To be clear, I did not say that 99 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters will swing to Hillary after he loses tomorrow. I said that more of his supporters will agree to vote for Hillary Clinton than far right wing supporters will agree to switch from Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.

I also keep hearing mainstream Republicans warning against Trump and making comments that they’re concerned he can’t win a general election.

The GOP primary numbers for Donald Trump reflect that GOP base voters are turning out for him on a 35-45 percent level, while the other voters are split between other options. I don’t know that this shows that this means that more casual independent voters are suddenly turning to Trump. I agree that the GOP is more stirred up right now, and that many of them frankly hate Hillary Clinton. But many of them also hate Donald Trump.

It’s certainly possible that Trump could somehow get past all of his negatives (and they’re huge) and get himself a term in the White House. In the event that this somehow occurs, and in the event that the Senate remains in GOP control by an equal fluke, we could be looking at a significant crisis here. Trump would immediately try to completely undo every single thing that happened during the Obama administration and nominate the most right wing judge possible to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. His bellicose attitude toward the world would result in a trade battle with Mexico and potentially a brand new cold war with Russia. That’s not to mention all the other international fun he’d cause. Which would in turn pull the legs out of the economy – I’d expect a severe downturn to start within 6-9 months of his arriving in DC, which he’d then blame on everyone else.

But all of that is easily avoidable. Dems do need to show up at the polls, just as they did in 2012. If they choose to stay home in the swing states, they’ll effectively hand the election to the most inappropriate and potentially dangerous person we’ve seen go for the Presidency in many years. I can’t believe that the people of this country would be that foolish. I think people’s instincts are better than that. But if I’m wrong, we’ll get the President and the government we deserve.

I’m following 538 this year, as I did in 2012. Silver has tended to be the most accurate in terms of his prognostications. For whatever reason, his models seem to work the best. At this point, he has serious doubts about Trump’s ability to appeal beyond the white male Republicans he already has in his corner.

It is indeed possible that Trump could somehow prevail in November, but that would mean that most of the US electorate was either woefully uninformed or chose to stay home – or both.

For now, the Democratic primary situation has essentially reverted to what we knew it would be over six months ago, and next Tuesday will clinch it. I still think that Bernie Sanders will make a good speech at the Democrat Convention this summer, and that it’s possible that Clinton will find a place for him in her cabinet. I’ve noted that their disagreements at the various debates have never strayed into the bizarre territory we’ve seen the GOP inhabit this year.

Ellen, I don’t know that Trump’s bullying tactics will help him that much in the general. They’ve done well for him in getting the attention of angry white GOP voters who don’t know where to place the blame for their current situations. But I don’t know how they get him the numbers he would need in non-white votes. Or in female votes. He’s also alienated an entire slew of left and right wing voters alike.

Granted, Hillary Clinton also has her own negatives, but I don’t believe they’re nearly as dire as Trump’s. It’s true that some Bernie Sanders supporters (namely the older ones) will refuse to vote for her in the general. But the younger ones are not as likely to sit on their hands, now that they’ve gotten involved. And again, Clinton will have a decisive majority of non-white votes at her back as well. She’ll also carry the female vote.

It’s certainly possible that Trump will somehow be able to convince enough GOP voters to stay with him, and somehow get enough independents to go his way as well, but I don’t know that constant bullying and insults will get him that result. He might try to pivot back to the center, but then he’ll lose a large portion of the GOP base, which cannot accept anything less than total obedience to their platform.

I could be proven wrong on this, but my instincts say that a Trump nomination not only loses the Presidency for the GOP yet again but also costs them the Senate, a chunk of the House and many state seats down the ticket. I think we could be looking at a historic electoral blowout. We’ll just have to see how the general population deals with Trump’s behavior when the situation is clearer this summer and fall. And I don’t believe all the desperate GOP smear attempts will succeed here. They’ve certainly worked to fool uninformed observers, but like all smear campaigns, they’ve fallen apart when examined.

I don’t think Romney is doing this on his own. This has the fingerprints of the GOP establishment all over it. If they can embarrass Trump on the eve of Super Tuesday, and potentially give Rubio a bunch of anti-Trump talking points, they’re thinking they can change the ball game.

Frankly, I don’t think this will work. The GOP spent much of 2012 dismissing discussion of Romney’s tax returns, so it’s quite odd to see them suddenly championing the discussion now. And from what I can see, the GOP voters really don’t care about their candidates’ taxes.

If anything, this shows the GOP really starting to get frantic now. They know better than we do how much damage Trump can do to them this fall. I just don’t know that this approach will be all that fruitful for them. The saner approach in the long run would be to avoid creating figureheads like Trump in the future. And that might be accomplished by not having Fox News fanning the flames of these guys as hard as they can.

There is no reason for any Democrat candidate to appear on a network that is biased so strongly against them. Fox News, as now repeatedly shown by this website, to the tune of now THOUSANDS of examples, is clearly intended to promote a right wing Republican view of the world and to attack pretty much anyone with a (D) after their name. The Clintons have been a target for Fox News, going all the way back to the network’s founding as an anti-Clinton network in 1996.

Hillary is already forced to tolerate nonsense from biased correspondents like Ed Henry on a daily and even hourly basis on the campaign trail. Any event she conducts is likely to have Henry trying desperately to throw in GOP talking points or a cheap shot in the form of a question.

Were she to consent to an interview by Chris Wallace, we can be sure that it would be chock full of attacks, some as direct punches and the others as “some people say” questions. We can be sure that Wallace wouldn’t ask about her positions or her intentions or even her potential platform. But he’d certainly ask her to comment on Benghazi for the umpteenth time, on her emails again, on GOP talking points about the Iran deal, on her health, on GOP rumors about her husband, and even on her thoughts re Kissinger and Nixon. The entire point would be to diminish her candidacy and try to rattle her – if Wallace could get her to explode, as he did with Bill Clinton, the right wing could run that video forever.

Thankfully, Clinton is smart enough to stay out of that muck until after the election. I believe she’ll agree to appear on Fox News at some point in 2017, as a way of being open to the GOP point of view and as a way to reach out. But she would have no reason to bother with them until after November.

MJ – that’s a great piece on O’Reilly. The right wing still hasn’t gotten over that one.

I’d say that that Fox News would actually be okay with either Democrat as the nominee. With Hillary, as they’ve known it’s pretty much going to be, they can trot out all the talking points you mention, and they have a viewer base that’s hated her for over 20 years. (More on that below) And they could continue as the opposition network for the next 8 years, always on the hunt for some new scandal to talk up to smear the President. (Note that they continue to play the card of “She’s going to be INDICTED SOON!!!!” even though no credible person has said word one about that.)

If somehow they wind up with Sanders as the nominee, then they can spin the situation to “We can WIN!” and go into full-on rah-rah mode for the next 8 years. It’s not as lucrative as the Clinton scenario but it provides them comfort food in the form of the kind of angry gloating that happened while W. was in the White House.

I discussed the situation with a right wing friend late last night. His feeling is that the GOP is down to a 3 man race and Trump is going to be the nominee without any trouble. (My instincts are that Carson will stay in through Super Tuesday, just to deny Cruz his voters. Rubio will benefit from Trump’s departure, and Kasich will hold out for another couple of weeks to see if he can get any more support. Carson then has to drop out but has damaged Cruz so much that Cruz has no way to win. Kasich drops out, allowing Rubio to get his supporters, and at that point Rubio starts to win primaries – but it’s too late for him to be able to get the majority – thus, brokered convention and we see how it goes…) My friend’s notion is that Trump easily gets the nomination, picks Kasich as his VP, picks up Ohio and somehow sails into the White House. I’m quite skeptical of that idea.

My friend also made fairly unfortunate comments about what he thought of the left wing and of Hillary Clinton. The lightest part of this that I would care to repeat is that I noted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely be marked by the same total gridlock of obstruction we’ve seen since 2009, going for a new round of 8 years. His response was “God willing!”

When we get to the end of this contest in November, the most predictable part of it is the total gridlock. Meaning that nothing will change in politics for the next 9 years. The unspoken problem at Fox News now is whether the upcoming generational issue will fully hit within that time. Point being that most of Fox News’ viewership is older, male and white. As more of those viewers pass, they aren’t being replaced by younger viewers. Meaning that Fox News’ viewership is likely to face a significant decline by 2025 – it will be interesting to see what they do to try to counter it. Or maybe they don’t, and simply embrace their position as a niche market.

Looks pretty solid that Rubio indeed got 2nd place, edging out Cruz. Cruz appears to be completely coming apart now, based on his embarrassing discussion with Chuck Todd today. I strongly expect him to really put out the nastiest attack ads he can over the next week. For Cruz, it’s now or never with the mudslinging…

David Lindsay, I partly agree about 2000. The only full recount of Florida showed that Al Gore had actually won the state, but by the time that recount was conducted, nobody wanted to pay it any mind. By 2004, the well was badly poisoned so I’m not as convinced of the stories that came out of Ohio. But you’re correct that W. was an illegitimate president. Both his presidency and the shameful Supreme Court decision that ushered him in will be remembered as unfortunate moments for our democracy. Thankfully, we are past them.

For Jeb, I think he really wound up in the wrong race at the wrong time. This entire situation of Trump being able to suck all the air out of the room is the inevitable result of 20 years of Fox News hate speech and 30 years of unbridled AM radio hate speech (from the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan). If you spend 20-30 years feeding the angriest impulses of the right wing, convincing them that there is no such thing as a good moderate, constantly harping on the most extreme ideas, then you can’t complain when your audience refuses to listen to anything but the most outrageous candidates.

This is a serious case of “be careful what you wish for”. Fox News on-air personalities have been talking up how they didn’t want another Romney or McCain. Now they’re going to have to live with the consequences of having something like a Trump candidacy nearly take their party down. If we really do get a Clinton vs Trump election, I really wonder how Fox News will react to the inevitable wipeout at the ballot box.

Thank you guys.

The best part was Ted Cruz being corrected on his misstatements. He didn’t look pleased to get the correction.

Steve, you just reminded me – Scalia was instrumental in the unbelievable Bush v Gore ruling, which he later took some pleasure in discussing by telling Democrats who asked him about it “Get over it!”

Eyes is correct that Fox News is attempting to lionize Scalia. The reason they are doing this is that Scalia is considered one of Reagan’s greatest accomplishments as President by the right wing. An unabashedly, openly confrontational right wing judge appointed to the SC for life at a relatively young age, and staying there for 30 years. The right wing couldn’t have asked for more from Scalia. He delivered what they wanted in generous amounts.

That’s in comparison to Sandra Day O’Connor, who wasn’t far enough to the right for their tastes. And in comparison to Anthony Kennedy, who the right wing always resented having to settle for, when the guy they’d wanted was Robert Bork. It was the success of getting Scalia onto the court that emboldened them into thinking they could a completely inappropriate person like Bork onto the highest bench. When they failed in such a spectacular fashion, the right wing began nursing a fury that hasn’t subsided, even 30 years later.

Doesn’t mean he wasn’t an intelligent person, or that he wasn’t approachable by his colleagues. I find it especially interesting that he was so friendly with both Ginsburg and Kagan. But we can’t forget the actual material he contributed while at the SC.

As for Clarence Thomas, I’m sure he’ll continue to do just what he’s been doing for the past 25 years or so – not a whole lot.

I’ll give Ramsey that he has at least encouraged people to pay their bills and try to live within their means. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but there’s nothing wrong with that thought.

Where I have problems with his material is when he and his listeners take a distinctly smug approach to this. It’s the same kind of thing you hear in fundamentalists of all religions – the notion that one group feels they are somehow superior to others, and it’s despicable no matter who does it.

The notion that the student should be held at fault for wanting to get the best education s/he can is deeply offensive. If someone is a serious student and wants to put in the work to learn and get a good degree, it is not appropriate for the right wing to tell them they are foolish to do so.

That said, I should qualify the idea just a bit. Not everyone necessarily needs or wants to pursue a higher education degree. For some people, getting a degree is like buying a certificate of attendance. For others, college is something they’ve been tracked into without really having any idea why they are attending. And for some, a college education doesn’t give them anything that really boosts their understanding or helps them in their lives. For example, as noted before, Bill O’Reilly would have done better to have simply attended a trade school or just apprenticed somewhere. Nothing he’s done in a career going back to the 70s has indicated that he got very much from his B.U. degree. (To be fair, it doesn’t look like Howard Stern got much out of it either…)

Sure thing Debra. So this means that you also think that the W. Bush administration should have had more people prosecuted for deliberately leaking the information about Valerie Plame, right? And you’re also calling for investigations into the conduct of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as well?

This is Exhibit #172 on the list of reasons why Rubio will not become President. Christie was right about the canned answers – and about the fact that Rubio is keeping himself insulated from having to actually deal with real human beings while he campaigns. I have a feeling Rubio will stay in for another few primaries/caucuses but he may find himself coming up very short and bowing out by Super Tuesday.

Christie surprised me today by surrendering immediately – I had expected him to stick around a little longer. Instead, he admitted failure right away and took the humiliation of watching Rubio continue to smirk at him while he went home with his tail between his legs. Not shocked to see Carly Fiorina similarly announce her failure to challenge Hillary Clinton.

Ben Carson surprised me, but it appears his ego is a little bigger than Christie’s. (Also, Christie likely wants to have a political future outside of this race) Not sure who the “millions of people” Carson thinks are going to magically appear for him in South Carolina or anywhere else. His refusal to accept failure now only means that it will be even more costly and humiliating for him in 2-3 weeks when he’s forced to do so. He can get out of the race now with his debts at the current level, or he can retreat around Super Tuesday when he’s in way over his head. Not a particularly smart move – but it makes sense given the ego involved here. (And there’s one other GOP candidate still out there who should have dropped out 6 months ago, but one can only surmise he’s not putting any money into his campaign. The good part for Gilmore is that when he does bow out, he won’t have to worry about getting a media spotlight on the failure – not even Fox News is giving him any attention.)

Cruz will never be president. I was hoping to see Bush get past him too. But this does show what we all knew about Rubio – that he would quickly fade.

Eyes is correct that Fox News is desperately trying to push Sanders, even to the point of trying nonsense that Clinton is “in serious trouble”. Riiiight. She won Iowa, and will win the next several primaries/caucuses plus Super Tuesday. What will they say then? That she had a huge comeback? Or that everyone knew she would win those races? We’ve known for two months that Sanders would easily win New Hampshire. Clinton knew too – that’s why she conceded early and moved on to the next race, where she will easily move past Sanders.

Fox News is simply enjoying a moment to flail at Clinton – this is the moment they wanted in Iowa and were denied. They should enjoy it while they can (and they’ll have a week to talk about how horrible she’s doing before she wins the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary. Then they’ll bury the story instead and try to emphasize what delegates Bernie ekes out of those states. After Super Tuesday, it’s over for Bernie.

On the other hand, it looks like Chris Christie is admitting his failure today. As said before, Fiorina, Carson and Gilmore will also be out this week if they have any sense. After Super Tuesday, the GOP race should be down to 3 candidates at most. I don’t expect Rubio to make it past that point. I’m also watching to see if Cruz implodes by then – the fact that he was using Nixonian dirty tricks to take Iowa will not help him in a multi-state extravaganza.

This is likely not far off. Fox News has been waiting for a more stable candidate to emerge from the pileup of hopefuls who have stubbornly refused to leave the field up to now. On the other hand, I remember that they’ve also regularly celebrated any GOP candidate who had any traction at the moment. I watched them fawn over multiple candidates in 2012, only to drop them a week later when the polls changed.

The real indicator for me of Fox News’ current perspective has been the frequency of desperate flails at the Hillary Clinton campaign. It’s fairly obvious that they were hoping to see Bernie Sanders win Iowa, so that they could post a triumphant headline about it. Instead, she won the state. So they initially buried the coverage, then refused to acknowledge that she had won, and then tried the tack of saying that even though she’d won, she’d somehow really lost. My favorite part of this was them quoting Rance Priebus saying that her win in Iowa was “a total disaster”. I’m still trying to figure out how winning the first state in the nomination race is somehow a “disaster”…

I don’t know anyone who thinks that assault should be condoned, other than right wing friends of mine who have repeatedly told me that Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot to death. But that’s neither here nor there when it comes to this situation. For this situation, we’ve already established that anyone who made physical contact with either of the two provocateurs should not have done so. As I noted before, it was appropriate for the professor to apologize and plead guilty to the misdemeanor charges.

What we see on the video is a situation where Tim Tai was repeatedly told to respect the space of the people who were in the protest area. One of the students practically begged him to respect their space “in the name of humanity”. Tai refused, and in fact escalated the situation by screaming and shouting that he would not leave or move. Other journalists have pointed out that Tai had a right to stand there, but showed very poor judgment in deliberately escalating the situation, as he clearly did. Schierbecker then took advantage of the situation to get into the tent area and provoke the professor, which he was happy to get on video.

Again, the proper course of action for both women who have been pilloried here would have been to calmly remind the two provocateurs that what they were doing was their right, but that they were disrespecting their fellow students in a fairly outrageous manner by their behavior. Not by wanting to document the protest – by refusing to abide by the wishes of the peaceful people who were there. We should remember that the Greek Life Director wouldn’t have been involved had Tai simply respected what he’d been asked by the other students. When he got belligerent and began screaming and yelling, the Director clearly thought she needed to look out for them.

I’m not sure that there was much of a valid story here, particularly in the way it was covered. You could have a discussion about the situation – noting the bad behavior by everyone and noting that nobody handled this particularly well. But the tone of OUTRAGE we’ve heard from right wing media frankly reads as false to anyone who knows anything about the past fifty years of history. Outrage is something I’d apply to the killing of the students at Kent State, to the repression of students expressing their rights in Berkeley in the 60s. In this case, we’re talking about something that was avoidable by all parties and was sadly escalated by two students who decided to make themselves the story.

So yes, this whole rabbit hole is a sideshow. And not a particularly interesting one – just another attempt by the right wing to falsely claim that college campuses are full of “left wing indoctrination” or “coddled liberal arts majors”.

I’d agree that problems were outed in this video – including poor judgment by some emotional people who reacted badly in a crisis. But this wasn’t an “institutional problem” by any means. The institutional problem continues to be the racism that provoked these protests in the first place, and which still has yet to fully be answered or corrected.

Unless I’m mistaken, Fox’s PR statement came after Trump demanded they pull one of the moderators. So he’d already said he wasn’t going to show up anyway.

It’s been fascinating to watch people like Rush Limbaugh trying to defend Trump today. Saying things like “He’s not afraid! This is a control issue! He’s not going to put himself in a place where someone is going to try to make him look bad!”

Which of course means that Trump really IS afraid. He cannot appear in any situation that he doesn’t think he’ll be treated the way he wants. So how would he handle a situation where a foreign country has disrespected him, as he sees it? Boycott them? Call them losers? Throw their ambassadors out? Call French Fries Freedom Fries… oh. Okay, forget that last one, I got a little carried away…

Actually, Limbaugh’s statement that he regularly turns down TV interview requests is quite illuminating. While I strongly doubt that he is “constantly” getting such requests, I’ve always found it revealing that the only interviews he consents to are softball discussions from Greta at Fox News. He cannot tolerate anything stronger than someone complimenting him and telling him what a great guy he is. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that maybe Limbaugh is afraid of being interviewed by someone less obsequious, and he’s trying to justify that same trait in Trump.

I’m getting the strong impression that Fox News is getting close to panic mode about the 2016 race. They clearly understand that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be the Democrat nominee and that they don’t have a viable candidate to compete with her.

So we’ve had lie after lie about Benghazi, with every conceivable smear. Bill Clinton mentions that Hillary stood up to the heat of sitting in front of a hostile House committee for 11 hours, something that everyone acknowledged actually helped her campaign rather than what the GOP had hoped. Megyn Kelly responds by bringing on a relative of one of the guys killed at Benghazi, presumably to say that the only thing allowed to be discussed is how the men died. (Whereas if it had been a GOP candidate under pressure over, say, a poor response to people dying in Hurricane Katrina, Fox News would talk about how the candidate stood up to the pressure…)

And let’s not forget the actual facts about what happened when the “Innocence of Muslims” video was promulgated. There were deadly, bloody riots across the Middle East. Our embassy in Cairo was overrun by a mob that pulled down the American flag. Chaos rained for days in the area. And Fox News reveled in the chaos, trying to use the incident as a way to attack President Obama. Sean Hannity is preserved on video happily crowing, “Isn’t Obama supposed to be the expert on foreign policy? The Middle East is ON FIRE!” The Benghazi attack happened in the middle of that situation – the riots all over the area gave the terrorists cover to mount their own assault. Had it not been for the riots, the Benghazi attack would have been squelched without much fuss. But Fox News doesn’t want you to remember pesky details like that, do they?

And then we’ve had lie after lie about Hillary’s email server, a practice that was legal and in fact used by GOP cabinet members before her. (She simply used the privilege that was already enjoyed by Powell.) My favorite parts of that approach has been, up to this week, the drumbeat of “Will Hillary be, gasp, INDICTED?” as if such a thing was ever going to happen. No matter how many former W. people Fox News trots out to whisper sweet nothings about indictment, there is no indication that criminal prosecution is warranted or likely. And it’s fun to watch Fox News frantically comparing the email server to David Petraeus’ situation. Given that Clinton was keeping her server private and not sharing the information, and Petraeus was knowingly handing over classified intel to a woman with whom he was having an affair. Fox News wants its viewers to think that Petraeus’ willful dissemination of classified intel is a far lesser crime than Clinton having her own email server. Which is nonsensical on its face.

Of course, this week Fox News tried a new approach to the email fun. First, they really puffed over an IG interim report that just notes what kinds of documents were found in the server. Not whether those documents were given to outside parties or whether there is any evidence that such an event ever occurred. Not whether the documents were considered classified at the time they were sent, and not whether the documents were simply part of a repeated email chain that Clinton was being cc’d on. Not even whether many of these documents were actually the same document being sent back and forth in a single thread. Meaning that this interim report really doesn’t mean much – the only thing that would mean anything would be the Justice Dept coming out and saying they were finding problems. That hasn’t happened, and doesn’t appear likely to happen.

But just to make things a bit more interesting, Fox News then took the spin approach of saying that the emails could blow the cover of intelligence agents and endanger their lives. Megyn Kelly even took the time to interview intelligence people about exactly that notion. Which was a classic spit up your coffee moment of unintentional humor. Is Fox News seriously trying to say that they are now concerned about the welfare of undercover agents? Because they spent years trying to dismiss that exact issue when they were downplaying the dirty trick played on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (also known as “The Rove”) where her NOC status was blown open. Fox News and right wing radio delighted in saying that nothing wrong happened there, ignoring the fact that her life had been endangered and that all of her contacts’ lives were extremely endangered. (Fox News has never acknowledged that a bunch of these people were either killed or went into hiding as a direct result of the Plame leak.) (I should also acknowledge that left wing writers spoke in support of the Plame leak – but these were people who have always disliked the CIA in any case.)

So now Fox News wants us to believe they care, they really care, about the lives of undercover CIA agents. Something they said they DIDN’T care about when GOP guys were in the hot seat about it. Not only that, but the discussion about Wilson and Plame really did involve a deliberate leak and people’s lives being endangered. The current Fox News obsession with Hillary Clinton’s server is a theoretical one, assuming that maybe somebody could have hacked her server, if they even knew where it was or what it was. (And Fox News is even acknowledging that the same hackers regularly go after the official government servers without people jumping up and down about the security – because all that stuff is encrypted anyway.) So a real leak and political bomb from the W. years is to be ignored when Fox News says. But a theoretical discussion about a theoretical risk from a legal and approved procedure with an email server is to be fanned as much as possible – if it can help smear the likely Democrat nominee for President in 2016.

Based on the increasingly fervent tone being taken about Hillary Clinton at Fox News and right wing radio, one would have to conclude that they honestly don’t know how to debate her. All they’ve done up to now is throw mud and hope that some of it sticks. At the least, they’ve been able to stir up their own base who already hate her, and they’ve been able to confuse enough other people into thinking that she’s untrustworthy without quite knowing why.

Where this will get interesting is in the debates this fall. Let’s say the GOP actually is silly enough to nominate Donald Trump. How the heck can he get through a debate with Hillary Clinton with his usually vague and nasty answers? What does he do when he’s cornered? More personal attacks? That’s very presidential, isn’t it?

I believe what Fox News sees coming is a potential landslide going the other way from them – something that probably will give them better attack mode fodder for the next several years, but will mean that their political base would be rendered impotent during that time. Some of them probably would prefer this (it’s always easier to carp from outside than to actually govern), but I can’t imagine that Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch really wants to see a situation where the GOP loses that many House, Senate and state seats in a single election. Hence the panic. And we’re only in January. What will Fox News look like in September?