Again and Again, Elway (And Vegas) Wins

Punditry is the profession of know-it-all'ism, yet time and time again, we know it all's keep falling for the same emotional okey doke like everyday fans do when we don't adhere to axioms like defense winning championships as they keep saying. After Superbowl 50 ended, the top defense had added to their victories over the top offense when both meet up in the Bowl, increasing the lead to 10-2.

Defense is that known quotient that all champions attest to as the reason they walk around with the shine of victory's glory, but its never really the reason we tune in for the show.  We appreciated Von Miller being the most reliable entity in all of football this year, but not enough to ignore the bore of watching Manning and Osweiler dink and dunk their way to Superbowl supremacy.

Consequently, the speed at which our local conversation has switched over to draft and free agency in Denver is mind blowing.  Come to think  of it, we might have been  there prior to our Superbowl victory, with our head coach and the backup quarterback (the original backup, not Manning) included in the conversation of people we should retain, or not.  For now, most of that Fire Kubiak stuff has died off, yet the backdrop of doubt over the backup who's scheduled to get paid remains, along with quiet skepticism over coach Kubiak's approach and his worthiness to keep leading this great team that Elway has compiled.

The defense played so well, that we don't really know which coach to actually credit for this victory, so let's focus on the compilation of players and coaches instead.

Once again, John Elway has done exactly what people thought impossible, just like he did when he took Denver's under manned football teams to the Superbowl again and again, culminating in Superbowl victories, again and again, to close out his career. Whoever actually won the award for NFL executive of the year needs to take that award and deliver it to Elway, pronto.

This time, Elway successfully pulled the levers, engineered a plan and put it into place by compiling the parts, pieces and the mantra for how it would be accomplished.  In defensive era football, you get lucky to connect on the few chances that even great defenses will give you to make big plays in big games. Take too many chances and you are more likely to turn the ball over and suffer defeat at the hands of teams perfectly willing to make field goals and grind it out versus shooting for the stars and getting stuck in the trees.

That was how I viewed things as a pundit of the team I love.  But the Broncos remain the team that I love, which means my deep analysis is often just hope masquerading as clear eyed perspective.

In order to gain that clear eyed view when I look at teams and games from the "know-it-all" view of a pundit, I have to tip my hat to the place with the best track record for know-it-all'ism.

VEGAS.

According to the word on the street, Denver was struggling too much with offensive production and identity with the in and out of  Osweiler and Manning, whose best production had barely shown glimpses of the kind of greatness that Denver's defense produced regularly.  Listening to that same word on the street, I heard that Pittsburgh's offensive production was too much to stop for Denver or any defense.  The same unstoppable expectation torch was passed to the legend, Tom Brady, after Ben Roethlisberger and his Steelers couldn't get it done.

The rhetoric was justified and the expectations reasonable based upon the emotional view of the contest and the  regular season track record of the quarterbacks being asked to live up to the emotional view of things.

Yet, the Vegas betting lines never matched the emotions.

Sure, Vegas had New England to beat Denver, but they didn't have them to win by the numbers that emotional pundits promised the Patriots should win by.  Was Vegas confused and struggling against the trend of emotional bets?

Similarly, pundits had Cam killing Denver, but Vegas had him squeaking out a win by 3.5 points that stretched to 5.5, giving ground to emotions betting habits just to help maintain the ruse. Did Vegas already know what we finally learned?

Let's get this straight once and for all.  VEGAS IS RARELY CONFUSED ABOUT WHO WILL WIN.

If you ever start to feel like the fix is in when you watch too much NFL football, it is not because the players have pre-planned some shenanigans, it is because Vegas tells the NFL- and the rest of us- who will win (indirectly) and the NFL believes what they say, even though the rest of us don't listen.

In fact, the NFL listens closely, they try to engineer story lines around Vegas probabilities.  What that demands is to understand what Vegas does when they expect a team to be a double digit winner versus what they do when you expect the wrong team to be a double digit winner. Whatever you are thinking about the game, remember that Vegas intends to be the only real winner.

If Vegas ever catches America talking about a blowout from a team they don't even expect to win the game, it becomes a case of betting enticement that ALWAYS ends up with Vegas on top. Keep the line too low, and the bettors catch wind.  Push the line too high and the bettors get afraid their team can't cover those points.




Just so you know, Vegas might be at it again.

When the opening lines for next years Superbowl champion came out, the Broncos were nowhere near the top, with 14 to 1 odds of them winning again.  By day two, those odds dropped down to 20:1.  Did Vegas lose faith in the QB  and the free agent uncertainty in Denver, or were there just not enough people biting on the opening line so Vegas had to extend the lure a bit?

Believe it or not, Vegas might they have agitated the wrong bettor this time?

Did the lack of betting line respect for the Broncos final games impact the bite in the dogs from Denver?  Did it propel the Broncos teammates into a brotherhood of togetherness unlike we've ever seen in recent championship history? Will Peyton Manning bring that championship trophy over to the Papa John's that is 3 minutes away from my house in Denver, Colorado (where my daughter works) so we can get pictures of it?

I said that partially to name drop the fact that Manning owns the pizza parlor where my kid works, but I am mostly talking about the future for Manning the man.  What happens to this legendary champion after all the crowds stop cheering, and he's no longer climbing up the record books? Can Denver find the same passion and inspiration for greatness without their on-the-field coach pushing them to be greater than they otherwise would? Love him or hate him, Manning was exactly that for this team.  A reason to do more, and a teacher to tell you how. As a result, he still might be the most important piece of the championship puzzle that Elway has to keep together.

Is Manning really ready to call it a career just because everyone (except his teammates) thinks he should?

That is where my betting hat starts to analyze things.  Manning, a generally cocky QB, was perfectly happy to tell the entire world how thankful he was to his Bronco brothers for letting him jump on their back for a championship ride. We understood that he was riding wounded, we just didn't accept what our eyes were telling us.  Had Manning finally lost the supremacy that makes NO ONE question him as the best regular season quarterback of all time?  That may seem like a slight against his playoff failures, but sports are a funny business, and we fans rarely agree over topics like GOAT, even if we are limiting him to regular season GOAT only.

In reality, no one ever argues that point.  He stood right at the gates of being crowned as the true GOAT before Seattle and the Seahawks turned him into another losing donkey two years ago.

Quite frankly, that was the last thing that Manning needed for his already tattered legacy, and most of us Broncos faithful were not terribly happy to be gaining a quarterback with the same underachieving label that we already lived with long before his arrival, despite our back to back championships two score ago.

Functionally, the Denver Broncos have shunned their losing label with their Superbowl 50 win, but Manning has not.  Until further notice, he has simply jumped on the back of a team that was totally sick of the criticism over their tainted history with Superbowl's, and said enough already.  They said it in such a way that those same shell shocked pundits are now weighing the defensive performance against the greatest defensive performances of all time.

Denver might not have yet gained the title as Greatest D Of All Time (GDOAT), but the conversation hasn't really concluded yet either.  We are still reviewing the tape from the Bowl and the season to see what we looked at but didn't understand until it was too late. What we keep seeing keeps impressing us more and more to the point that you are either betting that Denver loses defensive players to other teams, or you are betting they retain them and solidify their place in history, depending on what side of this fan fence you sit.

That entire bet hinges on what happens at the quarterback position.  Either the Broncos will spend on their quarterback, or they will spend on their defense, because this championship team can not be retained without a financial sacrifice from several key players.  You know, like the sacrifice from a brotherhood of men that bonded itself together to overcome rookie and wounded quarterbacks as well as doubt and coaching criticism against their way of getting it done.

The criticism kind of continues in the lack of expectation for this coming year.  Either Vegas doesn't expect much from Denver, or critics don't.   The betting lines seem to suggest that critics are to blame just like they were in Superbowl 50, when Vegas knew Denver was going to beat Carolina even though the pundit expectation was for Cam to do a whole lot of dabbing.

I am also searching for some betting odds that Manning will not only stay in Denver, but that he will bring that trophy to our Papa John's so my daughter and the rest of the staff can take pictures and learn what hard work and perseverance can achieve. That speech rings slightly hollow if you were simply along for the ride.

So then he'll take a humongous pay cut just to ride that Bronco one more time, because he has plenty of outside loot with my daughter trying to pump out pizza's like a champion before she heads off to college this fall, .

Peyton might have won Superbowl 50, but did he do enough
to silence those critical of his post season failures?

I am betting that this time around, he's looking to dismount our championship horse while feeling like he was a worthy jockey and not just along for the ride. This time, he'll be playing with the same chip on his shoulder that the city of Denver flicked off with our recent championship.  This time, our championship win won't be for John or Pat or for anybody else on the planet.

This time will be for Peyton.  Bet on it.

Broncos Reach Mountain Top. Colorado Wants More

I sincerely wanted to feel ecstatically euphoric about my Denver Broncos winning Superbowl 50, but I have to be honest.  It was somewhat anti-climactic for a fan who has seen this all before.

Not so much the championship thing. Of course we've seen that part before, assuming you are of a certain age that is.  My youngest kid is heading downtown to see the big parade today because she was too young. I've done those parades, and the only thing really cool about them is the unified joy surrounding the reason you came out to celebrate in the first place.

The rest of it is sweaty, smelly and slightly claustrophobic if you suffer from such things.  The last parade brought out 650,000 revelers. This one promised to be worse...or better, depending on how you look at it.

When you combine the depression of accepting that the most unified moment of fellowship that we consistently enjoy as a nation- NFL football- has finally come to and end, I found myself more interested in searching out all of those crap talking naysayers who messaged their doubt throughout the entire season.  Even though I knew for certain that most of them were resorting to the bitter taste of whiskey to sooth their angered souls- the same whiskey that tasted extra sweet on the lips of the victors- I searched for someone who would swallow their pride and eat crow all in one failed swoop.

Nothing.

 I really hoped to find one guy who taunted all of Broncos nation with his incessant demeaning comments because no one wanted to bet him via Facebook, proving (in his mind) that no Denver fans actually believed that Denver would win.

At last posting, he's refusing to pay up to some of those same fans except an Uncle in his family who probably was the only person who had a hope in hell of collecting in the first place.

When we won it all, I thought about this "bet taunting" joker and how I could stick it in his face for doubting that my city has the stuff of championship form.

Who dat say we gonna lose another Bowl?

Did he and other Broncos naysayers have justifiable cause for the ridicule they level on this team?

In reality, my Denver Broncos are the most justifiably ridiculed champion that ever competed on the highest stage.  What we are known for is what most hate us for in the end.

We Are Over Achievers By Choice.

In Colorado, we climb 16'ers just because they are there.  No, really.

We hurt our muscles and blister our hands to reach the summit of a mountain, only to imagine in our minds the next mountain top.

Before the Broncos won, the Avs showed
them how to get it done.  Parade and all.

In Colorado, we've seen mountain tops on many occassions.  A few times, we got there only to discover that someone else reached the summit first.  Does that take away from our ability to climb or our thirst to be first?  On the contrary.  Our experiences- good, bad and ugly- have made us into the great state that we are.

We've won championship titles in every sport from lacrosse to soccer to hockey. Olympians live here just to chase after thin-aired mountain tops like we do for hobby.  We bike, we hike, we run, ski and golf all year round in this blessed state.  And though our cost of living has risen commiserate to the population boom that comes from being us, we complain and keep on moving because somewhere in that mountainous western backdrop is a spirit that inspires our passions, watches over our region, and occassionally appoints us to trials that only climbers can endure.

Columbine and the Aurora Theater were traumatic missions for a state that has now established the blueprint on terror mitigation, but our Superbowl blowouts at the hands of black quarterbacks were trauma of another, unrelated sort.   Did the butt kicking from those last two brothers set the third one up to take us for granted?  It certainly helped to remove the stigma on the black quarterback, making Cam the first black quarterback favored to win the Bowl.  We played an important role in each of those episodes. Were these traumas simply divine burdens of being us?

Hard to know for certain. What I do know is that I am Colorado, which means I am chissled and shaped by the impact of all of it.  I am Colorado, which means I ski in the morning and golf in the afternoon so that I can sooth the pain of loss and terror while remembering the importance of being diligent and aware of both.

Losing wasn't really too scary for me and those of my kind. We've seen the mountain top even when we've arrived too late.  In our NFL journey, we've summitted as many times as any team in the league, along with losing more times, losing with the biggest point deficits, and now we even have the worst quarterback rating EVER for a team that won the game.

On the other hand, we might have also won it with the best defensive performance in the history of the final game while using the best regular season quarterback in the history of the game,  backed by the best front office guy who remains in the conversation as the best quarterback to ever win as well.

You may not appreciate the results that we've achieved given the wealth of chances that we have had to do it, but you have to respect the wealth of chances.  The Denver Broncos are often in the mix and are threatening to remain in the mix for years to come.  Some might choose to focus on the failures, but even they can't deny the chances.

In Broncos nation,  we reveled in the moment for the first few hours of victory

By morning time, the only post Superbowl posts I could consistently find were "When will the Rockies and the Nuggets" do the same?

Yep.  You got it.

In Colorado, we are already seeking new mountains to climb and new parades to plan, because We Are Colorado.  That's just what we do.

Rubio Is Rising. Clinton Is Moderately Progressive

Keep your eyes affixed.  The winners of Iowa (even third placers) will impact the amount of gas the Super PAC's will put into their candidates race car before they pull the plug and find a racer with a better chance at winning.

Did you know that when a caucus room is split evenly between two
prospective candidates for president, the stalemate is broken by a coin flip?

Apparently, Marco Rubio put  quite a bit of effort into his engine to gain the spot that he got from Iowa, and is expected to try a similar win from the back attack to achieve similar success in NH. If you find it somewhat odd for a candidate to fight like crazy just to be a second or third, you don't get how peculiar caucusing is. In fact, caucusing is almost exactly like Super PAC'ing, in which the biggest groups try to promote a viable candidate, but must bow out and shift their support elsewhere once their first choice loses viability, lest they risk wasting their support.

Be it several crowds of people caucusing in some high school gym, or several piles of money gathered together in the name of a Political Action Committee, this game is about finding financial gamblers to keep alive your political aspirations, and keeping that PAC behind your back for a long enough time to survive the attrition of the process.

Unless you are Donald Trump of course, who is engaging in mostly merchandise sales and speaking event ticket sales to fund his effort to be president, on top of being really rich to begin with.

Trump remains the main candidate that is NOT beholden to any financial engine as his means of getting his message across. Bernie Sanders is in a similar position with his, NO SUPER PAC, small donor effort to upset Hillary, but even he is raising and spending money in lock step with other candidates who feel that they must spend to survive early in this race.

Jeb Bush actually spent more money in Iowa ($2800 per vote that he won) than everyone combined, only to end up in....in (what place did Jeb end up in?).

Let me repeat that in case you missed it.

Did the only Libertarian quit because he
wanted to, or did his supporters pull the plug ?

Jeb Bush.....all by himself......spent more money in Iowa than all of the other GOP candidates combined, comparative to the votes that he received for his spending. Only Bush and Mike Huckabee exceeded $500 spent per vote received in the final outcome of Iowa, bringing into question the value of the increased levels of spending allowed under new campaign finance laws.

Granted, Iowa and New Hampshire might be worth the spend, as they are critical testing grounds for whether or not your campaign has the legs to endure 48 more states worth of caucusing.
As a result of the failures in Iowa, Rand Paul has suspended his
campaign-  as did Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee,
and democrat Martin O'Malley.

Did O'Malley know he was leaving before he agreed to that last debate that originally included him, but wasn't originally guaranteed to include Sanders?  Might O'Malley have tipped his hand to the DNC or Hillary?  Both Hillary and the DNC needed O'Malley just to schedule the debate, and to continue on with it had Sanders pulled a Trump and not shown up.

O'Malley just so happened to stay in the race long enough to split the democrat vote in Iowa, making it more possible for Hillary to squeak out a narrow victory there. Those 7 precincts that O'Malley garnered  in Iowa would have been up for grabs between Hillary and Bernie had O'Malley quit prior to Iowa, which could have made the outcome and the narrative of Iowa drastically different.

Why Is Iowa So Full Of It?

Iowa is nearly as littered with right wing fundamentalism as it is countered with far left leaning liberals (I said Iowa was full of it).  Although the evangelicals clearly dominate the population, Iowa's last 3 selections from the GOP have yet to survive the primary season to become the nominee.

Does that mean Iowa doesn't really know what they are talking about?

Oh, contrare.

What happens in Iowa is what we are talking about now, and in many ways will dictate what we talk about in the days to come.  How candidates finish in NH will be contrasted against the success or failure of Iowa.  If you can't appeal to either of these polar opposite voting blocks, you probably don't have enough appeal to stay in the race.

Exiting NH, the GOP field is supposed to whittle down drastically.

Supposed to.

In a normal world, Trump was supposed to pay the cost for not having a real ground attack in Iowa, and for not really being an evangelical in a state that mostly selects evangelicals as its choice for president. As it turned out, Mr. 'No ground game' Trump, was only 4 points away from joining the list of previous republican winners in Iowa that would have included Pastor Pat Robertson, Pastor Mike Huckabee, ultra evangelical Senator Rick Santorum and Trump.

As it turned out, ultra evangelical Ted Cruz went all in (probably cheated) just to beat Trump by 4 points and Rubio by 5.

Rubio raced in from the rear and nearly rear ended Cruz and Trump.  He did so well in fact, that Rubio is now describing Iowa like that race car driver who gets interviewed during the middle of a race delay while seated several cars back, but clearly the driver in the fastest car.

Actually?  That describes Rubios position perfectly, but let's put that into perspective some.

Rubio and Cruz finished exactly as the polls said they would.  Well, Cruz actually fell to second place in the polls during the closing weeks of Iowa, and engineered his own last minute ground attack to inspire his evangelical base in Iowa to help him do what he, nor Rubio, will likely do in NH.

 In other words, they both must celebrate and bloviate Iowa's success just to endure NH.  If NH becomes the slaughtering house evangelical candidates expect it to be (many long shot candidates don't even bother going to NH), Iowa will be the memory and the rhetoric that they hold unto as they press a gauze on their wounds and press on to Nevada or South Carolina- two upcoming states with polar opposite electorates much like Iowa and NH.

Was this "Official Public Record" stating the caucus habits
of Iowans and their neighbors a slimy approach to politics?
It turns out to be a ruse by Cruz to stimulate turnout.

Ben Carson was one of those evangelical's that did not head straight to NH, but went home to Florida for some rest and relaxation, and to plan for a March 15 primary victory in Florida instead of heading straight to an unfriendly state right after an untimely, possibly even unfair defeat.

According to both the Carson and the Trump campaigns (Carson's wife heard this happening herself), the Cruz campaign team shared and tweeted the heading home to Florida news (via a CNN report) about Carson in the middle of the caucus, apparently to scare Carson supporters into thinking that Dr. Carson was posturing for an exit, and Cruz was the next evangelical in line for those votes.

Cruz's team doesn't really deny sharing Carson's CNN divulged itinerary, but denies doing it as a statement about Carson's future candidacy. Although the mere mentioning of it during caucus voting feels shady, and sends some red flags as to how desperate Cruz was to live up to his Iowa expectations. The fake voter violation piece from the Cruz campaign team creates even more integrity concerns than the misinformation does.


Trump has tweeted the Iowa results as "illegal" and "stolen" by the Cruz team, calling for a new election. While many people feel that this is just more Trump spin to help rhetorically nullify the Cruz victory and the Trump defeat (Cruz call it a Trumpertrantrum), the Carson team is the team impacted most, and they are verifying the attack as having happened as well.

In the grand scheme of things, this is the season of expectations and of assessing the ability of each individual candidate to live up to, or exceed their individual expectations as a candidate relative to each state primary.  What evangelicals candidates achieve down South or in Iowa won't necessarily work in blue states. Meeting or exceeding the spot expected of you is about the extent of what it takes to win right now which basically means, keeping your donors intact.

Consequently, Rubio not only maintained his donors and his level of expectation, he equalled the production of the venerable Donald Trump.  What no one seems to accept is that this (Iowa, that is) speaks more positively about Trump than it does Rubio or even Cruz who mostly only did what Iowa has consistently done before.  Choose the evangelical.

If Hillary can simply minimize the impact of being in Bernies
backyard, she can win NH like Rubio did.  By default.
Hey Bernie....you barely beat me.  Hey Bernie.....Hey, Hey!!

Trump finished near the top, but was NEVER expected to really get people to caucus for him.

Hillary might have a similar struggle in NH where Sanders holds a huge lead in the polls. But for reasons of low expectation purely, Hillary has an opportunity to dance the Rubio if she can just do a little better than we think she can. Her ground game in Iowa suggests that NH will be worth the watch.

On either side of the isle, the conversation comes down to headcount.  Too many heads in the GOP  might soon put all but Trump down for the count, since Trump's stump speech is the only one noticeably different than any other GOP candidate in the field; and different is working for him right now.

As for the Dem's?  The lack of a substantive lead has forced Hillary to beg for more debates so she can contrast her message against that of Bernie Sanders. On one level, she has moved to the left of Sander's (gun control), but mostly she's claiming that he's too far left to be of functional value to the party or the real world, reminding Bernie that those rich Americans are Americans too.

Sanders has countered with a claim that Clinton is doing too much of a progressive tap dance as it relates to her campaign rhetoric despite close relationships with Washington's big money machines. Neither of them really win the primary season having to track too far to the left if they then struggle to find their way back to being progressively moderate, or moderately progressive enough for a general election.

For now, most of us are fully confused about what either term really means anymore


Are WE truly ready to take on the powers that be and take over our nation once and for all as Sanders suggests we do? Or will we calm down and let the powers be, but pressure them to be a little more fair? And which of the remaining candidates (other than Trump and Sanders), will show the moxie to call out big money while also begging them to help fund their elections? 

Popcorn please.  This should get good.

Trump Won Iowa, Sanders Proves Socialism Okay

Nobody really wants to hear me say this, but I have to keep it SquareBiz for those of you who need it.

Trump won Iowa.

No really.

Trump won Iowa, and it wasn't even close.  Well, it was close, but not in the way that you think. Iowa is AS full of religious fundamentalism as any state in the union.  Not only is Iowa full of it (so to speak), it is full of religico's who are highly politically active as well- possibly more so than any other fundamentalist spot in America.

In other words, betting Ted Cruz to win in Iowa would have been a wasted bet in Vegas because you would have had to put down $3,000 just to win $100.  I just made up those odds, but you get my point.  Iowa chose Mike Huckabee two cycles ago, and Rick Santorum during the last presidential election primary/caucus season. because the Tea Party has owned Iowa for some time now.

Polls might have threatened to hand Iowa to Trump, but they didn't have a great way of knowing who would actually leave their home and caucus for Trump.

Now we know, and the numbers are staggering.

Cruz might have stopped Trump from finishing on top like he claims he always does, but he barely kept Iowa from shifting itself away from its religious roots and firmly into the area of social dissent with many other parts of the American electorate.

If there is any reason for Marco Rubio to be doing victory laps over a third place finish (and there is), Trump has just as much a cause for applause for finishing second in a place that his heathen arse should have never finished so high, but he did.

Without the benefit of a real ground game in a state that he knew would be a waste of money to fight in, Trump still came up second.  Cruz committed mightily to the outcome he got, and should also consider the Rubio result to be a considerable challenge to his evangelical claim over the GOP.  As for ground game, the same could be said for Clinton who had a representative in each of Iowa's 1681 democrat caucusing precincts.

Hillary and Cruz worked like crazy to insure the Iowa outcomes that they sorely needed.  Trump and Bernie Sanders will be hard to beat in New Hampshire, so a loss in Iowa too would have been a rough start for Hillary, too rough in fact for either to allow for such an outcome.  So she didn't lose, and neither did Cruz. 

But they almost did.

Did Cruz win by a wide enough margin to celebrate?

Rubio can feel happy about the large portions of Cruz's voters that had to be a part of the results he enjoyed last night.  Yet if Rubio has any legitimacy to his joy (and he does), than Trump and Sanders should be sipping champagne too.

From my perspective, they answered the question of how loud will the voice of the angry populist actually be in this upcoming election.  Will unusual voters show up to do something that they've rarely done before?


After our first sampling, it is clear that they will be pretty damn loud if we heard their voices all the way from fundamentalist Iowa. 

Pretty damn loud indeed.

I Miss The Days Of Just Being A Denver Broncos Fan

I wish I could go back to being just another Denver  Broncos fan, born and raised in the Denver Metro area.

Now I am a black American male Denver Broncos fan- born and raised in the Denver Metro area.  I never really wanted to become black, but I wasn't really given much of a choice.

I might have known that I was black long before I was forced into accepting it, but I didn't really appreciate the separation of me and my multi-cultural friends who all rooted for the Broncos the same way as kids.  We lost our ever loving, multi-racial minds when Lyle Alzado and Jon Keyworth and them boys went out and made those miracles happen. Even when they lost, Denver Broncos fans remained united with pride and appreciation for our team.

My particular North Denver neighborhood in the 70's made me an unaware minority among the posse of kids my age that included two Mexicans, one white kid and one mixed race kid whose black dad we seldom saw. Moving 10 up the road to North Aurora offered me and my siblings more of the same racial integration'ary ignorance, until those days that we played against the South Aurora white kids in sporting events and started to understand that poverty created a race of people that many whites attempted (and still do) to avoid like the plague.

It would be years before I discovered that "The Jones's" were also middle class white families that hated the white trash label and would live with the same empty refrigerator poverty and hunger that poor folks endure except for the sake of social segregation and stature.  It would also be years before I discovered that  I was no longer just a young man who loved the Denver Broncos like most born and raised Denver kids do, but I was a black man who had grown too tall too fast to remain non-threatening to the public at large.

Mike Brown Jr. had no real control over the body that he was
born into, and the fear that it would invokes in other people.
Neither does Cam Newton. 

Apparently, my really smart black friend who grew faster, stronger and quicker than I did, evoked similar responses when walking in his own neighborhood that just so happened to be a little too South Aurora for two dark skinned, North Aurora looking boys.  I am not sure if my mother warned me about the challenge of dating one of those white girls that kept calling the house before or after that time we got pulled over by the cops for walking the street while black around the corner from my homey's way too nice house, but each occurance shook my identity and innocence. I was forever altered from that time- from that mirror that I never had a reason or a desire to see in that way before.

The image of me that made people afraid probably had me running to the comforts of an Historically Black College.  And yes- it was comforting to go an entire week without seeing any white people except that one white guy on campus who loved him some black foke.

But it wasn't reality.

In reality, I wanted to go back to my Mexican and white people, my white snow, and to being just a Denver Broncos fan and not a black male Denver Broncos fan.  I wanted to hate the hell out of being in college in super black Atlanta, GA when my Broncos lost to that first black quarterback, Doug Williams; but he killed my team, and it was undeniably easy to feel happy for the opportunity that he was creating for so many young black men that play football, but just want to be MEN.

Was Russell Wilson more accepted  than Cam because he is not
 so black looking or because he isn't so brash......or both?

I am not proud of those days when I celebrated OJ's guilty ass getting found not guilty.  By that time, I was made fully aware of my blackness and the retributive fear associated with being black, and at the time, it felt like the triumph of the underdog. With this upcoming football game, there is a similar guilt that this 47 year old black male, Denver native, Broncos fan can't actually lose this upcoming Superbowl because I am  fully represented by the underdogs I'm supporting on both sides of the field.


I am not at all proud that a really small part of me (I was a Broncos fan long before I became black) is rooting for a win by virtue of a loss. But it's real and it's true.

From the day we first met him, Cam Newton has remained the same unabashedly proud black man who just so happens to love the game of football, but refuses to conform himself to the comforts of critics.  Cam has done Cam since the very beginning.  Most of his critics said that he needed to win like Gronk and Brady before he behaved like Gronk and Brady. Now they just don't like him.

I appreciate the example that Cam gives all of us to be unashamedly YOU.  The fact that he happens to be black is something that he and I wish didn't matter so much for NFL quarterbacks, coaches or American presidents. On his team, they refer to him as Obama.  Is he similarly paving the way for a generation of hopeful black men?

What Cam is doing might revive Tim Tebow's career as well as making my young black daughter feel a little more comfortably with being an unashamedly young black woman- even at work.  Life is too short and too full of critics to allow racial, or any criticism, to limit or define you. Cam is not only teaching the world how an athletic quarterback- who might also be black- can succeed in the role, he is showing the masses how to stay true to yourself in whatever you're doing.

Regardless of the games outcome, there is simply no way for this black male Denver  Broncos fan to hate on Cam, or lose this game.

Denver Might Play Everybody To Scratch, Claw, Win.

Although football ain't basketball, this basketball coach still can't understand why starters get more shine than finishers; and why is there a huge need for fans of my Denver Broncos to pigeon hole the team or their head coach Gary Kubiak over this quarterback decision.

Conventional wisdom in most team sports does request a narrowing of the lineup come playoff time, and a declaration of starters just to keep the conspiracy media hounds from hunting until you do.

On the other hand, common cliche's declare that every team needs a leader, and that having two starting quarterbacks usually means that you probably don't really have one.

Cliche's are mostly annoying because life makes them perpetually relevant even while bothersome to read or hear.  Once again, these common cliche's are annoying the local masses because the Denver Broncos organization and two mediocre quarterbacks brought the cliche's into question. Is Brock not quite the leader they need him to be or are the Broncos stifling the future by delaying the development of our future quarterback?  Annoyingly, my answer to that question is to offer a question myself.  Does the issue of Brock's current development matter as much if Denver wins it all?

What happens if Peyton Manning gets some of that
Colorado weather that we are famous for? Does he health
instantly make him a better backup to Brock?

 If Brock doesn't play at all in the playoffs, he will miss out on valuable development regardless of the outcome. It took both injury and Tom Brady to send Drew Bledsoe to the scrap heap. Osweiler didn't do that to Manning. He merely played okay. Which  probably tells us all we really need to know about him. Until he changes our view, Brock has joined that dreaded potential/upside zone that special players never find themselves.

Brock is not yet, and may never become the quality of leader that the Denver Broncos will need to win it all. What he is is an important player on a team that is, collectively, one of the top teams in the NFL lead by an aging quarterback who is now nursing achy feet and a nasty helmet to the back from a  Steeler's safety blitz.

However ugly or unconventional it might appear, my AFC West Champion, American Football Conference, number one seed Denver Broncos have just as good a chance of winning it all as any team remaining. From a football fan perspective, the beauty of this playoff season is that it is an uncertain horse race, and who best to overcome this very tight horse race if not a Bronco?

Who is the American Pharoah this season? 

K.C. was dangerous simply because they were left for dead and playing with house money. Now they are dead, and there is no dark horse or clear cut triple crown horse left in the NFL playoff race. Seattle was lucky to have the Vikings hook it left, but not lucky enough to overcome 31 points in the first half from Cam Newton and the Panthers. The Panthers got out of the blocks quickly, and have already eaten a rather large Seahawk (making a Cardinal a seemingly small appetizer), but this is a horserace, not a bird hunt.

Early odds have N.E. as a 3.5 point favorite to win the game in Denver.

Tom Brady's Patriots are always a reasonable selection to win it all, but they too must overcome the mystique of a city that Brady has not fared well in (2-6 all time in playoff games at Mile High), against a  team that snapped their undefeated streak, sending them on a Patriot version of a season ending tailspin that cost them the very home field advantage they may soon regret having lost.

But enough of these other teams.  We got rid of Jim Rome and Dan Patrick on Denver's main sports talk radio station because Colorado and the Denver Broncos have created their own sports universe.  In Denver, we really don't demand a bunch of national conversation and outside sports debates to give us a reason to watch the NFL. Tim Tebow altered ESPN sports forever, and I, for one, have had enough of the Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith's First Take act that began primarily because of debating over Tebow and my Denver Broncos. Denver Broncos skepticism is now a sport and a category of viewer of a unique but significant sort. In other words, there are a lot of lovers and haters watching my Broncos these days.

Keep in mind that my Broncos are not only the team that shocked the football world by pulling off that number one seed in the AFC, the Denver Broncos organization has shocked some of their own fans into questioning what the heck are they doing at QB, and why aren't they doing it another way?

No really. In Denver, they are still screaming for that dummy Kubiak to take away their heart attacks and just place them in the grave by inserting an inexperienced quarterback into a situation that he has hardly proven he can endure. 

In Broncos country, there are just as many fans of the Broncos who are convinced of Brock being the better bargain as are those vying for old man Manning to get it done.  Though the team is winning and advancing, the immense social divide on the Manning/Osweiler topic hasn't been seen in colorful Colorado since that OJ trial, as the debate rages over who deserves to play and will Kubiak make a switch at any moment now.

I can't say that I didn't have a similar question when our offense seemed to stall out against Pittsburgh. What remains without question is that it would take 10 teams in the league to adopt the Chip Kelly model (how did he get another job?) or for the Seattle Seahawks defend and run style not being in the mix again and again, to make Elway and many others general managers think otherwise about the defend and run approach. What we are frustratingly watching from the Broncos is partially from lack of execution (dropped passes and missed opportunities), but primarily it is the exact design of the plan.

If the original plan of building a defense in Denver and running the ball is still in place, Manning is the clear cut current choice to make the right reads and exploit the correct run or pass play when the defense offers that look. Love or hate either quarterback, or the way in which we've won, this Broncos team has done it in this exact fashion throughout the entire year, and they are fully prepared to continue winning in a fashion that most teams avoid mightily.

Elway was correct to decree the scratching and clawing road to victory just as he was correct in his 'find the coaches and build the defense' method of making it happen. Which is why I shall repeat my consistent praise of Elway and his coaches.

The great defense we see now is basically the same good defense that we have had since Elway brought it here along with the best coaches he could find. Every season, the rest of the league has hired prominent coaches from Denver's coaching ranks and placed them at the helm of their teams, evidencing the quality of the Broncos coaching tree under Elway. 

It was a coached up Tim Tebow who performed those miracles that lead the Mile Hi mass revelation of Elway's defensive salvation plan. Manning was a saviour of another sort when he dropped from heaven and into Elway's lap to save Denver from a quarterback who also finished off the Steelers during the playoffs, even though he could barely throw the ball.

If we actually are getting the best of the last of Peyton Manning, it is in great credit due to John Elway, Gary Kubiak and even defensive coordinator Wade Phillips whose defense provides the old man all the time he needs to find his stride in any game, while playing patiently enough to take some chances but avoid turnovers.

When Manning brought in his fast paced, fast scoring style that excites the crowd, he inadvertently concealed some of the very strengths of the same great defense that Tebow had. Suddenly, Denver's defensive workload doubled, and the opportunity for fatigue and exposure to injury and big plays did as well.

That was, of course, until this current magical season when the defense matured, and Manning mishapped so damn much that he maintained the league lead for most interceptions even after missing several games with an injury that he'd concealed from at least as far back as preseason. 

Despite the woes and changes at quarterback, it has been our consistent stifling run defense, a dominant pass rush, takeaways and defensive touchdowns that  have kept Denver's D atop the charts throughout the season. In essence, this years defense has had the divine benefit of great talent, great coaching and average to crappy quarterbacking to help sharpen and reveal their mettle, developing them into the top defense in the league on the number one seeded team in the AFC.

Manning or Osweiler? Osweiler or Manning?

The last time Manning dealt with NE in the playoffs, it did not
end well.  Will Kubiak quietly endure mediocre Mannnig?

From my perspective, the answer to which quarterback should play is as clear as can be.  Both quarterbacks should play, and both quarterbacks should remain a continuous threat to play for the entirety of the playoffs, be that a real threat or for the sake of shenanigans.

Why not? Has anyone seen that injury report out of New England yet? Do you think Pittsburgh intended to let us know that Big Ben was able to throw just fine before they went for a bomb on the very first play from scrimmage?  Would they have phoned Denver on Friday if Ben's throwing wasn't great just to get us ready for Landry Jones or Michael Vick?

For a legitimate reason, Osweiler  had weekly questions from reporters about retaining his starting role. It wasn't because of his clear posture as a capable backup, it was because of his cloudy stand as a certain starter.  Keep in mind that Osweiler has been a backup for a really long time, and playing backup is not a role that he is suddenly uncomfortable with or utterly deflated by.  If the Broncos were sitting him for Johnny Manziel, I would understand the deflated sentiment.

The Broncos have not only replaced Osweiler with the team starter (Kubiak never declared Manning as anything but unhealthy), they replaced him with a quarterback who just so happens to be of Hall of Fame certainty. The notion that Osweiler or his supporters would think that he instantly is the better choice after game managing a few wins in the absence of an injured Hall of Fame starter is asinine.

Being "injury" benched for a fairly green backup that went in and did a bang up job in your absence is humbling, and humility is the sports therapy that Manning has needed the most in the waning moments of his career- even more than therapy to his foot or neck. The ability to make "that play" when "that play" needs to be made takes a combination of wit and grit. Manning to Benny Fowler on 3rd and 12 against Pittsburgh was exactly that play at that moment of truth.

Brock has plenty of grit but a limited amount of playoff situational wit or the resume to invoke immediate confidence in the players and fans who will look to him for confidence. Brock should be ready as a change of speed guy if you want to run the QB sneak, or a safer choice for Manning's health if the score gets out of hand for either team.

Too cold or too snowy for Manning's stiff neck and bad feet and I instantly go to Osweiler and the ground and pound, dink, dunk and defend game and make Manning help coach him through the challenge. With fairly healthy feet and favorable weather conditions in Denver, Manning brings an ample dose of grit and a double dose of wit along with a legacy that has a huge question mark at the end of it despite the list of accolades, including a Superbowl victory.

Aside from one of these aforementioned scenarios, Manning is the correct choice to start because he is instantly the smartest, humblest and very likely hungriest quarterback in the entire NFL right now.  He is not fully healthy, but neither is Osweiler. Among our two hobbled quarterback's, Manning is more healthy and more likely to recognize the blitzes and get rid of the ball, or audible to a run play as needed.  Great blitzes or a line failure means both quarterbacks get a couple of hits. With a green QB, that potential (and the wasted play or fumble) increases exponentially..


Opposing defenses realize that a young, inexperienced quarterback is usually a one trick pony who locks on the play called and the player targeted from the sideline like it's his football lifeline and not just a good idea designed around an assumption of the defensive tendencies.  No play caller can foresee the future and/or make the pre-snap and post-snap adjustments that will send Manning to the Hall one day and Osweiler 's tall thin frame in the hospital if placed into the wrong moment of this playoff run. Don't forget that Osweiler, who is 3 inches taller than Manning (6'7" vs 6'4"), is nearly the same weight (240lbs vs 230lbs).

What Happens If Denver's Offense Ever Does Play To Their Potential? (Huh?!  I bet you never imagined that idea!)

I hope Osweiler can be the man one day, and that we aren't still in search of our team's future quarterback. But now isn't the time to worry or investigate all of that. Now is the time to instill fear in the defensive secondary, check down into a run or screen whenever the defense exposes that availability, and to execute the fast break, no-huddle (call your own plays) when a team gets back on their heels from the fear and uncertainty of a quarterback who is notorious for burning you when you gamble, or worse when you don't gamble enough. If all of that works, Osweiler should be ready to play to close out a Denver blowout game.  If none of that works, Osweiler should be ready to play to change the game.

Did the limitations of starter Chris Harris Jr.
create the scenario that saved the season?
With takeaways being so vital for Denver,
Is Roby's ballhawking  the key to victory?

Brock might be a little more comfortable than Peyton is with playing both shotgun or under center, but he doesn't make a defense afraid, so he won't make them back up enough to give the offense the space it needs to be special.  Manning doesn't prefer to be under center as much (slow footed planter fascia might explain that some) and can't scare people like he used to. Nonetheless, Manning's presence makes everybody on the offense a little more special; assuming Broncos receivers don't have yet another case of the
dropsies.

Injuries will be significant, since several players have hobbled their way back into the lineups for both AFC Championship contenders. Broncos pro bowler Chris Harris Jr. has a major bruised bone in his shoulder limiting his ability to do what he does. According to his own description of the problem, he can cover, but he can't tackle. Safety and return specialist, Omar Bolden has a PCL tear that has ended his season hampering a somewhat special Broncos special teams unit. The Patriots are nursing their own injuries, though they are notoriously tight lipped this time of the year, so only they know the extent.

Every team typically has injuries in January and is technically scratching and clawing their way to the finish line. This season in particular, Denver's offense won't need to be as pro-bowl filled as Elway's championship team was, or even as good as the all-time great offensive teams of any past season.  They only have to be better than the competition in a season when nobody stands out as a clear cut favorite to win it all.

To date, no one has quite seen Denver's defense play its best on the same day that the offense and special teams have done their jobs too.  Either it's been the tale of two half's with the offense, or the tale of two half's with the early season takeaways that have greatly diminished in the closing parts of the regular season.  Elway formed this team with the hopes of them scratching and clawing their way to the finish line and playing their best football at the moments that matter. A Bradley Roby scratch, followed by yet another DeMarcus Ware claw to gobble it up and save the Broncos season is exactly what the boss had in mind.

Brady might be 2-2 in the playoffs against
Manning, and 2-6 when playing in Denver,
 but he is 0-1 against Brock Osweiler. js

Will Osweiler see playoff action with a fire in his belly to prove himself capable, or overwhelming butterflies in his stomach from the challenge of winning a Superbowl for a proud organization, but also for an aging legend while that same legend looks over his shoulder?

That is the million dollar question that has forced Brock to look over the shoulder of the legend instead of the other way around.  If Elway's mantra is truly to do it scratching and clawing (aka., anyway that you can), it's a no brain'er to fearlessly prepare to play either of these somewhat injured, less than perfect quarterbacks- especially the one who beat New England and Tom Brady last.

What If Trump Poll'ers Are Actually Voter's Too? Are WE Moving Closer Or Further From Democracy?

I am philosophically torn about this collision course we are on, assuming no one can stop what Donald Trump's been doing for the past 6 months. Lately, he's gone all-in on the tactic of fear, and for now, this too is working for him.

Most believe that what is working at this stage will hurt him in the next.  Nonetheless, he is winning the game and he is changing parts of it at the same time. In the next stage, Trump could take US all on a full fledged collision course with the power of the party establishment and it's layers of protections installed by- and for- the two political parties that created the electoral game to begin with. Trump is smart enough to understand this, but he will need to be a genius to bring it down as a third party candidate, or overtake it from within to become the next GOP nominee absent establishment consent.

If WE finally took down that divisive confederate flag because of it's capacity to inspire hate and the death of the Emmanuel 9, you would think that the republican establishment could take down Trump. Except, of course, WE did nothing to remove the ideas or the people who fought to raise that toxic, anti-American flag in the first place. The people, their thoughts, and that flag still fly.

If you need your answer to Donald Trump, don't forget that WE
never actually removed the confederate flag from S. Carolina, a
state that has Donald Trump clearly winning their primary. 

Trump still owns the GOP polls too, and whether you are editorializing tacit admonishment of him, or leading off your news program to exploit him for ratings,  Trump is at the center of our media universe. The only break we take from him comes for a day or two during a natural disaster or terrorist massacre, and those days he merely falls from the lead. As he repeatedly insists that he is doing all of this to "Make America Great Again", few of US fully agree with his interpretation of what great looks like, how what he's doing could be so great if so many are so embarrassed by it; and have WE ever actually realized true greatness without realizing true equality?

All that being said, Trump is past being an anomaly and has moved into becoming a full fledged test of our fractured republic.  He is the conductor on this inevitable collision course with our system of delegates and electors; the same system that allowed George W. Bush to win a disputed election over Al Gore in which Gore actually won the popular vote, but- thanks to slow lines, hanging chad's and election laws- still lost the election.

Although most of US voted to make it happen, I am not certain that WE deserved an Al Gore presidency.  We probably only deserve the repercussions of about half of our eligible voters taking part.  Without enough people who care to say yes or no either way, it is likely that WE've earned our rigged electoral vote and voter suppression efforts across the land instead of a more democratic 'count the vote' , everybody votes, system of voting participation that could help us choose a leader and maybe even address gun violence once and for all.

For better or for worse, WE didn't prove ourselves ready or worthy of president Al Gore going full bore into his climate change agenda. Despite never before seen flooding in Missouri- in the middle of winter- we remain more afraid of Gore's global warming agenda than global warming itself.  Which, like gun violence, seems an easier problem to dispute than defeat.

Fear of fixing our fractured republic is how we ended up with two terms of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, 9-11, extreme deficits from an expensive, endless war, and a worldwide economic collapse that our home finance banking system caused. Oh yeah, let's not forget the deeper chasm of distrust between Islam and the West that is feeding the Jihad and leaving our world more unpredictably dangerous and more scary than before Cheney and Bush promised they would fix it.

That fear has returned despite the immense efforts of President Barack Obama, who has kept us fairly safe while repairing broken bridges with Islam around the world. Obama's community organizer, voter turnout skills have also clarified to many common people the power of the populace at the same time that it inspired his awestruck opponents, still unsettled by their defeat at his hands. Consequently, whether you are for him or against him, this president has shined a light on the power of establishment approval (bagging delegates) and the necessity of an overwhelming voter turnout to encourage (not insure) an equitable outcome.

The dark side to this story is that having some form of a count the vote system in place right now instantly makes Donald Trump's pursuit to be our next president much more scary and not just terribly annoying. And while all of his divisive Trumpeting feels quite scary, our greater fear should be the power of establishment politics that makes Trump's chances virtually impossible.  If he truly represents the voice of as many Americans as it appears, then democracy says that WE deserve a Trump presidency.  In a representative republic, those who finance the game control the players.

Trump knows this because he was the Big Money that paid for elections and bought influence, sending some of his own big money to players on both sides of the game.  (View this Big Money video) This is also why Trump won't take a penny from Big Money donors, and wants you to know every time they offer it to him.


What remains somewhat scary is that a whole lot of my moderate friends, family and neighbors, are totally grooving to Trump's song and dance. Many middle of the road'ers, who don't really follow politics until campaigns or scandal, understand the words and feelings that Trump's been shouting to maintain his lead in the GOP polls. The truth is that Trump listens very closely, and he actually heard you tweet these fears and frustrations first.  Trump is striking a chord with so many because he is basically retweeting what he heard you say, and what he thinks you meant.


WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??

To be frank, we all understand where the fear is coming from. Most of US have considered the question of these new strains of Jihadi extremism seeking claim over Islam's identity?  If you also understand the Christian Crusades, the Salem witch hunts or the KKK, you likely know enough already to explain this fight over the face of Islam too.

      (Al-Shabaab's Trump recruiting video)

It's not entirely different than the fight over the face of the GOP.  Each of the recent extensions of right wing ideology (Tea Party, Libertarians, and now Trumpians) agree on the necessity of a platform of extreme ideas to save their party and the nation from inevitable ruin. Unfortunately, that's where republicans depart. Who, or how the GOP paves a way forward is torn between Love of God extremism versus Smaller Government extremism and the tug-o-war to prove each version of extremism more right.

Extreme views breed extreme behaviors, and millions of moderate, reasonable lover's of America, who also consider themselves Christian, remain tormented by their personal intolerant interpretations of scripture, and a fear that America is moving away from its intolerant Christian roots by allowing other extreme roots- with similar behaviors of intolerance- to grow right in front of our face.

As ISIS begs Obama and the West to meet them in the field of battle for ground war, they themselves hide within the community of innocent bystanders as a protective cover. These bandits are mostly a gang of punks and thugs with really cool video recruiting skills and religious zealot leaders exercising their own extreme interpretation of scripture, while recruiting the angry son's and daughter's of the world to handle the martyrdom so they can continue spreading extreme ideas. Whether WE the People of America are ever going to counter them with real war or with better videos containing better ideas, this fight, and our plan, must ultimately be debated and approved within the halls congress.

One major reason for the rise of Trump is a congress that has strategically chosen to "Do Nothing" valuable if Barack Obama might gain legacy points from it.  Even attempting to  reverse their do nothing tactic is internally viewed as an instant waste of all the damage they caused by doing nothing in the first place.

This is probably why the recent bill overturning of Bush's landmark "No Child Left Behind" law was mostly missed by the public.  For this congress to turn tail now and push forward the necessary legislation that could help move the country forward (infrastructure bill, immigration bill, ACA reforms) would invalidate the central mission of minimizing the Obama legacy at all cost.

Meanwhile, WE the People, give blind consent to this type of congressional terrorism when only 50-60% of America stands up to say that we believe in the power of our vote to begin with. Without most of US helping to exercise leadership through our vote, all of US become the sheep of blind and bull headed congressional shepherds.

Vote!  

Be Heard!

An ideal democracy demands that everyone be heard before congress can act accordingly? 

It might seem fool hearty and somewhat melancholy to dream of the day that most of US vote, and America actually lives up to the purpose of its founding.  But dreams are what inspire every idea, and democracy is an idea that deserves a proud, functioning example somewhere in this world. Why not US?

Can You Destroy Ideas Without Eliminating Thought?

How about this idea?  Only Love can conquer Hate.

To those who've been thinking about destroying an ideology (Sharia Law perhaps) regardless of how it might spark the next World War, I would have to admit that Trump is a breath of fresh air.  Mostly it is hot air, but even hot air feels fresh when you are suffocating from fear and in desperate need of both oxygen and answers to tough questions.

I am saddened that anybody close to me, next door perhaps, is pushing Trump's poll numbers to be what they are. But mostly this stuff is disrupting my sensibilities. Does Trump get to be the one to finally challenge, maybe dismantle the electoral and the two party game as we know it? Together, they conspire to be the leading obstacles against the dream of democracy for America, a nation founded on the dream of democracy.

Our electoral system allows for the type of political collusion that could actually become necessary to stamp down Trump, or any fascist, and keep them from taking over a party convention and eventually the face of America as well. Party delegates won't want Trump to continue going rogue, yelling toxic rhetoric under the republican umbrella, but they are even more afraid of him trying to Make America Great Again through a third party run. Trump himself actually wants no part of that third party thing either. As a third party candidate, he must try to accumulate unattainable delegate support for any hope of graduating from America's electoral college- which will be harder to achieve than his vaunted Wharton degree.

Rand Paul is a devout Libertarian (whatever that means). But it was due to Trump, not Paul, that the GOP created that pledge of party allegiance, and the only reason they are threatening a brokered convention as well. Trump is also the only reason that establishment GOP candidates are pressuring New Hampshire's "first of" primary status for having the audacity to allow him to lead their polls and potentially win their primary. Apparently, the GOP establishment can't afford to let NH vote rogue without a sufficient counter threat against them.

If Trump can win Iowa (not likely) or NH (fairly possible), he legitimizes his run beyond his current 39% nationwide polling that appears to be his ceiling for now.  Romney actually held strong at 45% during large portions of his run, yet still remained under constant assault from the establishment GOP that feared he couldn't win a general election polling so low among his own party.  They were right that Romney was wrong, but Trump will not win a general election either without garnering the support of a decisive majority in his own party.

We know for certain that a capitulating moderate republican like Romney couldn't win the general, and we highly suspect that an internal rogue candidate won't be allowed to overtake the GOP convention without a fight. So how exactly does any external third party candidate overtake preordained, two party delegates and electors that are enlisted to help force feed us candidates of the two-party choosing?


If you research the parameters of this electoral business, here is how the federal government describes the electoral college of collusion that we use to choose a president.

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties." (from archives.gov)  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

26 states in America have laws or pledges forcing some form of a democratic distribution of electoral votes. What these elector laws or party pledges don't erase is the fact that all of the current electors  and delegates are selected from within the two-party design.  As for those remaining 24 states?  They have no laws at all to insure the democratic distribution of the votes from their state. In other words, each of these state's electors are free to go rogue, and must be planning to do so if talks of a brokered convention have begun, something that hasn't been done by either party in 60 years.

Keep in mind, however, that our sacred electors only become a  relevant factor once candidates have survived the primary season to become a party nominee. Before we whittle the 2016 race down to two (or three) final candidates, the party delegates could also go rogue and rage against the state primaries and caucuses, forcing the selection of a nominee to be brokered (negotiated) again and again until a nominee, approved by the delegates emerges.

This is the threat that the GOP has made towards Donald "the rogue" Trump, and the reason why Trump is threatening a third party run in response, which could split the conservative vote in two and deliver a death nail to the GOP's chances of winning the presidency. For Trump to pull off a third party run, it must involve peeling away voters from both sides of the political spectrum complete with a massive voter turnout effort detailing how our electoral game is already rigged against US, especially when we fail to vote.  Trump is already doing this against campaign finance and Political Action Committee's (PAC's) who launder Big Money towards today's campaigns and candidates.

Electors can ignore the will of voters, so electors own the vote. Ultimately, either WE own our own votes, or WE don't, and only a serious third party candidacy (which demands voter turnout) can unveil this shameful electoral truth to US all. Shameful like the millions of dollars Jeb Bush might be wasting away on a futile campaign. Unless, of course, its the Florida boys (Jeb Bush and  Marco Rubio) that Big Money supporters are using the brokering threat to save.

It may or may not happen in 2016, but eventually a significant third party candidate is going to dominate the popular vote and fully disrupt the manner in which we assign and distribute electoral votes anyway. 

I prefer that the long awaited privilege of pulling the curtain on OZ, would go to presidential candidates Lawrence Lessig,  Jill Stein, or perhaps Bernie Sanders who proudly declares himself a democratic Socialist. If each of these candidates, pursuing distinctive and unique platforms, refuse to pursue them as a Third Party candidate, what does that say about the viability of third party candidacy? Any serious presidential candidate understands that the delegates and electors game make it a strong necessity to force feed their candidacy into one of the two political machines instead of chasing after third party support without a mechanism for harnessing delegates and electors to make the run viable.

Lately, Sanders is openly courting  the moderate middle class Trump's supporters, while simultaneously forecasting his expectation of Trump's demise. Gobbling up Trump's left behind's would almost certainly demand Sanders also consider a third party run instead of hoping and wishing that those right leaning moderates will cast their votes to the democrat party. As a third party candidate, Sanders free's up a lot of moderate voters to express their anger at both failed parties of congress via voter turnout.

To the GOP, voter turnout feels like political terrorism.  That is mostly because so many segments of the general populace get force fed into progressivism due to republican talks of fence building, Muslim banning, or when they stand behind county clerks that deny gay Americans their Constitutionally earned rights. In fact, voter turnout is political terrorism, but it is terrorism against whoever designed our rigged electoral system and whoever keeps it in place. Extreme voter turnout will expose the cracks in the electoral game, in our outdated voting machines and methods, and in the snake filled, mirky waters of the campaign finance hustle.

It was roughly eight years ago when Barack Obama won his party nomination and became our president by overwhelming Hillary Clinton with strong delegate support, and  his social media, voter turnout ground machine that revolutionized the meaning of ground game forever.  Back in August, when Joe Biden was still threatening a run at the presidency, Hillary was mostly able to dissuade Joe using the same approach, divulging that she had already secured a significant number of the necessary super delegates it will take to become the party's nominee, and revealing her Obama style voter turnout machine. Sanders will remain a political pest as long as he stays in the race, but Trump is usurping the importance of the primary and forcing the nation into an early general election war of words, thoroughly diminishing the stature of every other GOP candidate in the process.

Is there a chance that Trump is actually just  trying to shake
up our entire view of the presidential process we accept?

Assuming it is now safe to say that Trump is NOT an enigmatic internal plant of the Clinton family creation, but an actual republican candidate with massive moderate voter support, the GOP establishment will have little choice but to broker their convention just to avoid the long term risk of fully signing the face of their party over to such a toxic republican, without a reasonable fight to avoid it and save their party's presidential future.

Could Bernie win a 3rd Party bid too? He already thinks he could 
take over Trump supporters and give Hillary a repeat defeat.

I've long since believed that WE needed someone to come along and disruptively test the electoral college system into it's own dismantling, though I never really saw it being someone so disruptive.






Trump could be on the verge of inspiring America's largest and laziest political group, non-voting  moderates, into showing up on his behalf, shaking our whole system of democracy into instant re-examination and potentially legislative change too. Moderate voters who typically stay home, won't take too kindly to engaging in another big waste of time like they did during Bush .v. Gore, when several voting area's and thousands of people did not make it through the lines to cast a vote, or lost their vote to a hanging chad.

When this is all over, Trump's pursuit of the popular vote, absent the use of Big Money's money, and potentially without much delegate support either, could actually instigate "count the vote" measures by federally mandating state delegates and electors to follow the popular vote of their state.

Such a Constitutional change in voting, along with simplified voting for all, could inspire 80% or better voter participation and actually move US closer to the democracy WE deserve.  It could also be the very thing that makes way for a president Trump one day. Whether you love or hate that idea, in a true democracy, you will get exactly what you deserve and not just the Big Money puppets that Big Money offers up for us to choose from.  Until some nation in this world shows the courage and integrity that a true democracy demands, the idea of democracy remains theoretical supposition.

Why Not US?