Ackman Loses $1 Billion, Pershing Square Fund Halted

Circuit-breakers kicked in as  Pershing Square Holdings, the publicly traded vehicle led by hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, has been halted. With the stock down over 11%, Bill Ackman’s 30.7mm share personal holding means a paper loss of nearly $1 billion when the stock hit its intraday low of just over $3, down $32 on the day.

The stock trades on Euronext Amsterdam:

 

But there is a US tracker:

 

As Valeant is now down over 45% on the day.

Bye bye “tres commas” club?


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1plMyqM Tyler Durden

What The Smart Money Is Most Worried About: This Is The Biggest “Tail Risk” Keeping Traders Up At Night

When BofA’s Michael Hartnett releases his monthly Fund Managers’ Survey, the one chart we always head straight to is the one showing what the “smart money” investors, aka those polled clients who make up the survey (and the same ones who we reported earlier have been selling this bear market rally for the past seven straight weeks) are most worried about, or as they put it: what are the biggest “tail risks.”

A brief walk down memory lane. 

The chart below shows that as recently as January, what kept everyone up at night by a substantial margin, with 45% putting it as their top fear, was a China Recession, followed by an EM debt crisis.

 

That changed dramatically just the next month, when the biggest fear in February had nothing to do with a Chinese recession or an EM Debt crisis, and everything to do with the dreaded “R” word right inside the gold ole’ US of A. In fact, four of last month’s top “tail risks” were brand news, and in addition to a US recession, these included energy debt defaults, quantitative failure and a topic we have been covering since mid-2015, China’s relentlessly encroaching capital controls.

 

Fast forward to today when once again a month makes all the difference in the world, and concerns of a US recession have receded dramatically, no doubt in response to the price action in the markets, which have seen a 200 point surge in the S&P and a 50% rebound in oil, and instead all eyes are on the Fed, where “quantitative failure” is now the top concern among 18% of those polled, just fractionally ahead of Recession with 18%, and China devaluation with 14%. While energy debt default has slid to fourth place with 14% of the vote, we are confident this will become a major topic in the coming months when the next, and biggest to date, wave of energy defaults hits the US market (incidentally, a China recession is nowhere to be found which probably means it is time to start worrying about China’s economy again).

 

And while recession fears have clearly receded, is a contraction in the US economy taken off the table? While a recession may no longer be the top “tail risk” any more, that too looks set to return at the top very soon because according to a separate poll, a great majority, or 59% of respondents, believe the global economy is now in its “late cycle”, the highest since August 2008 when the last crisis was unleashed. As a reminder, recessions always follow the “late cycle economy” transition.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1plMwiR Tyler Durden

Cops Caught on Camera Eating Dispensary’s Snack Bars Charged With Theft

Yesterday the Orange County District Attorney’s Office announced criminal charges against three Santa Ana police officers who were caught by a surveillance camera eating what seemed to be cannabis-infused treats after raiding an unlicensed medical marijuana dispensary last May. Officers Matthew Sontag, Nicole Lynn Quijas, and Jorge Arroyo were each charged with petty theft for taking snacks from the employee break room at Sky High Holistic. The press release from the D.A’s office describes the stolen items as “snacks available to staff, including Detour Simple protein bars and Mrs. Thinsters cookies.” Sontag was also charged with misdemeanor vandalism for damaging five surveillance cameras by banging them against a shelf, a safe, a cash register, and the corner of a display case.

“While other SAPD personnel ate some protein bars,” the press release says, “there is insufficient evidence that they knew the food items belonged to the dispensary and not their fellow officers. There was also no evidence that any SAPD personnel consumed any edible marijuana items available at the dispensary.”

O.C Weekly‘s Nick Schou, who broke the story last June, is skeptical of the latter conclusion:

Right: No evidence whatsoever, other than the fact that the cops were at a pot shop, eating candy bars, and acting high. One is then left with the obvious conclusion that these poor officers are so underpaid that they have no choice but to munch down on pilfered protein bars while on duty. That makes so much more sense.

The officers’ defenders initially claimed they were eating protein bars they brought with them, a story contradicted by the surveillance video, in which one officer announces, “There are some good-looking chocolate bars back there.” At that point another officer goes off camera and comes back holding a bar that he unwraps and begins to eat. Later he directs another officer (apparently Quijas) to the source of the bars. She goes back there a couple of times, retrieving snacks that she shares with a few other officers.

Last July, Schou noted comments that reinforced the impression that the officers were chowing down on the dispensary’s products. “These bars are pretty good,” one cop says. “I kinda feel light-headed, though.” Later a firefighter enters and says to Quijas, “You guys got that munchies now, huh?” She replies, “Mmm-hmm.” The other officers laugh. In retrospect, the cops might have been joking about eating marijuana edibles while eating ordinary (but stolen) snacks, although it’s not clear whether their urine or blood was tested to substantiate that explanation.

Sontag, Quijas, and Arroyo are scheduled to be arraigned on April 11. If convicted, Quijas and Arroyo face up to six months in jail and a $400 fine. Sontag faces up to 18 months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

After entering the dispensary, the officers disabled 16 visible surveillance cameras but missed four hidden ones. The D.A.’s office says turning off the cameras was consistent with “investigatory and officer safety protocol.” But if the cops had done a more thorough job of eliminating electronic witnesses, their misbehavior never would have come to light.

Recognizing that fact, Sontag, Quijas, and Arroyo asked a judge to suppress the surveillance video, arguing that it violated their right to privacy. An Orange County judge had the good sense to reject that claim.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1SPW95a
via IFTTT

Meet Paul Watford, One of Obama’s Potential Nominees to Replace Scalia on the Supreme Court

Judge Paul Watford of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is reportedly one of the three candidates now under final consideration by President Barack Obama for nomination to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. The other reported finalists are Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Judge Sri Srinivasan, also of the D.C. Circuit. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Watford is going to be the nominee to replace Scalia. Where does Watford stand on the issues? What’s in his legal record?

Watford was nominated to the 9th Circuit in 2012 by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 61-34. He faced significant opposition from Republican Senators and conservative activists, who objected in particular to Watford’s legal views on immigration and the death penalty. In 2012, for example, Watford was one of the attorneys on an amicus brief submitted by the ACLU and other groups urging the Supreme Court to strike down Arizona’s controversial immigration law S.B. 1070. Watford has also come under fire from some conservatives for his work on an amicus brief in 2008 that urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the lethal injection protocol used by the state of Kentucky.

From a libertarian perspective, Judge Watford has written two opinions while on the 9th Circuit that are particularly notable. One of those opinions centers on the Fourth Amendment while the other opinion deals with the First Amendment. Here’s what we know about Watford’s views in these two important constitutional cases.

In the 2013 case of Patel v. Los Angeles, Watford wrote the 9th Circuit’s majority opinion striking down a Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotels to make their guest registries “available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for Inspection” without the need for a warrant. Hotel owners naturally objected to this, pointing out that the Fourth Amendment generally prevents government agents from conducting warrantless searches.

Judge Watford agreed. “The hotel’s property and privacy interests are more than sufficient to trigger Fourth Amendment protection,” he wrote. The city of Los Angeles appealed Watford’s decision and in 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the matter. Watford’s judgment was affirmed when the Supreme Court struck down the offending L.A. statute by a 5-4 vote on Fourth Amendment grounds.

The second opinion worth noting is Judge Watford’s 2013 dissent in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. In that case, the 9th Circuit voted in favor of a regulatory scheme adopted by Gilbert, Arizona, which placed stricter rules on signs that gave directions to church than it did on signs advertising political or ideological matters. Pastor Clyde Reed of Gilbert’s Good News Community Church objected to this lopsided treatment on First Amendment grounds, arguing that Gilbert was drawing impermissible content-based restrictions on speech.

Writing in dissent, Judge Watford agreed with Pastor Reed. “Gilbert’s sign ordinance plainly favors certain categories of non-commercial speech (political and ideological signs) over others (signs promoting events sponsored by non-profit organizations) based solely on the content of the message being conveyed,” he wrote. “To sustain the distinctions it has drawn, Gilbert must explain why (for example) a 20-square-foot sign displayed indefinitely at a particular location poses an acceptable threat to traffic safety and aesthetics if it bears an ideological message, but would pose an unacceptable threat if the sign’s message instead invited people to attend Sunday church services.” The town, Watford concluded, “has not offered any such explanation, and I doubt it could come up with one if it tried.”

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Watford’s dissent over the 9th Circuit’s majority opinion. “Ideological messages are given more favorable treatment than messages concerning a political candidate, which are themselves given more favorable treatment than messages announcing an assembly of like-minded individuals,” such as signs giving directions to Pastor Reed’s weekly church services. “That,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, “is a paradigmatic example of content-based discrimination.”

It’s also worth noting that Judge Watford’s role in Reed v. Town of Gilbert could potentially harm his chances of becoming Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. That’s because some prominent liberal legal thinkers object to the broad free speech stance endorsed by Watford’s dissent and ultimately enshrined by Justice Thomas’ majority opinion. One such liberal is Robert Post, the dean of Yale Law School. As The New York Times reported, Post objects to the Reed decision on the grounds that its “sweeping” logic “endangered all sorts of laws.” As Post complained to the Times, “effectively this would roll consumer protection back to the 19th century.”

We don’t yet know who President Obama will nominate to replace the late Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. But if Obama’s nominee does turn out to be Judge Paul Watford, don’t be surprised if some liberals worry about the fact that Watford lined up with Clarence Thomas in defense of the First Amendment.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nLua9U
via IFTTT

This Media Coverage Chart Shows Why Hillary Clinton Should Be Thankful for the Citizens United Decision

Trying to cover anything this winter other than Donald Trump’s campaign at any point when he is in full ownership of the news cycle is an exercise in futility and frustration. I’ve been the person blogging the Apple vs. FBI encryption fight for Reason, and I can tell whether something I write is going to hit or miss based on how much oxygen is being consumed talking about whatever latest stunt or outrage has come from Trump or his supporters.

This is not a complaint, per se. The media is a business, and its job is to serve its customers’ needs. The customers want Trump, either to idolize or demonize, and he is the front-runner for the Republican nomination. It would be media malpractice (and bad business) to not report on him extensively. Hillary Clinton complaining to Chris Matthews at MSNBC that they keep covering him is pretty damn rich, given that she may well be facing him at the polls come November.

The New York Times with the assistance of media firm mediaQuant has attempted to calculate exactly how much more Trump has “benefited” from media coverage and the numbers are yuuuuuuuuge, as they say these days. They’re big enough that no doubt Trump himself will point them out at an upcoming rally, while still complaining about how badly he’s treated by the media.

Chart

Trump has purchased only $10 million in media advertising in through February. But if you calculated all media coverage of Trump as through it were paid ads, he has gotten the equivalent of $1.9 billion in publicity. That’s more than twice what Clinton has gotten ($746 billion) and more than six times the coverage of any other Republican candidate.

As Times‘ analysis points out, this doesn’t necessarily mean positive news coverage, though given the way Trump manages to spin every negative story about him as some sort of unfair attack, it doesn’t necessarily matter. I would be curious to see if it’s possible to determine the ratio of “positive” to “negative” coverage for the candidates, though.

When Clinton looks at those numbers, rather than complaining about how unfair it is that Trump is getting more media coverage than she is, she should take the opportunity to perhaps rethink her position that Citizens United should be overturned.

ReasonThe Citizens United decision, widely despised by the left, makes it possible for organized, unlimited spending on behalf of candidates through political action committees (PACs). Clinton hates it and wants to use overturning it as a litmus test for Supreme Court candidates partly for the extremely petty reason that the case was about a film that was very critical of her.

Presumably (though perhaps we shouldn’t assume this is the case) any attempt to restrain political speech by corporations, groups, or unions would naturally exclude media outlets’ own speech, as doing so would be a clear First Amendment violation. So had the Citizens United decision gone Clinton’s way, it would likely have had no significant impact in the amount of attention Trump is getting and the skewed media dynamic currently in play.

Assuming Clinton and Trump get the nominations, here’s the irony: Clinton is the one who needs the precedent set by the Citizens United decision, not Trump. And there is going to be a lot of independent money in play from people who really, really want to make sure that Trump will not be president. If this media dynamic continues to play out, Clinton would be the one hamstrung. Maybe that would have perhaps convinced her (and others on the left) that political spending actually is speech that can help counter imbalances in media coverage, but more likely we’d end up with more complaining about how unfair it is that Trump is getting so much more attention and perhaps calls for the government to have the authority to make it more “fair.”

As an additional aside, note that second highest ad spending in the race, after the massive failure of the Gov. Jeb Bush campaign, comes from Sen. Marco Rubio, whose make-it-or-break-it moment is today. If he doesn’t win Florida, he’s toast. It’s yet another reminder that money doesn’t buy elections.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1M4VWtw
via IFTTT

Silver “Longs” Near Record Highs As ETF Holdings Surge

It’s not just gold that has been in great demand. As Bloomberg notes, investors own the most silver in exchange-traded products in seven months, boosting holdings from a three-year low. The rebound comes as hedge funds and other money managers hold a near-record bet on further price gains.

 

Source: Bloomberg

The precious metal, which also has wide industrial uses, is up 11% this year.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1WnBGnc Tyler Durden

Gunfire Breaks Out In Brussels Anti-Terror Raid: Shooter On The Loose After One Police Officer Injured

The European terrorist scare came back with a bang moments ago when gunfire broke out earlier today during a counterterrorism raid in the Belgian capital, local media reported. According to NBC, Belgian media reported that at least one suspect fled and at least one police officer was lightly wounded in the incident in the Forest area of the city. Police sealed off the neighborhood.

As RT adds, a police officer was injured during a house raid in the southern suburb of Forest, though it was unclear whether he was hit by gunfire, a police spokeswoman said, as cited by Reuters. She declined to comment on reports that counter-terrorism units were involved in the search.

A victim is removed from the scene where shots were fired
during a police search of a house in the suburb of Forest near
Brussels, Belgium, March 15, 2016. © Francois Lenoir / Reuters

 

La Dernière Heure newspaper reported that a Kalashnikov was the gun used in the shooting, and that the shooter is on the loose.

The mayor of the municipality, Marc John Ghyssels, confirmed the shooting to Le Soir newspaper, but said the number of suspects on the run has not yet been determined.

The Forest neighborhood is close to Molenbeek, home of several people involved in the November 13 terror attacks which killed 130 people. RT reminds us that Belgian authorities are still on the hunt for suspects and associates linked to the Brussels-based masterminds of the attacks.

This is a developing story.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1WnzuMF Tyler Durden

Why Oil Prices May Not Move Higher

Submitted by Arthur Berman via OilPrice.com,

The oil-price rally that began in mid-February will almost certainly collapse.

It is similar to the false March-June 2015 rally. In both cases, prices increased largely because of sentiment. As in the earlier rally, current storage volumes are too large and demand is too weak to sustain higher prices for long.

WTI prices have increased 47 percent over the past 20 days from $26.21 in mid-February to $38.50 last week (Figure 1).

Figure 1. NYMEX WTI futures prices & OVX oil-price volatility, 2015-2016. Source: EIA, CBOE, Bloomberg and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. (click image to enlarge).

A year ago, WTI rose 41 percent in 35 days from $43 to almost $61 per barrel. Like today, analysts then believed that a bottom had been reached. Prices stayed around $60 for 37 days before falling to a new bottom of $38 per barrel in late August. Much lower bottoms would be found after that all the way down to almost $26 per barrel at the beginning of the present rally.

Higher prices were unsustainable a year ago partly because crude oil inventories were more than 100 mmb (million barrels) above the 5-year average (Figure 2). Current inventory levels are 50 mmb higher than during the false rally of 2015 and are they still increasing.

Figure 2. U.S. crude oil stocks. Source: EIA and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. (click image to enlarge).

International stocks reflect a similar picture. OECD inventories are at 3.1 billion barrels of liquids, 431 mmb more than the 2010-2014 average and 359 mmb above the 2015 level. Approximately one-third of OECD stocks are U.S. (1.35 billion barrels of liquids).

For 2015, U.S. liquids consumption shows a negative correlation with crude oil storage volumes (Figure 3). During the 2015 false price rally, consumption began to increase in April and May following the lowest WTI oil prices since March 2009–response lags cause often by several months. First quarter 2015 prices averaged $47.54 compared to an average price of more than $99 per barrel from November 2010 through September 2014 (44 months).

Figure 3. U.S. liquids consumption, crude oil stocks and WTI price. Source: EIA, Bloomberg and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. (click image to enlarge).

This coincided with the onset of declining U.S. crude oil production after April 2015 (Figure 4).

Figure 4. U.S. crude oil production and forecast. Source: EIA March 2016 STEO and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. (click image to enlarge).

Net withdrawals from storage continued until consumption fell in July in response to higher oil prices that climbed to $60 per barrel in June. Production increased because of higher prices from July through November before resuming its decline after prices fell again, this time, far below previous lows. This complex sequence of market responses shows how sensitive the current market is to relatively small changes in price, production and consumption.

Most importantly, it suggests that a price variation of only $15 per barrel was enough to depress consumption a year ago. That has profound implications for the present price rally that is now $12 per barrel above its baseline and has already increased by a greater percentage than the 2015 rally.

Why Storage Matters

Although most analysts pay attention to storage volumes, market balance is generally thought of as a simple balance between supply and demand. But U.S. production is difficult to measure with confidence until several months after-the-fact and the EIA reports crude oil production but not supply. Likewise, EIA reports consumption but not demand.

That’s because supply and demand can only be determined by evaluating stock changes and how storage modulates production and consumption. Production plus available storage equals supply. In today’s over-supplied market, consumption plus withdrawals from storage equals demand.

Since April 2015, U.S. production has declined 583,000 barrels of crude oil per day. With 163 mmb of crude oil in storage, that net production decline could be eliminated and April levels of production maintained by storage withdrawals for more than 9 months. That is why storage volumes must fall probably into the 2011-2014 range before a meaningful price rally can be maintained. That assumes that demand can tolerate those higher prices.

Oil is accumulating in storage because of low demand and low prices. It makes more sense to pay the monthly storage cost (~0.65 per barrel) and sell the oil forward with ongoing futures contracts until the spot price increases and, hopefully, demand also increases.

Many people think that the strip of futures contract prices are a reasonable guide to future prices. They are not. Futures prices mostly reflect the supply and demand of futures contracts.

That in no way discounts the profound effect that futures trading has on oil prices. The WTI futures market is one of the biggest gambling casinos in the world. Bets are often made on sentiment that in turn is related to world events. Price fluctuations that are based primarily on sentiment, however, have little chance of lasting longer than the sentiment or related events that produced them.

Crossing A Boundary

The current oil-price rally is based partly on a weaker U.S. dollar but mostly on hope that OPEC and Russia will cut production. For now, that is not even on the table. Rather, a somewhat meaningless production freeze is possible. Some rightfully believe that a dialogue about a production freeze may lead to a production cut some time in the relatively near future. I agree with that but it is a rather empty reason for oil prices to increase by almost 50 percent.

Traders are “following the tape,” meaning they have covered previous short bets and are following the momentum testing increasingly higher price thresholds as long as someone is willing to take the other side of the bet. That’s the way the market works.

It would not surprise me if this price rally lasts a while like the 2015 rally. I am interested in the requisite conditions that would allow a meaningful and sustainable price rebound. Early in the 2014 oil-price collapse, I thought it was a relatively straight-forward matter of reducing production so that the market could balance.

As low prices persisted, I recognized that a boundary had been crossed and that somehow, the principles that seemed to govern oil markets before September 2014 no longer applied in the same ways. I now believe that the world economy has been substantially weakened and injured by debt following the 2008 Financial Collapse and the easy-credit monetary policies that followed.

At some time in the not-too-distant future, the relentless depletion of legacy production and underinvestment in current exploration and production will result in much higher oil prices. The global economy will have to be much stronger to adjust to that.

The investigation I have presented here about the possible similarities between the present increase in oil prices and the false price rally of March-June 2015 reinforces my sense that a return to higher oil prices is not at all straight-forward. Oil markets are a leading indicator for the broader economy because the economy runs mostly on energy and not so much on money.

It seems that price and demand may be range-limited. Small changes in demand move prices up and down until those price changes feedback to changes in demand. Production has been like a machine working tirelessly in the background as easy money has kept it moving regardless of low prices and the absence of profit. That is how distorted the market has become.

World production now appears to be falling and that is certainly a necessary step in the right direction toward market balance. I anticipate an OPEC plus Russia production cut in 2016 and that will unquestionably move the market to some kind of balance. I suspect, however, that the new balance may be one in which prices and demand both remain lower than on the other side of the price-collapse boundary that was crossed in 2014.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/22hkgzN Tyler Durden

Trump Goes For Knockout Blow On Tuesday With 5-State Sweep

Well, it’s another “super” Tuesday, and that must mean Donald Trump is angling to move even closer to the GOP nomination, an outcome that’s horrified the establishment and seemed so remote just nine months ago as to be laughable.

But the only one laughing now is Trump, and boy, oh boy is he laughing hard.

With 460 delegates awarded to Ted Cruz’s 370, the billionaire can effectively lock up the nomination if he manages to win in Ohio and Florida today, states where Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Marco Rubio (respectively) are for all intents and purposes making their last stands. 

The Sunshine State should, by all accounts, be an easy win for Trump. A Quinnipiac University poll released Monday showed Trump with a dominating 46% to 22% lead over Rubio, who is facing a humiliating defeat in his home state where Trump made multiple campaign stops yesterday and where Sarah Palin told supporters that the billionaire doesn’t have time for “punk-ass little thuggery” from protesters. 

“Tomorrow’s the day where we’re going to shock the country and we’re going to do what needs to be done,” Rubio said Monday, in Jacksonville. “We’re going to win the 99 delegates here in Florida.’’

Somehow we doubt it. And so does WSJ, who wrote the following today: “In Florida, more than 1.1 million Republicans—roughly half of the votes expected to be cast overall—have already voted. That total includes more than 100,000 GOP ballots cast in Mr. Rubio’s home base of Miami-Dade County, where he needs to rack up an overwhelming margin to offset a double-digit deficit in statewide polls.”

Kasich stands a better chance in Ohio than Rubio does in Florida. The governor is tied with Trump at 38% according to the abovementioned Quinnipiac University poll and he’s said he’ll drop out it he doesn’t win the state. “You will see me pick up steam and have momentum,” he told reporters. “I may go to the convention with more delegates than any of ’em.”

Obviously, that’s a virtual impossibility. Trump thinks so too. “This is a place I wanted to be,” he said, at a stop in Ohio. “This is going to do it. Ohio is going to make America great again. Kasich cannot make America great again.”

Trump also suggested in Tampa that if he can win Ohio and Florida and thereby effectively secure the nomination, he can stop attacking his GOP rivals and focus on Hillary Clinton. “The beauty would be if we win Florida and we win Ohio we can go and attack Hillary, no more attacking each other,” he said on Monday . “The Republican Party has to come together.”

Trust us, even if Trump stops the personal attacks on the other Republican candidates, there is no chance of him uniting the party. In fact, as Bloomberg outlined on Monday, the establishment will likely employ all manner of tactics to stop him from getting the nomination. “This will be a decisive day,” Ryan Williams, a Republican strategist who served as a spokesperson for 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney told Bloomberg. “The only avenue to stop Trump at this point is to deny him the 1,237 delegates he needs to win the nomination outright and force a contested convention [but] even if there is a contested convention, Trump’s rabid supporters would likely dominate the majority of delegate spots and make it hard for other candidates to pick up the votes needed to win the nomination after the first ballot.”

Click below for an interactive delegate simulator from WSJ:

Should Trump sweep all five states today, he may have an easy path to the nomination. “They’re already calling,” he told NBC, referring to the GOP establishment names who have doubted his cadidacy. “The biggest people in the party are calling.” Here’s the latest NBC poll:

On the Democratic side of things, Clinton will seek to reverse last week’s surprise loss in Michigan. She leads in Florida and Ohio, although Sanders hopes to use a similar strategy (i.e. appealing to workers who may be disaffected over manufacturing jobs lost in trade deals the former Secretary of State supported) to garner support in the Buckeye state as he did on the way to scoring last week’s upset win. Here’s the latest national poll:

But let’s face it, no one cares about that. It’s all about Trump. Even Hillary knows it. 

“Man, you guys cannot stop talking about him,” she scolded on MSNBC Monday night. “He is a dangerous presence and, you know, it’s just like candy by the bushel.”

Eat it up America. You know you want to.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Rj1V05 Tyler Durden

Is it the Ides of March for #NeverTrump?

Pop quiz: In how many of the past nine states that have held GOP presidential primaries or caucuses has the establishment-friendly duo of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich combined to match frontrunner Donald Trump’s 2016 voting average of 34.9 percent? Drumroll please for the #NeverTrumpers….

Uh, zero.

Yes, the unambiguously interventionist duo did grab more than two-thirds of the vote in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, but as has been the case for almost all of this campaign season, the overall “establishment lane” is just not quite wide enough for even one challenger to knock Trump’s block off, let alone two. If pre-election polls are any guide (not always a safe bet!), today could be the last stand for the establishment’s real last hope, Marco Rubio.

Such topics and more will dominate today’s discussion on SiriusXM’s Insight Hour (channel 121), where I am again hosting at noon ET. Joining me will be the great New York Post film critic and political columnist Kyle Smith (who recently pinned some of the blame for the rise of Trump on the Democrats), numbers-crunching #NeverTrumper Patrick Ruffini, and Make America Awesome political strategist Liz Mair, who is behind such ads as this:

Can Trump be stopped? Who’s to blame for his rise? Why did it take Republicans so long to go after him? And is he really as bad as they all say? These questions and more will be tackled. Call in at 877-974-7487 to join the conversation.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1RLEGGb
via IFTTT