On Super Tuesday 2016, Hillary Clinton dominated 6 Southern states and won one New England state, Massachusetts, with a 1% margin. Bernie Sanders won 4 states soundly: Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont.

The delegate count now stands at Clinton’s 577 to Sanders’ 386 (superdelegates aside).

Despite the scoreboard–and immediate establishment media talk of his doom–Sanders still has an opportunity to win the Democratic nomination, should his popularity continue to grow and his supporters charge the polls in the next primaries and caucuses.

Consider that on Super Tuesday,

Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies–voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News’ exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points.

Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas.

Only 15 of the 50 states have voted. As Melissa Cruz writes, “Taking into account both delegates and superdelegates, about 75 percent of delegates are still up for grabs. If superdelegates are not accounted for, roughly 64 percent of delegates are left within the Democratic primary election.”

Though it will be a battle, Bernie Sanders can still win.

Importantly, Clinton’s national lead over Sanders has disappeared, and in some polls he’s beating her by a slim margin. That balance of support–made obvious in the first three Democratic contests–will likely become evident again as the race moves forward, out of the South and into states with the largest offerings of delegates.

Even before the crucial Super Tuesday victories, Sanders proved he could do well in blue collar, Midwestern states like Iowa (where he lost by less than 1%), New England states like New Hampshire (where he crushed Clinton), and in the Southwest (he lost Nevada by just a few percentage points).

Cruz writes, “Sanders still has a strong chance in many of the blue collar states coming up, such as Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania,” which offer 147, 182, and 210 delegates respectively. Ohio has 159 delegates, Indiana 92, and the highly progressive Wisconsin 96.

Even a Mother Jones writer who thinks “Bernie Sanders is in a whole lot of trouble” admits:

If he can roll with the punches, he just might make it to the sweet spot of the schedule, a four-week, 15-state stretch that represents his last best shot to turn things around, starting with Idaho, Utah, and Arizona on March 22.

This four-week stretch not only includes Southwestern states Sanders showed he can compete in but also the very liberal Washington, with its 118 delegates. Tom Cahill agrees that

…he faces a much more favorable electorate in states voting after March 15. If Sanders stays within 150 delegates by that benchmark, he can potentially narrow Clinton’s lead in the spring and overtake her in the summer as Sanders-favorable coastal states take to the polls.

Coastal states (Washington included) like the very liberal California, with its whopping 546 delegates awarded in June, could swing Sanders’ way and send him toward the White House. He has a good chance to win New England states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware.

Like his passionate fan base, Sanders’ war chest is only continuing to grow. He’s raised $137 million in the campaign so far, and as the Mother Jones writer notes,

Sanders raised an absurd $42 million in February—$6 million of it on the Monday after the South Carolina blowout. Because he relies so heavily on small-dollar donors who haven’t hit the $2,700 limit, he can in theory keep circling back for more money to buy ads and build organizations in every state that comes up.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Donald Trump supporter and former Reagan administration official Jeffrey Lord shared a tense and heated exchange with CNN political analyst Van Jones for the second day in a row.

The previous day’s quarrel, sparked as the Super Tuesday election results rolled in, saw Jones criticize Trump for being slow to disavow supporters who belong to white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan (Lord insisted Trump disavowed them “many, many, many times.”)

Trump, Jones said, “is whipping up and tapping into and pushing buttons that are very, very frightening to me and frightening to a lot of people. Number one, when he is playing funny with the Klan, that is not cool.”

Lord quickly called the Klan “a leftist terrorist organization.”

Jones at first steered away from “playing that game,” but Lord persisted, saying, “It’s wrong to understand that these are not leftists…they were the military arm, the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, according to historians. For God’s sake, read your history.”

Jones countered, “I don’t care how they voted 50 years ago. I care about who they killed.”

Lord then attempted to connect the Klan’s association with southern Democrats in U.S. history to liberalism today. After Jones pointed out offensive things Trump said of minorities, Lord replied: “Van, but what you’re doing right here is dividing people. We’re all Americans here, Van. You are dividing people. This is what liberals do. You’re dividing people by race.”

“The Klan kill people by race,” Jones said.

“And they did it–they did it to further the progressive agenda. Hello?” Lord exclaimed.

An incredulous Jones called that idea “absurd.”

On Wednesday, Lord and Jones were back on CNN for more.

Jones said:

You know, I don’t understand why the right wing is so obsessed with trying to point out that the Ku Klux Klan, you know, 50, 60, 70 years was a part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party in that time was a racist party and there were violent elements. That is true because, obviously, the Republicans at that time were the party of Lincoln, who ended slavery. But we’ve had a reversal over these past 50 [years]–my entire lifetime.

Lord doubled down on his Tuesday comments:

My point is that race fuels the progressive movement and has always fueled the progressive movement. Whether it was slavery, segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan, to today’s racial quotas, illegal immigration by skin color. You know, groups like La Raza, the Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, et. cetera, it’s always about let’s divide people by race and then here is the progressive agenda that we want to enact.

Jones quickly asked if “you are going to say that the people who are dividing America by race were progressives, were liberals?”

“Yes.”

“It was not progressives that were trying to keep slavery in place,” Jones insisted. “It was not progressives that were trying to keep segregation in place… There is this weird strain now on the right that tries to pretend that their hands are completely clean when it comes to race.”

After much bickering and crosstalk, Lord said, “The reason we needed those civil rights laws in the 1960s is because the Democratic Party went out of their way to undermine the civil rights laws.”

Jones drew a distinction between the southern Democrats of decades past and the Democratic Party today, echoing his previous comment on a “reversal” of ideology between the two major political parties:

There is something wrong with this particular view that because horrible racist Dixiecrats in the South did horrible racist things–and they did horrible racist things for a long time. In fact–

“For political reasons,” Lord interjected.

Jones continued:

Let me finish. For a long time they did horrible racist things. 50, 60 years ago. I say that is horrible. But guess what, those people left the Democratic Party and they joined your party. That is the problem. No, they literally left your party–

“No. That is simply not true,” Lord countered.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Alabama State Representative Steve Hurst, a Republican, introduced legislation to the Alabama House that would require castration for some convicted sex offenders, male or female, before leaving state custody.

Sex offenders over 21 years old, who committed currently unspecified sex acts on victims 12 years old or younger, would be subject to surgical castration.

For men, this involves removing the testicles, in an attempt to eradicate testosterone and curb sexual appetites. For women, this means female genital mutilation or circumcision, the removal of external genitalia, a practice still seen in some Central African, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations to ensure women don’t have sex outside marriage.

“The punishment should fit the crime,” Hurst told reporters.

California, Texas, Wisconsin, Oregon, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Montana have laws regarding castration. Generally, repeat sex offenders in these states must undergo chemical castration prior to release. Artificial female hormone treatment is used to reduce testosterone levels.

Some states perform the surgical procedure on males if they desire it; a handful of sex offenders have undergone the surgery to reduce their prison time.

The Alabama proposal is unique in that it requires the surgery and addresses female convicts.

Studies suggest castration does prevent future molestation and rape, but opponents of the surgery, such as the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, argue medical treatment is just as effective, castration only addresses sex drive and not mental health issues, castration constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” which the U.S. Constitution bans in Amendment VIII, and that the falsely convicted will also be castrated.

Hurst has introduced this sort of legislation twice before, without success.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Beware the Ides of March.

So said a fortune teller to Julius Caesar in William Shakespeare’s play, predicting Caesar’s impending doom.

While Hillary Clinton supporters and media pundits may view the results of the March 15, 2016, primaries as predicting doom for Bernie Sanders, events will likely play out quite differently.

Last night Sanders lost Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio by large margins, and lost Illinois by 2% and Missouri by 0.2% (about 1,600 votes). The delegate count now stands at Clinton’s 1,132 to Sanders’ 818. About half the states have yet to vote, and plenty of delegates are up for grabs.

Bernie Sanders fans can take heart: Clinton’s lead is not insurmountable, particularly since the states where Sanders is most likely to win come in the last half of this race — and offer huge delegate counts. One telling fact: most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S. that gave the most money to Sanders per capita thus far are in states about to vote, like Washington State, Oregon, New Mexico, California, and Arizona.

Sanders crushed Hillary by 20 percentage points in two-thirds of his victories: New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Vermont, Kansas, and Maine. This was not a fluke. He will likely have more big wins if young people, independents, and Latino voters register and cast their ballots.

Southwest and Western states with large Latino populations will likely flock to Sanders. He barely lost Illinois, but surveys the week before saw him with 64% of Latino support in the state, compared to 30% for Clinton. (Nearly half of Latino voters are millennials.) Of the 20 Iowa counties that have the largest Latino population, Sanders won 15 of them. He also may have won the Latino vote in Nevada, far better than expected, and Democracy Now reported after Colorado: “Latino vote helps Bernie Sanders surge to victory in massive Democratic caucus turnout.”

Upcoming states like New Mexico, Washington, Arizona, and California (with its whopping 546 delegates) with big Hispanic populations could cause Clinton’s lead to evaporate.

Now consider independent voters. 43% of Americans are independents, a steadily rising voting bloc.

Sanders is hugely favored by independents, for example winning 71% of the independent vote in Michigan, 73% in New Hampshire. He doubled Clinton’s support from independents in Massachusetts. He even won the majority of independent votes in states he lost: “Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas.” Of the first 15 states that voted, 30-50% of the people who voted for Sanders were independents, according to The Washington Post, and of those contests it is likely Sanders won New Hampshire, Michigan, and Oklahoma because independent liberals swarmed the polls.

Many of the remaining states have large independent voting blocs. In two states that have more registered independents than registered Republicans or Democrats, Iowa and Massachusetts, Bernie lost by just 0.3% and 2%, respectively, but in Colorado, Maine, and New Hampshire, which also have more independents, Sanders had resounding victories. The remaining states with this registration pattern — Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island — are coming up fast.

Finally, it should be no surprise to anyone that younger voters support Sanders over Clinton. On Super Tuesday,

Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies — voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News’ exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points.

Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia.

Voters under 45 certainly propelled Sanders to victory in New Hampshire (83% of 18-29 year olds, 66% of 30-44 year olds), helped him tie in Iowa (84% of 18-29 year olds, 58% of 30-44 year olds), and so on. In Illinois last night, Sanders won an astonishing 70% of Democratic voters under 45.

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University pointed to 10 states this year that would have a “disproportionately high electoral impact in 2016.” While Clinton has won 6 of these and Sanders only 2, young voters could still deliver Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to Sanders, fairly significant prizes. Voters under 45 will have an impact in every contest, however, and may make more of an impact on certain states than others. Some key upcoming contests in the Southwest and West have younger populations.

What will be key for Bernie Sanders is not only that likely Latino, independent, or 18-44 year old Americans will vote in their states when the time comes, but also the ability to increase the number of likely voters — to turn unlikely voters into likely ones. Latinos make up only 16% of the U.S. population, many states have more party voters than independents, and younger citizens are still less likely to vote than older folks. Mobilizing those not planning to register and cast a ballot is necessary to strengthen Sanders’ advantages with those groups.

According to a respected pollster whose calculations have proven fairly accurate thus far, Sanders is poised to see a long stretch of victories.

A New York Times writer points out Sanders has had enormous success in caucus states:

He’s a strong favorite in the caucuses in Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington and Wyoming. Barack Obama won an average of 72 percent of the vote in these contests in 2008, and so far Mr. Sanders is running an average of four points behind Mr. Obama’s showing in caucus states. Mr. Sanders is also a strong favorite in the Utah primary.

Further, “He could win big in North Dakota, Oregon and Montana, or maybe in a few mostly white working-class states like Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.” But Wisconsin, Arizona, and New Mexico will be close, while California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and the District of Columbia will be challenges.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Rob Ford, a former Toronto mayor who became famous outside Canada for drunken rants and cocaine use, died Tuesday, March 22, 2016, after a long battle with pleomorphic liposarcoma, a rare cancer. He was 46.

Ford, the son of millionaire Doug Ford, Sr., entered rightwing politics in 2000 and became beloved by some as the “plain-spoken champion of the little guy” and despised by others for his “caustic insults and off-colour comments” in a tenure of “seemingly endless controversy,” to quote the Toronto Star.

For example, in 2008, as a Toronto city councilman, Ford faced criticism for comments about “the Oriental people”:

No stranger to controversial statements, the Etobicoke councillor yesterday stood by his claim that his comments during this week’s council debate were meant as a compliment to Asian people.

“Those Oriental people work like dogs…they sleep beside their machines,” he said. “The Oriental people, they’re slowly taking over…they’re hard, hard workers.”

He said in a later interview that by “taking over” he meant Asians are further advanced in business than a century ago.

David Miller, mayor of Toronto at the time, asked Ford to apologize. Ford demonstrated he had received dozens of emails and phone calls supporting his statements, and said, “I don’t know why I should (apologize),” Ford said. “People aren’t asking me to.”

In 2012, Ford threw a racial slur in the face of a taxi driver and “used ‘mocking language sounds.’” Two years later, he was caught using various racial slurs — while declaring he supported different ethnic groups:

Nobody sticks up for people like I do. Every f*cking k*ke, n*gger…whatever the race. Nobody does. I’m the most racist guy around. I’m the mayor of Toronto.

Ford was later forced to apologize by an ethics commission, yet even the apology was not without controversy — leaders of the Jewish and Ethiopian communities accused him of inviting them to the official apology but switching the time of the event to ensure they missed it.

Elsewhere, Ford was confronted by a black city council candidate, who asked him to apologize for the use of the N-word. “Ford shrugged and said, ‘It’s complicated.’” Ford faced condemnation for the term he chose for community grant initiatives he opposed: “hug-a-thug” programs. (He was notorious for slashing funds for needed social programs.) He also said without his charity youth football program, the black kids involved would be “dead or in jail,” positioning himself as what some might derisively call a “white savior.”

Doug Ford, Rob Ford’s brother and advisor, declared, “No in this city supports the black community more than Rob Ford. No one. Bottom line. Zing. Done. OK? No one.”

Ford often blamed his racist rhetoric on intoxication.

The politician who personally asked Ford to apologize for his racism wrote that Ford supporters (including some African-Canadians) gravitated toward him because “we have no options and no opportunity to get ahead” and backing Ford is an “upraised middle finger directed at a political class that, from their point of view, could not care less about their quiet struggle.”

“(Ford) shows up and helps someone fix their door that’s been broken for three months and they say, ‘Hey, this guy is a great guy,’” one resident said. “His sort of populism appeals to that… ‘I’m just this poor little guy and there are these downtown elites who hold their noses up at us; they don’t come into our communities.’” He went on to say neighbors didn’t notice “the inconsistencies between Ford’s words and his policy positions” (Toronto Star).

Another citizen said, “I have too many friends who are motivated to support him. I think for them he represents someone who is challenging the system. There’s a misconception that he’s one of us.”

Besides racism, there was corruption. A lawsuit over a conflict of interest nearly destroyed Ford’s career in 2010. According to an integrity commission:

Councillor Rob Ford used the City of Toronto logo, his status as a City Councillor, and City of Toronto resources to solicit funds for a private football foundation he created in his name. Donors to the Councillor’s foundation included lobbyists, clients of lobbyists and a corporation which does business with the City of Toronto.

“A judge ordered him ejected from office…but an appeal court rescued him on a technicality” (Toronto Star). Even after this, he continued soliciting funds in this manner.

Ford was also accused of sexism. He once said, “We need more females in politics,” offering to “explain how politics works” over coffee to any woman interested. He once called a female conservative politician a “waste of skin.”

In 2013, politician Sarah Thomson accused Ford of inappropriately touching her.

Ford said in response: “False allegations were made regarding a number of disgusting actions…I can say without hesitation that they are absolutely, completely false.” And, as the accusations arose on International Women’s Day: “What is more surprising is that a woman who has aspired to be a civic leader would cry wolf on a day where we should be celebrating women across the globe.”

He later implied Thomson was crazy, saying, “I don’t know if she’s playing with a full deck” — yet also said some councillors told him “it was a set-up,” seemingly crafting two independent explanations.

Weeks later, Ford was kicked out of a gala event for military personnel (raising funds for Wounded Warriors) because he was intoxicated. He called journalists who broke the story “pathological liars.”

Other Ford scandals were simply bizarre.

Ford was enraged and frightened when a camera crew from a comedy show rushed at him early one morning while Ford was leaving his home for his car (Ford had received death threats earlier). When they blocked his way to the car, Ford called the police — only to leave before the police arrived.

Beyond his DUI conviction (a story he changed several times, from outright denial to half-truths) in 1999, Ford in 2006 went on a drunken rant at a Maple Leafs hockey game that included insults and obscenities directed toward a couple sitting near him. He yelled, “Do you want your little wife to go over to Iran and get raped and shot?” He was kicked out by security, and told the media he was never at the game.

He slandered progressives as “two steps left of Joe Stalin” in 2012.

He blamed bicyclists for their own deaths: “Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. And, you know, my heart bleeds for them when I hear someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.”

His take on HIV/AIDs prevention: “Why are we catering to one group with a disease that’s preventable? It’s very preventable. If you’re not doing needles and you’re not gay, you won’t get AIDS probably. And I don’t know why we’re spending $1.5-million on this.”

He was accused of manhandling a young football player he was coaching.

In mid-2013, Ford was caught on video apparently smoking crack. “I’m f*cking rightwing,” Ford mumbled while high. “Everyone expects me to be rightwing. I’m just supposed to be this great…” He didn’t complete the sentence. He used a slur against homosexuals to describe Canada’s liberal prime minister, and appeared to muttered the phrase “they are just f*cking minorities” at one point.

In an article Tuesday after Ford’s passing, Royson James marveled at “why Rob Ford appealed to so many”:

Gaffes and impolitic indiscretions that would sink mere mortals seemed to conspire to elevate his status…

Rob Ford seemed always to defy the odds. He seemed to live by his own rules. Exploding grenades propelled him into the air, they didn’t shatter his facade. The more he sunk into the morass of personal excess — the alcohol and drugs — the more entrenched, though narrowed, his appeal…

Wherever political scientists study voting phenomenon, they’ll be stretched to explain how a young man from central-north Etobicoke — a simple man trading on the means of his politician-turned-businessman father — could parlay such limited recognizable skills into securing the votes of so many of the most fickle of customers…the crowd at the carnival seemed mesmerized every time…

Ford’s genius — crafted or naturally acquired — is that he connected with the average guy… Citizens so often feel unvalued and invisible; they felt special when Rob Ford came calling. Already cynical about politicians, already certain that the average politician is in it for the money and is probably corrupt, these citizens felt that, for once, a politician was in their corner. And even when Ford’s behaviour became contemptible and evoked apologies from Ford himself, none was needed. They were standing by their guy.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.