Taylor Force was killed in Jaffa by a Palestinian terrorist. He was a Redleg and a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course, being a tourist, he was unarmed at the time.
UPDATE: Donations for his family can be given here. Condolences can be left on the West Point Association of Graduate's page for him once they have finished putting together the tribute page, as he was an alumnus of the Academy.
Life Exists Not Despite But Because of Entropy
A young man at the Institute has come up with a novel theory for explaining the origins of life: in fact, he has developed a mathematical formula for it.
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.This leads him to make a small, humble claim.
“I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”OK, but if you are right, the Fermi paradox becomes even more urgent.
They Know If You Feel Bad Or Good, So You'd Better Feel Good for Goodness Sake...
Neuroscientists report that they can tell whether your motives are altruistic or selfish using fMRI scans, regardless of whether your actions are altruistic or selfish.
Increasingly we hear that it is not enough to do the right thing for the right reasons: you've got to feel the right way, too. Now we can look forward to a future in which that is enforced and transgressors punished.
Increasingly we hear that it is not enough to do the right thing for the right reasons: you've got to feel the right way, too. Now we can look forward to a future in which that is enforced and transgressors punished.
Landlines
Twelve years ago, pollsters began to notice that millions of people were abandoning traditional land phone lines for cell phones. Even then, we were wondering about the effect on polling. In Michigan last night, we may have seen it:
Nevertheless, thanks to the rigged nature of the "Democratic" primary, Clinton came out ahead in delegates.
Of course, superdelegates can change their votes. Put that way, the race is a lot closer:
Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.Sanders is the perfect candidate for an error of this type, as his support is demographically concentrated among the young. Many of the youngest voting generation have never had a landline. Telephone polls that aren't adequately capturing cell phones just don't know how to reach and count these folks.
Both the FiveThirtyEight polls-plus and polls-only forecast gave Clinton a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. That’s because polling averages for primaries, while inexact, are usually not 25 percentage points off. Indeed, my colleague Nate Silver went back and found that only one primary, the 1984 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, was even on the same scale as this upset
Nevertheless, thanks to the rigged nature of the "Democratic" primary, Clinton came out ahead in delegates.
Of course, superdelegates can change their votes. Put that way, the race is a lot closer:
True and accurate numbers are the following: after “Super Saturday,” Clinton has 663 pledged delegates. Sanders has 459 pledged delegates. Clinton needs 1,720 delegates to win. Sanders needs 1,924 delegates to win.Sanders still has a chance to pull this thing off. At the least, he's going to drain Clinton of money and energy all the way to the convention if he keeps winning at this pace. At most, he'll pull off a historic upset.
Sanders is a few hundred delegates behind Clinton, and Clinton has over a thousand delegates to go before she clinches the nomination.
Israeli Successfully Defends Country's Reputation
I really liked Israel.
An Israeli man attacked by a Palestinian Tuesday allegedly pulled his assailant’s knife from his own neck and then proceeded to kill the attacker.
The 40-year-old Israeli was apparently collecting money for charity at a store in the suburb of Petah Tikva at the time he was assaulted.
White Privilege
In Flint, Michigan -- home of Michael Moore, who made a couple of his early documentaries on the hardship of the factory workers and other urban and rural poor in the area -- Bernie Sanders declared that poverty is an ethnic issue. "When you are white, you don’t know what its like to be living in a ghetto,” he said. “You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”
Go tell it in Appalachia, Bernie.
Go tell it in Appalachia, Bernie.
International Women's Day Quiz
Can you identify these 15 "iconic" women?
I happened to do so successfully, earning the award text: "Amazing! You can easily identify the most iconic women in history. You're a true feminist who understands the meaning of girl power!"
Indeed, that's what everybody says about me.
I do take women seriously. That's not quite the same thing.
I happened to do so successfully, earning the award text: "Amazing! You can easily identify the most iconic women in history. You're a true feminist who understands the meaning of girl power!"
Indeed, that's what everybody says about me.
I do take women seriously. That's not quite the same thing.
Campus Carry Advances in Georgia
Senate Judiciary Committee cleared it. Now the Senate as a whole has to vote on it. The governor, who is not on my good list most of the time, has made noises sounding like he would sign it into law this year.
The proposed law actually only affects those 21 and older, who have been through the background checks and fingerprinting necessary to get a license. Thus, almost no undergraduates would be affected -- only a few upper-classmen, graduate students, and adults who were attending college later in life would be eligible. These will be people who have proven their capacity to handle adult stress without resorting to crime or violence, or ending up in mental health care or drug/alcohol rehab. The crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is vanishingly small, but they do provide an important distributed defense in the rare but not unheard-of case of a terrorist attack or active shooter.
In spite of that, there was a three hour hearing in which people came and railed against it. Even in Georgia, a lot of the Great and the Good are terrified of handguns.
The proposed law actually only affects those 21 and older, who have been through the background checks and fingerprinting necessary to get a license. Thus, almost no undergraduates would be affected -- only a few upper-classmen, graduate students, and adults who were attending college later in life would be eligible. These will be people who have proven their capacity to handle adult stress without resorting to crime or violence, or ending up in mental health care or drug/alcohol rehab. The crime rate among concealed-carry permit holders is vanishingly small, but they do provide an important distributed defense in the rare but not unheard-of case of a terrorist attack or active shooter.
In spite of that, there was a three hour hearing in which people came and railed against it. Even in Georgia, a lot of the Great and the Good are terrified of handguns.
Sigh
Reason magazine:
Surely a satirist who set out to write a deliberate parody of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest social justice warrior could not have done a better job than a paper on "just and equitable human-ice interactions."The paper itself appears to be a masterwork of the correlation-must-equal-causation fallacy combined with the sentiment epitomized by the famous parody NYT headline: "World ends tomorrow: Women, minorities hardest hit."
But the paper is real—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.
Not Torturing People is a Competitive Disadvantage
This doesn't strike me as a well-considered objection to the practice of banning torture.
First of all, I'm not sure it's true that our torture ban represents a strategic disadvantage. One of the reasons that the Sunni tribes were willing to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq was because of its reliance on torture. Even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that we were less likely to torture our opponents horribly (and showed an appropriate sense of shame about our lapses) made it easier for Sunni insurgents to consider walking away from the hatred of years of conflict with us, and consider a new partnership.
Second, even if it were true that a 'torture gap' was a strategic disadvantage, it may be that we could afford a strategic disadvantage given our other strategic advantages like the possession of a real air force. If so, we might be willing to accept the small cost in order to uphold our moral principles. This one is pretty important. It's worth paying significant costs to maintain.
In general I oppose trading moral principles for economic gains. If however you are the kind of person who is so invested in an economic mindset that you must sell off valuable moral principles, at least you shouldn't sell them cheaply. You should get a better deal for our principle against torture than beating ISIS, which is soon to be Russia's problem anyway as the current administration will have finished conceding the entire Middle East to Putin before you take office.
Third, I am deeply suspicious of the government's capacity to avoid sliding down slippery slopes. It has proven over the last two decades that it is inclined to do so. Removing the law against torturing terrorists suggests removing the law against torturing some despised classes of Americans, such as perhaps drug dealers. Removing that law suggests widening the class of despised Americans against whom torture can be wielded, perhaps to include "racists" or "sexists." Given the government's propensity to sludge down to the lowest level it can find, we should be reinforcing these walls rather than weakening them.
I could go on, but this surely suffices.
First of all, I'm not sure it's true that our torture ban represents a strategic disadvantage. One of the reasons that the Sunni tribes were willing to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq was because of its reliance on torture. Even in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, that we were less likely to torture our opponents horribly (and showed an appropriate sense of shame about our lapses) made it easier for Sunni insurgents to consider walking away from the hatred of years of conflict with us, and consider a new partnership.
Second, even if it were true that a 'torture gap' was a strategic disadvantage, it may be that we could afford a strategic disadvantage given our other strategic advantages like the possession of a real air force. If so, we might be willing to accept the small cost in order to uphold our moral principles. This one is pretty important. It's worth paying significant costs to maintain.
In general I oppose trading moral principles for economic gains. If however you are the kind of person who is so invested in an economic mindset that you must sell off valuable moral principles, at least you shouldn't sell them cheaply. You should get a better deal for our principle against torture than beating ISIS, which is soon to be Russia's problem anyway as the current administration will have finished conceding the entire Middle East to Putin before you take office.
Third, I am deeply suspicious of the government's capacity to avoid sliding down slippery slopes. It has proven over the last two decades that it is inclined to do so. Removing the law against torturing terrorists suggests removing the law against torturing some despised classes of Americans, such as perhaps drug dealers. Removing that law suggests widening the class of despised Americans against whom torture can be wielded, perhaps to include "racists" or "sexists." Given the government's propensity to sludge down to the lowest level it can find, we should be reinforcing these walls rather than weakening them.
I could go on, but this surely suffices.
OAF on the VA
A former hitter describes the VA as "purgatory," and proposes that you take whatever money you get out of them for disability and spend it on private healthcare instead. Along the way, he offers this quote:
Law 40: Despise the Free Lunch - What is offered for free is dangerous—it usually involves either a trick or a hidden obligation. What has worth is worth paying for. By paying your own way, you stay clear of gratitude, guilt, and deceit.
—48 Laws of Power
The Florida Sun Sentinel: No One for President
If only that were an option.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board is not going to make an endorsement in Florida's March 15 Republican presidential primary because the kind of person who should be running is not in the race....
Trump may be entertaining, but he lacks the experience and temperament to be president. He does not deserve your vote.
...
If you think Marco Rubio can unite the Republican Party under a winning banner, vote for him. But remember that he has almost no experience and has done little but run for office. Then, when he gets in office, he doesn't go to work very much.... Rubio lacks the experience, work ethic and gravitas needed to be president. He has not earned your vote.
...
If you want someone who won't compromise on social issues, who will stand strong for limited government and will make his decisions based on the Bible, your choice is clear: Ted Cruz....
Cruz scares us.
...
If you consider yourself a mainstream Republican, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is your man. He's a solid conservative who's fought public services unions, opposed same-sex marriage and battled to limit abortion rights. He supports a path to legalization — though not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants. He has strong credentials in government at the state and federal levels.... But while Kasich is the most qualified of the four candidates left standing, he lacks presidential presence. And he doesn't have a chance of winning because the Republican base is in rebellion and he got out of the gate too late to build a viable campaign organization.
Perhaps in a more-rational election year, the Sun Sentinel would endorse John Kasich. But we can't urge you to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination.
More in the "Who Is Trump Really?" line
From Jim Gerraghty's newsletter this morning:
In that CNN poll that showed Trump way ahead among Republicans, 35 percent said they would “definitely not” support him and 13 percent said the would “probably not” support him. There’s a certain percentage of primary voters who will only vote for Trump; there’s a percentage that will never vote for Trump. There’s no way to square that circle.
Every vote has to be earned; if a Trump supporter thinks Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio won’t improve the country and won’t do anything for them, they’re free to stay home. You can’t make them vote for a candidate they don’t think is any good. But the reverse is true: if a Cruz or Rubio supporter thinks Trump is a dangerous, erratic demagogue serving no cause higher than his own ego, insisting Trump won the nomination fair and square -- with the help of overwhelming media coverage, as our Stephen Miller points out -- isn’t going to make them sign on for a foul-mouthed vindictive narcissist with no concepts of limitations on state power.
ADDENDA: Over the weekend, Saturday Night Live featured a fake “Racists for Trump” ad. . . . This is the same program that had Trump host the show a few months ago. Some might see this as a sign that the media will build up Trump and then destroy him. A little while back, I argued that the media is blind to the ways that they already partially insulated him from these attacks:
If Trump wins the nomination, we’re likely to see the national media turn on a dime and start talking about him in the harshest of tones: He’s a racist, he’s a demagogue, he’s a maniac, he’s uninformed. Except . . . all of these powerful voices have already established Trump as a ubiquitous, delightfully unpredictable, fearless figure who can’t be ignored. If Trump is this repugnant, nasty racist, so undeserving of public office . . . why is he hosting Saturday Night Live and joking around with Fallon and Colbert? If he’s so self-evidently unsuited for the presidency . . . why has the national media spent a full year dissecting his every move? If he’s such a vulgar embodiment of reality-television narcissism, why the soft-focus profiles of his lovely family? If his economic plans are so wildly unrealistic and reckless, why has the business media written those glowing profiles about his keen mind and eye for opportunities?
So, How About that Democrat Debate?
Maine went for Sanders, too.
The line on the right is that the Democratic Party debates are even worse than the Republican debates because they are empty of substance. First of all, I'm not sure how much emptier you can get than the 11th Republican Debate, but at least this part of the criticism is valid:
Two big things came out of the debate from my perspective. The first one is that Bernie Sanders is actually committed to the survival of the American gun industry. He rightly criticized Clinton's argument in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for the abuse of their products as having the consequence that it would destroy the industry. The fact that he raised the criticism shows that, somehow, he has missed the fact that destroying the gun industry is the whole point of the proposal.
Clinton didn't roll her eyes and say "Yes, obviously, Bern," which was a substantial act of self-control on her part. It does show that Sanders' mind on what to do about guns has somehow never drifted to actually destroying the gun industry, whereas Clinton is part of the Democratic Party's faction that never ceases to look for backdoor approaches to doing so. This proposal is of a piece with the proposal to require gun owners to own liability insurance for each firearm they own, or to tax ammunition at a sufficiently massive rate as to make it impractical to buy, or to ban ammunition outright ('the Second Amendment applies to arms, not ammo!'). While I don't doubt that Sanders' SCOTUS appointees would be drawn from a pool that believes the Second should be read out of the Constitution, as Clinton's certainly would be, it's interesting to realize that he thinks his cause is helped by raising the objection he did in front of the Democratic Debate. Raising the objection shows he believes that it will help him to object to destroying the gun industry.
The other thing I find interesting is that the Clinton campaign's #1 thing they want you to take away from the debate is that Sanders tried to get Clinton to stop talking over him. Except that they phrase this, "Sanders tried to shush Clinton."
Clinton has been laying for this moment for months, a fact I know to be true because her allies in the press immediately painted this as a "Rick Lazio moment." I only know who Rick Lazio is because of the frequent references by Clinton supporters to him. They clearly believe that nothing will drive people to support Hillary Clinton more than the idea that she is brusquely treated by a man.
It may be plausible -- AVI was recently describing the kind of voter on whom it will probably work. As a qualification for President, though, "I'm the kind of person who can be pushed around by Bernie Sanders" doesn't strike me as hugely impressive. The Washington Post commentator says, 'Wait until the Trump/Clinton debates.' I say: think about the Putin/Clinton reality you are courting.
That's not to say that Clinton couldn't stand up to Putin, with all the machinery of the Presidency at her beck and call. It is to say that she won't be able to do so via diplomacy. Clinton's political style is like a soccer player gaming the referees:
But there are no more referees when you become President. She will either have to roll over, or she will have to resort to the kind of force that the President can call upon. By way of comparison, I had the strong sense that a Jim Webb presidency would be a peaceful one in part because hostile foreign powers would think twice about messing with that former Marine. His diplomatic efforts would be greatly strengthened by the sense that he was not to be trifled with. Clinton has made a career out of being trifled with -- it's how she got elected to the Senate, and it's how she stood for President the last time, ending up as Secretary of State. The appeal to self-as-victim, in the hope of aligning other self-described victims behind her, is the core of her political stance.
A Clinton Presidency would thus be far more violent than a Webb Presidency would have been. She will have to prove for the first time what Webb proved decades ago at a machine-gun bunker in Vietnam.
The line on the right is that the Democratic Party debates are even worse than the Republican debates because they are empty of substance. First of all, I'm not sure how much emptier you can get than the 11th Republican Debate, but at least this part of the criticism is valid:
An example Sunday night was when Anderson Cooper finally brought up the touchy question of Clinton's emails, ever so gently asking Hillary how she would respond to Trump's promised attacks on the scandal that could emerge, after the FBI investigation, as one of the most serious political crimes in American history.He doubtless felt he'd stretched his neck out by mentioning the subject at all.
Rather than answer the question, Clinton quickly changed the subject to how she had more voters, so far, than Trump. The evasion was so obvious you could drive the whole Russian army through it and probably part of the Polish as well. But did Cooper follow up? He didn't even blink....
Two big things came out of the debate from my perspective. The first one is that Bernie Sanders is actually committed to the survival of the American gun industry. He rightly criticized Clinton's argument in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for the abuse of their products as having the consequence that it would destroy the industry. The fact that he raised the criticism shows that, somehow, he has missed the fact that destroying the gun industry is the whole point of the proposal.
Clinton didn't roll her eyes and say "Yes, obviously, Bern," which was a substantial act of self-control on her part. It does show that Sanders' mind on what to do about guns has somehow never drifted to actually destroying the gun industry, whereas Clinton is part of the Democratic Party's faction that never ceases to look for backdoor approaches to doing so. This proposal is of a piece with the proposal to require gun owners to own liability insurance for each firearm they own, or to tax ammunition at a sufficiently massive rate as to make it impractical to buy, or to ban ammunition outright ('the Second Amendment applies to arms, not ammo!'). While I don't doubt that Sanders' SCOTUS appointees would be drawn from a pool that believes the Second should be read out of the Constitution, as Clinton's certainly would be, it's interesting to realize that he thinks his cause is helped by raising the objection he did in front of the Democratic Debate. Raising the objection shows he believes that it will help him to object to destroying the gun industry.
The other thing I find interesting is that the Clinton campaign's #1 thing they want you to take away from the debate is that Sanders tried to get Clinton to stop talking over him. Except that they phrase this, "Sanders tried to shush Clinton."
Clinton has been laying for this moment for months, a fact I know to be true because her allies in the press immediately painted this as a "Rick Lazio moment." I only know who Rick Lazio is because of the frequent references by Clinton supporters to him. They clearly believe that nothing will drive people to support Hillary Clinton more than the idea that she is brusquely treated by a man.
It may be plausible -- AVI was recently describing the kind of voter on whom it will probably work. As a qualification for President, though, "I'm the kind of person who can be pushed around by Bernie Sanders" doesn't strike me as hugely impressive. The Washington Post commentator says, 'Wait until the Trump/Clinton debates.' I say: think about the Putin/Clinton reality you are courting.
That's not to say that Clinton couldn't stand up to Putin, with all the machinery of the Presidency at her beck and call. It is to say that she won't be able to do so via diplomacy. Clinton's political style is like a soccer player gaming the referees:
But there are no more referees when you become President. She will either have to roll over, or she will have to resort to the kind of force that the President can call upon. By way of comparison, I had the strong sense that a Jim Webb presidency would be a peaceful one in part because hostile foreign powers would think twice about messing with that former Marine. His diplomatic efforts would be greatly strengthened by the sense that he was not to be trifled with. Clinton has made a career out of being trifled with -- it's how she got elected to the Senate, and it's how she stood for President the last time, ending up as Secretary of State. The appeal to self-as-victim, in the hope of aligning other self-described victims behind her, is the core of her political stance.
A Clinton Presidency would thus be far more violent than a Webb Presidency would have been. She will have to prove for the first time what Webb proved decades ago at a machine-gun bunker in Vietnam.
Core personas
A commenter at Maggie's Farm suggested that this 25-year-old interview in Playboy would show us that Trump does have a consistent core, and I have to admit that it does have that effect. He may not be a guy you're crazy about, but perhaps calling him a chameleon is also too harsh. It's refreshing to see anyone in American public life who knows how to talk about creating and possessing wealth without cringing.
Trump Supporters and Dignity
A stab at the question from a Democrat whose friends alternate between Bernie and the candidate she names "old Hilda Baggins."
"America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning." Well, it doesn't try. The Catholic Church tries to help people find dignity and meaning. America sets you free to find your own, in whatever way you like. The American project is about liberty: your dignity is assumed to be guaranteed by your status as a free man or woman.
Whatever esteem you aspire to beyond that, that's for you to build somehow. How? That's up to you, too.
Along the way, you're expected to shift for yourself somehow too. Here's where the trouble comes along: increasingly because of technology, those who earn first in unskilled and now in many skilled ways face competition from the poorest places on earth. Increasingly, because of technology, you also compete with robots that can work 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.
If you think dignity comes from work, you're in bad shape. But dignity is at least tied up with work, because work is how you get resources, and your status in the community depends on your ability to wield resources. We expect you to pay for everything you use. If you own a home, we expect you to pay taxes on it every year, and will take it from you the minute you can't. If dignity includes having security in a place in the world, it depends in America on having the ability to earn adequate resources.
Probably it does everywhere, really, no matter what schemes are set up to mask that fact.
It's an interesting stab, in any case. The author, one Emma Lindsay -- good Scottish name, that -- deserves credit for having written it. Just the moment at which she proposes to look beyond racism, rather than stopping with it as sufficient cause to condemn, is stunning coming at this time and place and from someone of her particular 'tribe.'
Maybe there's some value to all this Trump business after all. It's at least stimulating some interesting thoughts.
Thing is, Trump supporters don’t vote against their best interests, democrats just don’t understand the interest they care about most.I wonder.
It’s dignity.
...
America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning. We have, with the internet, the power for more people to be appreciated than ever before, yet we use it primarily to shame each other. Shaming Trump supporters for being “ignorant bigots” is the worst thing you can do, because their entire motivation in voting for Trump is to alleviate the shame they are already carrying. If you add to their shame, they will dig in further.
It is, obviously, difficult to think about ways to reduce shame on a national level but we have to start finding ways to have more appreciation for each other, even those we disagree with. At the most basic level we can start by not explicitly shaming people. We can stop calling them ignorant. We can stop mocking them on the internet. We can stop calling them out on twitter.
"America is terrible at giving its citizens dignity and meaning." Well, it doesn't try. The Catholic Church tries to help people find dignity and meaning. America sets you free to find your own, in whatever way you like. The American project is about liberty: your dignity is assumed to be guaranteed by your status as a free man or woman.
Whatever esteem you aspire to beyond that, that's for you to build somehow. How? That's up to you, too.
Along the way, you're expected to shift for yourself somehow too. Here's where the trouble comes along: increasingly because of technology, those who earn first in unskilled and now in many skilled ways face competition from the poorest places on earth. Increasingly, because of technology, you also compete with robots that can work 24 hours a day at a fraction of the cost of a human worker.
If you think dignity comes from work, you're in bad shape. But dignity is at least tied up with work, because work is how you get resources, and your status in the community depends on your ability to wield resources. We expect you to pay for everything you use. If you own a home, we expect you to pay taxes on it every year, and will take it from you the minute you can't. If dignity includes having security in a place in the world, it depends in America on having the ability to earn adequate resources.
Probably it does everywhere, really, no matter what schemes are set up to mask that fact.
It's an interesting stab, in any case. The author, one Emma Lindsay -- good Scottish name, that -- deserves credit for having written it. Just the moment at which she proposes to look beyond racism, rather than stopping with it as sufficient cause to condemn, is stunning coming at this time and place and from someone of her particular 'tribe.'
Maybe there's some value to all this Trump business after all. It's at least stimulating some interesting thoughts.
Kansas Goes Sanders, Too
OK, so Kansas is just one little state, and a caucus. Clinton won Louisiana's primary election, which was another Southern state, where she is running a lot stronger than elsewhere.
Still, it shows that the nomination fight is still a fight on the Democratic Party side.
UPDATE: Not quite finished on the Republican side, either.
Still, it shows that the nomination fight is still a fight on the Democratic Party side.
UPDATE: Not quite finished on the Republican side, either.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)