Megan McArdle talks to the #NeverTrump Republicans, and sizes up the Trumpkin response.

Meanwhile, John Podheretz and Matthew Continetti assess the virtues and ludicrosity of taking Trump to the convention and fighting him there. #BanPrimaries

On the vaping front, formaldehyde concerns are out and exploding ecigarette batteries.

Olivia Goodhill wants to know why we’re not researching how to treat period cramps.

Samuel Goldman takes exception to the “social science” of Trumpkins-as-Authoritarians. I nodded with solemnity when I read of the correlation, but I’m pretty sure Goldman is correct here.

I’m not sure how much the world needed Fuller House, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t need a Full House porn parody.

Elizabeth Picciuto reacts to the misportrayal in the media of Microcephaly (the product of the Zika virus).

Somewhere along the way, Taco Bell quietly became healthy.

BBC looks at the gender imbalance in Sweden, which among 16-17yo’s outstrips that of China.

According to a new study, segregated schools mean more crime

I ran across an article on a weird way to hijack cars the other day, and so of course I had to Snopes it, and turns out it’s a myth. This is not as bad as fearmongering Halloween candy, but the drip-drip-drip is really deleterious to the public health.

Here are the things that immigrants were pleasantly surprised about in the US.

If it’s immigrant tolerance that you seek, look not in Denmark but in Texas.

Meet the 500-lb man wanting to bike across the county.

If things don’t go well in 2016, the GOP really needs to do this with just about every demographic. They don’t have to rearrange their agenda to maximize popularity, but they (just as with the Democrats, though it’s less pressing for them) do need to know exactly which stances are hurting them and how much.

This is, of course, why Lisby does not like the Fourth of July:

It’s also how I’m going to be spending my Super Tuesday, probably.

Ellen Wexler at Slate discovers that student loans may be inflating tuition costs.

Diversity in the workplace may boost creativity, but it’s exhausting employers. I remember when I was at Mindstorm and a project leader on another group talked about, in the most apologetic manner possible, how difficult it is managing a team compromised of a half-dozen nationalies and religious traditions.

Ben Domenech explains the evangelical appeal of Donald Trump, and Elizabeth Breunig explains how Ted Cruz lost it.

I could see Trump doing this after Tuesday, if he wins by enough.

Uncle Steve pings for names of the anti-Trump third party. Given the speaker and the audience, most suggestions are not complimentary. For my own self, I dig into historical named: New Federalist Party, National Union Party, or Constitutional Union Party.

It is things like this that help make the guns debate no-hold-barred for me.

I didn’t leave my home city for college, so I can’t imagine going to Germany, but nonetheless it seems like kind of a sweet deal even if the universities are a bit less posh.

If you were raised poor, college doesn’t reap the same gains as if you were raised wealthy.

This makes sense: According a new study (PDF), ability grouping raises outcomes in competitive cultures and lowers them in cooperative cultures.

Having a child has likely changed my politics in some subtle ways I do not realize, but one overt change is my views on funding PBS, so this makes me happy.

Florida is stepping up enforcement against left-lain snails.

For Sale! The most troubled half of one of our most troubled states.

Well, with all of the babies being born in Utah, I suppose this was bound to happen at some point.

Ostana, Italy, has welcome a young baby into its community. The first since 1987.

Mental Floss has fifteen facts about Blockbuster, including the whole Alaska thing.

Nevada went mildly worse than I had feared, though my predictions for who wins remains unblemished. That likely ends today with so many states up.

Everything is increasingly coming up Trump. The main sources of uncertainty with me had been (a) What about caucuses, (b) he wasn’t picking up momentum, and (c) the other campaigns hadn’t targeted him. With Nevada and in the week or so since, he’s won a caucus handily and seems to have started picking up momentum despire a barrage of attacks ranging from the substantive to playground taunts. So far, it appears he is unfazed. If there is momentum against him that has not been picked up by the polls (which is possible) then we will find that out today.

I can’t do the historical placement marking today because first place, second place, and third place don’t matter nearly as much. We’re going to be getting a large number of results at once. Ostensibly, the thing that matters the most will be the delegate count. However, Rubio and Cruz have other metrics by which their viability will be judged. So here is what each candidate needs to accomplish:

Donald Trump needs only to establish the status quo. He can actually afford to slide a little and still be in the catbird seat as he will still win most of the states and has a good chance of picking up over 50% in one of them. But even failing that, he is in the position that a nominee is usually in. He has special liabilities, but it is what it is. If he can win Texas and sweep the map, or if he can win every state but Texas, it becomes very difficult to see how he loses the nomination even if Trump fatigue starts to set in and even if it becomes a 1-on-1 race with Cruz or Rubio.

Ted Cruz needs to have a good day. He’s had a bad week of being eclipsed by Rubio in the press. On the other hand, the press has always been unusually hard on him and his numbers have held up better than Rubio and others would have hoped. So he has a good chance of accomplishing his goal of both (a) winning Texas and (b) winning more delegates than Rubio. This primary is in his home turf. He could do better than that by winning some other states. If he can win more than just Texas, and Rubio doesn’t win anything substantive (or only wins Minnesota), he could be the go-to-guy if Trump ever does implode. Given that this is his turf, though, he has limited margin of error. The map only gets tougher from here.

Marco Rubio needs to win a state. Winning a state is really a symbolic gesture, but attempts by the campaign to define expectations down so that he doesn’t need to win a state are – at least for me – unsuccessful. If he doesn’t win a state, and Cruz wins Texas, the rationale of his candidacy starts getting much more difficult. If he doesn’t win any states or only wins Minnesota, but Cruz wins multiple states, the same applies. He might be able to continue a zombie candidacy as the candidate to whom people with nobody else to go to go to, but it will probably lock him out of Florida and, by extension, any reasonable chance at the nomination either with delegates or a convention. Further, even if a poor showing does not lead to consolidation around Cruz, the party may more openly start exploring other options which will again undermine his candidacy (and, in effect, be ceding the nomination to Trump.)

Elizabeth Picciuto pushes back against the mockery Donald Trump received for saying five magic words:

What is funny about saying “I love the poorly educated”? Of course Trump loves poorly educated voters. Who else would be asinine enough to buy his tripe?

But some of the same people who have been laughing because he said he loves the poorly educated also denounce voter ID laws. Why? They disenfranchise Americans who are disproportionately lower-income workers, minorities — and poorly educated.

They denounce the laws because they believe — rightly — that an education is neither necessary nor sufficient for thoughtful democratic participation.

Michael Drew also put together a Tweet Storify on the subject, with a similar theme. Because he tends to split his tweets mid-sentence, it’s hard to embed a tweet, but the best part is:

If you self-identify as undereducated and feel bad about it, you’re allowed to hear those words and take them at face value. Even if you’re poorly educated, the guy “loves” you (after a fashion) and wants to be greedy for you.

I might go a step further than Drew and say you don’t even have to feel bad about it. You just have to know that other people see you that way. And so Trump’s comment may have used the wrong word, but because of the message he gets the benefit of the doubt among potential Trump people in a way that someone else, or a different Trump with a different campaign theme, might not.

I confess that my original response to hearing the phrase was a bit of an eyeroll, but some of the pushback (both of these and others) convinced me otherwise.

The other factor is that, of course, Trump is Trump. One of the challenges of opposing him is the benefit of the doubt that he gets by virtue of being himself. He really can say things that nobody else can. A substantial minority of the population really wants to like him.

To look at the other side of the equation, you have Ted Cruz. I’ve seen bafflement from more than one place that he has been so quickly disregarded for such small margins. Cruz fans are upset that he’s getting the reputation for being a mean attack dog when Rubio is similarly on the attack. They’re also exasperated that while Cruz has gone after Trump, he’s still being remembered as the guy who cozied up to him.

But that’s exactly what happens when people have no reason to want to like you. A lot of people want to like Trump because of his novelty. Some love his outrageous comments, but yet others will let the ones they disagree with go because you take the bad with the good. Cruz just doesn’t have that well to draw from. He speaks to a narrow audience, and so people that are not a part of that narrow audience have no reason to cut him some slack.

And, of course, the media, which has a lot of reasons to like Trump – albeit not like-like him – and fewer reasons to like Cruz.

I’m not sure whether the tendency of former French presidents to get indicted is because they demand integrity, are particularly corrupt, or prosecution-as-politics, but is the sort of thing that makes me think it’s not so bad that Ford pardoned Nixon.

Of course, Republican governors have a tendency to become subject to very overzealous prosecutors when they plan to run for president, such as Rick Perry, whose charges have been dismissed.

The Trump phenomenon has so many fathers (such as), and is yet an orphan. For my own part, I find fault in my own ideas regarding the party that gave way to Trump, most notably in my dismissal of immigration concerns. On the other hand, it’s really not all about immigration.

Clay Shirky explains how political parties have become hosts for independent campaigns.

Attention Gannon! If you’re out there. In England and Wales, more babies are being born to women 35 and over than women younger than 25.

Jason Bedrick takes a crack at the study that found poor results from Louisiana’s voucher program, arguing that the problem is regulation. Maybe, but the regulations they cite actually seem prudent to me.

As immigrants assimilate and intermarry, it’s becoming harder to see the lines and count the people on each side.

Edwin Lyngar is worried that we have become addicted to fear. I agree, and might cite this as an example.

If you want to live to 112, the solution apparently involves chain smoking. Maybe this is why advocates are trying to convince me that my smoking cessation wasn’t good for my health.

The EPA says that it has cleaned up after the Gold King Mine disaster, but locals aren’t so sure.

Having a child has likely changed my politics in some subtle ways I do not realize, but one overt change is my views on funding PBS, so this makes me happy.

Florida is stepping up enforcement against left-lain snails.

For Sale! The most troubled half of one of our most troubled states.

Well, with all of the babies being born in Utah, I suppose this was bound to happen at some point.

If you’re looking to leave the country when Donald Trump becomes president, Nova Scotia may want you!

So Elizabeth — when she was young, very charming, very, very charming. Could't have a baby. Sad. Really sad. https://t.co/9RRlJUZzyb

— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) February 23, 2016

I mean, she just wanted a little baby. Waited years and years. Didn't happen. No kids. Very sad. I mean, years go by. Years.

— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) February 23, 2016

(more…)

It’s a two-man race! Or a three-man race! Or a four-man race! It depends on how you count it. There are four credible candidates remaining, three with a chance at winning the nomination, and two with a credible chance of winning the nomination. Or so it appears at the moment.

The immediate response after South Carolina was: Good for Trump, Goodish for Rubio, Bad for Cruz. My own account, almost immediately, was that it was very good for Trump, kinda bad for Rubio, and really bad for Cruz. The second-place tussle between Rubio and Cruz ended up being a sidestory. They effectively tied. The big news were the gaps between the two of them and everybody else. To the north of them was Trump, whose ten point victory was extactly what the anti-Trump faction(s) did not need. Below them was a 10+ point gap with everyone else, which was exactly what those two needed. Which gap was the bigger deal? I’m rather strongly inclined to believe the first, and after a couple days of trying on narratives, it appears that the consensus is with me.

I’m not yet convinced that Trump cannot be beaten, but for the first time I am putting his odds at greater than fifty percent (roughly 55%-25%-10%-10% for Trump-Rubio-Cruz-??). It would be even better had Cruz managed to beat Rubio with just a bit of daylight, but it was more than enough. The good news for Rubio is that as not-great as his night was, Jeb is out and Cruz’s night was so bad that it ultimately redounds to his benefit as well as Trump’s as he starts getting the nationwide establishment support he has long needed. Cruz’s path to the nomination was already narrow, and he could run some rather bad publicity going into Super Tuesday.

Or maybe not, and that’s Rubio’s problem. Nevada is almost all downside and no upside for Rubio. It had been an afterthought, but I’m convinced that it is critically important for the two major candidates not named Trump. And it’s important for Trump, too. But it offers Cruz an opportunity to reverse his fortunes just when he needs to. And that would, of course, be terrible news for Rubio whose main path to the nomination involves Cruz abandonment on Super Tuesday. It’s Ground Game vs Fundamentals. The Fundamentals should favor Rubio between the two of them. He has ties to the state and ties to Mormonism. If not for the Trump Cloud, he would probably be winning that state. Cruz, on the other hand, has the legendary campaign apparatus and in a caucus that matters a great deal. Advantage: Cruz. And by extension, Trump. Trump can survive a loss, but he does need to win. The polling is so favorable to him right now it will open up questions if he doesn’t (despite the fact that polling in Nevada is notoriously unreliable). But Trump is Trump, and momentum has not proven to be worth anything this primary.

This is going to be the last week that placement matters. On Super Tuesday, it will be all about delegates and states. I’m not sure how I’m going to handle it for the post but I do have some ideas. Here we go for this week:

Donald Trump
1st Place: This doesn’t have to happen, but it’ll be a big hit if he doesn’t. And if it does, it’ll cause a week of party uncertainty that will serve him very, very well.
2nd Place: He’ll be okay. The good news about being the frontrunner is that you can afford stumbles. This would qualify as a stumble, though.
3rd Place: This would qualify as more than just a stumble, but nothing he can’t rebound from. If the news feedback is bad, it could make it truly a three-person race. The press may shrug, though.

Ted Cruz
1st Place: Worst-case scenario for Rubio. This doesn’t necessarily make him competitive, but it would help.
2nd Place: This would be a very good outcome, assuming that he beats Rubio. He can point to Rubio’s connections with the state and institutional advantage and say “And I beat him anyway!” It’d be the first time he beats the expectations game.
3rd Place: Not a good outcome. If he keeps it close he will be okay. If not, the press (which is already hostile to him) will be mercilous and he has to start really worrying about Super Tuesday. Best case for him here is that the press spends more time talking about Rubio.

Marco Rubio
1st Place: This could make it a competitive two-person race, but probably not. It could, at least, break the fever of Trump’s inevitability. It wouldn’t necessarily even do that.
2nd Place: This keeps him going.
3rd Place: This makes it really hard for him to do what he needs to do to win the nomination.

Joel Kotkin discusses the Geography of Inequality and how housing is exacerbating the two Americas. More from Wendell Cox.

Bjorn Lomborg argues that sometimes it’s not worth fighting third-world corruption.

Joseph Pearce writes of rescuing maidens from the dragon culture.

Eleanor Sharman explains how she became a victim of feminism.

It sure seems to me that the University of Idaho is headed for the Big Sky Conference. New Mexico State may have an easier time of it.

A liberal clerk of Scalia sings his praises.

Jack Smith investigates why batteries on ecigarettes, hoverboards, and other electronics keep exploding.

Are trafficked prostitutes victims or perpetrators of crime?

As far as “How to fix Twitter” suggestions go, these from Randi Harper seem really good. I think it’s important to allow pseudonymity, but favoring those who are willing to unmask – or at least submit their phone number to Twitter itself – seems prudent.

The $3,000,000,000,000 wealth transfer of the Oil Crash.

Companies tracking employee pregnancies seems creepy, but Emily Crockett says we shouldn’t be so freaked out.

George Packer investigates why leftists go right.

What can Bernie Sanders really do about mass incarceration? Ryan Cooper says that he can lead the way on bail reform.

In order to continue accepting welfare benefits, Utah may be requiring “Self-Reliance Training.”

Christian Jarrett reports that contrary to what we might think, our brains do better in the winter than the summer. I’d always thought that was the case for me, but I figured it had to do with being raised in the southern heat when winter is the only tolerable season and summer is exhausting in its very existence.

1. A little riff on what America today's political dysfunction means for capitalism.

— Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida) February 14, 2016

2. You don't have to be a neo-marxist to recognize that dysfunction in American politics especially in the GOP is not good for capitalism.

— Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida) February 14, 2016

3. A key function of government is to maintain the integrity of the economic system & enable so-called "capitalist accumulation."

— Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida) February 14, 2016

(more…)