Bernie Sanders Raised a Ton of Money Last Night

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has raised $5.2 million since his (sort-of) victory last night in the New Hampshire primary. The average donation size was $34.

At his victory speech, Sanders encouraged his supporters to send in small donations. Apparently, they listened.

Sanders crushed rival Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. During his victory speech, he urged people to donate to his campaign.

“I'm going to hold a fundraiser right here, right now, across America,” Sanders told the crowd at his victory speech in Concord, N.H.

“My request is please go to and contribute. Please help us raise the funds we need, whether it's $10 bucks, $20 bucks, or $50 bucks. Help up us raise the money we need to take the fight to Nevada, South Carolina, and the states on Super Tuesday.”

Sanders outraised Hillary Clinton by $5 million in January.

Looks like quite a few people are feelin' the Bern.

Oh, Canada: Cost Of Liberal Party’s Proposals Projected To Soar Into The Billions

Liberal Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposals for his four-year term are projected to send Canada into the red in the neighborhood of $90 billion. So, in essence, Canada’s liberals are going to spend everyone’s money in four year (via National Post):

In a report, the bank predicts the public books will sink deeper into the red due to the combination of a weakened economy and Liberal promises of billions in fiscal stimulus.

Report author Warren Lovely says if the bank’s downgraded growth profile comes to pass then Ottawa could lose $50 billion in revenue over the next four years.

The Liberals have pledged to run deficits in the coming years in order to spend $17.4 billion over its first mandate on infrastructure projects — which they predict will create jobs and generate economic growth.

The National Post added that Liberals have moved away from their promise to keep deficits under $10 billion, and their goal of having a balanced budget in their fourth year could be difficult, if not outright impossible, without tax increases and reductions in government spending.

Sounds like quite a grim economic picture, eh?

San Diego City Officials Wanted To Ban 'Gender Biased' Phrase 'Founding Fathers' Ahead Of Presidents Day

As we approach Presidents Day, it’s essential to remember not to use gender-specific language, like Founding Fathers, if you’re a city worker in San Diego. The Pacific Justice Institute caught this wild exercise in political correctness. The city of San Diego has now said that workers can't refer to the Founding Fathers by their proper title on Monday (via Fox News):

The traditional reference to America's patriotic patriarchs was an example of "gender biased" language in a city manual, and the admonition not to use it was reinforced this week with verbal orders, according to legal watchdog group, Pacific Justice Institute.

“At a time set aside to honor American icons to whom we owe our constitutional freedoms, it is offensive and indefensible that the City of San Diego is directing employees not to even mention the Founding Fathers,” Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said in a statement provided to

The warning against referring to Washington, Jefferson, Adams and company as "Founding Fathers" first appeared in a section of a city-issued manual titled, “Bias-Free Language.”

In a statement, city spokeswoman Katie Keach said workers are now free to characterize the framers of the Constitution in the traditional language.

“The ‘founding fathers’ reference was an example used in the correspondence manual, nothing more," she said. "This example has been removed."

Folks, this is getting out of control. Facts are facts, but in psycho-political correctness land–hope is down, black is white. We’ve seen what it’s done to our college campuses by turning them into cesspools of intolerance. So, please enjoy Triumph the Insult Dog’s venture to the University of New Hampshire, where he (and by he, I mean comedian Robert Smigel) wanted to know about safe spaces, microaggressions, and gender neutrality (kill me now!). Yes, a bit cavalier, but pay attention to the redhead with the glasses. Her reactions are priceless.

[Warning: some strong language and adult content]

Divisive President Laments On How Much He Sucked At Easing Partisan Rhetoric

Today, President Obama ventured back to Springfield, Illinois, where he launched his 2008 presidential campaign, to address the Illinois General Assembly. He lamented about how he’s been an utter failure regarding bridging political divides and calming the vicious partisan rhetoric (via NBC News):

Returning to the place where his political career — and his first presidential campaign — began, President Obama visited the Illinois capital Wednesday, renewing his call for healing the nation's partisan discord and building a better electoral system.

Bemoaning a "poisonous political climate" that made citizens cynical and disillusioned and leaders unable to achieve great goals, Obama posed the challenge: "What can we do all of us together to try to make our politics better?"

He outlined a few solutions, none of them new: limiting the influence of money in politics — including a Constitutional amendment, if necessary; reforming the congressional redistricting process; and making it easier to register and vote.

Well, for starters, this president is the most divisive in the modern era. Second, gerrymandering really didn’t have that much of an impact on our political process. But if Democrats want to continue this charade of throwing temper tantrums about the way congressional districts are drafted, then win some state and local elections. You actually have to care about the states, Democrats. By all accounts, you have zero interest in state legislatures, secretaries of state, governors, insurance commissioners, and other positions that are key to congressional maps, and finding future talent for the party. But enough about how Democrats have been completely eaten alive at the state level; Obama added that not being able to shed his divisive nature is one of the biggest regrets of his presidency.

In short, a divisive president lamented about how awful he was at trying to…be not as partisan. That’s rich–almost as rich as Bill Clinton trying to accuse other of sexism given his sordid sexual history.

President Obama at Illinois General Assembly: "I had to acknowledge that one of my few regrets is my inability to reduce the polarization and meanness in our politics. I was able to be part of that here, and yet, couldn't translate it the way I wanted to into our politics in Washington." Full video here:

Posted by C-SPAN on Wednesday, February 10, 2016

(Via White House):

But it’s been noted often by pundits that the tone of our politics hasn’t gotten better since I was inaugurated, in fact it’s gotten worse; that there’s still this yawning gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics. Which is why, in my final State of the Union address, and in the one before that, I had to acknowledge that one of my few regrets is my inability to reduce the polarization and meanness in our politics. I was able to be part of that here and yet couldn’t translate it the way I wanted to into our politics in Washington.

And people ask me why I’ve devoted so much time to this topic. And I tell them it’s not just because I’m President, and the polarization and the gridlock are frustrating to me. The fact is we’ve gotten a heck of a lot done these past seven years, despite the gridlock. We saved the economy from a depression. We brought back an auto industry from the brink of collapse. We helped our businesses create 14 million new jobs over the past six years. We cut the unemployment rate from 10 percent to 4.9 percent. We covered nearly 18 million more Americans with health insurance. We ignited a clean energy revolution. We got bin Laden. We brought the vast majority of our troops home to their families. We got a lot done. We're still getting a lot done.

Right, Mr. Nonpartisan, who continue with this in his address:

Look, I am a progressive Democrat. I am proud of that. I make no bones about it. I’m going to make another point here. I believe that people should have access to health care. I believe they should have access to a good public education. I believe that workers deserve a higher minimum wage. I believe that collective bargaining is critical to the prospects of the middle class, and that pensions are vital to retirement, as long as they’re funded responsibly.

Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Sit down, Democrats. Sit down. Sit down -- just for a second. I appreciate that, but I want to make this larger point.

I believe we’re judged by how we care for the poor and the vulnerable. I believe that in order to live up to our ideals, we have to continually fight discrimination in all its forms. I believe in science, and the science behind things like climate change, and that a transition to cleaner sources of energy will help preserve the planet for future generations.

I believe in a tough, smart foreign policy that says America will never hesitate to protect our people and our allies, but that we should use every element of our power and never rush to war.

Those are the things I believe. But here’s the point I want to make. I believe that there are a lot of Republicans who share many of these same values, even though they may disagree with me on the means to achieve them. I think sometimes my Republican colleagues make constructive points about outdated regulations that may need to be changed, or programs that even though well-intended, didn't always work the way they were supposed to.

So, you whip the Illinois Democrats in the chamber into a frenzy, only to give the token handout to the GOP that we’re good at finding regulations that are outdated?

Get out of here, dude. 

Full video here:

Sanders Had A Tremendous Night, But Clinton Is Probably Going To Trounce Him In The End

While Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) had an astonishingly excellent night (some might say “yuge”), it could be his own Little Bighorn. Yes, it’s a big deal that the prohibitive nominee of the Democratic Party got clobbered by double-digits, lost young and suburban women, voters under 50, and every income bracket below those who make $200k or more.

Betsy Woodruff and Jackie Kucinich wrote about how the Sanders campaign just out-worked and outmaneuvered the Clinton machine in New Hampshire, along with running into Bernie supporters who voiced their distrust of Clinton–and their disgust over Madeline Albright and feminist Gloria Steinem’s remarks. Albright said there is a special place in hell for women who don’t back Hillary; Steinem said that women support Sanders because they want to attract men, or something. In fact, support for Sanders is so deep, that some will back the disheveled democratic socialist–and no one else.

Numerous Sanders supporters flatly stated that they would under no circumstances back Clinton, citing the criticisms of her that Sanders brings up on the stump every day.

Ashley Bays of Quincy, Massachusetts, who came to New Hampshire to volunteer for Sanders, said she would “absolutely not” back Clinton, ever.

“It would be completely against my ideals,” she said.

“Hillary is obviously not thinking about the best interests of the people,” she continued. “She’s thinking about the corporations that fund her, Goldman Sachs.”

Peggie Greenough, a New Hampshire voter who came to the party along with her husband and three sons, said she wouldn’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee.

“I don’t trust her,” she said. “I don’t trust her at all.”

Marilyn DeLuca, of Londonderry, New Hampshire also said Sanders is “the only candidate out there” with integrity. And she wasn’t exactly enthralled by Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem’s goofy arguments that women are obligated to back Clinton.

“They’re irrelevant,” DeLuca said. “Their time has come and gone.”

“I have two daughters in their twenties,” she added, “and they were so angry when they heard that.”

Based on the exits, it’s an old Guard vs. new order rumble, and the new order won–or did it? As Stephen wrote earlier today, Clinton got slaughtered, but left with more delegates than Sanders thanks to the Democratic superdelegate system that allows party officials who can back anyone in this contest. So, even if Sanders won, he lost.

This is a sign of things to come. The delegate math and the composition of the electorate as we head towards the Mason-Dixon line and out west all suggest that Hillary is going to clean Sanders’ clock once the primary shifts away from states, where whites make up the vast majority of voters. C’mon guys, we all know that Iowa and New Hampshire are whiter than Wonder Bread, whereas South Carolina’s Democratic primary is set to be a majority African-American contest. And they’re all breaking for Hillary overwhelmingly.

First, the math (via Cook Report):

…98 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will come from states with lower shares of liberal whites than Iowa and New Hampshire. Just 447 of 4,051 pledged Democratic delegates - 11 percent - are tied to results in states or districts with higher shares of college-educated whites than New Hampshire. Moreover, just 13 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will be awarded in caucus states like Iowa, which as 2008 proved, tend to bring out more liberal participants than primaries.

In other words, if Sanders prevails narrowly in Iowa or New Hampshire, his support among liberal whites and in college towns - essentially Portlandia - would be entirely consistent with a scenario in which he also gets clobbered by Clinton nationally.

And the road ahead (FiveThirtyEight):

Polling has indicated that Sanders trails among nonwhite voters by nearly 40 percentage points nationally. Although no reliable recent polling is available in Nevada, Clinton leads by 30 percentage points in both of our South Carolina forecasts. In the latest Marist College poll, she’s buoyed by a 74 percent to 17 percent lead among black voters. Sanders must cut into that margin if he wants to have any chance in South Carolina or anywhere in the South.

You could already see how Sanders might have problems in Nevada and South Carolina even as he was crushing Clinton in New Hampshire. Despite winning the state by more than 20 percentage points, the best Sanders could manage among registered Democrats was a tie. His large margin came from registered independents who voted in the Democratic primary. You must be a registered Democrat to vote in the Nevada caucuses, though you can register as one the day of the election. In 2008, 81 percent of Nevada caucus-goers self-identified as Democrats. Just 58 percent of New Hampshire voters on Tuesday thought of themselves as Democrats.

Most worrisome for Sanders is his 25-percentage-point loss among New Hampshire Democrats who want to continue President Obama’s policies. Obama’s current job approval rating among blacks nationally is about 90 percent. Sanders will have big problems in South Carolina if he doesn’t do better among voters who like Obama.

Regardless, let’s give credit where credit is due: Bernie Sanders had a great night. And he’s raised a ton of money since his New Hampshire victory. But it could be his last great win. He’s approaching Hilary’s southern firewall, and it’s dubious he can climb over it. At the same time, he could be a consistent thorn in the side for Clinton, with his fundraising keeping him alive throughout the primary season. He won’t win, but he could keep gnawing at the heels of the Clinton machine, leaving her bloodied going into the convention, consistently highlighting her flaws (of which there are many), and leave her quote bloodied entering the general. The problem is if the Republican pick is someone who is an unserious clown, all of the hammering (and possible damage) inflicted by Sanders would be irrelevant since this unspecified GOP nominee isn’t going to be able to compete in areas where elections are decided.

For now, conservatives should get a good laugh knowing that Hillary knew that she needed to do well with women, suburban parents, and in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties; she lost all of the above.

Exit question: Given that New Hampshire Democrats don’t find Hillary to be honest, one former supporter said the emails made him distrust her, is it time for Sanders to unleash on Hillary for mishandling classified information? Today, it was reported that top Clinton aides handled sensitive material over her server. This is an issue and a huge flaw in the character of a primary opponent.

At Space, Missile Defense Forum, Lt Gen Says NK Launch is 'Disconcerting'

Townhall was in attendance at the Hudson Institute's Space and Missile Defense Forces and Capabilities for the Warfighter forum on Capitol Hill Wednesday where Lt. Gen. David Mann addressed Congress. In attendance was Congressional Missile Defense Caucus Chairman Trent Franks and Co-Chair Doug Lamborn. Lt. Gen. David Mann is Commander of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Forces Strategic Command. He is responsible for advocating for the missile defense needs of the Combatant Commanders, training and equipping the war-fighter in support of those missions, and coordinating Army space and missile defense forces and capabilities in support of USSTRATCOM.

"I think it's fair to say that we feel very confident in our Navy, in our Air Force, in our Army, our tank formations, our infantry formations," Mann said.  He made it clear that the Department of Defense feels very confident in its conventional war arsenal but was reluctant when it came to the evolving technological warfare that may be taking place in the future.   

"The recent space launch from North Korea, you know, that satellite is in orbit... it does reflect a capability that North Korea is trying to leverage in terms of ballistic missile technologies.That's disconcerting, and uh, we gotta get after it," he said.  

Mann went on to mention how pleased he was the recent budget released by the White House in saying that, "I am kind of counting on, or hoping that looking into 2017 some modifications or adjustments may be made so those accounts can come up a little bit in terms of funding."

Mainly, he wanted the congressmen to know that while America is safe, expansion in the budget will be necessary to continue adapting to the ever evolving battlefield.  

It is safe to say he certainly downplayed the North Korean launch on Sunday but many people in the room seemed to doubt whether or not the DOD fully understands what the satellite is capable of.  When pressed on the issue towards the end of the forum, he quickly interjected and said, "they have not been able to verify that it is operating or transmitting."


Farewell: Thank You, Carly Fiorina

As Christine reported earlier, Carly Fiorina has suspended her 2016 presidential campaign, effectively ending her long-shot bid for the White House. Upon her departure from the race, many conservatives are taking the opportunity to applaud her contributions over the last few months, myself included:

Fittingly, the former CEO waved farewell with a hard parting shot at the Left's constricting and self-serving vision of "feminism:"

To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.

Hear, hear.  Mark Levin is right: Fiorina has been an extraordinary asset to the conservative cause this election cycle thanks to her relentless, ruthless criticism of Hillary Clinton.  She is bright, accomplished, disciplined, clever, and on-message.  And she's a fighter.  For those reasons alone, I agree with SE Cupp that she ought to get a serious look for a spot on the eventual GOP ticket -- especially because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Team Hillary is going to lean heavily on gender-based demagoguery against Republicans.  She's already deploying that cynical strategy against her far-left opponent who agrees with her on so-called "women's issues" like, er, taxpayer-funded late-term abortion-on-demand (most women are not on board with this extremism), and forcing nuns to facilitate the purchase of birth control in violation of their religious faith.  Regardless of what the future may hold, I suspect Fiorina's indelible legacy will be those two debates I tweeted about.  Her dominant showing in the first "undercard" debate in Cleveland was so complete that she guaranteed a spot at the adult table a few weeks later.  She fought her way in.  She earned it.  And then lightning struck twice.  She stole the show at the Reagan library, passionately and articulately advancing conservative ideals, and landing one of the only clear face-to-face blows against Donald Trump of the entire race thus far:

As an aside, Trump's nasty "look at that face" insult -- and his ham-fisted lie denying what he'd meant by it -- is precisely the sort of foolish, easily-exploitable episode that will sink him in a general election.  The overall electorate will not be remotely as forgiving of his intemperate antics, ignorance, and vulgarity as a certain segment of GOP and disaffected voters have been.  Even in light of Clinton's unpopularity and fundamental flaws, Trump cannot win.  I'll leave you with one of the most delightful moments of Carly Fiorina's entire campaign -- a comprehensive beat-down of Chris Matthews, delivered with a smile:

One more thing: Despite what the Left chants over and over again, Carly did not "lie" about the despicable contents of those undercover Planned Parenthood videos. How rich that liberals furiously accuse Fiorina of lying, while preparing to nominate this woman for the presidency.

Only Five Candidates Confirmed for SC Debate So Far

CBS News criteria only allows five candidates on the debate stage this Saturday in Greenville, South Carolina. According to the network's rules, to qualify for the debate the remaining GOP contenders must do one of the following: Place in the top five in the NH primary, in the top three in Iowa, or in the top five in national and South Carolina polls. As such, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich have earned podiums – Ben Carson is still up in the air. Jim Gilmore is most decidedly a no show.

After Tuesday’s primary, which Donald Trump won handily, a few candidates who fared poorly have promptly dropped out of the running. Carly Fiorina announced her exit Wednesday afternoon and all signs point to Chris Christie soon following.

That leaves seven candidates - with only six potentially eligible for the next debate.

While retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson isn’t yet confirmed a spot on stage, most roads will get him there.

The bottom line: The only way Carson won’t qualify is if Kasich or Fiorina passes him in the national and/or South Carolina polling averages. Given that Carson has a pretty big lead in both categories, the only way he’ll miss out is if his own polling numbers tank over the next two days while Kasich’s and/or Fiorina’s surge by a big enough margin to pull one of those candidates ahead of Carson.

The South Carolina debate, moderated by CBS News’ John Dickerson, Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett and the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel, will take place this Saturday at 9 p.m. Republicans in South Carolina will head to the polls on Feb. 20 and Democrats will vote Feb. 27. 

Dozens of Hillary's Top Aides Had Top Secret Info "Too Damaging to Release" on Private Email Accounts

Yesterday Judicial Watch released a series of emails showing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared and exchanged classified information with top aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who hosted the information on their own private email accounts. 

Judicial Watch today released nearly 70 pages of State Department records that show that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides, Deputy Chiefs of Staff Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, received and sent classified information on their email accounts.  The documents, also available on the State Department website, were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The new documents show that Hillary Clinton used the system to ask Huma Abedin (also on a email account) to print two March 2011 emails, which were sent from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (using the moniker “aclb”) to Jake Sullivan on Sullivan’s email account.  The Obama State Department redacted the Blair emails under Exemption (b)(1) which allows the withholding of classified material.  The material is marked as being classified as “Foreign government information” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources.”

The newly released Abedin emails include a lengthy exchange giving precise details of Clinton’s schedule using unsecured government emails. The email from Lona J. Valmoro, former Special Assistant to Secretary of State Clinton, to Abedin and Clinton reveals exact times (including driving times) and locations of all appointments throughout the day. Another itinerary email provides details about a meeting at the United Nations in New York at 3:00 on Tuesday, January 31, 2012, with the precise disclosure, “that would mean wheels up from Andrews at approximately 12:00pm/12:15pm.”

Today, Fox News is out with an exclusive report showing Clinton shared classified information with at least a dozen aides, not just Abedin and Sullivan, that was not only top secret and classified, but so sensitive and damaging it cannot be released.

At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

The State Department recently confirmed that the messages in question include the most sensitive kind of intelligence. 
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton pointed out yesterday, this means multiple indictments are in order.

“These emails show that Hillary Clinton isn’t the only Obama official who should be worried about being prosecuted for mishandling classified information.  Her former top State aides (and current campaign advisers) Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan should be in the dock, as well,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The Obama State Department has now confirmed that Clinton, Abedin, and Sullivan used unsecured, non-government email accounts to communicate information that should now be withheld from the American people ‘in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and properly classified.’ When can we expect the indictments?”

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is demanding sensitive emails containing classified information should be released to the public. Last week the Clinton campaign argued that 22 emails found on her private server and deemed too classified to released were simply a product of classification "run-amok." Keep in mind the emails in question cannot be released due to incredible damage exposure of the information contained within them would do to national security and human sources. 

The FBI officially confirmed earlier this week that agents are in fact investigating Clinton's improper handling of classified information. There's no doubt with these findings the FBI is also investigating her aides, even if they aren't aware of it yet. 

9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America (Author Interview: Brion McClanahan)

Who were the 9 presidents that screwed up America? Find out in our interview below with author Brion McClanahan. McClanahan is a celebrated historian and the author of four books, has lectured across the Southeast and appeared on dozens of radio programs to discuss American history and the founding traditions of the United States. Read our interview below to also learn who the four presidents were who tried to save America!

Congratulations Brion on your new book, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America, And Four Who Tried to Save Her! Can you give us an overview of your book, and what was your inspiration in writing it?

Thanks! During the media campaign for my The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution in 2012, I was often asked about a statement I made where I said that virtually every president in the 20th century should have been impeached. This was shocking to many people, so I thought I needed to clarify my position. I also wanted to explain why President Obama is just the latest in a long line of serial abusers of executive power. It didn’t happen overnight.

I trace the origins of executive overreach and expose the most blatant examples of executive misconduct. Many readers may be surprised by those included in the book because the list of those who “screwed up America” contains men who are often ranked as the greatest presidents in American history, and the three of the “four who tried to save her” are never considered great by the historical profession or the public at large. I have inverted the traditional rankings. Even if the reader does not agree with my conclusions, it will make people think.

How do you define “saved” and “screwed up”?

The book measures presidential success by the only yardstick Americans should use, namely how did the presidents uphold their oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” according to the Constitution as ratified in 1788. Those who “screwed up” America consistently violated their oath according to the original Constitution, while those who tried to “save her” generally followed the parameters of executive power established by the founding generation.

Without taking away too much from your book, who were one or two presidents that “screwed up” America, and one that helped “save” it, and why?

The “screwed up” group was a challenge because I could have included more! Obviously, the low hanging fruit were Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but there are a few surprises in the bunch going back to the earliest administrations. As for the “good guys,” the best president in American history according to the original Constitution is John Tyler. Who? You’ll have to read the book to find out why.

What are some takeaways you would like readers to leave with after reading your book?

I would want readers to have a better understanding of executive power and to start a conversation about what we should expect from the executive branch. The founding generation feared unlimited executive power above all else. Just read the Declaration of Independence and that becomes clear. We need to be consistent in our disdain for executive abuse. Just because “our guy” did things we like through unconstitutional means does not make it correct. That opens the door to “their guy” doing the same thing. See Barack Obama.

Within the current 2016 field of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates, who is more likely to “screw up” America, and who could “save” it?

Obviously, both Clinton and Sanders would screw up America, but so would Jeb! and any other candidate the establishment Republicans march around as the “savior” of the American political system. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump could “save” it for different reasons. They would be the best among the remaining candidates, but we have gone so far off the rails that the only hope for “saving” America is either through the States or through a series of Constitutional amendments that would curtail executive power and bring it back to the founders’ design.

What books, authors, or conservative-themed books, influenced your political philosophy and outlook on life?

Like many conservatives, I was introduced to intellectual conservatism through Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind and George Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America.From there, I found Walter Williams, Pat Buchanan, Richard Weaver, Mel Bradford, Stan Evans, Murray Rothbard and a host of other men who are often considered “Old Right.”

I also started reading the founding generation themselves and several men who are not household names—St. George Tucker, John Taylor of Caroline, and Abel P. Upshur for example—influenced my views on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Historians Forrest McDonald and Clyde Wilson honed my understanding on the early republic. My outlook on life was forged by my grandparents who emphasized hard work, dedication to family, defense of hearth and home, a love of history, and a respect for God and tradition.

Learn more about 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America at the Conservative Book Club.

Report: As Secretary of State, Hillary Aide Blackmailed Media For Glowing Coverage

I know what you’re thinking: Another Hillary email controversy? Yet, that’s exactly where the New Hampshire also-ran finds herself.

A FOIA request obtained by Gawker reveals a suspicious email exchange between a Hillary Clinton aide and a reporter conniving for flattering coverage of the former secretary of state.

In 2009, Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder asked Philippe Reines for an advanced copy of Clinton’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations relating to Obama’s foreign policy. Reines was happy to help Ambinder but insisted on a few requests: He must refer to her speech as “muscular” and that the envoys will be strategically placed in front of her. Oh, and in no way could he say he was blackmailed.

Here’s just an excerpt of what Ambinder produced, clearly following Reines’ instructions.

“When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” read the story. “That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL).”

Now, Ambinder admits the exchange made him “uncomfortable.”

Clinton has had nothing but bad news, it seems, in recent weeks. Before she cratered in the New Hampshire primary, her email scandal was getting ever more serious with reports that material on her unsecure server were even more top secret than we thought. The FBI confirmed it is undergoing a serious criminal investigation and media everywhere are asking, "Will she be indicted?" 

Then, she raised more voter suspicion after refusing to release her Wall Street speech transcripts, which more than likely show her cozy (and lucrative) relationship with financial firms.

All these controversies help explain those embarrassing exit polls from Tuesday night that show voters do not trust her

BREAKING: Carly Fiorina Suspends Campaign

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has suspended her campaign, she announced Wednesday on Twitter.

Her full statement, released to her Facebook page:

This campaign was always about citizenship—taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the...

Posted by Carly Fiorina on Wednesday, February 10, 2016

There are now seven candidates remaining in the race for the Republican nomination.

President Obama Says He's Praying for Persecuted Christians in Ash Wednesday Statement

Today marks Ash Wednesday, which is the start of the liturgical season of Lent. President Barack Obama released a statement earlier today commemorating the holiday, and said that he and Michelle would be praying for Christians around the world who are facing persecution for their faith.

The full statement:

Today, Michelle and I join our fellow Christians in marking Ash Wednesday. Lent is a season of reflection, repentance and renewal, a time to rededicate ourselves to God and one another. We remember the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ. We pray for all those who suffer, including those Christians who are subjected to unspeakable violence and persecution for their faith. And we join millions here at home and around the world in giving thanks for this sacred and solemn season that guides us toward the Easter celebration.

Lent ends on Thursday, March 24.

Get Ready For The Hillary Campaign Bloodbath After New Hampshire Loss

Late last week it was rumored a Clinton campaign slim down was on its way

Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes after what’s expected to be a loss in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire, according to a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, refuted the rumor but admitted campaign staff was being evaluated as she moves into South Carolina. 

"I have no idea what they're talking about or who they are talking to," Clinton said of the Politico report. "We're going to take stock, but it's going to be the campaign that I've got. I'm very confident in the people that I have. I'm very committed to them, they're committed to doing the best we can."

But after last night's annihilation and humiliation from socialist Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire, you can bet a serious campaign shakeup is on its way. Not only did Clinton lose women in the Granite State, she lost every demographic of voters outside senior citizens. Further according to exit polling, on the issue of being honest and trustworthy, Sanders destroyed Clinton 95 percent to three. It was very ugly

Don't be surprised if current members of communications staff go first and be on the lookout for campaign surrogates like Madeline Albright to be pulled off the campaign trail...permanently. 

You can see all New Hampshire primary results here.

Sununu: There Are Two Choices for the Democrats: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Sen. Bernie Sanders may be a serious contender in the race for the Democratic nomination right now, especially after his monumental win in the Granite State, but that doesn’t mean it’ll end up being a contest between him and the former secretary of state in the long run. That, at least, is what former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu thinks.

Weighing in on the 2016 presidential race, Sununu told SiriusXM’s Andrew Wilkow on "The Wilkow Majority" that Bernie Sanders will never get the nomination.

“There are two choices for the Democrats: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden,” he said.

Wilkow pushed back slightly, wondering if it wasn’t too late for Biden to jump in the race given the expiration date for getting on some of the state ballots.

“I think he’s got until about the 12th or 15th of March, but, it doesn’t make any difference because the Democrats will change the rules to accommodate,” he noted, “and they can lay hands on their convention anybody they want.”

This would only happen, of course, if Hillary Clinton gets close to being indicted or actually is indicted, he said.

Wilkow then questioned whether his running mate would end up being Sen. Elizabeth Warren. While Sununu wasn’t sure about any potential veep picks, he did say quite enthusiastically that Biden/Warren 2016 would be a dream ticket for Republicans.

“It’s an easy ticket to beat,” he assured Wilkow. 

Why Donald Trump?

If you are looking for a proper, politically correct, or modern answer to this question, please stop reading now. Our country is in tremendous decline.  I cannot emphasize that enough. We are in a cataclysmic decline and no one is doing anything about it. To succeed, we must start by admitting the United States is slowly starting to become just another country in the modern world. The Republican Party’s inability to admit and assess the problem has led us down this dangerous road. I do not blame Obama, Democrats, or kids on college campuses; I blame every elected Republican official from the year 2000 until present day for not acting and taking a front row seat in the demise of our country. They are all to blame in this. If you are in any type of elected office, you will be remembered in the history books for doing absolutely nothing. We have been engaged in a war for 15 years against an enemy in which is merely a fraction of what we are militarily. We overthrew England, toppled Nazi Germany, and even went to the moon in less time than it has taken to kill a few thousand terrorists in the Middle East. It is utterly sickening to watch our finest people suffer because of our belief that we must fight this war in a certain manner. How can we possibly lead the free world if we cannot destroy religious extremists dwelling in a massive sand box?

People say that Donald Trump is not trustworthy and often exaggerates himself. My question to those people is, as opposed to what? Do you honestly believe that Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz is trustworthy? Men who have made a living off of taxing other people, forcing them to pay their Senate salary, while gaining or producing absolutely nothing. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. How ignorant could we possibly be to think that a politician could end all of our troubles? Are we really going to fall for that same mirage of hope and believe that a sitting Senator who has done nothing to prevent the downfall of our country will suddenly save the day? 

And for those who do not think that one man can change this country, I beg to differ. If you have been living in the United States for the past eight years then you could never say one man does not have the ability to transform America. Barack Obama has done whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and the Republican party has sat on their hands and done little to stop it.  

To argue for a candidate is simply folly and I often refuse to do it. They all lie, they all exaggerate, and they all are striving for more. The difference between Trump and the establishment leeches is that he does it with his own money and wants restore nationalism in America.

Watch: Media Reacts to Hillary's NH 'Shellacking'

MANCHESTER, NH -- Just in case my previous post failed to fully convey the totality of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire loss, just pick your way through the exit poll cross tabs.  What those can't show you, incidentally, is the vote gap between Republicans and Democrats.  Just as we saw in Iowa, GOP turnout was up significantly over previous cycles, and ended up beating the Democrats head-to-head.  For example, Donald Trump -- running in a very crowded field -- won more raw votes than Hillary Clinton did in a two-way race.  Overall, with 89 percent of the vote tallied, Republican candidates had earned roughly 261,000 votes from Granite Staters, versus approximately 240,000 for Democrats.  Back to Mrs. Clinton's fiasco, which inspired...unkind media coverage across the board, for obvious reasons.  It started with the Clinton camp's preemptive surrender, and spiraled from there (via the Free Beacon):

The Republican National Committee put out a memo foreclosing Team Hillary's various avenues for spin, arguing that here's no way to downplay the significance of Clinton's landslide setback in what shouldn't have been hostile territory for her:

By the way, everyone assumes Hillary is all teed-up for a smashing South Carolina win in a few weeks. Her polling lead is overwhelming down there, but does her apparent Palmetto State strength tell the whole story moving forward, especially heading into Nevada?  The Washington Post  says no, and Clinton's campaign has already shifted to aggressively downplaying expectations:

I'll leave you with my comments on Fox and Friends earlier, highlighting Hillary's atrocious showing not only on trustworthiness, but on 'caring' and empathy:

Clinton Gets More Delegates Than Sanders Despite NH Blowout

Leave it to the Democratic Party to make their presidential nominating contest as undemocratic as possible. Last night, Senator Bernie Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, taking 60% of the vote to Clinton’s 38%. By simple logic, this should mean that Sanders receives more party delegates from the state than Clinton. In a shocking twist to the lopsided victory for Sanders, the opposite is true.

Out of the 24 “pledged” delegates in New Hampshire, Sanders walks away with 13 while Clinton takes 9. Two delegates are not yet allotted to either candidate.

But complicating the primary math are the additional delegates, “superdelegates,” that are shaping up to be Clinton’s insurance plan against the Sanders insurgency. Superdelegates are not decided by popular vote; they are Democrat party officials who can support whichever candidate they choose. Out of the 2,382 total delegates required to win the Democratic nomination, 712 are superdelegates. That means just under 30% of the people who will cast votes at the convention are not bound by the decisions of actual primary voters.

Clinton likely remembers the damage superdelegates dealt her campaign in 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama claimed a dominant majority of them. This time around, her campaign is working overtime to avoid a repeat of that mistake. One source has said the Clinton campaign has already secured the support of 440 superdelegates out of the possible 712, and that report came in August of last year.

Hillary Clinton has the support of six of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates, so the current Democrat delegate total for New Hampshire is 15 for Clinton, 13 for Sanders.

Yes, after a razor-thin victory in Iowa (assuming, since the Iowa Democratic Party refuses to release the popular vote) and a blowout for Sanders in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is the commanding delegate leader in the Democratic race for president. The majority of “pledged” delegates have yet to be decided, but there can be no question that the deck remains stacked for Clinton.

Tremendous: SCOTUS Blocks Obama's Carbon Rules On Power Plants

As New Hampshire voted last night, some groundbreaking news also dropped: the Supreme Court intervened and blocked a key provision of Obama’s clean energy plan from being implemented. It’s a reversal from the rather disheartening news that emanated from the D.C. Court of Appeals last month. In that decision, the court refused to stay the implementation of the carbon regulations, but agreed to hear arguments on the legality of the plan as early as June–and indication that the jurists understand this is a pressing issue. The Supreme Court stay doesn’t mean that the plan is unconstitutional, but it does indicate that the majority thinks the president’s environmental agenda could cause irreparable harm, according to Politico:

The decision to grant the stay is no guarantee the justices ultimately will strike down the rule, but the development is a bad sign for EPA’s chances, and the agency's foes quickly cheered the news, with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey calling it a “great victory.”

“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” he said in a statement.

The White House vowed that the rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, will survive, saying it “is based on a strong legal and technical foundation."

“We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits,” press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement late Tuesday night, adding that "the administration will continue to take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”

"We're disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can't stay climate change and you can't stay climate action," EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in a separate statement. "Millions of people are demanding we confront the risks posed by climate change. And we will do just that."

The Supreme Court issued its short order putting the rule on hold at the request of states and companies that had asked the high court to intercede early — even though a lower court had already declined to do so.

The ruling was on a 5-4 vote, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — the court's liberal wing — lining up against staying the rule.

Environmentalists quickly downplayed the stay, noting that it did not come to any conclusions about the legality of the rule itself.

"The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation’s clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts," said Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund's general counsel.

The justices did not explain their decision, but the order indicates they believe the rule threatens imminent and irreparable harm.

The overall goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon emissions by at least 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. It’s become a regulatory battle between governors, states, and the Obama administration that’s just as contentious as the fight over Obamacare. States have until September to file their blueprints for how they will accommodate the new regulations, but this will disproportionately impact rural Americans, red states, and fixed-income seniors. Governors in Wyoming and North Dakota have already made the case that they need more time to find ways to accommodate the new regulations without cannibalizing their own economies.

It’s one of the most underreported issues on the 2016 trail, which is an atrocity in itself since the impact of these regulations would mean massive increases in energy costs for millions of Americans. In West Virginia alone, they’re projected to see electricity costs spike 20 percent if this plan is implemented. A majority of states, along with Democratic and Republican attorneys general, have filed lawsuits against the plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s ozone regulations alone have reportedly cost us $56.6 billion in lost wages and 242,000 jobs between 2008-2013. In all, Obama’s war on coal (and American energy) is projected to cost us 125,800 jobs and $650 billion in GDP over a ten-year period. It’s a good thing that the Supreme Court stepped in to avert the economic catastrophe that’s upon us with this administration’s half-baked, and reckless, agenda to curb so-called climate change.

Oh, and these new regulations potentially could gut millions of jobs from black and Hispanic communities. It is one of the policies that made 2015 a record year in government regulations, along with the added notion of being constitutionally reckless.

The Supreme Court may have let conservatives down on Obamacare, but they���re doing the right thing (so far) in this case. Bravo, folks.

Speaker Ryan Looks to Work With Congressional Black Caucus to Fight Poverty

Combating poverty is a goal close to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s heart. The Republican leader helped host the Kemp Forum last month, where he and other conservative leaders engaged in robust conversations about how they can lead the effort to pull people out of economic hardship. At the event, Ryan indicated he was ready to reach across the aisle to achieve this end.

Back on Capitol Hill, he's ready to take action. Ryan is encouraging his fellow Republicans to seek out members of the Congressional Black Caucus to further the worthy agenda.

Rep. Hal Rogers is one legislator ready to help Ryan establish the important relationship.

At Ryan’s request, Rogers said he intends to broach the topic of targeted poverty funding with Rep. James —Clyburn (D-S.C.), an influential CBC member who’s been the most vocal proponent of the so-called 10-20-30 strategy. 

The 10-20-30 program would require that a minimum of 10 percent of federal spending on discretionary programs be directed to communities in which at least 20 percent of the population has lived below the poverty line for at least 30 years, reports the Daily Wire.

While this issue has largely been ignored by the GOP in recent years, Ryan is determined that won't happen on his watch.

High San Francisco Rent Prices Means Nuns Are Facing Eviction

The sisters of Fraternité Notre-Dame in San Francisco are facing eviction after their rent price increased by over $1,000 per month--a 50 percent increase over their current rent of $3,465. The sisters, whose mission is to feed the needy and homeless, cannot afford the new rent rate and are having trouble finding a location in San Francisco that is willing to let a soup kitchen operate.

"Everywhere the rent is very high, and many places don't want a soup kitchen in their place," said Sister Mary Benedicte on Tuesday, in her French-accented English. "It's very, very hard to find a place for a soup kitchen where people can feel welcome and where we can set up a kitchen for a reasonable price."

Since 2008, the modest kitchen has sat on a derelict street in the Tenderloin neighborhood, long associated with homelessness and drug use. But it's also within walking distance of a revitalizing middle Market Street area, led by the relocation of Twitter in 2012.

Brad Lagomarsino, an executive vice president with commercial real estate company Colliers International, said that since 2010 there's been a "dramatic increase" in residential and retail rents in the middle Market area, leading to spillover increases in the Tenderloin.

The still-seedy neighborhood, in other words, is trending up.

This is incredibly unfortunate, and it's a sign of a bigger problem facing cities. There is an extreme wealth disparity in San Francisco, and the cities neediest--and those who seek to help them--are getting squeezed out.

Iranian Media Releases Footage of US Sailors Crying After Capture

Iran continues to exploit the unfortunate incident in which 10 American sailors were captured in the Persian Gulf last month after their boat engine faltered. In the days following the capture, Iran celebrated the incident, even handing out awards to the Iranian troops who had detained the Americans. One of those medal recipients, Sardar Fadavi, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy, taunted the U.S. by threatening to release information his personnel captured from the sailors' belongings, as well as other footage from the incident.

“If U.S. officials say they are angry with and frustrated by the footage released, they would be 100 times more embarrassed if the IRGC releases other films of the capture, the Iranian commander said,” Tasnim, the state-owned news agency reported.

Iranian General Hossein Salami also claimed the sailors cried after their detainment. 

Now, it appears as if some of the teased footage has surfaced. 

While this video has not been confirmed by officials, it appears to be another very real embarrassment for our military. 

The U.S. sailors were released after 12 hours of detainment, but only after being forced on their knees with guns pointed toward their heads.

Is this the "peaceful" relationship with Iran President Obama ensured us would develop after his administration's nuclear deal?

It Looks Like Chris Christie is Suspending His Campaign UPDATE: He's Out

UPDATE: It's official, he's out.

I ran for president to say that the government needs to once again work for the people, not the people work for the...

Posted by Chris Christie on Wednesday, February 10, 2016

---Original Post---

After announcing that he was going to go home and "take a deep breath," reports are surfacing that indicate that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) will be suspending his campaign. Christie finished in sixth place in last night's New Hampshire primaries.

Eight candidates remain in the race for the Republican nomination.

This post will be updated as more information is released.

While We Were Focused on New Hampshire, Obama Proposed Trillions in Tax Hikes

While we were all focused on the New Hampshire presidential primary yesterday, President Obama introduced his final budget plan complete with a whopping $3.4 trillion dollar tax hike for American families. ATR has the details: 

The President’s adjusted baseline predicts revenues of $43.1 trillion over the ten year window, while his proposed budget calls for revenues totaling $46.5 trillion – an increase of $3.4 trillion.

The Obama budget will result in massive new taxes on already overtaxed American families.

Many of Obama’s new tax hikes violate the spirit – if not the letter -- of Obama’s “firm pledge” against “any form of tax increase” on any American earning less than $250,000.

One previously announced tax hike in the Obama budget calls for a $320 billion energy tax increase on the American people. This new tax comes in the form of a $10 tax per barrel of oil that will be passed onto drivers in the form of higher prices at the pump.

Obama's budget has been met with immediate rejection from Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

"The President’s final budget is clearly about promoting his liberal legacy instead of securing America’s financial future. Why is he wasting his last opportunity in office to tackle the real challenges facing our country? While a $3.4 trillion tax increase and $2.5 trillion in new spending over the next decade might please very liberal voters, they will only make life more expensive for the vast majority of Americans. This document will not prevent American jobs from moving overseas, Medicare from going bankrupt, and healthcare spending from continuing to rise," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady released in a statement. “Later this week, Ways and Means Republicans will have an opportunity to speak with Secretaries Burwell and Lew about this budget. We’re going to express our concerns on specific proposals, including the President’s new oil tax that will drive up energy bills and destroy jobs."

Texas Senator John Cornyn said Obama's budget is "unserious" and dead upon arrival.

“Rather than something that sends a signal that he wants to work with Congress, it basically is more of the same: a $4 trillion budget that is unserious, partisan, and contains reckless spending. And in it, he does include several new proposals, proposals he knows will be dead on arrival here in the United States Congress," Cornyn said in a floor speech yesterday. “At a time when our country is producing more energy domestically than it ever has and just beginning to export that energy to our friends and allies around the world, the President’s budget reveals that he has little interest in growing our energy independence and little interest in jump-starting our economy.”

Keep in mind over his tenure in the White House, all of Obama's annual budget plans have been roundly rejected, usually unanimously. 

Analysis: Trump and Sanders Dominate, Rubio Crumbles, in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, NH -- This time, the polls were right. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won overwhelming victories here in New Hampshire, beating out their closest rivals by double-digit margins.  Here are five takeaways from last night's First in the Nation primary:

(1) A Socialist Swamp: The Democratic primary was a bloodbath.  Socialist Bernie Sanders absolutely dismantled Hillary Clinton across the board, beating her by more than 20 points.  In spite of heavy, desperate demagoguery, Democratic women in the Granite State sided with Sanders by double digits, led by young women.  Hillary carried voters who prioritize experience and electability.  Bernie blew her away among those who prize shared values, empathy, and honesty.  You think Benghazi, the email scandal, opacity on Wall Street speeches, and Clinton Foundation-related ethical questions aren't taking a toll on even Democratic voters?  This is breathtaking:

That screen grab of exit polling data shows Clinton getting dismantled among the 60 percent of New Hampshire Democrats who value "caring" and honesty as candidate characteristics. There's no getting around it: Her weakness on empathy and trustworthiness and -- relatedly, I believe -- among young voters are dramatic general election handicaps.  So is the gender gap she inspires.  Sanders beat her among women, but he  in New Hampshire for quite some time.  She needs to win a commanding victory in the Palmetto State to prevent a growing sense of unease from metastasizing into full-blown panic.

(2) Tremendous Trump: Donald Trump's win in the Republican primary was comprehensive.  When exit polls started rolling in showing two-thirds of voters in the GOP race agreeing with his controversial temporary Muslim ban, it was clear it was going to be a good night for the bombastic businessman.  When fully half of Republican voters responded that they felt "betrayed" by their own party, it was a fait accompli.  Finalized exit polling tells the story of Trump's romp.  He won by double digits among: Men and women, across all age groups, across all education levels (except for postgraduates, but winning nearly half of all non-college grads), across all income groups, among Republicans and independents, and among "very conservative" and "somewhat conservative" voters (also carrying moderates).  He won across every issue category polled, and led the pack on every personal quality question except for "shares my values."  It was a rout, aided by a crowded, splintered field.  Trump enters South Carolina as a double-digit favorite.  And by the way, unlike Iowa, he outperformed his public polls in New Hampshire.

(3) Rubio Rocked: Here's how I assessed the state of play yesterday: "A silver medal for Rubio here keeps him on pace to make a strong play for the GOP crown, especially as rivals continue to drop out...The field will thin out, and Rubio will take a major step closer to the three-man race he wants. Another bronze would be an under-performance, as the conventional wisdom would take root that Rubio's debate gaffe inflicted real damage, ramping up pressure to over-perform in at least one of the two remaining February nominating contests. Not good, but salvageable. But if the Florida Senator ends up in fourth place or worse, it's a catastrophe for his candidacy."  Well, the Rubio campaign finds itself staring at door number three.  Rubio finished fifth, although essentially in a logjam with Cruz and Bush, both of whose final polling numbers were spot on.  Given what I'd heard from multiple sources about Rubio's meteoric trajectory in New Hampshire internal polling after Iowa, there is now no question whatsoever that his debate confrontation with Chris Christie hurt him.  Badly.  Rubio admitted as much in a strikingly humble, candid speech to supporters:

Rubio's right -- he has no one to blame but himself.  He stepped into a predictable trap under the brightest of lights and dealt a serious blow to one of the central rationales of his candidacy: That he's an exceptionally gifted communicator, a quality that has allowed him to tamp down concerns about his experience.  He undermined himself in a hyper-public way, at the worst possible moment.  That's not on Jeb Bush's carpet-bombing SuperPAC.  That's not on a pugnacious Chris Christie.  That's not even on the press, which showered Rubio with praise after Iowa, then hyped his bad debate moment for days (media narratives giveth and taketh away).  That's on Rubio.  There's still a long road ahead, and Rubio still has a path to the nomination, albeit much narrower than it seemed 24 hours ago; the '3-2-1' strategy, which Rubio's team now tells never came from the campaign, is officially inoperative.  But in order to thread this needle, he's going to have to over-perform in South Carolina and/or Nevada in order to garner any needed momentum into the crucial, delegate-heavy first half of March.

(4) Two Governors Survive, For Now:  Like Jon Huntsman in 2012, Ohio Governor John Kasich more or less lived in New Hampshire for weeks, achieving a solid second place outcome (Huntsman ended up in third with a Kasichesque 16.9 percent of the vote).  But Kasich still lost to Trump by roughly a two-to-one margin, and he has no real capacity to mount a national campaign moving forward.  Jeb Bush, on the other hand, does.  But what his team is casting as an important spring board is ultimately a fourth place finish, narrowly sandwiched between Cruz and Rubio. Try this statistic on for size:

Thirty-five million dollars for fourth place, after spending a fortune in Iowa with little to show for it. Meanwhile, sixth-place finisher Chris Christie -- who, like Kasich, placed almost all of his eggs in the Granite State basket -- has announced that he's heading home to New Jersey to reassess the race.  He's ineligible for this weekend's South Carolina debate, so it sounds like he's likely done.  Elsewhere, Carly Fiorina (four percent) says she's carrying on past New Hampshire with a "wind at her back," whatever that means, and Ben Carson (two percent) continues to confound.  The end feels near for both of them.

(5) 'Not Trump' Coalition In Disarray: The Rubio campaign desperately wanted New Hampshire to lock in their "three-man race" storyline, which would have applied immense pressure on non-Trump and non-Cruz candidates to get out of the way and give Cruz and Rubio the space to take on Trump (and each other) in a significantly winnowed field.  That winnowing has now been delayed indefinitely, much to the delight of Team Trump.  A crowded, distracted and confused GOP field benefits him more than anyone else, although it arguably helps Cruz, too.  Cruz wants a two-man race -- and if the status quo doesn't get shaken up soon, he may get his wish.  Bottom line: New Hampshire just voted for an open Socialist who literally honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and for an f-bomb-dropping nationalistic populist whose campaign is pretty well encapsulated by quotes like this:

What a time to be alive.  I'll leave you with the winners declaring victory:

UPDATE - I discussed the breadth of Trump's win with Megyn Kelly last night: