Time and again Trump has made statements deemed politically incorrect (by some) only to advance further in the lead.
The latest supposed gaff happened in an interview with conservative radio commentator Hugh Hewitt when Trump appeared confused about which group is led by Qassim Suleimani. The scope of Trump's knowledge seemed all the more diminished as he admitted not being able to name several terrorist group leaders.
Consider first the United States and the groups and leaders here. Though almost none of them can be described as "terrorist" by the definitions often used, establishing whose allegiance is with them and who leads them can be difficult even for people born and raised here. There can be as many definitions of a "Republican" as there are people who claim to be one. Who leads the Republicans? Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Reince Priebus and John Boehner are all certainly high ranking Republicans, but the campaigns will determine their presidential nominee, and none of them are running.
Even more confusing can be the question who's a "Christian." Very different people with very different ideas all call themselves Christians. Naming their leader can be difficult too. Not all, probably not even a majority, of them would call the Pope their leader.
Understanding then the complications here in naming members and leaders, the difficulties naming the members and leaders of foreign groups can be put in perspective. Some definitions are simple though. To determine for example who is a "dog catcher" you can simply ask to see a paycheck. If a person has a paycheck for being a dog catcher then they probably are, however even that might be disputed.
Then there is the fact that people in the United States who do know which are members and leaders of terrorist groups might consider it clever at certain times and in certain places to not mention them.
So yet again, Trump might evade critics, only time can tell. If Trump is lucky, the members of Hamas and Hezbollah might get slightly confused themselves which they are, although because of cultural differences in the Middle East, groups can generally be more strictly defined than they are here.
Campaign 2016 might not be the most interesting in history if it doesn't address the United States Supreme Court decision that ranks among the most significant of those, the decision on same sex marriage. Although several candidates have expressed the need to support traditional marriage, none of them have garnered as much attention as the Clerk of the Rowan County, Kentucky, Kim Davis. She has chosen to stand her religious ground and defy court decisions that require her to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. A good question is what she will eventually do, take her case all the way to the Supreme Court? Don't laugh, it might work. As long as it can take cases to get to the Supreme Court, the membership might be different when the case arrives. It would only take one new member to tip the balance.
Perhaps more productive than that might be the plan several candidates and organizations have considered very seriously, amending the Constitution. There are several tweaks with quite much support among the general public. A good definition of traditional marriage is the most popular, having already been successful in amending the state constitutions of several states.
A big obstacle for Davis in generating yet another appeal is that appeals require new information. Appeals in U.S. courts are not granted unless some legal flaw is discovered that was not addressed yet, or some new argument is made that was not made yet. Courts don't change decisions without a clear reason. If the case is exactly the same the decision will be exactly the same. The time worn complaint that her religion forbids same sex marriage is not a new argument, not in its simplicity. It will need some dressing up. It doesn't matter how many people show up to support her if they don't find a new tune, the law won't join the chorus.
It should not be denied that she is a hero though. The people who do know and can make good new arguments for more godly government sometimes need help rallying. She can certainly help there. One little problem with that is the supporters of traditional marriage are mostly Republicans and she is a Democrat.
So the "controversy" over her use of the internet spares her the difficulties of running a primary campaign. Primary campaigns are notorious for making candidates more unpopular with the opposing party and making their campaign in the general election more difficult thereby.