealing to minorities.

The Disstablishment
While Cruz pretty much has the evangelical lane all to himself and Trump has the Trump lane all to himself, the battle for the establishment vote continues. Kasich isn’t expected to do much in the next few states, but Bush and Rubio are already at each other’s throats. Rubio’s campaign has threatened a bloodbath in South Carolina, the next state to vote. But, don’t count out Bush, whose family has a storied history of destroying rivals in South Carolina through merciless rumormongering (most infamously in the 2000 primaries, when an unfounded rumor about John McCain having an illegitimate black child helped Jeb’s brother win the state). Looks like it’s shaping up to be a good, old-fashioned BTWIFT (Beatdown That Wins It For Trump). Stay tuned: The next primary diss track is gonna be EPIC.

Gilmorementum
Something that only exists in Jim Gilmore’s mind…if at all.

Ben Carson
Who?

New Hampshire Debate Awards

The Fifth Democratic Debate was Thursday, followed two days later by the Eighth Republican Debate. There were some standout performances, and I’d like to recognize them while the candidates are still in the race…

The Broken Record Award Goes to…
Marco Rubio
Rubio came into Saturday’s debate having finished strong in Iowa and rising in the polls. Clearly, that would not do, and he knew he somehow had to stop this pesky momentum. Luckily, Chris Christie was there to help. Rubio was a true talking point ATM, and when Christie pointed this out, Rubio responded by giving almost the exact same talking point he’d just been criticized for. It turns out there is a limit to how much mileage a GOP candidate can get out of vaguely bashing Obama, and Rubio hit that limit…over and over again.

Best Use of a Tangent
Bernie Sanders
Sanders has the income inequality thing down, but the way he talks about other topics brings him dangerously close to being a one-issue candidate. Clearly, Sanders has become more aware of this, as he’s added a sort of Democratic Socialist Democratic Segue to his rhetorical arsenal. Is that a question about foreign policy? Well, the real problem is the billionaires. Why talk about national security when we could talk about Social Security?

Most Innovative Fact Changer
Ted Cruz
Cruz is a bit of an expert when it comes to answering questions by not answering them, but this time he was forced to put his money where his misleading was. Right before the Iowa Caucuses, Ben Carson left Iowa, and there was brief speculation he’d left the race. Not one to let facts get in the way of a win, Cruz’s campaign said Carson had dropped out. When asked about this at the debate, Cruz went to his most reliable punching bag – the media – and said CNN had tweeted that Carson dropped out and didn’t correct themselves until hours later. What actually happened was that someone at CNN tweeted that it was strange Carson was leaving Iowa, then almost immediately followed it up with a tweet saying he was still in the race. Carson corrected Cruz, but since he doesn’t really criticize other candidates, he pretty much let it go. But, Cruz was no fact-shifting one hit wonder. Later in the debate, he was asked about his idea to carpet bomb ISIS, since ISIS members are mixed in with the local population, and carpet bombing would inevitably result in mass civilian casualties. Cruz really outdid himself when he explained that the carpet bombing would be TARGETED, so civilians would be safe. Because, when you’re Ted Cruz, the only limit to a word’s definition is your imagination…

Most Relieved
Donald Trump
Speaking of bombing, Trump did way worse than expected in Iowa. Luckily for him, there was a YUGE silver lining: Rubio did very well in Iowa. Since Rubio is running as an establishment-friendly candidate and three other establishment candidates (Kasich, Bush, and Christie) are relying on New Hampshire to give their campaigns a boost, everyone’s attention was focused on Rubio. Add to this that Cruz and Rubio already hate each other, and you have a particularly harsh episode of Inside the Actor’s Rubio. Everyone was too busy attacking Rubio to bother repeating their anti-Trump lines, and other than when he basically attacked the audience, Trump pretty much got off scot-free. Which is kind of weird, when you consider how far ahead of everyone he is in New Hampshire polling. Of course, as Iowa showed, polling – like Donald Trump – doesn’t always reflect reality…

Most Improved After a Precipitous Drop in the Polls
Jeb Bush
In the first few debates, the Charismometer ranked Bush somewhere between a park bench and an expired battery. But, as his poll numbers have fallen into the gutter’s gutter’s gutter, he’s really come alive. He’s answered questions like someone who’s actually had the experience of answering questions before, and he held his own against Trump and Rubio. It remains to be seen if this will translate into votes, but it’s interesting to see someone so far behind acting like a frontrunner…

Most Hampshiry
John Kasich
It’s not often you learn things about language in primary debates, so I’d like to thank John Kasich for teaching me about “New Hampshire.” Here I was, thinking it was just a regular proper noun, but he mentioned it so much, there’s no way that’s all it New Hampshired. I know he needs to win the state to keep going, but the debate was in New Hampshire, so he probably didn’t need to mention it by name so many times. Still, he’s been climbing in recent polls, so if he does well, I can’t wait to see how he South Carolinas and Nevadas the next few states.

Most Likely to Hate Rubio
Chris Christie
Move over, Cruz – There’s a new anti-Rubio sheriff in town. One of the main reasons Rubio did so poorly in the debate was because he was constantly being hammered by Christie. However, while Rubio vaguely attacked everything about Obama, Christie very specifically attacked everything about Rubio: his (thin) record in the Senate, his lack of specific policy proposals, his use of talking points to power his campaign. Still, not all the credit can go to Christie: Rubio literally responded to accusations of repeating talking points by…repeating talking points. At times, it was almost like Rubio was in a commercial and Christie was talking to the TV.

Most Likely to Turn a Touchdown into a Fumble
Hillary Clinton
I’m starting to wonder if there’s some confusion in the Clinton campaign. Do they know that learning from mistakes means not making them again, or do they think mistakes are like great schoolteachers, and you’re supposed to emulate them? In Thursday’s debate, Clinton had some pretty strong answers, but she also had some answers that took those answers out back and did terrible things to them. It’s like she thought she was Cam Newton and she was so awesome that mistakes didn’t apply to her, but since the debate was before the Superbowl, she didn’t foresee how that could be costly…

Most Likely to Make People Ask, “Is He Still Running?”
Ben Carson
Cruz’s campaign was pretty underhanded with the whole claiming Carson dropped out thing, but the fact they thought they could get away with it might say more about Carson than anything else. While candidates like Bush and Christie have changed their presentations to try and reverse falling poll numbers, Carson hasn’t really changed anything. He never goes on the attack, doesn’t seem to be interested in learning about foreign policy, and makes the same jokes about not getting called on he’s made in almost every debate. In this debate, he said the media has tried to knock him out of the running, but he’s done far more to knock himself out of the running than the media ever could.

Most Outsized Role in Choosing a Candidate
Tie: Iowa and New Hampshire
With a combined population of less than 1% of the country – most of which doesn’t caucus or vote in the nominating process – the defending champs will continue to dominate this category for years to come. Iowa kind of muddied the field a bit this year, so hopefully New Hampshire will whittle it down, and we won’t have so many candidates to choose from…