Jackie Johnson's Friday Forecast

Looks like some of that El Niño precipitation hit Northern California yesterday, and we had a little rain down this way.

They say it's going to be a very rainy season, but here's Jackie:

Republicans Preparing for Brokered Convention

I think it's great!

I love how American politics is completely out of whack!

At WaPo, "GOP preparing for contested convention":

Republican officials and leading figures in the party’s establishment are preparing for the possibility of a brokered convention as businessman Donald Trump continues to sit atop the polls in the GOP presidential race.

More than 20 of them convened Monday near the Capitol for a dinner held by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, and the prospect of Trump nearing next year’s nominating convention in Cleveland with a significant number of delegates dominated the discussion, according to five people familiar with the meeting.

Weighing in on that scenario as Priebus and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) listened, several longtime Republican power brokers argued that if the controversial billionaire storms through the primaries, the party’s establishment must lay the groundwork for a floor fight in which the GOP’s mainstream wing could coalesce around an alternative, the people said.

The development represents a major shift for veteran Republican strategists, who until this month had spoken of a brokered convention only in the most hypothetical terms — and had tried to encourage a drama-free nomination by limiting debates and setting an earlier convention date.

Now, those same leaders see a floor fight as a real possibility. And so does Trump, who said in an interview last week that he, too, is preparing.

Because of the sensitivity of the topic — and because they are wary of saying something that, if leaked, would provoke Trump to bolt the party and mount an independent bid — Priebus and McConnell were mostly quiet during the back-and-forth. They did not signal support for an overt anti-Trump effort.

But near the end, McConnell and Priebus acknowledged to the group that a deadlocked convention is something the party should prepare for, both institutionally within the RNC and politically at all levels in the coming months...

Still more at that top link.

Trump's No Longer a Laughing Matter for the Democrats

Shit's getting real.

At the New York Times, "To Democrats, Donald Trump Is No Longer a Laughing Matter":

WATERLOO, Iowa — Until Monday, when Donald J. Trump proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States, Hillary Clinton could hardly keep herself from laughing at the mention of his name. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” she told ABC News on Sunday, letting out a giggle that made advisers squirm.

She is no longer laughing.

At a town hall here on Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton delivered her most damning, direct criticism of Mr. Trump, saying that he traffics “in prejudice and paranoia,” and that his Muslim proposal was “not only shameful, it’s dangerous.”

But Mrs. Clinton also strove to recognize something stirring in the electorate that Mr. Trump had clearly tapped into. “It’s O.K., it’s O.K. to be afraid,” she said. “When bad things happen, it does cause anxiety and fear,” she added. “But then you pull yourself together and, especially, if you want to be a leader of our country, and you say:‘O.K., what are we going to do about it? How are we going to be prepared?’”

The remarks bore little resemblance to Mrs. Clinton’s previous dismissals of Mr. Trump, [sic] She had portrayed him as a reality television sideshow who voiced more extreme terms beliefs that, she contended, his more serious G.O.P. rivals shared.

But since Mr. Trump’s response to the Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Mrs. Clinton and her campaign, confounded by his continued strength in the polls, have had to rethink how they handle Mr. Trump and what his candidacy, and the anger in the electorate that has fueled it, means for her chances in 2016.

Some of her own voters are giving her reason to.

Bennie Stickley, a 75-year-old in Gilbertville, Iowa, who retired from a John Deere factory, said he was supporting Mrs. Clinton but agrees with Mr. Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims. “I’m for him on that,” he said. “We shouldn’t be letting those people into the country,” he added...

Yeah, when Trump starts to siphon off Clinton's supporters on the Muslim issue, it's not too funny anymore, heh.

Still more.

Image Credit: Theodore on Twitter.

Huge Lead for Donald Trump in New Gravis Marketing National Poll

Well both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have huge leads nationwide, but Trump's sucking all the oxygen out of the mainstream media atmosphere. Clinton's even changing her campaign schedule in response to the latest Trump headlines. It's phenomenal.

At the Orlando Sentinel, "National Gravis poll shows big leads for Clinton, Trump":

A newly-released poll from Winter Springs-based Gravis Marketing finds both Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump cruising to new highs in popularity, even after Trump's controversial comments about Muslims.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday evenings, which means it came after Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

"The Muslim comments have helped Trump in the polls," concluded Gravis Managing Partner Doug Kaplan. "Many people are scared."

The poll, done for One America News Network, shows Trump with a 26-point lead nationally over U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Clinton a 32-point lead in popularity over U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

When registered Republicans were asked "Assuming you had to vote today... which candidate would you vote for?" Trump drew 42 percent, a record high for him in Gravis polling, to 16 for Cruz, 11 for U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 9 for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 6 for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 4 for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

When registered Democratic voters voters were asked, Clinton drew 62 percent, a record high for her, to 30 for Sanders and 9 for Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley...

Keep reading.

The poll also has head-to-head match-ups, with Clinton beating Trump 51-49 (a statistical tie).

And check the poll findings, "One America News Network Gravis Marketing National Poll Results."

Funny, though, the poll's got a partisan breakdown of 38 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republican, and 29 percent independents --- which indicates that Democrats were over-sampled, at least if compared to the results from Pew Research in April, which had "39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans."

If so, this means the Gravis poll is underestimating Trump's support, particularly against Clinton in the head-to-head match-up.

Fear of Another Attack Lifts Trump to New High in Poll

Here's the latest New York Times survey, which was largely conducted before Trump's comments on banning Muslim migrants to the U.S.

See, "Fear of Terrorism Lifts Donald Trump in New York Times/CBS Poll":

Americans are more fearful about the likelihood of another terrorist attack than at any other time since the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, a gnawing sense of dread that has helped lift Donald J. Trump to a new high among Republican primary voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

In the aftermath of attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris and in San Bernardino, Calif., a plurality of the public views the threat of terrorism as the top issue facing the country. A month ago, only 4 percent of Americans said terrorism was the most important problem; now, 19 percent say it is, above any other issue.

Mr. Trump, who has called for monitoring mosques and even barring Muslims from entering the United States, has been the clear beneficiary of this moment of deep anxiety. More than four in 10 Republican primary voters say the most important quality in a candidate is strong leadership, which eclipses honesty, empathy, experience or electability. These voters heavily favor Mr. Trump.

The survey was largely conducted before Mr. Trump’s proposal, announced Monday, to temporarily block Muslims from entering the country.

“He’ll keep a sharp eye on those Muslims,” Bettina Norden, 60, a farmer in Springfield, Ore., said in a follow-up interview. “He’ll keep the Patriot Act together. He’ll watch immigration. Stop the Muslims from immigrating.”

Republicans expressed confidence in Mr. Trump’s ability to confront terrorism: Seven in 10 voters who said they were likely to vote in a Republican primary said he was well-equipped to respond to the threat, with four in 10 “very confident” he could handle terrorism. Only Senator Ted Cruz of Texas comes close to those numbers.

But it is not only Republicans feeling renewed fear about terrorist strikes on American soil. Forty-four percent of the public says an attack is “very” likely to happen in the next few months, the most in Times or CBS News polls since October 2001, just after the deadliest terrorist assault in the country’s history. Seven in 10 Americans now call the Islamic State extremist group a major threat to the United States’ security, the highest level since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question last year.

The public has little faith in President Obama’s handling of terrorism and the threat from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Fifty-seven percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of terrorism, and seven in 10 say the fight against the Islamic State is going badly. There have been few foreign-directed terrorist attacks in the United States in the past decade, and American officials have repeatedly said that there is no credible evidence of planning for a large-scale attack in the United States by the Islamic State or its supporters.

Yet while Mr. Trump may be benefiting among Republicans from a perceived loss of safety, he remains a highly divisive figure with the broader electorate. Sixty-four percent of voters said they would be concerned or scared about what he would do if he became president. And while he occupies a commanding position among Republican primary voters, with more than twice the support of his nearest competitor, his backers are still a minority of that relatively small population.

Even as he leads the Republican field in support, he also has the most Republican primary voters, 23 percent, who say they would be most dissatisfied with him as the party’s nominee...

Popular but polarizing. That's a fascinating dynamic.

But keep reading.

Donald Trump Strong on National Security in Two New South Carolina Polls

At Fox News:

National security is the most important issue for GOP primary voters in deciding their vote.  Thirty-nine percent feel that way compared with 24 percent who prioritize economic issues.  Some 16 percent say immigration issues will be most important and 6 percent say social issues.

Trump holds a wide lead among voters who say national security is their top issue.  He receives 32 percent -- twice the support for Carson, Cruz and Rubio, who each get 16 percent among national security voters.

And those who prioritize economic issues back the same four candidates:  Trump (32 percent), Rubio (14 percent), Carson (12 percent) and Cruz (12 percent).

At the same time, the poll shows national security is an area of vulnerability for Trump:  25 percent say he is the “most qualified” Republican to handle the issue, closely followed by Cruz at 18 percent.  Another 11 percent pick Rubio.  Only 6 percent say Carson.

Compare that to the 48 percent landslide Trump gets when GOP primary voters are asked which Republican candidate is “most qualified” to handle the economy.  No other candidate even garners double digits on this measure.  The next closest are Bush and Cruz at 9 percent each, followed by Rubio at 8 percent.

Strong leadership is the top trait GOP primary voters want in their party’s nominee (26 percent), closely followed by being honest and trustworthy (22 percent).  Those characteristics outrank nominating someone who would shake things up in Washington (16 percent), have true conservative values (14 percent) and beat the Democrat (10 percent).

Voters who say strong leadership is the most important trait are most likely to support Trump by a wide 23-point margin.  He receives 36 percent among this group, followed by Cruz at 13 percent, Rubio at 12 percent and Carson at 11 percent.

While Trump still tops the list among those who prioritize honesty, it’s by a narrower 4-point margin: Trump (24 percent), Carson (20 percent), Rubio (13 percent) and Cruz (12 percent).

GOP primary voters think Trump is the Republican most likely to beat Clinton in the general election next year.  Some 42 percent feel that way.  Next is Rubio at 14 percent...

The raw internals are here.

Pluls, CNN's out with a new poll from the Palmetto State as well, "New poll shows Trump still on top in South Carolina." And from the raw internals:

The threat of terrorism stands out as the most important issue for likely Republican voters. A third of respondents said terrorism/ISIS/ISIL/terrorists is key, while the economy and immigration (not refugees), at 13% and 10% respectively, round out the top three issues.

Sixty-one percent of poll respondents said they are frustrated with the federal government; while 35% said they are angry and only 3% basically content. Of the Trump supporters, 52% were frustrated and 47% angry. “Trump seems to draw a significant amount of his support from those who express anger at the government,” Huffmon observed.

Trump supporters were more likely to favor conducting surveillance of Muslim mosques (80%) and in creating a database of all Muslims in the United States (72%).

Trump does extremely well on the issues voters care about, although he's polarizing. He could have problems winning over those who have strong antipathy for him, although he'll tell you he doesn't care: He's going to win, heh.

More.

Democrat Loretta Sanchez Says 'Between 5 and 20 Percent' of Muslims Back Terrorism to Bring Caliphate (VIDEO)

Heh.

She's gotta be running the craziest Senate campaign ever.

At BuzzFeed, via Memeorandum, "Democratic Congresswoman: “Between 5 And 20%” of Muslims Willing to Use Terrorism to Institute Caliphate."

And at Hot Air, "Dem Rep. Loretta Sanchez: I’d say, oh, 5-20% of Muslims support terrorism to bring about a caliphate."

“But certainly, we know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20%, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in anyway possible, and in particular go after what they consider Western norms — our way of life,” Sanchez said on “PoliticKING with Larry King.”

Top Gift Ideas

For the holidays, Amazon Gift Ideas.

More, Shop Fashion - Holiday Gift Guide.

Plus, UGG Australia Women's Dakota Suede Slipper.

Also, Kindle Keyboard, Wi-Fi, 6" E Ink Display, and Fire Kids Edition, 7" Display, Wi-Fi, 8 GB, Pink Kid-Proof Case.

BONUS: From Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination.

Ben Sasse Comments on San Bernardino Jihad (VIDEO)

He's a good guy.

Democrats' Biggest Vulnerability in 2016: National Security

From Josh Kraushaar, at National Journal:

The dis­con­nect between Pres­id­ent Obama and the Amer­ic­an pub­lic on the ur­gency of the IS­IS threat is a prob­lem for his party in 2016, especially for Hil­lary Clin­ton.

Demo­crats are at risk of polit­ic­ally mar­gin­al­iz­ing them­selves on na­tion­al se­cur­ity in the run-up to the 2016 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, ca­ter­ing to a base that seems dis­con­nec­ted from the grow­ing anxi­ety that the pub­lic feels over the threat from Is­lam­ic ter­ror­ism. Dur­ing a month when a hor­rif­ic ter­ror­ist at­tack killed 130 in Par­is and a homegrown, IS­IS-in­spired at­tack killed 14 in San Bern­ardino, Cali­for­nia, the Demo­crat­ic Party’s ma­jor fo­cus has been on cli­mate change and gun con­trol.

The signs of a pres­id­ent in deni­al over the threat of ter­ror­ism keep pil­ing up. Obama be­latedly ad­dressed the pub­lic’s fears in his Oval Of­fice ad­dress on Sunday even­ing, but he offered no new policies to deal with crisis. That it took four days for the pres­id­ent to un­equi­voc­ally call the San Bern­ardino at­tacks “ter­ror­ism” un­der­scored how his own in­stincts are at odds with the Amer­ic­an pub­lic’s. The de­cision to give a na­tion­ally tele­vised speech without out­lining a change of course sug­ges­ted that ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials were wor­ried about de­clin­ing poll num­bers and that he was try­ing to lim­it the polit­ic­al dam­age. And for an ad­min­is­tra­tion that likes to nar­rowly tail­or Obama’s mes­sage to his most en­thu­si­ast­ic sup­port­ers, schedul­ing a prime-time speech for many mil­lions to see (it was his first Oval Of­fice ad­dress since 2010) was a con­ces­sion that he’s not per­suad­ing the lar­ger pub­lic.

Put simply, the pres­id­ent’s cred­ib­il­ity was on the line. Last month in Tur­key, Obama testily brushed back re­peated ques­tion­ing from re­port­ers that he un­der­es­tim­ated the threat that IS­IS posed. Only a day be­fore the IS­IS at­tacks in Par­is, Obama con­fid­ently pro­claimed that the ter­ror­ist group was “con­tained.” In the im­me­di­ate af­ter­math of the San Bern­ardino shoot­ing, Obama told CBS News that “our home­land has nev­er been more pro­tec­ted by more ef­fect­ive in­tel­li­gence and law-en­force­ment pro­fes­sion­als at every level than they are now.”

When the pres­id­ent’s as­sur­ances are be­ing con­tra­dicted by events around him, even his own party’s rank-and-file be­come rest­ive. Demo­crat­ic voters, mostly sup­port­ive of the pres­id­ent, are ex­press­ing real con­cerns about the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s hand­ling of ter­ror­ism. A 43-per­cent plur­al­ity of Demo­crat­ic voters be­lieve the U.S. and its al­lies are “los­ing” the war against IS­IS, ac­cord­ing to a Quin­nipi­ac poll con­duc­ted just be­fore the San Bern­ardino at­tack. A whop­ping 75 per­cent of Demo­crats said it’s likely there will be an­oth­er ma­jor ter­ror­ist at­tack on Amer­ic­an soil, and 23 per­cent dis­ap­prove of Pres­id­ent Obama’s hand­ling of ter­ror­ism.

This is un­usu­al. In the wake of trau­mat­ic events, even un­pop­u­lar pres­id­ents tend to find suc­cess by call­ing for na­tion­al unity. After the Ok­lahoma City bomb­ings in April 1995, Pres­id­ent Clin­ton’s job ap­prov­al rat­ings rose above 50 per­cent for the first time in nearly a year, ac­cord­ing to Gal­lup’s track­ing poll. George W. Bush’s ap­prov­al reached 90 per­cent right after the Sept. 11 at­tacks. These mo­ments were both short-lived, but proved that the pub­lic ral­lies be­hind a pres­id­ent after fright­en­ing tra­gedies.

But in­stead of act­ing as a com­mand­er in chief, Obama has be­come a po­lar­izer in chief. Im­me­di­ately after the Par­is and San Bern­ardino at­tacks, both of which provided him an op­por­tun­ity to re­set his an­ti­ter­ror­ism policies, he in­stead chose to find “wedge” is­sues that he could use to at­tack Re­pub­lic­ans. After he was houn­ded by the press over down­play­ing the IS­IS threat, he nimbly switched the sub­ject to the GOP’s heart­less­ness on the ques­tion of tak­ing in Syr­i­an refugees, a coun­ter­punch that drew sub­stan­tial press cov­er­age. In the im­me­di­ate af­ter­math of the San Bern­ardino at­tacks, he down­played the ter­ror­ist con­nec­tions and amp­li­fied his call for ad­di­tion­al gun con­trol. Fol­low­ing the pres­id­ent’s lead, Sen­ate Demo­crats then tried to put Re­pub­lic­ans on the de­fens­ive over their fi­del­ity to gun rights by vot­ing to ban people on the no-fly list from pur­chas­ing guns. Agree or dis­agree with those policies, but both were a deliberate dis­trac­tion from the ur­gent is­sue at hand—how to com­bat IS­IS, at home and abroad...

Still more.

Russian Submarine Targets Islamic State from Mediterranean Sea (VIDEO)

Via Ruptly:

College Students Don't Believe in Free Speech

They say they do, in principle. But when you ask them, they favor all kinds of restrictions on speech, or, at least those students interviewed at Occidental College, for Reason TV.

An excellent clip:

Obama's Terror Speech Perfectly Highlights Reasons for Trump's Rise

From Bill Schneider, at Reuters:

Here’s President Barack Obama on the war against Islamic State: “Our success won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning or values or giving into fear. . . . We will prevail by being strong and smart.”

Here’s Donald Trump: “Every time things get worse, I do better. Because people have confidence in me.” He promised, “We’re going to be so tough and so mean and so nasty.”

What we’re seeing right now in American politics is class warfare. But not the kind of class warfare Bernie Sanders would understand. It’s not the working class versus the 1 percent. It’s the working class versus the educated elite. In fact, one of the richest men in the world is leading the revolt: Trump.

Trump’s support for the Republican nomination is not defined by ideology or age or gender. It’s defined by education. Among GOP voters with a college degree in the latest CNN poll, Trump comes in fourth with just 18 percent. But he has a huge lead among non-college voters — 46 percent. No other candidate comes close.

Today, in the United States, the richer you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The better educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. We saw it in the last presidential race. It was Mitt Romney, the prince of wealth, versus Obama, the prince of education.

Romney lost because of his elitist economic values. He was Mr. 1 Percent, disdainful of the “47 percent” who, he argued, are dependent on government. Trump, on the other hand, is rallying white working class voters. Not around their economic interests. Around their values...

More.

Sexy Surfers Nage Melamed, Angie Svinarenko, and Kandace Wolshin (VIDEO)

A lovely trio:

After #SanBernardino Jihad Attack, Americans' Satisfaction With the Way Things Are Going Drops to 20 Percent

These are the kind of numbers that crush the ruling party at election time. We already know the public is grumbling, looking to an outsider for leadership. Now folks are more rattled than they've been in over a year, extremely dissatisfied with the way things are going.

At Gallup, "After Terror Attacks, U.S. Satisfaction Falls to 13-Month Low":

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, Americans' satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. dropped seven percentage points to 20%. This is the lowest level of satisfaction recorded since November 2014, but still above the all-time low of 7% in October 2008.

The San Bernardino attack, which occurred just before this Dec. 2-6 survey, almost certainly accounts for some of the downturn in satisfaction. In the attack, 14 victims died and many were wounded, and it was considered so significant that President Barack Obama addressed the incident and its aftermath in a rare prime-time speech on Sunday night.

A seven-point month-to-month drop in satisfaction is rare but not unprecedented. Satisfaction dropped seven points in 2013 during the October partial government shutdown. It plummeted 12 points in the fall of 2008 as the economy crumbled, falling to the all-time low of 7% in mid-October of that year.

The recent high point in satisfaction is 32% in January and February of this year, the highest since the end of 2012. Satisfaction levels have been lower for the rest of this year. But despite month-to-month fluctuations, at least 25% of Americans have been satisfied each month until the December reading.

Democrats' Satisfaction Declines Most

Satisfaction has dropped among all major demographic groups since early November, but not equally. Among Republicans, consistently the group least likely to be satisfied, satisfaction dropped four points, similar to independents' five-point decline. Satisfaction among Democrats dropped by a much larger 15 points. Democrats' November satisfaction was among the highest for any group, and thus it had more room to fall...

Keep reading.

Fighting Terror by Self-Reproach

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "How did we become a country more afraid of causing offense than playing defense?":

Nobody who watched Barack Obama’s speech Sunday night outlining his strategy to defeat Islamic State could have come away disappointed by the performance. Disappointment presupposes hope for something better. That ship sailed, and sank, a long time ago.

By now we are familiar with the cast of Mr. Obama’s mind. He does not make a case; he preaches a moral. He mistakes repetition for persuasion. He does not struggle with the direction, details or trade-offs of policy because he’s figured them all out. His policies never fail; it’s our patience that he finds wanting. He asks not what he can do for his country but what his country can do for him.

And what’s that? It is for us to see what has long been obvious to him, like an exasperated teacher explaining simple concepts to a classroom of morons. Anyone? Anyone?

That’s why nearly everything the president said last night he has said before, and in the same shopworn phrases. His four-point strategy for defeating ISIS is unchanged. His habit of telling us—and our enemies—what he isn’t going to do dates back to the earliest days of his presidency. His belief that terrorism is another gun-control issue draws on the deep wells of liberal true belief. His demand for a symbolic congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is at least a year old, though as recently as 2013 he was demanding that Congress kill the AUMF altogether. Back then he was busy boasting that al Qaeda was on a path to defeat.

The more grating parts of Mr. Obama’s speech came when he touched on the subject of Islam and Muslims. “We cannot,” he intoned, “turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam.” Terrorism, as he sees it, is to be feared less for the harm it causes than for the overreaction it risks eliciting.

This is the president as master of the pre-emptive self-reproach—the suggestion that Americans are always on the verge of returning to the wickedness whence we came. But since when have we turned against one another, or defined the war on terror as a war on Islam?

Keep reading.

Route 66 Outtakes - Hannah Ferguson Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2015 (VIDEO)

Fabulous.

The Right to Bear Arms Isn't Up for Debate

From Charles C.W. Cooke, at the Washington Post:

It is from this understanding that all conversations must proceed. The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual. Unless those calling for greater restrictions learn to acknowledge this at the outset of any public discussion, they will continue to get nowhere in their deliberations.

RTWT.

Radical Left Political Correctness and Demonization Enables Islamic Jihad Attacks on America (VIDEO)

Dana Loesch interviews Michelle Malkin:

Donald Trump Ignites Firestorm (VIDEO)

From early Wednesday morning's Nightline: