Sunday, February 14, 2016

Remembrance Day



We are the dead

It's a hell of a way from yesterday
And all behind is burning.
We frog-march on to invisible dawn
From whence there is no turning.

There was a war, there is a war, there ever a war will be;
Who was that raving charlatan we hanged on Calvary?

Each human heart is blown apart
Six ways before September
The whores of chance hex backward glance
And delicate lads dismember.

There was a war, there is a war, there ever a war will be;
The carrion chorus sounds above Megiddo’s blood-drenched sea.

Love a thing, and watch it die
And only death's forever;
In wave-swept graves in parts we lie
And yet each year remember.

There was a war, there is a war, there ever a war will be;
The bloody track leads back from where we nailed him to a tree.

There's no escape from sorrow, boys,
Between here and high heaven;
Only pray the guns may pause
In the eleventh month, on the eleventh day,
As bells toll eleven.
-- Stephen K. Roney


Republican and Democratc Debates






It certainly is more fun watching the Republican than the Democratic debates. Lots of fireworks. Last night's CBS South Carolina debate was like WWE.

The president properly has very little real power. All he can really do is persuade. This, in any case, is the essential talent for any effective leader. The most important qualification for the job, therefore, is to be a good communicator. Without this, one may get the office, but one changes nothing. You just follow polls; anyone could do the same. Being a great communicator was the secret of a Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, FDR, Thatcher.

The last few outings, the Republicans have been I'll - served in this regard. It is not so much that Romney spoke conservatism only as a second language, as that he was a manager, not a communicator. His instinct was to seek board consensus and go from there. This is why I preferred Gingrich. He could make the case for change.

This time out, Rubio seems the most talented communicator. When he made the case not long ago for religion in public life, I wanted to stand up and cheer. When, last night, he defended George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, he was the only candidate who said what needed to be said. Whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and whether or not Bush knew, was not terribly relevant. This was not the legal basis for the war. It was that Saddam was violating the ceasefire.

Rubio takes a lot of heat for co-sponsoring the "gang of eight" immigration bill. Bush and Kasich also get flak for being too soft on illegal immigration. By contrast, Trump rocketed to the top of the polls on this issue, by calling Mexican migrants rapists and murderers and promising to build a border wall.

Truth is, I agree with Rubio, Bush, and Kasich. First, as the establishment knows, the Republican party does not have a bright future if it alienates the Hispanic demographic. Second, while it might appeal to the working class at first glance that competing with cheaper Mexican labour is undesirable, keeping illegal migrants out cannot solve the problem. It is easy enough just to move your plant to Mexico. In fact, in order to compete and keep revenues, incomes, and the economy up the best thing to do is probably to throw the doors wide open. Third, basic principle: the average person produces a lot more wealth than they consume: people are the most valuable resource.

Rubio did very well this time, and probably erased the memory of his disastrous performance last debate. His problem is that Bush and Kasich also had very good night's. I like both Bush and Kasich; both are very strong candidates. But if the non-Trump, non-Trump vote does not consolidate behind one option soon, the race will be bet between these two.

I really do not like Trump. In essence, his case and his appeal is proto-Fascist. He reminds me distinctly of Benito Mussolini. His selling proposition is simply that he is much smarter than anyone who is doing politics now. This is obviously unlikely. It is also the good old Fascist leadership principle: the leader is a great genius, and everything is left to him.

The hair is different, but the chin is the same/

Neither do I like Cruz. He has now been accused by Carson, Trump, and Rubio of multiple dirty tricks in the three contests we have seen so far. Where there is smoke, there is probably fire, and it troubles me that his congressional colleagues to a man and woman seem not to like him. The most fundamental requirement in a leader, more basic than being a good communicator, more basic even than mere competence, is honesty. The problems of the Third World are easily explained: a corrupt ruling class.

Much less interesting to watch was the recent Wisconsin Democratic debate. Clinton was distinctly more subdued and less aggressive this time than last. My guess is that her own internal polling confirms our impression that this tone hurts her and helps Sanders. As a results no fireworks; and no gaffes. Unfortunately, when she is not on the attack, Clinton is terribly boring to listen to. The problem is that she is so transparently calculated in everything that you already know what she is going to say before she says it. Hillary reminds me uncannily of Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, she seems prepared to say anything, if it is to her advantage, and you get the feeling she thinks she is clever to do it. Not a moral being.

Sanders' ideas may be crazy, but his sincerity contrasts well with this. I don't care about his politics so much as I like him more personally. I think for most people that's more important. For me, it is more important.

A note: the problem came up in the Democratic debate that blacks are disproportionately represented in the prison population. This is in itself apparently proof of discrimination. "Clearly," says Sanders, "we are dealing with institutional racism." Not mentioned is the plain fact that males are even more disproportionately represented. If the one fact proves discrimination, so does the other.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Beidaihe



- For Deng Xiao-Ping. China, 1992.

In Beidaihe the breakers beat
From Bohai Sea in foam replete
And gently break, and softly beat,
And sonorous beat their somnolent beat
Of drowsy summer ocean.
In Beidaihe the old ones sleep
Far from Zhongnanhai's bothersome heat
The eye-sharp heat, the knife-bright heat
The gong-hard, adamant-sounding heat
Behind, the heaven-high flattening heat;
Before, the welcoming ocean.

In Beidaihe old comrades meet
The decks of their memories nearly complete
And shuffle and deal, and deal and cheat
With factions gone parchment parched hands compete
With spades gone trump, with sense gone deep
Yet trumping a comrade is still as sweet
Till struggling ends in the ocean.

In Beidaihe the sand blows deep
And blots with waves the marks of feet
And muffles the echoes of goose-dancing feet
Old stamping feet, old shuffling feet
Old doddering, gently padding feet
A billion, a million, two tired old feet
On the long march to ultimate ocean.

In Beidaihe the breakers beat
And bend and bow like harvest wheat.
The golden wheat, the rippling wheat
Twisting in wind like a winding sheet
Till cadres of apsaras sickle the wheat
And lay it in sheaves at the judgement seat
Of muttering, notionless ocean.

In Beidaihe the breakers beat
Like distant guns behind each seat
Then topple, echoing through the street
The empty, ancient, endless street
The darkening street, the silent street
Then sucking in, in foam retreat
To drowsy summer ocean.

- Stephen K. Roney


A Penny for the Old Guy


5157570499_8bc0937187_b.jpg (1024×782)
Guy  Fawkes burned in effigy.
Years ago, I was accused on a mixed email list of excluding women for referring to the others as “you guys. This surprised me. “Guys” is informal; but where I come from, it regularly refers to both sexes, This recent piece in Salon confirms that I am right; Merriam-Webster agrees with me, along, it says, with most dictionaries. At the same time, the article repeats some obvious howlers about the supposed maltreatment of women in our society. Got to repond.

First of all, if “guys” for many years referred only to men, this is not, as claimed, a compliment to men. It is a compliment to women. The origin of the term, after all, is the most notorious traitor in English history, a person burned in effigy annually. Later, according to the article, "guy" was muted to anyone “dresseed up in a grotesque costume,” as these effigies commonly were. All very well to refer to males in such generically extremely insulting terms, but women were entitled to greater respect. No doubt one also would not refer to the lord of the local manor as a “guy.”

The piece notes that terms for males commonly become generic, but not terms for women. “Men would not tolerate it,” the article says. This presupposes that men are in charge of language, an untruth the article itself goes on later to dispel, apparently without realizing it, Being generic is not a terribly desirable goal.. Terms for princesses are also not generic. A Korean of my acquaintance said once she hopes she is never introduced to the President of Korea. The grammar necessary to speak to him is so esoteric she has never used and does not know it, although she is a native speaker.

Execution of Guy Fawkes for treason

Is this proof the President of Korea is oppressed?

Later, the article notes the truth that “young women often spearhead linguisticc change.” This is an empirical fact, demonstrable empirically. And it means that in this crucial aspect of human society, in all cultures, women are dominant, Womem also tend to adopt the dialect of the class of men above their own menfolk, while men speak in a dialect a class lower than the women with which they associate. In other words, women are commonly understood, or at least understand themselves, to outclass and socially outrank any men with whom they are in contact.

It is amazing that feminism has for so long been able to invert the significance of all this into its very opposite. The devil at work again,

This works because those who have done wrong, which is to say all of us, commonly, rather than accept and repent the fault, try to obscure it with the lie.And the safest lie is the very opposite of the truth.

John 3:19: This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Feminism is and has from the beginning been a cover for sexual immorality.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Advice to Those in Danger of Being Discovered



Never tell psychiatrist the truth,
No more than offer acid to a narc;
The flaming sword within his desk craves use;
You must pass soul fully clothed, he hates things stark.

And if he asks in riddle who you are,
You must lie as dead as paper-thin straight line;
Assume a name--say, one you took at birth--
And pretend you only know of space and time.

And if you hear the door behind you lock,
Indulge each nurse, they know not what they do.
Give clockwork psyches no excuse for shock;
And speak only when audibly spoken to.

For the raving god of Bedlam loves odd stones;
Trust Him, though all the world outside is mad.
His logos still wells up from deepest springs,
Proof from law, or tinpot Jah, or Siggy's dad.

And recollect before you take advice
From anyone in white, how seeming warm,
That one man's hell's another's paradise;
And Satan most at home in uniform.

So never tell psychiatrist the truth,
Nor start at flash of fang, or hound-like bark;
For salts and Styx and stones may break no bones,
But every word can leave a fatal mark.

-- Stephen K. Roney


Poor Oppressed Hillary



Haplesss victim of circumstances beyond her control.
In a recent debate, Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton represented the establishment. Clinton immediately took strong exception to this. "Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment." Adding irony, her husband, the former president, Bill Clinton, later insisted at a campaign stop that his wife was not a part of the establishment.

She is a former First Lady of th US, leaving aside an education at Wellesley and Yal and a career as US Senator and Secretary of State. If she is not a member of the establishment, who is? A woman cannot by definition be in the establishment? Queen Elizabeth is not? Queen Victoria was not? Lady Crawley, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, cannot be and is just putting on airs?

Yet there is every chance she believes it. This is the same millionaire who exposed herself to public ridicule by once saying she and her husband were dead broke when they left the White House.

The modern left, at least tits leadership, is largely composed of wealthy and powerful people who believe someone else is in charge. By income, Republicans and Democrats are almost evenly matched; in bluesttes, generally the richer ones, the wealthy tend to be to the left, in red states they tend to be on the right--along with everybody else. By postgradte edoucation, Democrats predominate, In other words,the Democrats are the party of the professional elite. Generally fat capitalists are blamed for being in control of everything.There are actually few left, or many, if you count all retired people., A capitalists is prorerly someone who lives entirely by the fruit of fhis capital investoments This is a social class which has essentially disappeared since Marx created it over 150 years ago. Large coroprations are instead usually publicly held, which is to say, controlled by professional fund managers and professional managers, both of whom lean Democratic. Yet Bernie sanders sgainst the billionaire class who controls our politics. He does not note that there are in total less than a thousand of them, that most of them are politically to the left, or that, if they really controlled politics, he could not have won the New Hampshire primary.

It is a conspiracy theory, it deals in phantoms, but it is easy to believe this. It is, after all, uncanny how there does seem to be a malicious intelligence controlling the world's affairs. It i not just that the world is full of lies, but that the lies seem remarkably calculated and generally the very opposite of the truth, Hence the constant stream of conspiracy theories, involving not just rich capitalists, but the Koch brothers, the Jews, the Illuminati, the international Catholic Conspiracy, the gnomes of Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, and so forth.

The key to the strength of the modern left is that. the more one is oneself a member of the establishment, more the case with Democrats than Republicans at the leadership level, the easier it is to believe in such conspiracy theories, especially the wilder ones. After all, one is acutely aware, despite one's own high position, of affairs distinctly following what seems to be a malicious pattern beyond your control. How else explain this? Someone must be doing this, and someone who is somehow keeping themselves hidden, for you are nominally in charge and should at least know who they are, should catch them doing it. Case in point: Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of Defense, who is now convinced that the governments of the world are concealing dealings with aliens. And planning an intergalactic war,

The real answer is simple. The devil is real. He is a coherent intelligence. He really is, as the New Testament says, the prince of this world. He has real power. Fail to understand this, and the least of your worries is that you get the basic nature of the social world completely wrong. This misunderstsng has also led to some of the worst crimes of history: Hitler's scapegoating of the Jews, the scapegoating of the well-off in Communist countries, and so forth.

The prince of this world.




Tuesday, February 09, 2016

A Song of the Mad Prince Wolsan



Autumn night on the river; ripples sleep.
No fish want my bait;
Only moonlight--
The boat returns empty.

- translated from a poem by the 15th-century Wolsan Taegun, for whom Toksugung, a palace in downtown Seoul, Korea, was built. He was twice passed over for the throne on the grounds that he was insane.

- Stephen K. Roney



New Hamphire Results





The New Hampshire primary could not have gone much better for Donald Trump. He won outright, of course, and won big, more than doubling the votes of his closest rival. More importantly, the primary let no figure to coalesce around for an anybody but Trump movement. Rubio, the great hope, obviously suffered greatly from his terrible debate performance. He needed and was poised or a strong second. Instead he slipped to fifth, and irrelevance. In second instead was John Chickasaw. A good candidate, but with no organization nor appeal in the Southern states about to go next. By the time Super Tuesday is over, hiss good showing here will probably be a distant memory.

Worse, the possible rivals to Trump are all bunched closely together in the results. So they may all stay in. Even if some drop out, there is no one clear destination for their votes. It looks like a two-person race is shaping up, Trump versus Cruz, and too many people do not like Cruz.

On top of that, Trump actually out-performed the last pre-primary polls, making him the winner in media terms as well. Other than the fade of Rubio, there is no bigger story,


Trump is now the odds-on favourite or the Republican nomination. Before the debate, I would have said Rubio. Sanders, of course, remains the best bet for the Democrats. Hillary's campaign will now perhaps melt down, There are rumours...


Sunday, February 07, 2016

Why Claude Left



Ofttimes a lonely sailor in a lonely alien port
May seek comfort but not honour by his side.
Ofttimes too-foolish virgins, with young hearts too tender-kind
May suppose no sailor has a wife or child. 
Ofttimes through blinding sorrow, lonely girls watch on the shore
As a sail grows fortune-small and disappears.
Ofttimes they clutch their stomachs, as they turn and walk away,
Feeling barren, fearing barren, lonely years. 
Ofttimes in toxic horror they might swear to scarry hearts
That no honour ever dwelt in sailor's breast.
But a seaman has a home, and a man's heart's not his own,
And each mainsail knows a wind that blows from West. 
You must not, for all that, no more trust sailors;
For the man who's not a sailor's not a man.
Just look for one with no home to go home to,
Walking inland, something wooden in his hand. 
And if he asks you what it is he carries,
You must swear a maiden oath you do not know.
And if he asks you what it is he buries,
If it's an oar, you must not tell him so.

-- Stephen K. Roney


US Presidential Race

John Kasich

On the one hand, watching the US Presidential debates is getting more exciting because the gloves are coming off, as some candidates are fighting for their lives. On the other hand, a lot o candidates have said the same thing too many times now, with their canned answers.

I think Hillary made a major blunder in the latest Democratic debate in going after Sanders aggressively for citing her huge speech honouraria from Goldman Sachs. First, it plays to her weakness. There is no question that her speaking fees look bad to the average voter, who could probably hope to retire on what she made for three speeches. She has now drawn attention to it by making it the preferred sound bite from that debate. Second, being the first to go negative and going after Sanders, clearly her senior, gives him sympathy and cuts into her already meagre likability. Third, it makes her look desperate, as apparently she is, and hurts her air of inevitability. Fourth, since nobody believes Goldman Sachs gave her so much money without expecting something in return, her protests to the contrary just reinforce the impression that she is dishonest. Clinton's campaign is almost DOA at this point.

Until last night's Republican debate, I was ready to pronounce on the Republican contest as well. Cruz's win in Iowa took out Trump. but is likely to be Cruz's own high water mark. First, Iowa does not often pick the winner of the overall race; the caucuses produce an odd electorate, Second, Cruz made a major gaffe last debate in fighting with the moderators, reinforcing the concern that he could not get along. His campaigns apparent dirty tricks against Carson hurt him further in the same way. Everyone likes Carson, and he is not letting the issue go. Cruz is unlikely to pick up a lot of support as others drop out, if there is a decent alternative. That leaves Rubio as the big winner from Iowa, and the endorsements are indeed pouring in. Rick Santorum started the stampede. The night of the last debate, he looked as though he were positioning himself to back Trump. Now he's behind Rubio, In one week, Rubio has surpassed Bush as the candidate with the most endorsements, most recently as of this writing Bobby Jindal. The latest poll shows Rubio leapfrogging Cruz in N.H.

However, it appears that the three governors still in the race are not ready to give up. In last night's debate, they formed a tag team. The theme was that one of them should be selected for their executive experience, and they have a point. Christie destroyed Rubio in the most memorable exchange of the night. In light of this, and the latest poll numbers, I'd say John Kasich still has a shot.

I'm good with that. To my mind, the strongest Republican ticket is Kasich and Rubio in either order.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Ayesha's Song about High Park



I love to go to the park and walk
And tug on daddy's arm to see how strong it is,
And point at different things
And sometimes forget and run a little
Chasing pigeons
Who love to be chased
And land alwaysI just out of reach, laughing softly
So we can play the game again.
I love to go to the pond with pieces of bread
And play queen of the ducks, pond mother
And sometimes even let one wobbling bill
Take bread right out of my hand
'Cause it doesn't actually hurt, really. It tickles.

I love to look at the flowers
Especially the ones with ants all over them
And the ones with big insides you can kind of look into
And see the sunlight.
And I love chipmunks, 'cause they're always such a surprise
And water tumbling over rocks, as though a little person might live there under toadstools
And old men fishing forever, and no fish
And somebody sometime said there's an honest to ghost in Colborne Lodge.
I love to go to the park with my Dad
And I wish today weren't Wednesday
'Cause it's awful sunny out and the rain's not falling
And today there’s not much light inside.

-- Stephen K. Roney


Ontario Today



On the advice of an alert reader, I tuned in by distance to a recent discussion on the CBC dealing largely with the current controversy about male-only campuses in Saudi Arabia:. http://www.cbc.ca/ontariotoday/2016/02/02/is-doing-business-with-saudi-arabia-worth-the-risk/

It was painful to listen to. It is sobering to learn how ignorant and prejudiced Canadians can be.

First, there is the premise that Saudi Arabia has a bad government that we ought not to have anything to do with. We ought, having our own monarchical traditions, to know better. There is nothing magical about democracy. It works well in some places, not so well in others. Usually, it takes years and a strong cultural tradition of voluntary associations to create.

Look around at the MENA region. What government is bettter? Would you rather live in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Sudan? These are the republics, the failed "democracies." Are not the good governments precisely the monarchies? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Morocco. Note that not all of them have oil wealth to make governing easy. Many of the "democracies," by contrast, do, and have still made a mess of things.

It seems to me pure prejudice to see Saudi Arabia as anything but a good international citizen and a reliable ally. Yes, they export their religious beliefs. That is their right.

Then there is the obnoxious bit about Canadian colleges supposedly having some kind of moral duty to impose "Canadian values." A claim made with much sanctimoniousness repeatedly in the podcast. This is just a new term for cultural imperialism. It is the ideology of empire. One caller rightly called his fellow Canadians out on this one. Are not the Saudis themselves more likely to be able to judge and run their own affairs? Do they not in any case have that human right? Are we so confident in our own superiority? Sorry, that is downright racist.

I am against capital punishment. But the programme host seemed to be upset with Saudi Arabia not because they, unlike Canada, have it, but because they execute by beheading, unlike the supposedly civilized practices of our southern neighbour in lethal injection, or electrocution, or the old Canadian and British method of hanging. The truth is that beheading is a good deal more surely painless than these other methods. We reject it only because we care more about the sight of blood than the pain of the executed, to our shame. When Europe regularly practiced capital punishment, being beheaded instead of hanged was a privilege of the upper classes.

The other rap raised against the Saudi justice system is that executions are held publicly. Does nobody stop to think that this is, and was in the old days in Canada and Europe, an important protection for our rights? If government executes someone the general public believes does not deserve it, by doing it publicly they risk a riot. By becoming queasy about our duty here, we Westerners have made it much easier for tyrants.

The faculty union rep on the programme also actually claimed, in so many words, that not all those executed recently by the Saudi government were violent. "Many," he said, 'were peaceful dissidents." That is an incendiary claim, shown to be unlikely, as noted, by the fact that they were publicly executed, and needs to be defended, not just asserted. According to the Saudi government, they were all violent terrorists. Fact and logic seems to be entirely on the Saudi side. These people had been through the Saudi justice system. Is it not the competent legal authority? Do we know better?

Inevitably, Saudi Arabia also comes under fire in the broadcast for not supporting the current Canadian craze for LGBT pride. Would Premier Wynne herself be free to visit with her partner?

Probably.

Homosexuality is indeed technically illegal in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it should be; putting everything else aside, homosexuality is a public health risk. You may have heard of AIDS. But there is a serious distortion here in the perceptions of how homosexuality is in practice treated in more traditional societies like Saudi Arabia or, to cite a Christian example, the Philippines. In fact, homosexuals are almost always let alone to live and let live. The only difference appears to be that they are not allowed, any more than heterosexuals, to publicly flaunt or advertise their sexual appetites. Unlike in Canada, homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated the same way. I know a good many homosexuals in the Gulf; I would not know they were homosexuals if they were not perfectly open about it. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a kind of paradise for gays, due in part to the sexual segregation, and an unusually high percentage of expats here are homosexuals who have chosen to live here as a happy hunting ground. My impression is that, for the law to intervene, you have to be an adult going after teenagers or younger, who do not already have an established homosexual orientation. In other words, what passes for a law against homosexuality in Saudi Arabia is just the same law Canada has against pedophilia.


Filipino transsexuals

In the Philippines homosexuality is legal, but the great majority of Filipinos are devout Catholics, who are supposedly out to persecute gays wherever possible. Instead, Filipinos to a man and a woman seem to have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. Like masturbatiion, it is a matter between oneself and one's God, and nobody else's business. Not only are Filipinos free to be gay or lesbian without any loss of social standing, there is a large and open culture of transgenderism. Nobody cares.

It is traditionally more oppressive in Canada.


Ayesha's Song in the Morning


Papa God, sing songs to me at morning
Of how pretty Mommy was as a little girl;
Papa God, sing songs to me at morning
Of how silly Daddy was as a little boy.

And when I tumble numbly-foot to bedfall,
Sing me songs of growing up and growing wise;
And dreaming through the spiral paths of evening,
Guide my wander on a thread with angel eyes.

And when the threads of dawn begin to gather
To a point of light on distant eastern foam,
Guide my feet back safely to my family,
And my brother, and my mother, and my home.

And when the golden dawn begins to shimmer
And my dream feet land dew-wet on mountainside
Fold my wings back safely to my heart's roost
And leave one silent angel for my guide..
And leave one silent angel for my guide, Papa God,
One silent smiling angel for my guide.
Grant me the gift of wonder on each lonely mountain side,
And leave one pretty angel for my guide.

-- Stephen K. Roney


Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Iowa Caucuses


Republican nominee 2016?


The big loser in Iowa was Donald Trump. I frankly expect his campaign now to fade into irrelevancy.His only selling point was that he was a winner, and now he has lost. 

The big winner is Marco Rubio. The name of the game in Iowa is exceeding expectations. He has most exceeded expectations. On top of that, he has pulled away from the pack in good time to allow the establishment to coalesce arooud him. Expect lots of endorsements and new money to come now to his campaign.

On the Democratic side, Clinton could not win. As the prohibitive front-runner, there is no news value in her winning. So even though she won, even though late polls showed he might. win, the story becomes "Sanders nearly ties Clinton." 


Now to New Hampshire. I expect Trump's current lead in the polls to fade, I expect Rubio to leapfrog Cruz, so that the story even if he does not win the primary will again be Rubio. Other establishment candidates will probably drop out after N.H., and Rubio, who has the biggest growth potential, will probably take the nomination. Sanders should win the Democratic primary handily. Sanders and Rubio will meet in November.