New Hampshire!

I understand the desirability of soft power, but if we don't have it because of the way the world reacts to our next president, then we have no choice but to live without it.

If there is any consolation, most of the negative effects of a loss of our soft power will fall on the rest of the world. The mere existence of our hard power will protect US soil even without us using it.

Unless you have some idea for preserving our soft power even with a President Trump. Preserving soft power is well beyond my skillset. I can recognize its desirability, but have no idea how to go about building and/or maintaining it.

We don't yet have our next president and we are speaking about the desirability of the candidates. I was saying that Trump is not desirable as a president due to his inability to stop running his mouth and picking fights.

You keep only seeing this in military terms, when most of our global challenges are not military problems. We have plenty to lose if our influence declines.

Incredibly cool tweet from Jeremy Corbyn...

maybe he's been harboring this and other grudges

This, along with the electoral college, are obstacles to a democracy--not features of one.

That's the way the cookie* crumbles!

Filed under things I didn't learn in civics class. Despite the largest win ever in the state, it's most likely that the delegate count will at best make it a draw. This sort of policy was not created by the DNC against Sanders--it has existed since the 1970s in NH. However, it does offer a sore insult to the voters, many of whom struggle with existing feelings of disenfranchisment.

(*democracy)

Lash wrote:

Incredibly cool tweet from Jeremy Corbyn...

My hiatus from A2K only lasted a few months. Is it possible that you became a bomb-throwing socialist during this period of time?

Chris Christie — the brash New Jersey governor whose fast rise in Republican politics was undone by a petty scheme to clog traffic on a bridge — has decided to suspend his presidential campaign, according to two Republicans briefed on his deliberations.

Gregg Murray, an associate professor of political science at Texas Tech University, has been studying physical components as they relate to political preference for a while now. Most recently he looked at height, weight and body mass index, or BMI, a measurement calculated from weight and height. He found there's an instinctual preference for leaders who are more "physically formidable," especially in times of strife.

"It's sort of this flash impression that people have," Murray says. Tallness is a factor, but also voters could be looking for candidates who simply look healthy and strong. "The BMI measure was right at the top end of normal weight – it was like right below being overweight," Murray explains.

This is good news for someone like former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who's 6-foot-1 and in good shape. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who recently shed major pounds, also could benefit. "My impression is that people do not perceive Christie as unhealthy," Murray says. The 6-foot-3-inch Jeb Bush has been slimming down to fit into this category, too. "He clearly realized he needed to clean up his appearance a little bit," says Murray.

Aside from global warming, what non-military challenges face the world?

I suspect that no matter the challenge, any negative impacts will be worse outside the US than inside the US.

Then I saw the post-debate cable news coverage, particularly CNN, which ran endless montages of Rubio repeating the same phrase about Obama "knowing exactly what he was doing", along with commentary praising Christie's remarks as devastating, and reminding viewers that some had in the past suggested that Rubio was "too scripted". Then they would pointedly ask each other if (and how badly) this was going to hurt Rubio.

Without in the least being a Rubio fan, I thought that the controversy was manufactured by the media far more than by the candidate.

All the candidates do this. Donald Trump is probably the worst.

It was unbelievable, but whether or not it completely derails his candidacy remains to be seen. Remember, the man who was "no Jack Kennedy" became VP, and not the prig who delivered that line.

What has me wondering and, frankly, infuriated is why Christie did it. It was, clearly, very effective as a means to wound another candidate but there was no real upside for Christie. His own internal polling had to have predicted he was toast in NH, regardless of how Rubio finished. There was no reason for Christie to believe that he could take 3rd Place from Rubio, and if he wanted to attack someone to gain any advantage, the obvious target was Kasich.

So why did Christie do it and with such relish?

The obvious answer is that he has cut a deal with Trump. Rubio's meltdown benefited Trump far more than it did Christie.

The alternative explanation is a lot more difficult to take: It was personal.

Christie has made a point of going after the candidates who are members of Congress as do-nothing ditherers who are content with arguing about angels and the heads of pins. It's was a predictable line of attack for a governor, but maybe it was more than simply a tactic.

Whatever it was, if it was personal and for any reason other than Rubio led a group of Cuban commandos on a raid which resulted in half of Christie's family being slaughtered, it reveals a very ugly side of the NJ governor; one that could easily have ordered the closing of a bridge, that screwed thousands of his constituents, just to get even with a political opponent.