Is Trump done? Not at all. He only needs to secure on the first ballot 482 of the remaining 798 delegates outstanding. That is about 60% of the remainder, though, so he’d have to do much better going forward than he has so far. And that is much more difficult for him to do because there’s only three in the race, now, and Trump has made himself ever more toxic to everyone but his core supporters.
Cruz, meanwhile, has the nearly impossible task of getting about 90% of the remaining delegates to secure a first ballot nomination – anything can happen in politics, but it is almost a certainty that Cruz won’t be able to do that. But that, at any rate, doesn’t seem to be Cruz’ plan right now – the reason he’s working hard at getting his people into the delegations to the Convention is he figures (a) he can’t get a first ballot majority and (b) neither can Trump. Many of Cruz’ people will have to vote Trump on the first ballot but after that, it’s pretty much anything goes…but as these people were selected with massive input from Cruz, it is highly unlikely they’ll go for anyone other than Cruz, unless the convention deadlocks after multiple ballots are taken. Then Cruz backers might start looking around for a non-Trump, non-Establishment alternative. Of course, Cruz also has to worry not just about how Trump does, but how Kasich does…if Trump plus Kasich equals “nominating majority”, then Kasich might well throw his support to Trump, putting him over the top. Whatever amount Trump falls short, it will be vital to Cruz to make sure he falls farther short than whatever Kasich has.
It occurred to me today that as well as securing himself friendly 2nd ballot delegates, Cruz may also be making a play to take over the Party. Remember, regardless of who they are pledged to vote for on the first ballot, Cruz-backing delegates will be voting on the rules for the Convention. If Cruz gets enough of his people in there, then Cruz sets the agenda for the Convention. And given how diligent Cruz has been at this nuts-and-bolts stuff, I’d be shocked if among his selected delegates there aren’t people who have mastered the rules of parliamentary procedure. People who know that stuff can tie things up in knots, and untie them just as swiftly…while those who don’t know the rules won’t know what hit them. Given that Trump has proven himself manifestly ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts of politics, I’d expect the Convention to steamroller Trump…and, also, go a long way towards making sure Establishment types don’t parachute someone else into the nomination.
I have to admit to being ever more impressed with Cruz. I’ve always admired his firm stance on Constitutional government, but he’s also showing rare ability to just work the system – set up, it must be said, by people who despise him and wanted to precisely keep out people like him – to his advantage. He prepares. He studies. He does the mind-numbingly boring stuff it takes to get things done. Of course, he can’t do it alone so he must have hired some really cracker jack people to help him out. Given the towering unpopularity of Hillary and her massively dispirited base, I’m starting to think that Cruz might be able to make mince meat out of her in the fall. We’ll have to see – and, of course, it is not even remotely certain that Cruz will prevail in Cleveland. Lot of politics to go through before we get there.
Bernie is, however, done – he never was other than done, anyway. The Democrat Party has determined that Hillary will be the nominee. Lot of factors probably playing to that. Not least is the fact that the party it honeycombed with Hillary loyalists…but it is more than that. It is her “turn”, you see? Democrats really think like that – not all of them, but enough to grind it out. But it is still remarkable that Hillary has yet to put Sanders down. I suspect it will be end of April, start of May before she manages it…and then only with the sort of chicanery which often gives her as many delegates from a State as Sanders gets, even when he blows her out among the voters.
Don’t be surprised if Rove, Romney and other GOP elites try and instill their own candidate at the convention. They are using Cruz now to thwart Trump, but they’re no fans of Cruz either.
Off topic, but needs to be mentioned is this:
Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1.48 trillion for the first half of fiscal year 2016, but the federal government still ran a $461 billion deficit during that time, according to the latest monthly Treasury Department
So record tax revenues for the federal government, but it is still not enough as they continue to run half billion dollar deficits.
Compounding this federal confiscation will be the election of Hillary Clinton who has proposed even more taxes to increase “fairness” in our society. Here are just a few of her proposals to take more of your money:
$400 Billion “Fairness” Tax Increase — According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” taxing carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and raising the Death Tax.
Capital Gains Tax Increase — Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for an overly complex, byzantine capital gains tax regime with six brackets for those whose total taxable income puts them in the top 39.6 percent bracket. Her campaign has not said how much this will increase taxes.
Tax on Stock Trading — Clinton has proposed a new, unquantified tax on stock trading. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Inevitably, costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts.
“Exit Tax” – Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at corporate inversions including an “exit tax” – on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. This proposal would completely fail to address the underlying causes behind inversions. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. It does not specify a dollar amount.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/hillary-confirms-trillion-dollar-tax-hike-plan#ixzz45iiofDMG
I’m so disgusted with Kasich I could spit. While all of those who voted for Kasich would not necessarily have voted for Cruz, having Kasich in the race sucked away enough potential Cruz votes to benefit Trump, and he turns my stomach. On one hand I suppose he would be a marginally better choice than Trump, just because he is so craven and opportunistic I think he would be easier to rein in as president, while Trump would be the bull in the china shop, using his newfound position to take swings at all those he thinks treated him “unfairly” and being wildly unpredictable except in his swing back to the Left.
Cruz is not just the guy who understands the details, he is the guy who can articulate his position better than either Kasich (the “architect” of the Contract With America, did you know that?) or mumble-stumble Duck-Lipped Donald The Incoherent. I’ve never been worried about a Cruz/Clinton faceoff.
How many years have we conservatives been insisting that if we could just get our message out to the people, we would win? Now that we actually have someone who can do that, we are all jittery because maybe other Senators don’t “like” him enough, or he isn’t pretty enough. Our ONLY threat is coming from the weasel who slipped into the tent and who is now disrupting everything in a massive ego storm. And even he would not have been able to do the damage he has been doing, and no doubt will continue to do, without the help of so many alleged conservatives who were quite ready to turn their backs on those principles they have been touting once they had someone who assured them that when he turned the Constitution upside down he would be doing it for the RIGHT reasons, without the help of “evangelicals” whose demands for principled values-oriented leaders were abandoned in favor of the least moral, most transparently pseudo-Christian candidate imaginable.
After all these years of complaining that conservatives were being shafted by the GOP “establishment” we are now being undermined and possibly destroyed by the same people who complained about this. The same folks who refused to vote for Mitt Romney are now passionate about Donald Trump? Really? Right now I’d take Mitt in a heartbeat over the peroxided mullet-head con man.
Kasich is a Democrat and nothing will change if he is nominated.
Are you sure Rafael Jr. is eligible? Didn’t you doubt him being a “natural born citizen”?
You seem quite impressed with your coy little smirk about “Rafael Jr.” Do you have any reason to doubt that he is a Natural Born Citizen? If so, please do share. I am sure that the rest of us are as eager to hear your analysis as I.
It is just strange that Kasich stays in – not sure if he’s angling for a VP slot or thinks that a deadlock will result in everyone going for him. If he’s planning on the VP slot, it makes a little bit of sense to stay in…but in all the States going forward, I don’t see much chance for him to increase his delegate total, so Kasich might not have enough to award the nomination on the first ballot. And I see zero chance of the convention turning to him if it deadlocks between Trump and Cruz…a real deadlock (say, three or four ballots where the numbers for Trump and Cruz don’t move much either way) would, I think, result in some long and hard thinking about whom to turn to, and I don’t see “Kasich” lighting up a lot of minds…at that point, we may get someone like Perry dropped in to take it all…a person who has both TEA Party and Establishment cred and who has a long track record of elections; though I’d prefer the delegates to pick a Walker/Martinez ticket if it comes to that.
I forgot about Perry. He would be OK. I used to prefer Walker but he fell apart in the debates and might not be up to the job.
I think Kasich has made sure he will never be a part of Republican or conservative consideration again, ever, for anything. I think too many people are too ticked off at him right now to tolerate him as a VP. As far as I am concerned, Kasich and Rubio are to blame for the whole hysteria now being pumped up by Trump, and I have no use for either one of them. Magical Thinking belongs on the Left, where it is the only thing that keeps it alive, not over here in the real world. The only thing “Kasich” is lighting up for me is contempt.
As for second or third ballots moving to Cruz, and Trump having a predictable whinefest about it, I think the same thing about the votes in the earlier primaries as I do about early voting—-you cast your vote so early, and then you are stuck with it, even if things come up later that would have changed your mind. Trump support has dropped off so much, I think his antics are wearing thin and people are reconsidering the idea of electing this petulant crybaby egotist loose cannon who is already backing off on the promises he made to get the votes he got. I would consider delegates moving away from Trump as mere buyer’s remorse, that sick feeling you get when you get home and find out you didn’t get what you thought you were getting. People have a right to change their minds.
Walker did run a terrible campaign – which surprised the heck out of me given what he survived in Wisconsin…but it is true, State and National politics are two different animals.
I’m thinking that Cruz will get it – he’s putting in the effort to make sure. Of course, anything can happen…and it will be interesting to see what Trump does when Cruz secures the nomination. I don’t see him giving a gracious concession speech at the Convention the way Reagan did in 1976…but, he could surprise us.
What’s the story with Rubio’s delegates? He had 169 when he dropped out of the race. I know the rules are confusing, but my main question is whether he can direct where they go or if it is up to the delegates. His 169 added to Cruz’s 545 would bring him up very close to Trump.
I’d like a governor as VP, and that brings me back to an old favorite, Mike Pence of Indiana. He’s charismatic, was a Representative, and has some pretty solid credentials. I know Spook has had some disagreements with him, but overall I like him a lot, and a Midwestern VP candidate offers a nice balance. Nikki Haley is a decent governor. Asa Hutchinson has really good credentials, as far as I can see, but I haven’t looked into him very closely. Rick Scott of Florida might be a good choice, as he seems pretty solid and we need Florida.
Suddenly occurs to me that a brokered convention means an open fight for the VP slot…the guy who gets the nomination may have a lot of pull in getting his preferred VP pick, but it won’t be a for-sure thing…the delegates will have to vote. Suppose Kasich gives his delegates to Cruz for a VP slot…ok, but then when vote time comes a combination of Kasich delegates who don’t like Cruz along with Trump delegates who can’t forgive Kasich for dropping their guy deny Kasich the VP slot…
Could get very interesting.
The ONLY benefit to a Kasich VP slot would be possibly winning Ohio in the election. I like Fiorina as VP—she would be the only qualified woman in the race. For me that is not a choice based on gender, but once it’s made you can’t ignore the gender factor. Would she help with California? Not Martinez, at least not with Cruz. Not Cruz/Perry, can’t have two Texans.
I like Martinez because she’s been a good governor – and very importantly signed a law ending civil asset forfeiture in New Mexico…to me, that tells me she really understands what reform is all about. We get the additional benefit of a female VP candidate who is also Latina…and with just one heck of a great blue-collar, up-by-hard-work narrative to tell. As governor she has been pro-life, vetoed a law to increase the minimum wage (that took guts – silly as minimum wages are, they are enormously popular with the public) and has worked to make New Mexico more competitive…she has a few questionable things, as well – supports Common Core and doesn’t advocate a full repeal of Obamacare (but does want the individual mandate repealed)…but, all in all, solid. Oh, and she’s Catholic – Catholics are the major swing vote in the nation and she’d be immensely helpful in getting Catholic votes for the GOP.
I like Martinez a lot, but I think two Hispanics on one ticket would look like pandering. I think strategy involves looking for all the various things any candidate will bring to the table.
Raising the capital gains tax makes raising the minimum wage look like small potatoes, when it comes to destroying the economy.
Static money does no one any good. Money that is locked up because people are not willing to pay exorbitant tax rates when they sell off assets is basically removed from the economy. Reagan understood this.
Just curious—and this is a serious question, not a gotcha or a setup. I genuinely want to know what you all think. What do you think would happen to the economy if, in the first hundred days of a Cruz presidency, the following things were enacted by Congress?
(1) Reducing the capital gains tax to 10%
(2) Enacting a temporary amnesty on returning money held overseas, taxing it at 10%, in place for two years.
(3) Reducing the corporate tax rate to 10-15%
(4) Reforming bank and lending institution regulations to encourage lending to businesses, especially small businesses
I am not nearly as erudite in matters financial as many of you, Spook in particular, but I think this would be such a shot of adrenaline to the economy it would jumpstart it and energize it. That money locked up in assets would, to a great extent, be freed up, and money that is moving is good for the economy. Bringing trillions of dollars of overseas money back into the country, and taxing it as a low rate, would not only provide operating capital for U.S. businesses, it would bring in more tax revenue than it is bringing in now, which is zero. I think making the United States a very competitive place to run businesses would be its own reward, and making it possible for small businesses to borrow money would also help rebuild our faltering economy.
Obviously, all economic/taxation/regulation issues would need major overhauling, but it seems to me that these basic changes, none of which involve adding to the federal payroll or writing more checks out of federal accounts, would be a good start.
I am on the run but briefly I think the economic benefits of Cruz’s policies could be huge, or yuge as it were. Add in his plan for personal tax income reform which I love and everyone should read up on, welfare reform particularly disability reform, and approving the keystone pipeline and we could see an overnight economic resurgence.
The Keystone Pipeline is not a huge job producer and right now not economically viable with the oil glut.
It will take a few years to build sport, and every industry has cycles, but they still need infrastructure. And why are you racist against Cubans?
Just using his real name, chief.
You may be implying that I am racist because of the birther question I asked to Zona. Well, Rafael Jr. is a natural born citizen and will run against Hillary this fall. But I do remember Zona having doubts before. I guess those are gone.
fielding, are you stating an opinion that we should wait until we need the pipeline to start building it? If so, please give us some details on your analysis that we should not build it now, in an economic situation where there are so many looking for work, but should wait until the oil industry recovers and there are fewer workers available to build the pipeline.
I’m sure it will be fascinating, and perhaps even informative.
And I remember the days when progressives like fielding were telling us that fracking our domestic crude reserves will not bring gas prices down. And yet then they celebrated Barry for his economic acumen when those gas prices actually did fall. Progressives like fielding have been so wrong, so often that they are really are not worthy of any dialogue as they have proven themselves to be ignorant and intolerant.
Awww, fc, you have finally confirmed my suspicion that you are a lurker and probably a recycled troll.
However, if you are going to claim to be citing my statements do try to be more accurate. Here, I’ll help you out a little.
At one time I did wonder if Cruz qualified as a Natural Born Citizen. Very soon after this, I posted a comment about looking into the matter, and realizing that because his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth he is Natural Born.
Funniest thing about people who think. We are curious and always looking for accurate information. We also do not hesitate to ask questions. This seems to absolutely bumfuddle lemmings and sheeple, as indicated by your confusion. A question is really just a quest for information. If it soothes you to restate this as showing “doubt” then you just go ahead and do what it takes to make you feel better.
“Just using his real name, chief.”
And it is just too too precious. Why, when you indulge in that coy little smirk I’ll bet your dimples just pop.
“Just using his real name, chief.”
I’m sure you also refer to the president as Barry Soetoro. Or do you have documentation of his name change from the only name most of us have seen on any official documents?
I did not state such an opinion. I opined that the pipeline is not a huge job producer. In the short term it will create jobs but over the long term will not.That is all I said. I didn’t say we needed it or don’t need it. I am ambivalent to the project. I see costs and benefits to it. So is Rafael Jr. a “natural born citizen” hon?
You’ve never seen this?
Click to access birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
But I prefer to call him Barry.
Hey, punkin, I’m just going off the fact that years after Barry was born, he was officially named as being Barry Soetoro, and since then I haven’t seen any documentation that this was changed. If his mommy and stepdaddy just lied on official forms I guess that would explain it. If they didn’t lie and his name actually was changed to Soetoro, you must have some proof that he officially changed it back.
‘Jes sayin’, sport.
Actually, I don’t remember anything from his birth till he showed up in Chicago giving him the name of Obama. The document you linked says his daddy was Barack Sr. Does it say his own name is Barack Obama? I don’t care enough to go back and look. But I’ll bet that you have piles and piles of documentation about where and how he was named as Barack Obama, such as his college records or even his original passport.
FYI, pookie, your silly little efforts to disrupt the blog with inane and irrelevant comments is noted. The biggest problem for your ilk with this interweb thing is that after you flood it with so much nonsense, patterns emerge.
Well and then there was that uncomfortable bio for his first book which clearly stated that he was born in Kenya, but let’s leave that aside. The truth of the matter is that neither of his parents wanted him, nor does the majority of Americans at this point.
” In the short term it will create jobs but over the long term will not”
Can we assume you misspoke here, and intended to say ” In the short term it will create MANY jobs but over the long term will
notresult in fewer than those needed for the original construction”?
Your odd “analysis” leaves a few questions:
(1) Should we only engage in construction projects that will maintain the number of jobs needed in the original construction?
(2) If so, why?
(3) Do you see the only reason to build the pipeline as creating jobs?
(4) Should we only engage in projects that are “HUGE job producers”?
Does it bother you to learn that your comments are seen as vapid and banal, chief?
Well toots, I’ve never seen any official documentation of him being Barry S. (because it did not matter because he is more natural born than Rafael Jr. being born in America an all)but if Stan and Step Daddy lied on some school forms or whatever, big deal sugar. Also, the document I provided states the father as Barack Hussein Obama, there is no SR.
You will get your chance to see if a real conservative to win a national election. Good luck wit’ dat. Have great day cupcake.
Isn’t that draft rather chilly? You know, the one that you’re feeling now that your mask has slipped? Or, rather, been ripped off.
Just a tip, if you intend to try to play this silly game again—don’t just follow breadcrumbs, because they just might lead you into a trap.
I’d say it’s been fun, but it’s really just been tiresome. As it always is, when dealing with this kind of vapid nonsense.
There is a school of thought, which I happen to subscribe to, that says one of the main reasons we have very low inflation is that much of the huge amount of money the Fed has pumped into the economy is essentially sitting in bank vaults or in digital accounts. IOW, the velocity of money is extremely low. I haven’t seen an article relating to the velocity of money lately, but a year or two ago there were numerous articles about it being at an historic low. If all the corporations holding cash overseas were lured into bringing it back all at once, I think we’d see inflation that would make the late 70’s and early 80’s look tame. For those who haven’t seen what the Fed has done to the Monetary Base, here’s a scary chart.
I don’t know if the Count still reads this blog, but it would be interesting to see his take on it.
Thanks for that input, Spook. It makes a lot of sense. But while it would not be good to bring all that money back into the country all at once, it also doesn’t do us any good to have it overseas. Do you, or the Count, have any ideas on how we could get money moving in this country without sparking high inflation, and getting it put into financing industrial and business development?
I’m popping in here while doing other things, as my computer is between my garage and kitchen and right next to the back door, and as I am out and about doing springtime chores I drop in for a minute or two. It looks like I need to take the time to do some research on what happened when capital gains went down under Reagan.
I’m sure a true economist could figure out a way to structure removing the penalties for success that drive so many businesses, and their money, into other countries.
Cash in our money at a 100 to 1 ratio, return to gold standard. Presto – no inflation. Ever.
It looks like I need to take the time to do some research on what happened when capital gains went down under Reagan.
I believe you’re thinking about Clinton lowering the capital gains rate in 1996 or ’97, helping to fuel the dot.com bubble and balance the budget (well, at least create the illusion of a balanced budget). Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50% to 28% but, at the same time, raised the capital gains rate from 20% to 28%.
Spook, if we cut the spigot off in terms of QE, and repatriate the off shore money which is estimated to be a couple of trillion dollars, could we not simply replace fiat money with real currency and avoid any hyper inflation?
Cluster, I’m not qualified to answer that from an economist’s standpoint. I was kind of hoping the Count would weigh in, but apparently he no longer monitors B4V. My first thought is that money is fungible, and I don’t know if you can distinguish between money in an American bank and money withdrawn from a bank somewhere outside the United States and repatriated back here.
That said, the FED has dug such a deep hole, they’re already way past the point where stopping digging would ameliorate the damage. They’ve already kept the ball in the air 4 or 5 years long than I thought possible, but they clearly can’t keep it going indefinitely. Hopefully we come out the other side intact and wiser for the experience.
Every time the Fed even mentions the word “taper” the DOW drops with investors knowing the shaky foundation could crumble, however if corporate tax reform was instituted along with repatriation and tapering my hope is that we would avoid devaluation to the extent inflation would not become a factor. That’s the opinion of this amateur anyway.
QE is the reason the rich get richer and the rest of us suffer with 0.09% interest rates on savings. Sad part is about money being fungible is the Feds are now pushing to “digitize” money so paper money will no longer exist in the larger amounts. I have a real bad feeling that when this “bubble” breaks we rejoin Jimma with 18% mortgage rates and credit unoptenium. I have been and will be cash & metals for that reason. If we become Weimar–I will fully credit the Democrats.
That’s what happens when Dimmicrats are in charge too long (look at any major metropolitan area run by Dimmis).
On the doubtful but hoping side of things–FieldingClaymore might grow a brain and be able to process facts instead of beliefs once more (if ever)
Ran across this somewhere;
Conservaphobia: An irrational fear that one might have to live one’s life without Government regulation and benefits.
I am betting on the benefits part.
Did anyone see the Democrat debate last night? I watched as much as I could and aside from resembling a bad episode of the Honeymooners, it was nothing short of who could pander most to special interests. Allow me to summarize: they both want to severely restrict access to guns if not take them away altogether, while reserving the right to prosecute gun manufacturers for “gun crimes”, and I am sure that Ford and all other auto manufacturers paid attention to that as cars kill more people than guns do. And while they are in the process of taking away guns they also plan on releasing more people from prison so we have that to look forward to. Re: jobs, both of them cited the need for more jobs but because of their firm belief that climate change is an existential threat, they plan to kill the fossil fuel industry and both admitted that there would be many job losses, but we can all take solace in knowing that they will demand that we are paid a minimum $15/hour if we can find another job, proving that they really do care. But I think my favorite part of the debate was when Sanders called out Israel for their “disproportionate responses” towards Hamas. Sanders believes that Israel has the right to defend itself, which is nice of him, but only to a certain extent and if he was President, he would monitor their responses to make sure they were “appropriate”. I am just disappointed that I missed the black lives matter segment of the debate.
Cluster, thanks for the summary. It’s hard to choose between the no guns/more criminals on the street and no fossil fuel industry/more jobs positions when it comes to a Lunacy Award, especially with the Prosecute Gun Companies stance vying for attention.
Trump folks seem to be oblivious to the fact that it is the DEMS who have the most to gain by having him as the Republican nominee. Now we have Nancy Pelosi weighing in:
It’s nice of her to help him out with this soundbite. Given how much money he’s donated to Democrats over the years, it’s really the least she can do.
Sometimes when you’re watching a master troll at work, even when it’s a troll from the other party, you can only sit there and admire the craft. This is Jedi-level.
“If they reject the public will, they will really hand us a bigger victory than I’m even anticipating now, because that will be an implosion of the Republican Party,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference Thursday.
The effect of Trump or Ted Cruz on down-ballot Republicans has been a hot topic of debate lately. Some Republicans argue the GOP billionaire would almost certainly cost Republicans control of the Senate and could even put the House in play.
So Pelosi, of course, is framing the GOP’s situation as a no-win for the party.
One of the more amazing things in this bizarre election cycle is the determination to foist the will of a few onto the many, in the name of “the people”, or, as Nan put it, “the public will”. Donald Trump has never won a majority of the votes in any state caucus or primary. That means that more than half of all voters DIDN’T VOTE FOR HIM. So where is this “will of the people”? I see it as voting for anyone but Trump to be the nominee. THAT is “the public will”.
If no prospective candidate actually does represent “the will of the people” by accomplishing what has been accepted for so long and is now considered “unfair” and beyond comprehension, a majority of the votes, that just moves the selection process to another format. Clearly Nan and her cohorts would rather have Hillary face Trump than Cruz, just as the liberal media would, just as every other Democrat would.
I think the risk of Trump down ballot is very much overblown – the GOP Senate majority is at risk no matter what, but I still only see three realistic Democrat pickup prospects and they need four if Hillary wins, five if she loses. But, if we lose the Senate it won’t be a huge shocker…and the GOP will almost certainly win it back in 2018, regardless of who wins in 2016. The House is pretty much impervious…it would take a GOP melt-down of epic proportions for the GOP to lose the House and with Hillary as the Democrat standard-bearer, that just isn’t in the cards as far as I can see.