According to Wikipedia, it means “asleep.”
Oh, that’s not what you were expecting on the day after the Iowa caucuses, in which Cruz bested Trump, and Sanders came within a liver-spot of beating Clinton. (Perhaps “beating Clinton” isn’t the right phrase. The feminazi brigade would accuse me of harboring a suppressed desire to enslave women.)
How bodes Iowa for the presidential race? I haven’t the foggiest, and anyone who opines otherwise is blowing smoke. Sure, there are some obvious losers, but they were obvious losers before Iowa. The leading contenders — Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Sanders, Clinton — are still the leading contenders.
I will say that Trump doesn’t stand a wig’s chance in a windstorm of winning the GOP nomination. The only question is which Cuban-American will get it — the Canadian or the Floridian.
And I can only hope that Hillary’s close call presages an outright defeat in New Hampshire. That’s to be expected, anyway, because Bernie is from a neighboring state, which is evidently an important qualification for the presidency. It enabled Jimmy Carter to win the South (and the presidency) in 1976.
Clinton (the misogynist one) even took Louisiana twice on the strength of his upbringing in neighboring Arkansas. I must admit, however, that Clinton’s appeal to Louisianans may have been due to his reputation for womanizing. Louisianans love “colorful” politicians (i.e., crooks and womanizers).
If the November election is between Cruz/Rubio and Sanders, the contrast between candidates will be as stark as it has been since 1964, when there was a choice between Goldwater and Johnson (JFK’s VP, not Abe Lincoln’s). Come to think of it, LBJ was a womanizer, as were predecessors JFK and FDR — also Democrats. Throw Clinton into the mix and you have a formula for electoral success: Democrat womanizer.
That would seem to rule out Hillary. Oh, wait, it doesn’t.