Alabama: Best Bad Thing for the GOP?

Personally, I was surprised that Republican Roy Moore lost Alabama's election for US Senate to Democrat Doug Jones last night. In fact, I didn't really expect to be especially close. I guess I didn't give Alabamians enough credit for having basic good sense and morals. So, given that this was a race that I didn't predict well, feel free to take my further opinions with a grain of salt (as if you wouldn't anyway). But here are those opinions:

Once Moore won the Republican primary, Moore losing the general election was the best outcome the GOP could hope for.

The party organization could have gone all-in behind a write-in Republican alternative, but that would likely have handed the race to Jones anyway, while enraging the Trump base and making other prospective Republican candidates around the country doubt their party's commitment to their success. Their only viable option was to offer tepid, back-and-forth party support while some individual party leaders tried to get out a "Roy Moore is not us" message.

If he had won the race, he would have spent the next 11 months making the Republican Party look like a raging bunch of assholes (which, in fairness, they are), and the Democrats would have joyously assisted him in promoting that image (if for no other reason than to deflect attention from their own raging assholishness). Holding the one Senate seat in Alabama would almost certainly have cost the GOP one or more Senate seats and a number of House seats in competitive elections next November.

Of course, he's still threatening to spend some time making Republicans look like a raging bunch of  assholes. He's refused to concede the election and is jabbering about a recount. But now that he's lost, the party organization has an excuse to wash its hands of him, and has already started making a show of doing so.

He lost, and the Democrats have gained one Senate seat, but they lost a horse's ass they could have beat through 2018. The horse's ass went down with a broken leg last night. Unless Moore shows some epic "rigged election" whining chops (and, assisted by media who hate him, hey, maybe he will), the horse will shortly die, and beating a dead horse isn't nearly as effective as beating a live horse's ass.

Cold comfort to the Republican Party, I'm guessing, but like I said, it was the best they could hope for.

This Election Still Looks Like a Trump Win to Me

Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011
in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My prediction since some time ago (August I think, but possibly July or September) has been that Donald Trump will carry every state that Mitt Romney carried, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida for 289 electoral votes.

Right now the RealClearPolitics "no tossups" map -- where they call the race in each state for whichever candidate is currently ahead -- has Hillary Clinton winning with 297 electoral votes to Trump's 241.

Now, remember what I've been saying lately -- I think Trump will almost certainly carry any state where he polls within 5% of Clinton. Why? Two reasons:

• I think that a non-trivial fraction of Trump voters won't say they're voting for Trump. Not even to a pollster. They don't want their family, friends and neighbors to know, so they're not telling anyone.
• Even though this is an "open" election with no incumbent, there's an extent to which it is a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency and the Democratic Party. That makes Trump the challenger. Voters who wait until the last minute to decide vote for the challenger, not for the incumbent. That effect may be a little muted since it's the incumbent party, not person, we're talking about here, but it's still the way things tend to go. This means that Trump is going to be gaining, not losing, over the next few days.

Note that neither of those things are really depending on e.g. some kind of massive Wikileaks bombshell than ends with something like Hillary Clinton being perp-walked in leg irons and orange coveralls on Monday. Not saying that couldn't conceivably happen. Just saying that my prediction doesn't depend on it happening.


Now, have a look at that RCP "no tossups" map and think about the non-Romney states I said Trump would carry. RCP's "no tossups" calls three of them -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- for Clinton, with only Ohio going for Trump (as I think it will, and he is 5 points up there).

BUT:

• The two Michigan polls done since Tuesday, the first of the month,  have Trump within either 3 or 4 points of Clinton -- 3 if Jill Stein is included.
• The only Pennsylvania poll done since Tuesday has Trump and Clinton tied.
• The only Florida poll done in November has Clinton 4 points up on Trump. That's toward the edge of my formula and right at the edge of Margin of Error, but I'm fairly confident in Trump winning the state.

So, Clinton was at 297 and Trump was at 241 in the "no tossups." Looking at those three states and assuming the rest of the map is in fact correct:

If Trump wins Florida but not Michigan or Pennsylvania, he wins the election with 270 electoral votes.

If Trump wins Michigan and Pennsylvania but not Florida, he wins the election with 277 electoral votes

If Trump wins Michigan and Florida but not Pennsylvania, he wins the election with 286 electoral votes.

If Trump wins Pennsylvania and Florida but not Michigan, he wins the election with 290 electoral votes.

If he wins Michigan AND Pennsylvania AND Florida, he wins the election with 306 electoral votes.

Unless there's some massive fundamental shift between now and Tuesday, I believe Trump will win that round of voting and, barring faithless electors or personal incapacity of some sort (i.e. severe illness or death), will be the next president of the United States

No, I don't like that any more than you do.

Open to a Discussion About Looking Seriously ...

Gary Johnson has been in politics for more than two decades and has been running for president for five years now. At what point is he going to stop "being open to discussions about" or promising to "look seriously" at issues that are neither especially new nor especially complex?

An Analogy I Haven't Heard Elsewhere Yet

Just throwing this out for discussion.

The 2016 US presidential election as analogous to the 2000 Mexican presidential election:

• The Democratic and Republican parties are merely two wings of the PRI.
• Trump and his supporters are the Alianza por el Cambio.

One obvious difference here is that Trump isn't defeating the Republicans and the Democrats in one swell foop. He defeated the Republicans first (in their own primary elections) and will now attempt to defeat the Democrats (in the general election).

But I think the dynamic is at least facially similar.

Trump's Nuremberg Rall ... er, National Convention ... Speech, Summarized

In one word:

Führerprinzip

And given the range of alternatives on offer and the exceedingly small chances of an even remotely sane one prevailing, it looks like we're pretty much screwed.

The Two Gary Johnsons

Gary Johnson #1, in Politico today:

Creditors have been hurt as [Donald Trump] walked away from debts. Is that the kind of moral example that he would bring to the U.S. government -- finding ways to duck obligations?

That's not an academic question. He has pledged to tear up agreements and even concoct some scheme by which America could walk away from its debt -- just as he did in his business dealings. America doesn't do that.

Bill Weld and I believe that fiscal responsibility is at the core of what our government needs to do.

Gary Johnson #2, according to his 2012 campaign's most recent FEC report:

Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee: $1,538,118.73

One of these things is not like the other.

Melania Trump's Speech: Beyond the Plagiarism

Let's get the obvious out of the way right up front. Yes, parts of Melania Trump's speech to delegates at the Republican National Convention last night were indisputably copied from Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention:



That, and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort claiming otherwise, make Trump and his entourage look like idiots. Not that looking like an idiot has noticeably damaged Trump up to this point, or that it is likely to this time. Like Mencken said, "No one in this world, so far as I know -- and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me -- has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

But let's unpack this a little. How did it come to pass that Melania Trump made a speech plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech?

Melania Trump
(photo by Marc Nozell via Wikipedia)

It seems implausible to me that Donald Trump -- or his campaign staff -- would tell Mrs. Trump, who was born in Slovenia and for whom English is a second language "hey, write up a speech to give at the national convention ... no, no need to run it by us, we're sure you'll do fine."

It's far more likely that a speechwriter was assigned to put together her talk, probably in consultation with her, but with the campaign apparatus in control of content because that's what campaigns do: They control the message as best they can.

If that's how it went, did the speechwriter plagiarize Michelle Obama, and if so why? For the purpose of sabotaging the campaign?

Or did Melania propose the language after listening to Obama's speech, on the idea of doing "something like that," not understanding (due to the "second language" issue, maybe) that she needed to change far more than the few words she did change to make it her own? And perhaps the assisting speechwriter had not heard (or at least didn't remember) Obama's speech, and deferred to Mrs. Trump on the language?

Any way you cut it, I suspect a Trump speechwriter lost his or her job overnight.

Mathematical Possibilities

Up front disclaimer: No, I'm not looking to pick on Gary Johnson in particular with this post. He's far from the first or only person to say something similar to what I'm going to quote him saying. He just happens to be some combination of the most recent/most prominent, having said it in the New York Times, and having said it this year, and being on of the principals in a lawsuit related to it. Here it is:

The contention is on our part that if you're on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected, then you should be included in the presidential debate.

Q: How many states does a candidate have to be on the ballot in for it to become mathematically possible for that candidate to be elected president?

A: None.

Here's a scenario featuring a way that Johnson himself could be elected:

This November, Gary Johnson carries one state. Let's just assume that that state is New Mexico, which comes with five electoral votes.

Now, let's say that Hillary Clinton carries California (55), New York (29), Florida (29), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Washington (12), Virginia (13), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), Texas (38), and Vermont (3). No, those specific states aren't likely; they were just the ones I picked offhand to demonstrate the math. They come with a total of 268 electoral votes.

That leaves the remaining states, which come with 265 electoral votes, for Donald Trump.

If no candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, the US House of Representatives picks the next president from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Which means that Gary Johnson could conceivably become president.

But, then, so could Jill Stein, who will be on the ballot in a number of states. Maybe not enough states to win in the electoral college, but as long as she carries at least one state and only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump end up with more electoral votes than she does, she is still eligible for consideration by the House.

For that matter, if a write-in candidate (in states that allow them) carried a single state while holding the major party candidates below 270 electoral votes each, ditto.

Mathematically, a candidate doesn't need to be on the ballot in a single state for it to be possible for that candidate to be elected president.

[Update, 07/19/16: As Shawn L points out in comments, a candidate wouldn't even have to carry a state to be eligible for election by the House -- Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes rather than assigning them "winner take all." So if (for example) a candidate got one electoral vote, and the other two candidates got 269 and 268 respectively,  all three would be eligible for election by the US House of Representatives. And now that I think about it, a "carried no states victory" could also occur under the auspices of one or more "faithless electors" - TLK]

Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?

Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.

Addendum: This turned into a bit of a series. Check out Part 2 and Part 3.

GOP Delegate Revolt Schemes: A Bridge Too Far?

As I have pointed out (very briefly and not that worthy of lookup here at KN@PPSTER, and at more length/greater detail over at The Garrison Center), yes, a GOP delegate revolt to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nominee is possible. And there's a group planning to do it just the way I outline it getting done. Whether or not it's likely to succeed is another question entirely.

But suppose it does succeed -- enough delegates abstain to deny Trump a first-ballot majority, after which the delegates are no longer bound to particular candidates. What then?

According to the convention rules, in order to be placed in contention for the nomination, a candidate must have carried eight states in the primaries/caucuses. Only one candidate other than Trump makes the cut: Ted Cruz.

Does a majority exist for Cruz?

If not, does a 2/3 majority exist to suspend the rules so that other candidates can be considered? That's obviously what John Kasich's fans (and probably Kasich himself) are hoping for.

Erick Erickson wants Cruz on the ticket, but as veep beneath Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

I'm trying to figure out why Erickson -- or anyone else -- would expect that to fly in the real world.

Walker ran for president and fared so poorly in the debates, in the polls, and in fundraising, that he dropped out of the race more than four months before the first real test, the Iowa caucus.

Erickson writes off Walker's abysmal performance as a presidential candidate to a single mistake:

Walker's major mistake headed into his race was to put all his good people in his Super PAC then hire wildcards to run his campaign. He then could not communicate with the very people who had helped him win so many elections. It was a mistake not reversible once made and I don't think he should be penalized.

But it wasn't campaign organization mechanics that kept Walker in the cellar. At the time he dropped out, the main metric was debate performance. As a political careerist (he's been in one public office or another since 1993) he either knows how to convincingly win a public argument in a way that registers in the polls as presidential timbre or he isn't ever going to know how to do that. Coming off as more presidential than the other 15 people on the stage doesn't automatically create a fundraising juggernaut, effective ground games in Iowa and New Hampshire, etc. But not managing that is evidence that a candidate is trying to stop being a sow's ear and become a silk purse.

It seems to me that almost any GOP ticket, other than possibly Trump/?, is going to have trouble whipping Hillary Clinton in November, if for no other reason than that the fundraising game is well under way based on a nominee apparent. But Walker/Cruz seems purpose-built to lose.

If the will is there to suspend the rules and pick a ticket out of the blue, why not go all the way and draft the existing Republican ticket back into the party it really belongs to?

Early Predictions are Dangerous But I'm Sticking With Mine for Now

I don't know if I've even mentioned that early prediction here on KN@PPSTER yet, but here it is (I've been making it for a couple of months in various venues):

In November, assuming he's the GOP nominee (I still think a successful national delegate rebellion is just barely possible), Donald Trump will win every state that Mitt Romney won in 2012. He will also win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, he will at least be competitive in New York and New Jersey, and he may even put California in play.

Of course, it's not just early predictions that are dangerous, but any predictions involving Donald Trump. I didn't think he had a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination. Every time he stumbled I figured he was going down for good. So if I'm making a mistake this time, it's the opposite mistake -- he's had a bad couple of weeks, but I expect him to turn things around.

The Hill's Jonathan Easley reports that even with Trump's slump, Clinton has failed to pull convincingly ahead in the ten "battleground" states where the election will likely (per the conventional wisdom, not per my prediction) be decided. Interesting. Even more interesting, though not fully explored:

Trump and Clinton both have historically high unfavorable ratings, opening the door for two outsider candidates -- Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein -- to potentially play spoiler.

When Johnson and Stein are considered in polls, the margin between Clinton and Trump almost invariably narrows.

See what's hinted at, but not actually said, there? As Matt Welch points out at Reason, when Johnson and Stein are included in polls, their inclusion hurts Clinton more than it hurts Trump. IIRC, even some polling that included only Johnson and not Stein shows Johnson hurting Clinton more than he hurts Trump. If there is a "spoiler effect" (yes, I hate the whole flawed concept, but that's how it gets reported), that effect seems to be pro-Trump.

I will be interested to see whether Johnson and/or Stein get enough votes to arguably affect the outcomes in any states. To the extent that they might do so, I expect that that effect would militate toward an outcome like the one I predict.

Things That Make Me Ask "WTF?"

Marco Rubio wasn't going to seek re-election to the US Senate.

But apparently he considers Omar Mateen's attack on an Orlando nightclub an indicator of strong public demand for his continued service, to which he may -- reluctantly, mind you, reluctantly -- bow.

Anyone got some extra facepalm? I'm running short this week.

With Winds Like These, Who Needs Cyclones?

Somehow -- I don't really recall how, but I'm promiscuous like that -- I ended up on Erick Erickson's mailing list. I usually don't open the emails because internal Republican hair-pulling just isn't my thing, but this one caught my eye:

The Winds Appear to Have Shifted In Ted Cruz's Favor

Why did it catch my eye? Well, it's usually just not the kind of thing you see about someone who went oh for five in primaries three days ago. So I wondered what Erickson had on his mind.

I have to admit, Erickson turns quite a trick by fashioning two things -- one, that everyone who's talking about Cruz hates him; two, that most people (including Drudge) aren't talking about Cruz at all -- into a case for CRUZMENTUM.

And he seems to attribute this massive shift, of which the symptoms are that nothing at all seems to have changed in any way, to one thing: Cruz picking a failed CEO who got beat like a red-headed step-child in all three elections she's ever contested (California for US Senate, Iowa and New Hampshire for the GOP presidential nomination) as his running mate.

I'm not convinced.

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis?

Today, US Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (with help from some other members of their club) are attempting to figuratively do unto Donald Trump in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio what Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger et. al literally did unto Julius Caesar in Rome 1,972 years ago.


It occurs to me that in a more sane world, the Ides of March would be a beloved international holiday and that consequently there might be fewer aspirants to such power.

The Case for Rubio

Mickey Kaus makes it in spades:

Rubio's not going to drive Jeff Sessions from the capital. But you can count on the combination of President Rubio and Speaker Ryan to quickly pass an amnesty bill that (like the Gang of 8) contains only the most chimerical guarantees of new enforcement measures. You can also expect them to promote and defend trade, including "trade in services" that involves foreign workers performing those services on American soil."

Of course, Kaus considers that an attack on Rubio, not a plug for Rubio.

And of course I've never voted for a Republican for president, don't intend to ever vote for a Republican for president, and wouldn't rank Rubio very highly if I did consider voting for a Republican for president.

But damn, look at Kaus's argument: "This guy is the only even remotely likely nominee of either party who's in the same neighborhood as the ballpark of a sane, reasonable, pro-freedom border/immigration policy that's in any way even the tiniest bit consistent with American values. He must be stopped!"

Kind of sums up how FUBAR this whole election cycle is, doesn't it?

My Iowa Caucus Predictions

I should have trotted these out earlier, if for no other reason than that if I'm right, being right well ahead of things burnishes my predictive credentials more than being right at the last minute. But I only just now got around to it. So, I predict:

On the Republican side:

• Ted Cruz comes in first, ahead of Donald Trump by a nose;
• Rand Paul tops 10%;
• Within 72 hours, Mike Huckabee drops out and starts campaigning for Trump.

On the Democratic side:

• Bernie Sanders comes in first, beating Hillary Clinton by at least 5%; and
• "Uncommitted" and/or Joe Biden (if that's allowed as a choice -- I don't know the rules regarding "draft" candidates who have not declared) tops 10%.

Talk About Burying the Lede ...

You'd think TED CRUZ CALLS FOR MINIMUM WAGE OF $53 AN HOUR would be the headline, not an aside in the final paragraph. Just sayin' ...

Hmmm ... was I onto something long before quite a few others?

Some skeptics have suggested that Donald Trump is a Democratic plant in the 2016 presidential race -- that he's there for the specific purpose of wrecking the Republican Party's prospects on behalf of his good friends, the Clintons.

Heck, I don't write off that possibility. In fact, I just noticed, while doing some vanity Googling, that I suggested the idea myself ...

... In 2011!

And whaddayaknow, he's even following a variant of the same strategy this year that he followed in 2011-2012, only this time aiming his "birther" stuff in the other direction, at a Republican (Ted Cruz), to sow internal discord and dismay.

Not That George Pataki Had a Chance in Hell Anyway ...

... but he decided to prove again today that it is always a gigantic mistake to even consider allowing him anywhere near any position of "authority."

Random Election 2016 Thoughts (Clinton and Bush)

Hillary's done for all intents and purposes. Once Biden jumps in, she will slide to a distant third place behind him and Sanders, and maybe even down into O'Malley/Webb/Chafee 1% territory.

But she's never gone gracefully, and never has Bill. Every scandal, they start by denying it, then grudgingly admit it but say there was nothing wrong with it, then say they "take responsibility" but still pretend they didn't really do anything wrong, then pout when there are consequences. Obama beat her in 11 straight primaries in 2008 and she still waited to concede while her gang talked up the possibility of breaking the Democratic national convention and pulling out a win. She'll drag it out, at the expense of her party's chances of holding the White House, taking back a Senate majority, and gaining seats in the House.

Her stubbornness in the face of defeat (not the possibility of defeat, actual defeat) is one of her problems. The other two are related:

• Nobody likes her; and
• Nobody trusts her.

At least nobody who hasn't been on her payroll forever. The left Democrats don't like her because she's a centrist. The conservative Democrats don't like her because she's a centrist. The centrist Democrats don't like her because she makes centrists look bad.

Nobody trusts her because she lies like a rug, thinks she's above the law, acts surprised when she's told that's not the case, and is sort of like Mitt Romney when it comes to actually taking a position on anything -- she is always saying whatever she thinks people want to hear, except when it means saying she was wrong or she's sorry.

Yes, she raised big money at the beginning of her campaign, but that was because the big money Democratic donors bought the trademark Clinton "inevitability" hype. Now they're noticing it was BS and looking for another horse to back; that's a fourth problem.

Which brings us to Jeb Bush, who has two of the same four problems.

Bush isn't really unlikable. Watch him some time. He's sort of modest, self-effacing, wonkish. Those qualities may not make for a great candidate when you've got a self-promoter like Donald Trump blocking your path to the White House, but he doesn't personally make my gorge rise like Clinton does.

Nor is he likely to prove as stubborn, to the detriment of his party, as Clinton. When and if he reaches a point where it's clear he isn't going to get the GOP's nomination, he'll pack it in, endorse another candidate, and soldier on for the party. I do predict that he won't do so until after the New Hampshire primary at the soonest, though, and then only if Kasich or Christie is the one pulling ahead, or likely to do so on the strength of his endorsement. If one of the "not a chance in hell of winning the general election" candidates (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, et. al) is still surging, he may stay in on the reasonable supposition that that is what's best for his party.

He does have a similar trust problem -- because of his last name, his brother's disastrous presidency and his father's tendency to go weak-kneed as president when pushed by Democrats in Congress.

And he does have the problem that the big money he raised as "inevitable" has probably dried up (3rd quarter FEC reports aren't due for nearly a month) based on him being back in the pack so far.

But his prospects are far better than Clinton's, because he at least has prospects. Hillary Clinton will never be president.

KN@PPSTER LiveBlogs the Second 2016 GOP Presidential Debate -- Kids' Table Edition

7:41 -- Final question: What is the one thing you offer that the top tier does?

7:47 -- Quick reaction: Pataki probably won the "serious guy" contest. Santorum probably won the "how does the GOP appeal to proles" contest. Graham actually was kind of authentic but didn't win much -- just too crazy on foreign policy and Santorum stole his "poor guy up by my bootstraps" thunder. Jindal should probably get about shutting his campaign down. He MAY have done OK with evangelical Christians, but I wouldn't count on that even. Back in another post in a few minutes for The Big Shew.


Pataki: TWO things. We have to win the election. None of it matters unless we win. And then we have to govern successfully. You need a leader who actually gets a conservative agenda through. I did that in New York, one of the most liberal states in American.

Santorum: Came to Washington in unlikely way, defeated Dem incumbent. Only thought I'd be there one term, shook things up, ended 40 years of Democratic control. I led that fight.  Outsider, got conservative things done. Now after ten years of seeing GOP retreat, they need me, outsider, to go back and get things done.

Jindal: I'm a doer not a talker. Idea of America is slipping away. If you want incremental change, vote for someone else. Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts and Washington GOP can't find its testicles to fight. Time to take on DC permanent government class. I'm the only guy who has actually shrunk government.

Graham: I will win a war we can't afford to lose, even though everything I've ever suggested on foreign policy before has turned out to be completely wrong and I'm still suggesting the same idiotic policies. Trump is a cartoon character. Kasich wants to close more basis. I want to spend all your money on the military. I'll make your family safe even though it does not seem like it.

7:25 -- Graham, you all oppose nuke deal with Iran. Yahoo John Bolton wants strike Iran. You? Graham: If I believed they were trying to get a bomb, I would. And they know it. We need to stop increasing military spending so little and just put everything into getting as many Americans either dead or in the poorhouse as possible. Kasich wants to sensibly close more basis. The worst nightmare in the world is some Lockheed-Martin executive not being able to buy a private island and a gold-plated bathtub. Spend, spend, spend, and kill as many as we have to to keep the spending up.

Pataki, there are other ways than bombing. Santorum wants to assassinate scientists. What do you think? Pataki: We need a strong America, we need to reject the deal and reimpose sanctions. We should give Israel big bombs to do our dirty work for us. And Clinton was Senator from New York on 9/11 and has been a complete fuckup ever since. We have got to beat her.

Santorum, any means necessary? Still on the table? Santorum: 12 years ago I authored a sanctions bill on Iran and fell four votes short. I've been laser-focused on getting us into war with what I believe to be a massive death cult because getting us into wars with massive death cults isn't batshit insane or anything. On day one, I tell Iran that if they don't consent to be my bitch, I'm going to have my way with you.

Graham, Putin is sending more stuff to Syria to support Assad. Trump says he can get along with Putin. Why would your confrontation work better than Trump's deal-making. Graham: It's all Barack Obama's fault for not getting enough Americans killed. I've told you, I'm willing to kill as many Americans as you'll let me kill, because I'm completely nuts and more bloodthirsty than Manson.

Jindal, how would you get Russians out of Syria? Jindal: I'd rather talk about Iran, which means I'd rather blame Obama for everything. I want to ask Graham, are Senate Republicans willing to get rid of filibuster to kill the Iran deal and get us into the war all of us crazy people want? What's the point of a majority if we're not getting Americans killed?

Graham: Bobby, you were in Congress. If you want to repeal ObamaCare, get a new president. If you want to end Planned Parenthood's corporate welfare, get a new president. We need 67 votes to override Obama's veto, but we need to elect a Republican president, not play shutdown games. I want to lead the party to winning.

Jindal: You just heard a Republican say we can't do anything. Democrats forced ObamaCare without 60 votes, don't Republicans have any fight? If not, it's time to be done with the GOP. No point in being cheaper Democrats. Maybe start a new party. At least Reid and Pelosi fight for what they believe in.

Graham: We're running for POTUS. With that comes certain amount of honesty. Tired of telling people what they want to hear. I would not give Planned Parenthood money as president, but I'm not going to shut down the government now.

Break.

7:17 -- Graham, minimum wage. Santorum wants to increase it. You? Graham: If you increase minimum wage, hard to hire more people. Clinton has a list to help the middle class, they've been squeezed hard. I understand the middle class, and I want to grow the economy, not just screw with the minimum wage. No more money for federal government until there's a plan to get out of debt.

Santorum, defend yourself. Santorum: Less than 1% make minimum wage, if you're not for increasing it you're not for a floor wage in America you suck. GOP supported bailouts, I didn't. GOP supported special tax treatment for business, I didn't. Republicans need to support working people by increasing unemployment. 90% of Americans are wage-earners, not business owners and we need to talk to workers.

Break.

7:12 -- Graham: Republicans need to tell Americans that we get who you are, I want to save Social Security.

Pataki, Jeb and Trump want to raise taxes on hedge fund managers. Do you agree? Pataki: I would throw out the whole corrupt tax code. Get rid of exemptions and loopholes, lower rates. I would propose a law that no congress person can ever be a lobbyist afterward.

Jindal, three Republicans running who support higher rate for hedge fund managers. You? Jindal: Lower, flatter, tax rate. I've done that as governor.

Santorum, do you agree with Jeb that limits home mortgage deduction. Santorum: I propose a 20% flat tax on everyone and everything (income, interest, corporate income). I want to make America number one manufacturer in the world, and fantasize that we can compete on wages in manufacturing even though the last 30 years says our future is elsewhere. But I'm Rick Santorum and I can wave my magic wand and make the impossible happen.

Pataki, you said you'd be OK with raising taxes on hedge fund managers, would you also get rid of deductions? Pataki: No, I'd keep deductions. And I also have a magical mystery plan to bring manufacturing back.