I wish someone sensible like Bill Gates would run, but he is probably too sensible.
Maybe Tom Cruise will run one day because he just knows he can win.
Printable View
I wish someone sensible like Bill Gates would run, but he is probably too sensible.
Maybe Tom Cruise will run one day because he just knows he can win.
Im rather excited to see someone who calls himself a socialist running for president. The smear campaigns should get interesting.
He'd never take the job, there arent enough sofas or closets in the whitehouse.Quote:
Maybe Tom Cruise will run one day because he just knows he can win.
Bernie Sanders will get his reputation ruined because of this, Clinton will give the Republicans fodder as she tries to counter the criticism that Bernie gives her. Now instead of cultivating support, she has to defend herself as a liberal and expose herself to Republican jabs when it comes time for the general election. Meanwhile, the Republicans wont have as big of a shit show as the last two elections, so instead of everyone looking like a fool, the Republican winner will come out stronger for it.
Why wouldn't it be the exact opposite?Quote:
Bernie Sanders will get his reputation ruined because of this, Clinton will give the Republicans fodder as she tries to counter the criticism that Bernie gives her. Now instead of cultivating support, she has to defend herself as a liberal and expose herself to Republican jabs when it comes time for the general election. Meanwhile, the Republicans wont have as big of a shit show as the last two elections, so instead of everyone looking like a fool, the Republican winner will come out stronger for it.
Also, I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders cares about his reputation in national politics when it comes to this...
I don’t see any reason to take any of the candidates seriously. The media will trash anyone they view as a threat to Hillary and she need do nothing except continue to tell her lies. The Republican Candidate that emerges will be the one most easily defeated and everything will continue on track.
Should the Republican win it still would make little difference as they will be beholden to the same people as the Democrat and the same special interests (Banks and Mega-corporations) will still get everything they want.
You may agree with what a party says but if you actually agree with what they are doing it is only because they managed to deceive you.
The interesting thing is that individual politicians in general actually do most of the things they say they will do while campaigning. Most outright "promises" are not technically broken.Quote:
You may agree with what a party says but if you actually agree with what they are doing it is only because they managed to deceive you.
But this is cleverly concealed through a mass of obscurantist and non-committal language. When politicians "say a whole lot of nothing", they're doing so in a very careful way. "Plausible deniability" is one way to put it.
Because anyone who is actually left-leaning has always been made to look like a fool by his opponents and by the media. Ralph Nader lost much of his reputation once he tried running in 2000. Dennis Kucinich took a beating as well and eventually couldn't hold onto his Congressional spot due to political redistricting.
You could say the same thing for Ron Paul, but oddly enough, while everyone else saw him as crazy during the elections, his followers just became more cult-like.
The reason why the Republican candidate will come out stronger is because there are at least two reasonable candidates this time around to spar against each other. Previous elections you had "the winner" and you had "the rest". It was embarrassing to see Romney play the primary game against Michele"all Democrats are traitors" Bachmann, Herman "how many women have I harassed" Cain, Rick "Jesus always takes my wheel" Santorum, Ron "Buy more Gold" Paul and Texan Rick "Texas" Perry from Texas.
Ah, but you see, there's some important distinctions:Quote:
Because anyone who is actually left-leaning has always been made to look like a fool by his opponents and by the media. Ralph Nader lost much of his reputation once he tried running in 2000. Dennis Kucinich took a beating as well and eventually couldn't hold onto his Congressional spot due to political redistricting.
You could say the same thing for Ron Paul, but oddly enough, while everyone else saw him as crazy during the elections, his followers just became more cult-like.
The reason why the Republican candidate will come out stronger is because there are at least two reasonable candidates this time around to spar against each other. Previous elections you had "the winner" and you had "the rest". It was embarrassing to see Romney play the primary game against Michele"all Democrats are traitors" Bachmann, Herman "how many women have I harassed" Cain, Rick "Jesus always takes my wheel" Santorum, Ron "Buy more Gold" Paul and Texan Rick "Texas" Perry from Texas.
1. Sanders is not an unsavvy politician.
2. He's no radical comparable to the Tea Party.
3. The Republicans are getting more unhinged by the day.
My prediction:
Sanders keeps Clinton honest, but more importantly acts as a lightning rod for Tea Party froth. In other words, Clinton keeps stable while the Republicans fall over themselves to condemn the 'evil Commies' and become even more extreme and accelerating their own collapse.
The only way this could fail is if the public at large reacts really strongly to the bare fact of a self-proclaimed socialist prodding Clinton to be more asseverent and turn to the Repubs in light of that alone - in which case I don't think the prospects would have been good for the left anyway...
That is yet to be seen. The campaign trail will show either way.
Sure he is, if we are going by US political conventions since 1992. The US left is now what used to be called "third way". Sander's is a bonafide Socialist, and some of his views are probably closer to Eugene Debs than Clinton.Quote:
2. He's no radical comparable to the Tea Party.
I would say the opposite, 2012 was off the rails. The Republicans are beginning to transition to a new platform more inclusive of Hispanics. This election may have some internal strife's from nativist views clashing with this retooling, but so far it is already better for the GOP (candidate wise) than this time 4 years ago.Quote:
3. The Republicans are getting more unhinged by the day.
I think you are way off base here with your predictions, but your last sentence gets close to the truth.Quote:
My prediction:
Sanders keeps Clinton honest, but more importantly acts as a lightning rod for Tea Party froth. In other words, Clinton keeps stable while the Republicans fall over themselves to condemn the 'evil Commies' and become even more extreme and accelerating their own collapse.
The only way this could fail is if the public at large reacts really strongly to the bare fact of a self-proclaimed socialist prodding Clinton to be more asseverent and turn to the Repubs in light of that alone - in which case I don't think the prospects would have been good for the left anyway...
https://berniesanders.com/issues/Quote:
Sure he is, if we are going by US political conventions since 1992.
Point out anything unusual, please.
At this point, Clinton would be about as left as Nixon.
That alone will have little bearing on the upcoming election, and the long-term productivity is still doubtful.Quote:
I would say the opposite, 2012 was off the rails. The Republicans are beginning to transition to a new platform more inclusive of Hispanics. This election may have some internal strife's from nativist views clashing with this retooling, but so far it is already better for the GOP (candidate wise) than this time 4 years ago.
Scott Walker...next POTUS...true story...
I'm a little surprised at Sanders rising to the occasion. I thought he might lie low for the same reason as Warren; not to expose the real divisions in the Democratic party.
It could nudge policy closer to the center; I consider all present American hopefuls as simply different shades of right-wing policy hucksters.
As Fisherking points out, the big surprise would be anything that does not cave to the Banks and Mega-corporations
???Quote:
There were no policies listed there. What am I supposed to point out? A liberal and a socialist will both say "gender inequality is wrong" but they will have two different policies towards it.
Aside from that not being a very clear example to focus on...
Sanders is exactly what Clinton's team wants. Since the GOP will, for the most part, attempt to paint her as a rabid lefty, she gets to primary campaign -- politely -- as the more sober and centrist Democrat against Sanders' well-intentioned but impractical hyper leftie. Since THAT message will go down much more palatably in the General Elections and since there is virtually ZERO chance of any of the Dem core support groups opting for the GOP in protest to Clinton's not being pure enough, the Sanders campaign is a good way for Clinton to strengthen her candidacy, not weaken it.
The greater threat is a "Green Party" candidate siphoning votes in the General Election and costing her a key state or two because she isn't "pure" enough for the more rabid fringe left wingers. Remember, if HALF of the votes that went to Nader in Florida in the 2K race -- many of which were protest votes against Gore 'abandoning' his eco-advocacy stance -- then it would have been President-Elect Gore by 2am the next morning.
Clinton's team will direct a good bit of effort at keeping any credible fringe left protest effort from forming -- and Sanders (fully litmus tested leftie) endorsement of her and promise to work with her administration in the cabinet if so asked -- will likely head off such a concern.
Now, can Clinton actually do as well as Gore in a General Election against a GOP opponent who has survived a fully contested primary season? A much more difficult question.
Im not so sure about this. I would say that there arent enough of the rabid environmentalists who demand an ideologically pure candidate to really change things, at least not anymore after they saw what happened in 2000. But we will have to see.
And its times like this I wish we had the Alternative Vote.
Carly Fiorina entered this morning on the Republican side. I'm curious on why she thinks her business "acumen" will get her anywhere politically, any competitor just needs to put an HP employee in front of a camera to see her off.
Yes that is true, but the question is that after the debacle of 2000, will people still vote as much as they did for 3rd parties knowing the harm it can do? Compare 2000 to 2012. In 2000, Nader got almost 3 million votes (2.74%). In 2012, the Green party replacement candidate, Jill Stein, didnt even get past 500,000 votes (0.36%). I think the political realities are dawning on the people who would vote third party, and anyone who is serious about their choice issues will vote for the person in the main two parties who represents them a bit more than the other. It certainly still is a danger, but I dont think as much as it was in 2000.
i thought California sent Carly Fiorina back to the tech world so she could ruin another company.
In reinforcing the idea that he would be no different than his brother, ol' Jeb said he would have invaded Iraq in 2003, even knowing what we know now. Personally I think he just torpedoed his chance of ever being elected, much less being nominated.
He then tried to backtrack but the damage was already done.
The way he answered it; it seems like he expected the question to be "would you have invaded iraq at the time" and either didn't notice the question prefix "knowing what we do now"
Or he did notice and had no idea how to answer it, so went with the question he prepared for.
I'm starting to notice a lot of politicians arent very good at improvisation.
If the GOP had any sense at all, they would pick George Pataki as their candidate. As a moderate Republican I think he would have an actual shot.
They probably want to check if he has a true American birth-certificate first, simply because his ideological position is "non-American" by being a filthy moderate. That is why Romey lost the election, naturally.