text:
ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT
GOP Clashes on How to Stop Trump's Momentum; Carson: "I Do Not See a Political Path Forward"; Calls Grow For GOP Hopefuls to Drop Out to Stop Trump; GOP Split Could Hurt Trump 2016 Odds; GOP Sets Voting Records, Democrats Falling Short; Interview with Congressman Tom Marino of Pennsylvania. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired March 2, 2016 - 19:00 ET
[19:00:11] ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: OUTFRONT next, full court press. The Republican establishment in an all-out push to derail Donald Trump as the frontrunner reaches out to House Speaker Paul Ryan. Does Trump even need his party's stump of approval? And will it all come down to Clinton versus Trump? The attacks already starting. It is getting nasty already.
Plus, did Chris Christie steal the show from Donald Trump last night? Let's go OUTFRONT.
Good evening, I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, Trump versus the GOP. Republicans waking up today to a reality that many of them seem to not like. Donald Trump's overwhelming victories on Super Tuesday were overwhelming and they were victories and they're making him look more and more like the presumptive nominee. The problem is many in the party establishment are all but ignoring the record turnout of voters casting their ballots for Trump and pledging an all-out effort to derail his nomination. Trump though may be the one extending an olive branch. His campaign reaching out to House Speaker Paul Ryan who had tough words for Trump about his failure to disavow David Duke and the KKK in an interview on CNN.
But Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse went so far as to say, he would favor the creation of a new party if Trump won the GOP nomination. And Mitt Romney who has been highly critical of Trump promised a major address tomorrow on the, quote-unquote, "state of the race." Stop Trump's Super PAC had sprung up spending millions on anti-Trump's ad and the drumbeat continues to build.
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: The statements he's making have really nothing in common with the Republican Party.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Here's my thinking. Donald Trump is not a Republican. I'm anybody but Trump.
BURNETT: OK. There are a couple of examples of people who would like to see the field drop off leaving just one candidate that they think could lead the fight successfully against Trump. And the field maybe narrowing. Dr. Ben Carson issuing a statement today saying he's skipping tomorrow's debate, saying he doesn't see a political path forward.
Jason Carroll is OUTFRONT tonight in Michigan, the primary there left on a week away. And Jason, I mean, it's pretty incredible to see all this hate for Trump coming out now from the establishment. Is it too little too late?
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you hear so much about this being too little too late. Certainly not too little too late for Senator Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. Their campaigns pushing ahead, but Erin, after last night it's becoming more and more clear no one maybe able to stop Donald Trump. And that's perfectly fine with those who support him.
CARROLL (voice-over): Donald Trump with a dominating Super Tuesday showing.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's only too bad that winner didn't take all because if winner took all, this thing is over.
CARROLL: The GOP frontrunner strengthening his position as the likely GOP nominee, picking up victories in seven states and expanding his delegate lead over rivals' senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. But as Trump marches toward the nomination, the Republican Party is erupting an all-out civil war. 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney will deliver a speech tomorrow in Utah where sources tell CNN he plans to step up his criticism of Trump.
MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We have good reason to believe that there is a bombshell in Donald Trump's taxes.
CARROLL: It would mark a sharp turn from four years ago when Romney saw Trump's endorsements for his own presidential bid.
TRUMP: Governor Romney, go out and get them. You can do it.
ROMNEY: Thank you. Thank you.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
I'm so honored and pleased to have his endorsement.
CARROLL: And Romney isn't the only one.
REP. BOB DOLD (R), ILLINOIS: I will not support Donald Trump now and I will not support him should he move on.
CARROLL: South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is refusing to commit to supporting Trump if he ultimately claims the party's nomination.
GRAHAM: Ask me that after the convention if he wins the Republican nomination, I'll have to reconsider that.
CARROLL: But not all in the party are critical of Trump.
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The establishment Republicans are all, you know, bedwetting over this. Don't pretend that somehow that all these voters who have gone out and voted for him are stupid. They're not stupid. I'll tell you what they are. They're angry.
CARROLL: Still, a Super PAC with the backing of Republican business leaders is trying to stop Trump from getting that far.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How much do we really know about Donald Trump?
CARROLL: Releasing a series of television ads taking aim at Trump's past comments and his business record.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Former student say Trump University was a scam.
CARROLL: As Trump's bid highlights divisions within the party, the frontrunner is testing out his general election message, touting his ability to bring people together.
TRUMP: Look, I'm a unifier. I know people are going to find that a little bit harder to believe but believe me, I am a unifier.
CARROLL: And Erin, polls here in Michigan favoring Trump as well. Most recent polls showing Trump at 29 percent, Cruz at 19 percent, Rubio at 18 percent. Also Rubio's home state Trump is leading there as well. Out here at a rally earlier today, one Rubio supporter conceding maybe the only person who can stop Trump is Trump -- Erin.
[19:05:06] BURNETT: All right. Jason Carroll, thank you very much.
And OUTFRONT now, the editor of "The Weekly Standard," Bill Kristol. Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany. Tara Setmayer serving as a communications director in Congress. And David Gergen, serving as adviser to four presidents including Clinton and Reagan.
OK. Welcome to all. And thank you all for being here with me in New York. David, Romney is now coming out and he's going to hold a press conference. And in this press conference we understand he's going to be hitting very hard against Donald Trump. Not picking anyone else, but going against Donald Trump. And then you heard Lindsey Graham there in Jason Carroll's piece. He's not even a Republican. But Republican voters are coming out and voting for Donald Trump. Why can't the establishment accept that he can win?
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, I have a lot of respect for Mitt Romney and he has his own judgment by who ought to be the nominee of the party. I do think there's a real danger if I have to put this question to Bill Kristol. Here, what Trump has is a whole lot of voters who turning out who are dissatisfied and are angry and feel betrayed by the Republican Party, by the Republican establishment. And now, the leaders of the establishment are coming out and saying, we don't want Trump. We don't give a damn on what you think. We really don't care. And we want somebody else. We're going to put our own person in there. That is the kind of message I would think would be very threatening to the future of the Republican Party, certainly threatening in this campaign.
BURNETT: And what do you say to that, Bill? Especially given that his state has gone by. I mean, you know, he's now the infamous line "I love the poorly educated." But he's now doing well among people with more and more education. His base of support seems to be getting broader.
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Look, I think David's concern is what held people back for a long time. But at this point, you sort of, if you care about the country and you think Donald Trump shouldn't be president, you sort of have an obligation to say so. And I respect Mitt Romney and I respect others to come out and say so. Donald Trump got 34.2 percent of the vote last night. He did better than anyone else. He get more delegates than anyone else. He didn't get a majority of the delegates either last night. This is an open race. You know, Donald Trump said, he's a unifier. I'm a unifier. Mitt Romney is a unifier.
We're speaking for the 65 percent of the people who didn't vote for Donald Trump. You know, they get a say too. The idea that Trump wins seven of eleven and I'm supposed to go, oh, the race is over, 15 states have voted, he's got three million votes last night. Ted Cruz got two-and-a-half million. Marco Rubio got less than two million. Trump is ahead. Trump has run an excellent campaign. But people who are tired about this weigh in and say, wait a second, voters in the next bunch of states, take another look at this.
BURNETT: OK. All right. Fair point, let's put up the numbers though right now. Three hundred and thirty two delegates in the pledge delegates for Donald Trump. Obviously, 100-plus more than Cruz.
KRISTOL: Right.
BURNETT: Two hundred more than Marco Rubio.
KRISTOL: -- Cruz and Rubio, so what does that tell you? Exact same as Trump.
BURNETT: OK. But everybody said, if you just put -- you would put Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and he would do better but some of those Jeb Bush voters didn't go to Marco Rubio. And you can't assume that by whittling it down, he's going to -- he will lose --
KRISTOL: No, no. I'll agree with that. I don't like it when these guys call another people to get out. They should stay in, they should run their races, they should make their cases.
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: There is always been this myth that, you know, Trump has a ceiling, that is 30, that is 35, that is 40. And tell the CNN poll comes out last week and shows him at 49 percent and the field to five people. The ceiling keeps being raised. And the myth is that, the alternate Trump's votes, so those who have split up among the other candidates are anti-Trump votes. That is not the case. The Jeb Bush supporters split evenly among the other candidates. You look at the Kasich voters and they're second choice is split between Rubio and Trump. So, there's this myth that each of these voting blocks are monolithic group that shift over to the other establishment candidate upon that candidate, first candidate exiting the race.
BURNETT: Tara?
TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I take issue -- I'm with Bill on this -- I take issue with this whole, you know, Trump has dominated and he, you know, it is over, I made this point earlier. He's only got about 35 percent. There's an entire -- the majority of Republicans do not support him. And there's a reason for that because he has gotten away with murder. He has not been vetted properly. The media has fallen all over him. Conservative media. You know, I'm a conservative. I'm a lifelong conservative. And I look at conservative media, giving him legitimacy all through this time.
Instead of hitting him from the very beginning, on his record, on his questionable Republican values which I really don't know what they are because it's a political communion, these are all things that people have no idea about. Necessarily they came, one of the exit polls, that asked people if they knew about the Trump mortgage failure. If they knew about the Trump University scam. If they knew about the failure, all the bankruptcies and the failures of his businesses, if they knew about him using foreign workers in his casinos and in his properties and they said, people didn't know, he didn't know anything about these things. Well, I wonder if they would be so excited about Trump in thinking he's going to make America great again. If they actually knew what his record is.
GERGEN: He may not have won majority of the voters. It is a multi- party. There were 17 candidates.
SETMAYER: Yes.
GERGEN: You know, he's won fair and square the lead. You have to concede that.
SETMAYER: So far. There's a long way to go.
GERGEN: But there was this question --
BURNETT: But if it were not Donald Trump -- if it were an establishment candidate --
GERGEN: Exactly.
BURNETT: I think it's fair to say everybody would be saying presumptive nominee, let's get close to wrapping this up. But they're not. They're saying it is still a wide open race because they don't like it.
SETMAYER: Because of his record, because of who he is, because of his antics, because of his misogynist statements, all of these things go against traditional Republican values. And that is concerning for those of us who are lifelong Republicans.
[19:10:16] GERGEN: OK. That's fair game. But the question still to come. Listen, this was an establishment that insisted Donald Trump take a loyalty oath. But you must be loyal to the person who emerges from the party. That's what we expect of you. Is there any loyalty being really shown by the establishment to Trump?
KRISTOL: No. I was against loyalty oaths. I hate loyalty oaths. People should be able to vote however they want.
BURNETT: I think it's childish to sign a loyalty oath --
MCENANY: When you have an establishment figure and you have the speaker of the House and the Republican majority leader coming out and acquiescing to this narrative that Trump is a racist which had been perpetuated by the Left, it is a false statement. This man is not a racist. He has a 69 year history of being nothing but upstanding, employing minorities. He even donated to Democrats in the past before he change to being a Republican who supported minority causes. So, this notion that he deserves that title is wrong. And for the Republican establishment to coalesce around this narrative is wrong.
GERGEN: They're not coalescing --
KRISTOL: These people are elected officials, I mean, you showed the earlier Lindsey Graham, you showed Pete King.
BURNETT: Yes.
KRISTOL: They're elected officials. They're not the Republican establishment. They represent the voters of the districts and states they were elected by. They're entitled to offer their opinion and their opinion is not -- Donald Trump should be the Republican nominee.
MCENANY: Have they ever done that to Mitt Romney?
KRISTOL: Yes.
MCENANY: Have you ever done that to John McCain?
KRISTOL: No. But they thought Mitt Romney was capable of being president. They don't think Donald Trump should be president. Of course, they're not going to say the same thing about someone they have a high regard for as someone they have a lower regard for.
MCENANY: He's an outsider and he's a threat to their interests.
KRISTOL: He's not a threat to their interests.
BURNETT: I'm going to hit pause. I'm going to hit pause only for a second because we're all going to be back in just a couple of minutes. Because I want to talk about what happens if someone does drop out of this race all of a sudden. Does that help Trump or hurt Trump?
And next, Ben Carson hinting at dropping out of the race for the White House. Who would be the next to go?
Plus, record turnout on the Republican side in virtually every state that's voted so far. Does this spell disaster for the Democrats in November? And no one and nothing has slowed Donald Trump's campaign as of yet. If it comes down to Trump versus Clinton, can she win?
[19:16:04] BURNETT: Tonight a potential shake-up in the GOP race. Just a short time ago, Ben Carson hinting his campaign is coming to a close. He's skipping tomorrow's debate after admitting, quote, "I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening's Super Tuesday primary results." Calls are growing for others to also drop out all in the name of stopping Donald Trump.
Here's South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
GRAHAM: This is one area I agree with Mr. Trump. He could probably shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and that wouldn't change his voter base. The loyalty to Mr. Trump is pretty far and I don't see any ad campaign breaking that coalition apart, but the question is can you consolidate? Instead of tearing down Donald Trump, we need to consolidate the field. Because I don't think there's anything you can do or say that I can do or say or that Mr. Trump can do or say that is going to break apart his support.
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, our senior political reporter Manu Raju. And Manu, you spoke to quite a few Republican senators today including Senator Graham and what are they telling you?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, they're really divided right now depends on who you asked when you asked who should get out in this race. Some Republicans say that of course it should be John Kasich. The Marco Rubio supporters. Others are saying, we'll see how Florida and Ohio play out on March 15th, depending on how Rubio does on that day and how Kasich does on that day. Of course, the winner take all stakes are so high on March 15th. But increasingly, you are hearing frustration from Marco Rubio's supporters over John Kasich and the fact that he is still in this race. Particularly when you look at the results from Virginia last night. I talked to Corey Gardner, a major Rubio supporter about the fact that John Kasich is in this race and he did not hold back his frustration.
SEN. COREY GARDNER (R), COLORADO: There's no honorable mention in the nomination. John Kasich has run a good race and he'll continue to run a good race, but there is no path to victory for him. GRAHAM: If John Kasich wins Ohio then that will slow Trump down and
give him a boost. If Marco can win Florida, he's back in the game. I think we should wait to see what happens March 15th. I believe everybody should have a chance to win their home state. If you don't win your home state, then you need to re-evaluate.
RAJU: Now, it was also pretty remarkable Erin that Lindsey Graham is saying that if Cruz, sorry, if Rubio does not win Florida and Kasich does not win Ohio, that the party should start to unite behind Ted Cruz. And of course Graham has had his own issues with Ted Cruz as have most of the Republicans in the building that I'm in right now. So, it will be interesting to see whether or not other Republicans follow suit or if at the end of the day, they finally get behind Donald Trump. But no matter which where you slice it, it's a mess right now for Republicans as they tried to figure out a way forward in this presidential race.
BURNETT: Manu, thank you very much. And here we are back with our panel.
Also joining me our political commentator, the host of "The Ben Ferguson Show," Ben Ferguson. All right. Bill Kristol, let me start with you though. Because, you know, people look at you and they say, all right, this is a guy who doesn't want Trump to win. So, I would think you would be the person saying people should get out, but this is not what you are saying.
KRISTOL: No. Personally, I think it is inappropriate. I mean, these candidates have the right to run. And the idea that if you're helping Marco Rubio by whining about other candidates being in the race, it just shows weakness on the part your candidate. And secondly, in the actual two weeks we're facing, it is actually better for the stop Trump forces to have Kasich in the race and let him try to win Ohio, have Rubio in the race and let him try to win Florida. Have Cruz in the race and let him try to pile up some delegates and the proportionate states and the caucuses on Saturday and then on Tuesday. So, in fact, there's no -- even analytically there's no reason to urge people to get out. And I think as a matter of politics, it looks pathetic.
BURNETT: OK. Go ahead and be pathetic, Ben Ferguson.
BEN FERGUSON, RADIO HOST, "THE BEN FERGUSON SHOW": Third place never adds up to first place. You have the right to run. You have the right not be delusional while running and thinking that somehow if you go out on TV --
BURNETT: You are talking about?
FERGUSON: And Marco Rubio says last night, saying, I'm doing very well tonight. I'm in third place. Bronze medal is never a gold medal. It doesn't matter what -- picks to go to, if you're in third place, you're in third place. And Rubio is going to be in third place. He's also down in Florida. Even if you say that the polls are wrong in Florida, by ten points, he's still ten points down --
SETMAYER: So, let him run, let him run and let him win.
KRISTOL: What is it with people on TV saying, he should have get out of the race --
FERGUSON: Well, I think it's way bigger in Florida --
BURNETT: OK. Go ahead.
FERGUSON: The presidential election is way bigger than Florida. It's about allowing the people that you're supporting to have time to reassess who their second choice is.
KRISTOL: They'll have plenty of time on March 16th.
MCENANY: This is about the Republican Party having control. And this is part of the problem. You recall when Mike Huckabee was pressured to get out of the race to pave the way from Mitt Romney. This is what people are frustrated with, is the political establishment saying, get out.
SETMAYER: It's a pro-Trump supporter and Bill Kristol --
FERGUSON: Tell me how third place gives you first place. Tell me how. I would love to see the math on that.
SETMAYER: I will give you an example. As a former track athlete, you have something called the decathlon. And you can come in second or third place in different events. But if you come in first events -- better have more points involved, then you can win the whole thing.
FERGUSON: Where is --
SETMAYER: Right now -- let me finish the point, Ben. So, right now we have a decathlon going on here with different stages of the election.
We're going to find that out. That's right. That's what Florida is about.
FERGUSON: No. Ted Cruz was third in New Hampshire. There's a difference. He wouldn't have won in the decathlon, to use your example.
[19:21:25] FERGUSON: Name a state where literally looking ahead where you have legitimate numbers that Marco Rubio can actually win where he is polling well. You cannot tell me a state. KRISTOL: Marco Rubio has a much better chance that Ted Cruz.
MCENANY: Where?
KRISTOL: Florida, Pennsylvania, in New York. I think in a lot of states.
FERGUSON: But you think he's going to come in second or first in any of those honestly?
KRISTOL: Yes. Absolutely.
FERGUSON: How? How?
KRISTOL: Why couldn't he?
SETMAYER: Wait a minute. In fairness in Virginia --
BURNETT: Go ahead, Tara.
SETMAYER: In fairness in Virginia, Marco Rubio was down double digits to Donald Trump and he closed that gap significantly to about two and a half or three points. So, he lost one delegate to Donald Trump in Virginia. OK? So that matters. Donald Trump got 17 delegates. Marco Rubio got 16 in Virginia. So, he was able to close that gap. Late deciders broke for Rubio. We have two weeks until Florida.
FERGUSON: I agree.
SETMAYER: That is an eternity. And this --
FERGUSON: But you can't honestly --
BURNETT: One thing that's amazing about this though is you see people, and I'm not referring to all of you in this. But the establishment Republicans, they run one way or the other. So, when Ted Cruz looks like he's going to beat Donald Trump, they all run over there like a bunch of lemmings.
KRISTOL: Yes. I agree.
BURNETT: And then all of a sudden, Marco Rubio looks it like last week, it was all this two-men race between Rubio and Donald Trump. But everyone was running behind Rubio. But then Ted Cruz did better last night, everyone switches to Ted Cruz.
FERGUSON: You look at what happened though literally on CNN. Rubio had by far the best debate he's ever had. Did it turn out and actually help him in a real way? The answer is even when he had the best night and Donald Trump had the worst debate that he had does far, it still did not get him a victory in any place significant. Yes, he got one state.
MCENANY: But there is no way that Marco Rubio wins.
FERGUSON: At least you're honest about it. Thank you. MCENANY: In the PPP poll, it shows that even in a head-to-head
matchup with Marco Rubio and Donald Trump in Florida, Donald Trump still wins by 14 points. There's no way Marco Rubio can win.
SETMAYER: That's not true.
MCENANY: Wait. What you propose? You want an RNC litmus test for whose allowed to run for the presidency? If you don't want a state you have to get out by the state because that's what the establishment wants? That's why people have a problem with the RNC.
FERGUSON: This is my point. I think when you ran for president, a true statesman, which is what we miss in a lot of this, should at some point be the self-evaluator to say, look at the map, look at the numbers and I owe it to my, not only to my donors but to the American people --
BURNETT: Like Jeb Bush.
FERGUSON: Like Jeb Bush. I have a ton of respect for him the way he dropped out.
KRISTOL: Are you kidding me?
FERGUSON: No, let me finish though.
KRISTOL: Jeb Bush spends $30 million attacking Rubio --
FERGUSON: I have respect for him because at least he was man enough to know when he wasn't going to win and that's what Jeb Bush did.
BURNETT: When does the next person drop out though? Do you wait until after March 15th?
KRISTOL: Yes, absolutely. And I know it offends all of you that oh my God!, they're not getting out just when we want them to --
KRISTOL: OK. Fine. If he doesn't win, he doesn't win. But you have mystical knowledge -- no one ever make that ten points in the poll.
FERGUSON: It's not mystical. It's common sense.
KRISTOL: It is not common sense.
FERGUSON: You tell me a guy that is not surging forward is going to somehow randomly surge forward.
In what place, in Virginia? KRISTOL: I can tell you, there's going to be a debate tomorrow night.
FERGUSON: Yes.
KRISTOL: And Florida is one state. And Marco Rubio has a very good and decent chance of winning Florida. And it will help Ted Cruz. You Cruz people are crazy if you want Rubio out. Do you think Ted Cruz can win Florida?
BURNETT: All right.
MCENANY: No way.
FERGUSON: Ted Cruz is winning a lot more states than Marco Rubio.
BURNETT: Thank you very much.
FERGUSON: I think it is a better chance than Rubio winning.
BURNETT: That's an incredible statement. All right. Thank you all. OUTFRONT next, veteran democratic strategist Paul Begala says, it keeps him up at night. That is the record turnout for Republicans. Why it could be a nightmare for Democrats in Election Day?
And if the race comes down to Clinton versus Trump, who wins the war of words?
TRUMP: Make America great is again is going to be much better than making America whole again.
[19:29:09] BURNETT: With big Super Tuesday wins under their belts, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are turning their sights on each other.
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's clear tonight that the stakes in this election have never been higher and the rhetoric we're hearing on the other side has never been lower.
(CROWDS BOOING)
Trying to divide America between us and them is wrong and we're not going to let it work.
(CROWD CHEERS)
TRUMP: I'm going to go after one person and that's Hillary Clinton on the assumption she's allowed to run, which is a big assumption. I don't know that she's going to be allowed to run.
BURNETT: Of course, that was a reference to the e-mails, something Donald Trump has talked a lot about. This is not going to be pretty.
I want to bring back my panel, Bill Kristol, editor of "The Weekly Standard." Kayleigh McEnany, a CNN political commentator and Trump supporter.
[19:30:04] Also joining us, Michael Skolnik, Democratic and editor in chief of GlobalGrind.com, and David Gergen, our senior political analyst.
All right. Kayleigh, Donald Trump talking about being a unifier. A lot of people hear that and they say, wait a minute. Is this the same Donald Trump I've been looking at for the past few months, who is so capable of eviscerating people with words? Is he really going to be a unifier?
KAYLEIGH MCENANY, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: Well, I would encourage them to look at turnout and the vast number of Democrats and independents who are turning out at the polls. He's expanding the ideological spectrum by bringing in Democrats that Republicans have only hoped to garner in for many, many years, by talking about free trade and criticizing free trade, and talking about placing tariffs on Mexican imports.
He is broadening the Republican platform in a powerful way. Which is why in Virginia, you see a million people turning out, 50 percent more than 2000. That is huge.
And meanwhile, you see Democrat turnout down in every single state. He is broadening the Republican platform in a powerful way and Republicans needed to do this for decades.
BURNETT: All right. So, Bill, let's look at -- there are so many things about a Clinton-Trump race, which would be fascinating to watch, OK? But one of them is that you have the two people that people say they hate the most actually winning, which is fascinating.
OK, let's look at those. Donald Trump, 60 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of him according to a recent Gallup poll. Same question to Hillary Clinton is the other, the second most unfavorable person, when people are asked the top word that comes to mind with her name, the word is "dishonest".
How do the two most disliked candidates end up?
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Or at least the two who have the highest unfavorable ratings, people may not hate them or dislike them.
BURNETT: Unfavorable.
KRISTOL: Well, they just don't think they should be president, which is a reasonable judgment -- to my mind by the American people in both cases. I think classically -- I mean, typically you would say that would be a negative campaign where people would try to push up the negatives of their opponent than their own. You might try to repair your own image.
And, look, I will say, I'm not a fan of Trump obviously, but I've told underestimated him. He's run a heck of campaign. Within -- among Republicans, he moved his numbers. He was originally very unfavorable, remember this?
People like me were misled by that, and thought, well, Trump has a ceiling as Kayleigh said earlier, because, you know, he's got all these unfavorables.
BURNETT: Now you're admitting the ceiling is broken.
KRISTOL: Look, all politics is fluid. I never thought the ceiling was firm. I never think these firewalls are firm. Candidates have a chance to make their case. And maybe Donald Trump can make it as good a case to independent voters and swing voters, as he has to Republican voters. I'm personally doubtful, but, you know, Trump's been an effective politician, you got to say, over the last several months.
BURNETT: So, how nasty is it going to get? Hillary Clinton is going to fight back? She's going to have to.
MICHAEL SKOLNIK, DAILYGRIND.COM: Well, I think Donald has shown that he is nasty in his history. This isn't the first time we've seen a nasty Donald Trump. He's been nasty in his entire history with his business.
In terms of Hillary Clinton, she has shown that she is a unifier, right? She wants to bring everybody to the table. While Donald Trump is saying, I don't want Muslims, I don't want immigrants, I don't want women, I don't want black people. I don't how turning out the best --
SKOLNIK: Well, certainly, his rallies have supported that. He said nothing to stop it.
KRISTOL: He loves women.
SKOLNIK: He loves women? Well, I'm glad he loves women.
MCENANY: You can speak in generalizations and say, Donald Trump doesn't like these contingencies of people, but those are false statements. They're generalizations.
When you look at the specific wording of things he said, like when Mexico sends people, they send rapists and criminals.
SKOLNIK: Which is not true.
MCENANY: When the Mexican government sends people, that's an accusation. Not hat --
MCENANY: Words matter, specifics matter. Generalizations are unacceptable.
SKOLNIK: He's yet to denounce the KKK. Those matter.
MCENANY: He has denounced the KKK.
SKOLNIK: No, he has denounced David Duke. Not the KKK. David Duke.
BURNETT: Be denounced a white supremacist robocall in an interview with me.
SKOLNIK: The KKK word has not come out of his mouth once. Those words have not come out of his mouth once.
MCENANY: They're synonymous.
SKOLNIK: With what, with David Duke?
MCENANY: David Duke and the KKK are synonymous.
SKOLNIK: Not necessarily. He's not in the KKK anymore.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLTIICAL ANALYST: Can we get back to the original question? What kind of race this is going to be? Maybe you can hear it's very contentious.
BURNETT: Well, we just got a taste of it.
GERGEN: We've had long taste of it I'm afraid.
Listen, here's one thing I do think -- both of them are very divisive, but I do see signs on both candidates, they're trying to move now to be, you know, less elbows and knees. Hillary is trying to make that outreach into various groups. Trump calls Ryan. He has a press conference last night.
I think --
BURNETT: The House people.
GERGEN: Yes, we'll have to wait and see about Trump. I think he has a long way to go. I share many of Bill's reservations about him, but I do think he has the possibility to morph into something. I think he can be housebroken before this is all over.
BURNETT: Housebroken.
GERGEN: Yes.
BURNETT: Well, Bill Kristol, we were just talking. I mean, you did have last night Donald Trump began his victory speech saying Ted Cruz ran a great race in Texas and he had a great night. He was criticized after South Carolina for not saying anything about Jeb Bush.
First thing he did, he came out. He credited Ted Cruz. Clearly, he learned from that mistake.
KRISTOL: Look, he's been a very quick -- again, I don't know if (INAUDIBLE) president of the United States, but he's been a quickly study on the campaign trail. If you watch, he watches his audience carefully. He's a little like Reagan, I think, David.
GERGEN: I agree.
KRISTOL: He watches his audience, he sees what lines work, what people care about. And he speaks more about those things and things that he would say are foolish, that I would say worst than foolish.
[19:35:05] I agree with you on this, that are offensive and inappropriate. He does tend to back off. He'd never say he was wrong, but somehow you don't hear more about it.
So, he is a clever guy. I tend to think Hillary Clinton will beat him in the general election and beat him comfortably, but, you know, we probably learn, we shouldn't underestimate him.
BURNETT: Michael?
SKOLNIK: But here's my challenge, right? You say he watched his audience, right? We saw an instance where a black woman was harassed, called the N-word, spit on, right, and he sees that, right? But yet says nothing.
KRISTOL: I'm not depending him.
SKOLNIK: So, he's watching his audience doing that, why didn't he say, look, that's not part of who I am. If I'm going to be a unifier, don't bring that to my rally? He can say the next day, two days, he said nothing. Silence does equal violence.
MCENANY: When you're looking at an audience of 34,000 people, 15,000 people, you do not know everything that is going on among people.
SKOLNIK: The tape came out today. It's everywhere.
MCENANY: You do not know everything that is going on among your audience. It is not - it's the responsibility of the police officers in the room to take care of the situation.
BURNETT: Well, to Michael's point though, should he have come out when he saw the video, and say, wait, now I know this happened, this is unacceptable? To make the big statement?
MCENANY: I think that would help to come out and say that.
SKOLNIK: I think that would be helpful if he's a unifier, but he's yet to do it once.
BURNETT: All right. Well, you both agree on that. Pause for a moment.
OUTFRONT next, Republican voters turning out in droves on Super Tuesday. The turnout point, could it spell disaster for Democrats in November? And one of the few members of Congress to buck his party and endorse Donald Trump is my guest OUTFRONT tonight.
[19:40:17] BURNETT: Tonight, new warning signs. The Democrats are facing what could be a serious enthusiasm problem. Primary results show turnout for Democrats is down in almost every state. In some cases, down by roughly 50 percent.
This is despite Hillary Clinton just holding one of her largest rallies right here in New York tonight, where she slammed her Republican opponents.
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Make no mistake about it. The other side has a very different vision about what our country should look like, how we should treat each other. There's a lot of finger-pointing and insulting going on over in their primary.
BURNETT: And Bernie Sanders also drawing a large crowd tonight. You see him there. Their support, though, pales in comparison when it comes to the voting booth, to the flood of new and energized voters showing up on the Republican side. It's an enthusiasm gap that our Democratic strategist Paul Begala says keeps him up at night.
Tom Foreman is OUTFRONT.
And, Tom, you've been going through the numbers and you found some pretty interesting things.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I want you to look at one thing here, Erin. If you knew nothing else about this campaign, this is one pair of numbers that is shooting terror through some Democrats.
Look at this, total number of voters to turn out to date in this race just 2.6 million, 2.7 million on the Democratic side. And look at that, well over 5 million on the Republican side.
Let's put it into a little bit of context here. This is goes up and down throughout elections. If you look back several years, you can see it kind of goes up and down. Not really clear there's a relationship between that and the general election except right in here, 2008.
This is what happened in the primary with Barack Obama. Look at those whopping numbers that showed up for him and then he translated that into a massive win here in the general election. Big, big changer.
Now, is that what's shaping up over here? We don't really know. But we do know this. If it keeps going that way, it could turn into this.
And you talk a minute ago, Erin, about the enthusiasm gap. Look, enthusiasm goes up and down throughout the elections. There was a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama.
And in our most recent poll of enthusiasm among voters out there right now, look at this, on the Democratic side -- if you look at what they're seeing out there, you see the Democratic and independents who lean Democratic, are you very enthusiastic about voting? About 19 percent of them said, yes, we are enthusiastic.
Go to the Republican side, though, look at this -- 38 percent feel that way. That's what's keeping Democrats up at night, like Paul Begala, because that is a big, big gap there.
Does it say that way all the way through fall and general election? We don't know. There are a lot of things that can happen on the way. But it's something that has to really be considered Erin.
BURNETT: Those are stunning numbers. One thing I found really interesting is Hillary Clinton did very well with minority voters when you look at South Carolina. Better than even than Barack Obama. If she turns out to be the nominee, could that help offset the enthusiasm gap?
FOREMAN: That's an interesting question because think about this. She did really, really well when you went into some of the southern states down here, but here's the question. The southern states down here are not really that likely to wind up being general election voters for Democrats. Some of them may be. Some may swing over that way.
But South Carolina, places like that, these are not necessarily the cornerstones of where Democrats have to do well. And because they're winner-take-all, the truth is, she may do well there and still not win the state.
So, is that enough to overcome a huge surge of new voters on the Republican side which seems to be shaping? We don't have the math on that yet. But again, something for both sides to be thinking a lot about.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you.
And back with me now, Bill Kristol, Kayleigh McEnany, Michael Skolnik and David Gergen.
Pretty stunning numbers.
GERGEN: Very stunning numbers. But I do think you have to put this into context. If history first of all, we have to pause and recognize that there's a new chapter in American history. First woman to win a nomination of a major political party, I think there are a lot of women who woke up today encouraged by that, more inspired by that.
Certainly, I think, I totally agree with Bill Kristol, she'll go into this election as a frontrunner. I think she'll go in as a favorite. But with Trump having a real chance and Republicans if they're not careful, can chase away a lot of those new voters in how they handle the next few weeks.
BURNETT: Michael, do you think she can overcome that enthusiasm gap? Because as Tom I think it's a very interesting point, right? She did better, 86 percent of the black vote in South Carolina, better than President Obama did, which is -- I mean, that is a pretty stunning thing. But South Carolina is almost certain to go GOP. So, it almost doesn't matter.
SKOLNIK: Yes, I think she got a lot to work to do. That's for sure.
I do think on the Republican side, it's been a show. There's no show on the Democratic side. It's been a big show on the Republican side, and you have five candidates, six candidates, pushing, pushing, pushing for new voters.
On the Democratic side, you have less, you know, you have two people and one pushing for new voters.
[19:45:05] I think when you come to the general, you're going to see the president out there campaigning for Hillary, which will be a big difference, right? You have the commander and chief out there saying, this is my choice, I think we'll see a big difference in the fall.
MCENANY: You'll have the unpopular commander and chief lobbying on behalf of Hillary Clinton. So, that's a problem for her.
SKOLNIK: Not with Democratic base.
MCENANY: Moreover, I would suggest, it's a problem for her that Bernie Sanders said from the very get-go, enough of the beep e-mails, was his direct quote. You know, those problems, the emails, her vulnerabilities, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the Ponzi scheme of the Clinton Foundation, you can bet your bottom dollar these will come out if Donald Trump is the nominee on the other side.
She has big vulnerabilities, big weaknesses that hasn't been tested. There are so many unknowns, when the Republicans have opened their wounds and let it all come out.
BURNETT: Final word to you, Bill.
KRISTOL: One had to (INAUDIBLE) the party that has a big turnout. On the other hand, half of, third of the people are turning out enthusiastically for Donald Trump, while half of them are voting enthusiastically against Donald Trump. It's a little hard to reconcile that. At the end of the day, they're either going to nominate Trump and have alt of non-Trump supporters, or nominate someone else and have a lot of unhappy Trump supporters.
So, the Republicans have both the big opportunity and a big challenge.
GERGEN: Isn't it the same thing with Bernie Sanders? Doesn't she have to reconcile -- KRISTOL: I think it is a little easier. I think they get to the
platform planks on the progressive side, and I think Sanders people pretty much fall in line. Don't you think?
BURNETT: Thank you all.
And OUTFRONT next, GOP leaders desperate tonight to stop Donald Trump. You're heard quite a few of them earlier in this show, but now my next guest, a Republican congressman, is endorsing him.
And Jeanne Moos on Chris Christie, saying it all during Trump's victory speech. It was hard. You know, you could hear Trump, but you were looking at Christie.
[19:50:17] BURNETT: Tonight, word that Donald Trump is reaching out to Capitol Hill, asking to speak with House Speaker Paul Ryan. This comes as top GOP leaders are desperately trying to stop Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. Only five members of Congress have endorsed Trump.
One of them is OUTFRONT" tonight. Congressman Tom Marino of Pennsylvania.
Congressman, I appreciate you time.
Trump has reached out to the speaker, to Speaker Ryan. Speaker Ryan, of course, has been critical of Trump in recent days.
Do you think it's time for the speaker to talk to Trump, or do you think that Speaker Ryan is right to criticize if he sees fit?
REP. TOM MARINO (R-PA), ENDORSED DONALD TRUMP: Well, first of all, thank you for having me on your program.
I think it's time for all Republicans to start speaking to each other, planning on getting together. What's going to be best for the American people when it's time for us to run the general election and win the White House?
BURNETT: So, if anyone else had this much of a lead, a lot of people say, look, they'd be called the presumptive nominee. People would be supportive of this person. You've come out and endorsed Donald Trump.
MARINO: Yes.
BURNETT: Are you getting weird looks? Are you getting ridiculed? Are people talking behind your back? You are not going along with what a lot of people where you sit want you to do.
MARINO: No, at least I'm not hearing of anything. And I'm a little bit of a maverick myself, so I don't think they would even approach me on an issue like that.
But, you know something, who is -- look who is being critical -- the insiders, the policymakers, the policymakers that do policy to benefit them and hurts the hard-working taxpayer. And the American people have spoken up. My constituents across the state and others that I've spoken to, they want an outsider.
And I'm going to pose a rhetorical question here. How has it been over the last 30 years with senators, governors and career politicians as president? We're $19 trillion in debt, over 15 million people out of work. The borders are open.
BURNETT: So, Congressman --
MARINO: It's time for a businessman.
BURNETT: So, when Congressman -- when Senator Lindsey Graham says point blank today Donald Trump is not a Republican, when you hear that and hear as you know, as he has admitted himself, he gave money to Democrats. He was a Democrat.
BURNETT: You hear many long -- life-long Republicans say he is not a conservative. This is a man who switched his stance on things like abortions.
You became comfortable with all of that?
MARINO: No, I'm not -- Donald Trump and I don't agree on everything.
But what we do agree on is border security. He's created jobs. He's an executive. He knows how to make billion-dollar deals and budgets. He knows how to come in under budget, and he's saying exactly what hard-paying taxpayers are thinking.
He's been able to bring people together like it's never been done before and that's because he's speaking what he feels. People want a leader who speaks what they feel. And he's tapping in all the areas -- all the areas -- Republicans, Democrats, independents, and all ages and all walks of life.
BURNETT: Can he win your state, a state that's not voted Republican in a presidential election since 1992? Can he win Pennsylvania?
MARINO: He can very well win Pennsylvania. When I'm traveling across, I have had so many people come up to me from all the parties saying I support Trump. It's time for an outsider. I'm tired of the inside politics.
The hard-working taxpayers need to be protected and they are the unprotected individuals and policymakers protect themselves.
BURNETT: Congressman Marino, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MARINO: You're welcome.
BURNETT: Endorsed Donald Trump. And OUTFRONT next, Jeanne Moos on how Chris Christie became the silent star of Donald Trump's victory speech.
[19:57:52] BURNETT: It's the Chris Christie speech everyone is talking about, except he was a man of few words. Here's Jeanne Moos.
JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was hard to look at an alpha politician like Chris Christie hovering behind Donald Trump.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's abysmal.
MOOS: Abysmal describes Christie's expression as in a hostage video. "Governor Christie blinked twice if you're in trouble." "Dear God, what have I done endorsing Trump", tweeted "The Daily Show".
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chris Christie looks like a guy who suddenly isn't sure if he turned the stove off before he left for work.
MOOS: A "Washington Post" opinion writer said of Trump's remarks, "It was impossible to hear him over Chris Christie's eyes."
Christie spent the entire speech screaming wordlessly and, yes, someone put that wordless scream to music from psycho.
"I like people who weren't captured," mocked one poster echoing, the Donald's line about John McCain.
TRUMP: I like people that weren't captured, OK?
MOOS: "Even Chris Christie's tie is trying to escape", tweeted a "Tonight Show" producer.
Governor, governor, come on, snap out of it. Snap out of it. Please clap.
TRUMP: Tennessee. Virginia.
MOOS: Now, Governor, don't curb your enthusiasm.
One joker explained the governor's fixed stare as a food fixation. But there's nothing easy about making your face seem natural when you are stuck on camera listening to someone. Be it state of the union or the union between Anthony Weiner and his wife.
ANTHONY WEINER (D), FORMER NY CONGRESSMAN: I apologize to my wife Huma.
MOOS: Or even when the Donald basked in Sarah Palin's endorsement.
SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: The ramifications of that betrayal of a transformation of our country.
MOOS: Take heart, Governor Christie. When things are looking this down, there's nowhere to go but up.
MOOS: Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.
BURNETT: So, you weren't the only one watching Donald Trump -- listening to Donald Trump and just having your eyes glued to Chris Christie.
Thanks so much for joining us. Have a great night.
"AC360" starts now.


The odds of winning the lottery are pretty slim. In fact, there are much slimmer odds when it comes to becoming a movie star with odds like 1.5 million to one as opposed to the 175 million to one odds that the lottery holds. But, just in case you're feeling lucky, there are some things to consider when playing. Here is a look at what it's like to win the lottery and the things needed to consider when you strike it rich!
Believe it or not, some of those who have won the lottery actually keep their job. Others of course, live out part of the dream and quit right away. it's important to ensure that the date and numbers on your ticket are actually winning numbers. In addition to gravitating away from the life you've always known, keep your winnings to yourself just in case your boss decides that you are no longer the right person for the job due to your sudden movement into riches.
Of course, you'll want to lose your mind once you realize that you've won the lottery. But don't lose your ticket! This is what will be used to verify your winnings. If your ticket is lost, you won't get a second chance. Once you've won, be sure to take photos or copies of your winning ticket to store in both digital and printed form.
Once you've won, you'll have people knocking at your door, calling your phone and reaching out via social media. These people can come from charities, people that you once knew or debt collectors. To help allocate your money to live a comfortable life, you might want to hire such as a tax attorney, accountant or financial advisor to be sure that your winners are spent properly before all of these other people come into play.
Piggy-backing off of the last topic, you'll want to learn to say no to people who might come to you for their own personal gain no matter what their relationship is to you. Saying no could be one of the most helpful things and might even be placed at the top of the list for some people.
Okay, maybe don't hide but changing your address and taking it off of anything public will help fend off those who might come looking for ways to hit you up for some cash. People in America especially will go out of their way, beyond the scope of belief even. You'll want to stay away from these kinds of people and one way is to hide your address and phone number.
There are many different things that you'll want to do with the money but ultimately, blowing it isn't such a great idea. Consider talking with your financial planner about setting up college funds, preparing for retirement (whether it's tomorrow or at 65 still) and think about giving to charities that support causes dear to your heart. However you decide to spend your riches, be sure to maintain a portion of your life before the riches and allow room to give back to those who helped you in the past.


Samsara Cycles is offering clearance pricing on their 2013 bikes to make way for their 2014 stock. They have 2 complete 29er's for sale and 2 29er frames. The prices are deeply discounted and 5% of all sales until December 1st will be donated to the Oscar Blues Can'd Aid fund to help those devastated by the recent floods.


The discussion about the rising costs of rigs, and the support equipment that goes with them has caused me to go back to an earlier source which pointed out, about a month ago, that Saudi Arabia was planning on doubling its drilling rig fleet from the current 55 to around 110. As part of this effort some deep wells will be drilled into the Arabian Gulf.
"We will be using very specialized equipment for this operation," said Tom Emmons, Ensco 76 drilling engineer. "That's because the target wells will be some of the most challenging that Saudi Aramco has ever drilled due to the high temperature and high pressure of these wells.
"The Karan-6 location is actually one of the shallower prospects," said Mulaik. "Several of the locations will require more than 6,000 m of drilling. However, the Ensco 76 can drill up to 9,000 m."
A second exploration rig will join the Ensco 76 during 2006 in drilling deep exploration prospects in the Gulf. The two rigs will drill 11 prospects scattered through Saudi territorial waters. The entire project will last from five to six years. This reflects a substantial investment by Saudi Aramco to discover new gas fields.
At one time I had tried to calculate how many wells it would take to meet the new goals for Saudi increased production. Some of my assumptions were a little off, but by going back over the past few years, using the OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletins, the number of wells that a rig can drill appears to average around 10. So that if we consider that Aramco need to produce around a million bd a year to match current well declines, and that they are promising to add about 400,000 bd per year to world supply, then an initial simple calculation would suggest that this would give an average required yield per well of around 1,270 bd.
Now it must be said that Saudi plans include that some of these wells that are to be drilled are going to be for gas, that some will be used for water injection, and also that in fact not all rigs are working at one time. For example, a quick check with Baker Hughes shows that of the nominally 55 rigs mentioned above some 37 are currently drilling on land and 1 offshore. (Remember also that while Aramco had decided to rent five more offshore rigs, one of those sank while still in the GOMEX, and two are apparently damaged). And while these were earlier reported to be going out for gas exploration, the Business Week story mentions that they will also be used for oil exploration and for reworking old fields.
In the Middle East in general Baker Hughes suggests that about 20 - 25% of the wells will be for gas, and perhaps 5% might be for other purposes (such as water injection), but even when these improvements are made, it does not lead to a very high assumed number for anticipated new oilwell production in the future. Bear in mind that in their presentation in defense against Matt Simmons comments, they had said that MRC could generate flows of up to 10,000 bd.
According to one industry source in the region, the Khurays field, the largest expansion planned, will need an estimated 400 wells drilled to produce the target of 1.2 million barrels. If each rig drills six to seven wells per year, that would require some 20 rigs at the site for three years. The field will also need 2 million barrels per day of water injection, facilities to process the water, and pipelines.
This gives an average of 3,000 bd/well. This is a bit lower than the numbers I have used before, but the number of rigs that are being sought suggest that it is the new reality.
There may not be too many more new contracts coming from Saudi Aramco, however. The company said that most of those rigs have already been contracted. Other rigs contracted in the region were also brought in from other areas. Precision Drilling has four land rigs working in Saudi Arabia, with two additional units being refurbished in Kuwait that will begin working in Saudi Arabia in November. Those two rigs were mobilized from Precision's Venezuelan fleet.
Another rig that will be available in the region in 2006 is Thule Drilling's Thule Power jackup. ODS-Petrodata in Houston reported that this rig is currently being reactivated after having been idle since November 2002. In fact, the company said, the rig, the ex-Arabdrill 19, sank in 2002 and was declared a total loss. The rig is expected to be available for contract in mid-2006.
It is also likely that several of the jackups under construction in Singapore will fulfill rig requirements in the region. Of the approximately 40 or more jackups under construction or on order, nine are scheduled for delivery in 2006 and another 17 are set for delivery in 2007. . . . . . .Saudi Aramco is reported to have tenders out for three additional jackups to begin in the second quarter 2006. ODS-Petrodata also reports that Khafji Oil & Gas is expected to tender for at least one more jackup in the Kingdom. Additionally, ENSCO International's jackups ENSCO 76, 95 and 97 are scheduled to begin working offshore Saudi Arabia under long-term contracts this year.
Dayrates for these rigs also indicate that Saudi Aramco is willing to pay the high day rates necessary for equipment. The ENSCO 76 is contracted in the low-$100s while the ENSCO 97 is in the low-$80s. . . . .Onshore is a similar situation. For example, Nabors Drilling has 22 land rigs in Saudi Arabia, all working for Saudi Aramco. Nabors has two rigs contracted to Lukoil for a drilling program slated to begin in the Kingdom in early 2006. . . . . . .To fulfill onshore rig demand in Saudi Arabia, rigs would likely have to be reactivated or new units built. As far as Nabors is concerned, it has several rigs in the US that could be reactivated and refurbished but due to rates increasing in the US, day rates in Saudi Arabia and other countries likely would have to rise as well to entice those rigs.
Additionally, according to Mr Smith, drilling contractors are beginning to see term contracts in the US, making it even more difficult to entice a contractor to move a rig to international areas.
Which may mean that while Aramco may be able to meet it's short term needs for rigs, the world demand and shortage of supply may make this a growing issue in the not-too-distant future.
"Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation."
Don't get too excited. Sounds to me like it's right up there with abiotic oil, or cold fusion. There may be something there, but it's not likely to be anything earth-shaking.
Yes, if there was something there it should have swept the media by now, as Mills has been doing his tests for years. It doesn't look good that his patents have been pulled. We should keep an open mind about stuff like this, but that doesn't mean lobotomizing yourself.
By the way, speaking of lobotomies, Japan's respected Asahi newspaper ran a story today about peak oil and concerns over Saudi output constraints. They cite the USGS survey that there's oodles of oil left, so basically cast doubt on peak assertions. Still, it's a series piece with another installment tomorrow. Maybe their frontal lobes will heal overnight.
Asahi Shinbun is covering peak oil? Interesting. Sounds like Japan is in denial, though. I heard some other Japanese newspaper recently did a similar story, basically dismissing peak oil.
I wonder how Japan is going to make out. As Jared Diamond points out in Collapse, Japan has done a lot of things right; few countries as industrialized as Japan have managed to keep almost 80% of their forest intact. And the extremely low birth rate many Japanese politicians fret over may turn out to be a good thing in the years to come.
But they are very oil dependent now. Oil was the reason for WWII. Tokyo probably won't be a fun place to be in an energy crunch.
You're right about the denial. I work in an economics faculty at a good university in Tokyo. I asked a colleague what he thought about peak oil and other oil-related stuff, and he said he found it boring.
On the other hand, now that PM Koizumi has basically picked the even crazier nationalists Abe and Aso to fight over succeeding him next year, maybe some extreme tension with China and elsewhere will make oil less boring for him and many others.
China exports coal and Japan imports coal. If China wants to screw up Japan, it just has to stop exporting coal and watch the price soar.
In military terms, though, Japan can basically shut down China's infrastructure because the Japanese technology base is so much higher. They have far more fissionable materials, too.
An all out thermonuclear war between China and Japan would not cause a nuclear winter crop failure problem if it starts now, though, because it is already winter. We would just have a much colder than usual winter and a late spring. Maybe shift our farm crops a little south.
Japan would probably lose. They are basically de-militarized. We forced it on them after they lost WWII, and in return promised to protect them. Some credit this as one factor behind their economic success. They had no need to spend money on defense.
Now, we are trying to get Japan forget the pacifist stuff and take responsibility for defending themselves. But they know a good thing when they see one, and are resisting.
Japan is far from demilitarized. They are third in total military spending ( see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html ), some would argue second as they believe the US numbers for China are overstated for obvious reasons. And according to this site (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_arm_for_per) they have the 20th largest standing army. In short, it is a high tech military that goes by the name of "Self Defense Force." It is one of the best militaries in the world.
I've also read elsewhere (I'd look it up, but it makes perfect sense, so I'll leave that to doubters) that given the Japanese technological infrastructure they are probably only about six weeks away from being able to produce nuclear weapons.
Just thoughts to chew on.
I've no doubt Japan could build nukes if they wanted to. It ain't that hard (unfortunately). Plus, Japan made lots of weapons and sold them to all sides during past conflicts, and they launch satellites and such, so they have the expertise. And due to their nuclear power plants, they have the materials.
But Japan was on the wrong end of nuclear weapons, the only time they were ever used. It's been 60 years, but they're still kind of squeamish about nukes. I don't think they'll be arming themselves with nuclear weapons any time soon.
Japan has a fairly potent military, ranking among the global top 5 in total defence budget. But countries don't go straight to a shooting war, and especially a nuclear war, without lots of steps before that. So maybe it's more realistic to think of which of the two countries, China or Japan, has the stronger capability to convince the other that it's willing to fight it out. Like America, the Chinese have fought plenty of wars over the past few decades (eg, with India and Vietnam) and so can probably sell war as an extension of politics. It's also a dictatorial regime with tight control of the media. And to top it off, the population at large has a strong sense of historical grievance against Japan.
In Japan, on the other hand, war is associated with defeat, deprivation, destruction and so on. For good reason, I might add. The threat of war would almost certainly cause a lot of today's nationalists to recalculate their positions. The hard-core nationalists would try to shout down dissent (as the Bushies did in the US), but that's hard to do in a media-saturated world.
So Japan would likely blink first. Let's hope these twits in charge here have run through the scenarios themselves, and know to avoid more pointless provocations. There are times when you have to fight, but only an amoral sleaze picks a fight and then sends other people's kids to die.
I don't know why this has made it into the Guardian today. It is an old story. He first mooted the idea of a lower than standard ground state for hydrogen in 1991. He has written a 1000 page theory of it. According to some that have reviewed it, parts of it are good and original. Sadly the parts that are original are not good and the parts that good are not original. That is, there are lots of gross blunders interspersed with passages cribbed verbatim from others without attribution. If it were true not only would if trash the whole of standared quantum mechanics but also relativity as well as his theory is not Lorentz invariant.
I think it's because he (or his pals) are spamming the Internet with this stuff. They did it to PeakOil.com, and I suspect they are doing it elsewhere, too. Maybe they see high oil prices as a chance to promote their ideas. Or maybe they're trying to get funding.
Quantum mechanics has been so successful, with many calculations of transition probabilities agreeing with experimental data, that it is hard to understand how this idea of the hydrino can be correct. It's a geat pity that the Guardian doesn't give references to the professional articles published about this nonsense. Reminds me of the time a less distinguished astronomer asked a VERY distinguished astronomer where he should publish a new idea. The answer was "Punch", then the leading British humour magazine.
The article in the Guardian said nothing about how one goes about making this 'super hydrogen', so one can't really assess the amount of energy that needs to be expended in making it.
Even if it gives off substantially more energy than normal hydrogen when oxidized to produce water, the important question is: how does that energy output compare with the required energy input?
These type of extraordinary claims of new energy sources by independent inventors pop up every several years, and most of them soon fall apart when held up to scrutiny. It reminds me of all the wasted effort during the 19th Century to come up with a perpetual motion machine.
Still, it's important to keep an open mind and to not dogmatically dismiss all such claims without a fair examination. Scientists and engineers have a bad habit of dismissing many new ideas 'by inspection'.
However every single method for extracting useful energy entails some entity going from a high energy state to a lower energy state and releasing useful energy in the process. The theoretical maximum amount of useful energy that can be obtained in such a process in the relative difference in energy between the two states. Unless one finds a way around the laws of physics as we known them, there is no way around this fundamental constraint.
Quantum nucleonic reactors is a topic most here ought to familiarize themselves with. It's not a "free lunch" as you correctly observe that releasing energy always involves state transitions from higher to lower. And that's exactly what makes the quantum nucleonic reactor interesting. It's so interesting that the US Air Force is considering prototyping drone planes using that power source as a way to keep the drones aloft over a battlefield for days or weeks at a time.
After learning about quantum nucleonic reactors, I've always thought they would be an ideal way to power a rebuilt heavy rail system in the US.
These reactors are really an advanced form of battery. You have to excite or create the Hafnium nucleus to it's isomeric state. About the only way I can imagine getting an isomer Hf-178 is to soak Lutetium or Ytterbium 176 in a nuclear reactor and wait for a couple of neutron captures and one or two beta decays. Hopefully, there is a decent probability of the product nucleus falling into the isomeric state. I don't have the decay scheme to say for sure. However, the fact the isomer has so much angular momentum probably means it has a low production cross section..
This kind of stuff is always trotted out to muffle concerns about oil and future energy sources. Maybe someone will hit the jackpot, but time is growing short.
Greenspan mentioned the vast frozen hydrate deposits as one possibility. Yup, those babies pack a wallop. The question is: how to get that stuff to the surface. Greenspan dreams his anti-inflatinary dreams...not much more. Finite resources are not of concern to economists. They would rather discuss "sticky prices."
How long does it take to build a new oil rig?
If the shortage of rigs runs ahead much faster than the time it takes to build a new one, than wouldn't this be a symptom of "peak"? This sort of scenario seems to me to be exactly what the more reasoned doom-sayers have been saying, that there is a "tipping point" where the market is incapable of responding. Or at least responding in any way other than astronomical prices.
About 2 to 3 years for a jackup, 3 to 4 for a semisubmersible. But there are almost no shipyard slots at the big rig builders so they are telling customers they can't get deliveries before 2009. Some are starting to build at non-traditional places like China.
i have a question about the original post by HO...what is not relayed in the info is what these flow rates mean...is 1270 b/d or the later mentioned 3000b/d/well a huge unattainable number or is these kind of yields to be expected from saudi offshore production?...without some insight the numbers are meaningless to the uninitiated.
Sorry, I should have put this into context a bit better than I did. The average Saudi well in 1995 produced around 6,000 bd. By 2003 it had fallen to 4,700 bd. Some of their recent wells have been producing at around 3,800 bd, which is the number that I have previously been using to get an estimate as to what their true capabilities are. It is a little difficult to get a true number, since one is rarely sure of the realistic state under which some of the wells are operating. Wells in the 6,000 + bd range are possible with multi-lateral MRC operations, where the main horizontal well extends out several miles through the formation. How many of these are currently in place is a continuing question. (They also take just a tad longer to install than your basic vertical well).
There is no such thing as "Arabian Gulf." There is Arabian Sea, north west of the Indian Ocean, and then there is Persian Gulf.
It is very strange how American oil men have named the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf to appease the sheikdoms of the penninsula. Even Arabs don't call it that. "Khalij al Fars," as it is referred to in Arab maps, means Persian Gulf. I read oil & gas magazines from all over, and it's only the Americans who call it "Arabian Gulf." When U.S. oil managers talk about Arabian Gulf when it even doesn't exist on the maps on their walls, they show how uneducated they are. I expected a little more from Heading Out.
I was actually trying to paraphrase the article, which refers to the area in those terms. However, if you will check with the reference to the comment, you will see that it claims to be the leading Arabic International Daily. The defense rests.
Very nice. Thanks for debunking oil Creationism.
This increase in reserve estimate is so unusual that it led to an article in the WSJ . . . entitled "Oil: a renewable resource?--Odd reservoir off Louisiana prods petroleum experts to seek a deeper meaning," suggesting that oil was coming from deeper sources. . . . It is really nonsense. In fact, the Eugene Island oil and gas field is flanked by the largest and best known fault in the Gulf . . . which puts the reservoir in direct communication with the source rock. Evidently, the rapid depletion of the reservoir dropped the pressure allowing it to be recharged that [sic] oil and gas from the source rocks. But the declines have resumed. . . .


text:
Q: General technique to compute the covering $S^1\vee S^1$ asociated to certain normal subgroup of $F_2$ In p.80 of Hatcher's book we can find the following exercise:

Exercise 1.3.12. Let $a$ and $b$ be the generators of $\pi_1(S^1\vee S^1)$ corresponding to the two $S^1$ summands. Draw a picture of the covering space of $S^1\vee S^1$ corresponding to the normal subgroup generated by $a^2$, $b^2$ and $(ab)^4$, and prove that this covering space is indeed the correct one.

By Van Kampen's theorem $\pi_1(S^1\vee S^1)$ is the free group $F_2=\langle a,b\rangle$ generated by $a$ and $b$. In order to solve the exercise we have to remember the following facts:

*

*Every properly discontinuous group action $G\to \text{Hom}(X)$ over a topological space $X$ induces a normal covering $p:X\to X/G$ via the quotient map from $X$ to the orbit space $X/G$ (see Proposition 1.40 (a) of Hatcher's book)

*A presentation group $G=\langle g_\alpha\, |\, r_\beta\rangle$ acts over its Cayley graphs by a properly discontinuous action (see p.77 of Hatcher's book)

In order compute the covering space associated to a normal subgroup $H$ of $F_2$, I am going to show that it is sufficient to compute the Cayley graph of $F_2/H$:

Claim. Let $H$ be a normal subgroup of the free group $F_2$ with two generators. And $p$ the normal covering induced by the natural action of $G=F_2/H$ over the Cayley Graph $K$ of $G$. Then $p$ is the covering map corresponding to the subgroup $H$, that is:
$$p_\star\big(\pi_1(K)\big)\cong H.$$

Proof. Let $K$ be the Cayley graph of the quotient $G=F_2/K$ and $p:K\to K/G$ the normal covering described above for the natural action of $G$ over $K$. By the construction of the Cayley graph, it follows that the orbit space must be trivially homeomorphic to the wedge sum $S^1\vee S^1$. So we have a normal covering:
$$p:K\to S^1\vee S^1$$
We have to show that this covering is indeed the correct one. For do so we know that

*

*Since $K$ is path connected, the transformation group $\mathcal G$ is isomorphic to $G=F_2/H$ (see Proposition 1.40 (b))

*$p$ is normal so, the transformation group $\mathcal G$ is isomorphic to $F_2/p_\star(\pi_1(K))$ (see Proposition 1.39)
Thus:
$$F_2/H\quad \text{is isomorphic to}\quad F_2/p_\star(\pi_1(K))$$
which implies $H\cong p_\star(\pi_1(K))$.

$\square$

*

*Is correct my reasoning?

*Is there an easier way to compute in general that covering map?
Thanks in advance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


PQC: It's not the struggle that should be under question, it's the direction of the struggle that matter! Last but not least, the Black Bloc is government agents. I myself attended a rally for Julian Assange in Melbourne and witnessed firsthand this kind of Black Block in action. I filmed their vandalizing action and their "conversation". Some hours later inside the Trade Hall, the BB guy I had filmed approached me and asked for a copy of the clip. I refused to "share" but I directed him to a upload-website to get it instead. Of course he never did. They just wanted to know what I would do with the clip..


text:
3 Trade Targets For New York Knicks — Pass Or Pursue?
Featured, US1 Magazine knicks, magic, nba, nets, new, orlando, rumors, trade, york
The New York Knicks were one of the best defensive teams in the league last NBA season, but so far this year, they have really struggled to play with that same intensity on defense. Ranking just 16th in the league in defensive rating, the Knicks are definitely not terrible defensively, but they are not the same team we saw last season.
As for their offense, they are definitely a much more balanced scoring team, especially with the additions of Kemba Walker and Evan Fournier. The Knicks are currently 11-9 on the season and while they have suffered some bad losses to teams like the Magic and Pacers, they have also won some big games over the Lakers, Bulls, and 76ers.
Being 5-6 at home is something we are not used to seeing, as Madison Square Garden is one of the best home-court advantages in the league, but this team is still trying to develop chemistry with one another. Two of the five players in their starting lineup were not on the team last year and with Mitchell Robinson playing just 31 games last year, he is still trying to get up to speed with everything as well.
In time, this Knicks team will no doubt be a contending force in the Eastern Conference, but the problem right now is time.
With how good the East is this season, the Knicks need to begin putting together a bunch of wins in a row and not just here and there, especially if they want to make it past the first round of the playoffs this year.
Being roughly $19M below the tax line for this season and having some tradable assets, the New York Knicks could absolutely be a team to keep an eye on as the trade deadline approaches this season. There is still a lot of time between now and February 10, but New York needs to begin figuring out what/who they are going to be targeting.
Leon Rose and Scott Perry have done an excellent job of building this team through the years and this front-office really does like the way this team is assembled, but are they good enough to contend against the likes of the Bucks, Nets, Heat, and Bulls right now?
New York could look to add some more depth to their roster ahead of the trade deadline this year, so let's take a look at three players the Knicks could target, as proposed by Bleacher Report's Zach Buckley, and evaluate whether or not New York should "pass or pursue" said trade targets.
De'Aaron Fox – Sacramento Kings
The New York Knicks do not need to make a trade in order to find success this year, but with the way their roster is constructed right now, it is hard to imagine that they will be far better than they were last season when they lost to the Atlanta Hawks in the first round of the playoffs.
They may win a playoff series with this year's team, but what this team needs is another true star next to Julius Randle. Kemba Walker is not this kind of player anymore and both R.J. Barrett and Evan Fournier are solid secondary scoring options. Going out and trading for De'Aaron Fox would be a massive move for the Knicks to make, but it is just not realistic at this time. The Kings have been unwilling to trade Fox for any All-Star talents and they recently extended him on a five-year max contract, so why would they want to get rid of him?
It is possible they could consider a trade package that included the likes of R.J. Barrett, Obi Toppin and a handful of draft picks, but the value the Knicks would have to sacrifice may outweigh the value that Fox could bring to their team.
Plus, it is not like the Knicks are desperate for a new point guard. Kemba Walker is a former All-Star, as is Derrick Rose, and Immanuel Quickley is starting to play some great basketball in their second unit. These three guys are more than capable of being the Knicks backcourt this season and they have been some of the more productive players on this roster.
There is no doubt that the Knicks would be a better team if De'Aaron Fox were on their roster, but the concern here is what the Knicks would have to give up to acquire him.
Seeing as the Kings have missed the playoffs the last 15 seasons, they are going to be wanting a ton of value for their best young talent, which is why New York would be better off pursuing a trade with another team. Fox is not the difference in them making it all the way to the Eastern Conference Finals this season, whereas other trade targets could be.
CJ McCollum – Portland Trail Blazers
Portland has been unwilling to talk about trades involving Damian Lillard, but there has been no word on whether or not they are going to keep CJ McCollum long-term. This decision will likely come closer to the trade deadline this year when the Blazers have a better idea of where they stand in the Western Conference, but it is very clear to see this team needs change.
They are not a championship-level team yet and while they have made the playoffs for eight consecutive years, they really have not been a contending team in any of these seasons! It is more realistic to believe that they would trade Jusuf Nurkic or Robert Covington before CJ McCollum, but the sharpshooting guard definitely holds the most value next to Dame on their roster.
The Knicks have a star in Julius Randle and they have a great group of supporting talents, but this team is really missing a guy who can take over on offense. While he has never made the All-Star Game, CJ McCollum is one of the deadliest backcourt scorers in the league today and has been playing at an All-Star-level the last few years.
What they would have to give up to acquire CJ McCollum is a big question mark, but New York should be willing to give up whatever Portland would want for him. Maybe this means trading away R.J. Barrett and Evan Fournier, but McCollum is exactly the kind of talent the Knicks are lacking in their backcourt right now.
Terrence Ross – Orlando Magic
The 2021-22 season is going to result in the Magic being one of the worst teams in the league, but they are going to continue developing and pursuing other young players to add to their young core. Rookie Jalen Suggs, Cole Anthony, Markelle Fultz, Jonathan Isaac, and Wendell Carter Jr. are just a few of the Magic's key young players on their roster this season that they will look to develop further, but veteran wing Terrence Ross finds himself as an outlier on this team.
Ross is now 30-years-old and does not appear to be a part of the Orlando Magic's long-term plans anymore, which is why he could be one of the more sought-after in-season trade targets for many playoff teams around the league. Over the last 4.5 years in Orlando, Terrence Ross has averaged 9.8 points, 1.9 rebounds, and has shot 31.5% from three-point range, making him a key scorer on the wing for virtually any team in this league.
While they are better this season on offense, the New York Knicks could use another experienced scorer off their bench. Being one of the better bench scorers in the league from a season ago, Ross could fit right in with this Knicks' team.
Terrence Ross is not necessarily a great fit for the New York Knicks defensively, but he gives them more offense off the bench. Currently third in the league in bench points per game, the Knicks already have strong secondary talent and they could add another one with Orlando's veteran.
Not only did the veteran wing average 15.6 points per game last season while coming off the bench in 44 of the 46 games he played in with the Magic but near the halfway point in the season, he was being mentioned as a player to watch in terms of the Sixth-Man of the Year award.
Having both Derrick Rose and Terrence Ross as two "sixth-man" types of players in their second unit could go a long way in helping the Knicks go from being a first-round playoff team to being an actual contender against the likes of the Bucks, Nets, and Heat in the Eastern Conference.
If Ben Simmons is mentally ready, he should play for the Sixers in December
Featured, The Honest Truth, US1 Magazine 76ers, basketball, Ben, nba, paul, Rich, Simmons, sports, trades
By Dave Early
The Ben Simmons stalemate continues, having morphed from what was once referred to as a holdout to the former first overall pick not being mentally ready to play.
The shift provides us the chance to talk more about mental health struggles and embrace how common it is even in our sports heroes and villains. It also gives us fodder for discussions about employer-employee rights; what type of information about someone's treatment plan can an organization reasonably expect? When is it appropriate to withhold salary or fine? Then there's the lines where bigger questions impact basketball questions. For example would Ben Simmons be mentally ready to play if he were traded or is his current team unrelated to his mental health?
I won't bother to read Simmons' mind. But I'll put this out there. Hypothetically, if Simmons were at some point during the next couple of weeks mentally ready to hoop, if he did still really want to be traded, if he would like to maximize his career-earnings, if he does value not losing a full season of his prime (yes this is very possible) then he might consider suiting up for the Sixers in December.
Let's say Simmons did not want to return for his first game at home and deal with the likely chorus of boos. He could play in one of the upcoming road games at Boston, Atlanta, Charlotte (twice), Utah, or Memphis between December 1st and December 13th.
What's the incentive for that? Because on December 15th, a handful of players who are not currently eligible for trade will become eligible. Marc Stein via Substack suggested that key date was the earliest possible point the team might engage serious talks.
Simmons might want to put at least something on film (locking up LaMelo Ball in Charlotte after the team struggled mightily to defend D'Angelo Russell, or perhaps blowing by Rudy Gobert in Utah on the second night of a back-to-back when Joel Embiid might be resting) to remind other teams what he's capable of, and suggest there is indeed a path for his return to play on the horizon.
Some of those teams once rumored to be interested in the LSU product may have real and fair concerns about trading for Simmons, given his current unreadiness to play.
The Minnesota Timberwolves for example, were consistently regarded as the team most interested in landing the Aussie star. But now at 10-10, winners of 7 games in 10 outings, has their calculus changed at all? On the one hand, the Wolves, who just defeated the Simmons-less Sixers 121-120 in double OT, might like what they have going and have cooled on the idea. Do we risk disrupting Anthony Edwards' growth by introducing a non-shooter to the lineup? On the other, perhaps acquiring Simmons (without parting with Edwards or Karl-Anthony Towns, dudes who were never on the table anyway) is even more appealing now that they can see a true path towards contention. What types of assurances would Minnesota need to risk disrupting some of the best basketball they've played since Jimmy Butler was around? Could they be convinced Simmons would play for them before the New Year? Before the trade deadline?
No end in sight to the stalemate
At this point, both Simmons and the Sixers should probably understand neither side is bluffing here.
The Sixers have more than enough reason to believe Simmons is dug in on wanting out and is willing to lose money. Simmons' camp has more than enough reason to trust Daryl Morey when he says he's willing to drag this out through the trade deadline and beyond to ensure he isn't selling too low.
Philadelphia would likely enjoy the support of the league office and some vocal small-market franchises who understand the sticky precedent it would set if players could sign four-year max extensions then quickly force their way out.
Simmons would be risking injury if he played. Imagine if he suited up, hoping to showcase his talents for an acquiring team, but rolled an ankle or worse. But he could at least demonstrate that if a team takes the risk to onboard him, they'd be getting someone who will play for them this season. That may not be enough to get the trade he's looking for. It will all come down to the offer. If the Sixers can't get an All-Star on a on a long-term deal this season (Damian Lillard and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander may not be available right now) as crazy as it sounds, they might be better off waiting for more possibilities next summer.
Bradley Beal, Zach LaVine, James Harden, Kyrie Irving and others are set for a league-altering free agency next summer. Few would be shocked if Dame (on a long-term deal) asked for a trade after yet another disappointing Blazers playoff exit that seems inevitable. If Simmons' camp is hoping Morey and company decide to panic and sell-low in February knowing that the Sixers might be taking themselves out of the running for several whopping superstar fish in July, they should probably reassess.
I don't know if Simmons will be mentally ready to play over the next few weeks. That's a decision he will have to make for himself with input from his health-care practitioners, friends and family. But if he did really want a trade before the deadline, if he did want to throw his hat into the ring for another All-Star bid or Defensive Player of the Year bid this season, and maximize his earning potential along the way, there's incentive for him to casually suit up for one or two of these games around that key December 15th date. There may be a few teams who simply want any signal at all that he'd be ready to play before the start of the 2022-2023 season and don't want to simply rely on his agent Rich Paul's assurances when it comes to something as unpredictable as a mental health issue.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
DYSTOPIA: 2013
By Admin	| June 18, 2012
David (Sam Senovich) is easily having the worst day of his life. His distrusting wife browbeats him and leaves him, he loses his job and, while staying at his uncle's cabin, the end of the world happens. From then on, Dystopia: 2013 becomes a familiar story of survivors trying to navigate the post-apocalypse landscape.
As in many films of its ilk, David is wandering to some dreamed-up haven where things aren't as bad as where he is currently. In his travels, he winds up saving Nick (Cody Shiloh Brown) from a violent dirt bike-riding gang. Though Nick is not the most friendly of personalities, the two stick together, eventually meeting up with Peter (Steve Arvig), a guy who looks like a cave-dwelling Santa Claus, and the crew wind up saving the near-mute Samantha (Kristen Mothersbaugh) from the same gang that menaced Nick earlier. The foursome bonds, reveals what they were doing before the apocalypse and does their best to find supplies, steer clear of the gangs and get to their destination (even if none of them actually know where they're going, or what to expect when they get there).
The film picks up, in originality, gore and mayhem, in the third act when we're introduced to the gas mask-wearing gang at the refinery that even our previous antagonists, the dirt bike gang, were afraid of. This new crew of sickos have a perverse sense about them when it comes to entertainment and the continuation of the species. In the former, two teams, prisoners vs. guards, play a variation of an old Mayan game, with the losing team's captain getting scalped and then beaten like a piñata by the rabid audience. In the latter, two women are pitted against each other in a fight to the death, with the winner being considered fit for procreation and, therefore, raped.
My biggest stumbling block with Dystopia: 2013 is the character of David. At the beginning of the film, I'm on-board with his sad sack predicament, and even when he meets up with Nick, he still seems like the type of guy I could root for. As the film goes on, however, often in conflict or in reaction to something Nick says or does, the David character becomes a very wishy-washy, contradictory personality.
For example, he puts himself out there to save Nick, but the second they disagree on something he's already suggesting Nick take a walk, and generally distrusting of Nick for the rest of the film. Why'd he help him out, then, and why did he make a big deal about the two sticking together? While it bothers me how often David seems to flip-flop his emotions (and unfortunately, Sam Senovich doesn't sell those emotions that well, so often his demeanor is exactly the same while doing opposite actions), I can at least see why his ex-wife could browbeat him to the extent she does in the opening.
Also, for a dark and dingy tale of the damaged future, it sure is bright and clean-looking for a good chunk of the film. I'm not saying I wanted the filmmakers to dirty up the picture, or use a shitty camera, but this is one of those cases where I'll admit to the bias of being preconditioned by similar flicks to expect some form of visual degradation or processing to make things feel more messed up than they are. Something about people running or hiding from guys on dirt bikes in the crisp, clear daylight that just doesn't seem as menacing as it could if the film had some grain going.
In the end, Dystopia: 2013 is a nice addition to the post-apocalyptic genre, though nothing groundbreaking. It definitely finds its most interesting footing in the third act, when the danger becomes more evident and personal. If these types of films are your cup of tea, you'll find a lot in this film reminiscent of other flicks, and it's a comfortable experience in that way.
This film was submitted for review through our Submission for Review system. If you have a film you'd like us to see, and we aren't already looking into it on our own, you too can utilize this service.
PMS COP says:
Interesting perspective on this movie. I've seen this one in the theater and enjoyed it. I'm into the end of the world genre. Also, liked the list of suggestions for other flicks like it.
Johnno Zee says:
Watch this film FREE at the official website: 2013Movie.com
Thanks! -Johnno Zee
Yes, Michael Yosef's short film, Dark Tales, is a dark and humorous tale of a murderous couple (Newton Mayenge and Whitney Bowers) who experience a...
SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL 2021 REVIEW! El Planeta, Amalia Ulman's feature directorial debut, is what a truly independent film is all about. The movie is a...
"MAD LOVE" KICKS OFF 6TH ANNUAL LOS ANGELES LATINO INTERNATIONAL FIL
The ten day long Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival kicks off tonight, July 19th, at the Egyptian Theatre with a screening of Vicente Aranda's...


MARTINEZ — Contra Costa County protesters gathered in Martinez on Thursday to denounce Chevron's pursuit of a multimillion-dollar tax refund, saying it would raid taxpayer resources.
Shortly after noon, about five dozen protesters gathered next to the county administrative offices at 651 Pine Street, where Chevron representatives were meeting in a hearing with the county's assessment appeals board.
Protesters held signs and a banner bearing the phrase "Occupy Chevron", while listening to Richmond activists, city officials and residents speak through a megaphone about the corporation's request for a $50 million refund on property taxes paid for its Richmond refinery.
Chevron officials said Thursday that since 2004, the company has overpaid property taxes due to the county assessors' over-valuing of the company's property, prompting the bid for a refund.
Earlier this year, Chevron representatives began meeting with the county assessment appeals board to negotiate a refund for property taxes the corporation paid between 2007 and 2009, Chevron spokesman Dean O'Hair said.
The company has already received an $18 million tax refund settlement from the county for taxes paid for 2004 through 2006, he said.
County Assessor Gus Kramer said Chevron requested a $36 million property tax refund for those years.
Shortly after the county assessment appeals board issued the decision to pay Chevron $18 million, the oil company filed a lawsuit seeking a greater refund from the county for the 2004-2006 property tax assessments, Kramer said.
He said that so far, negotiations with Chevron have reached a standstill.
"Dealing with Chevron right now is like trying to get a loan modification on your mortgage… it's impossible," he said.
But O'Hair said the corporation is simply hoping to come out of negotiations with a fair assessment of its property.
"People want to know that Chevron is paying its fair share of taxes and we're engaged in a process with the county that will determine that amount," he said.
He added that Chevron would work with the county to ensure that a future property tax refund wouldn't interfere with essential county services.
Protesters today, including Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and City Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles condemned the massive oil firm's appeal for more tax dollars, citing the company's multibillion-dollar profits over the last three months alone.
She said that last month, Richmond's City Council passed a resolution asking Chevron to drop its appeal.
Chevron has also appealed the county's property value assessment of its land for the years 2010 and 2011, O'Hair said.