quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?

---

quote:

---

Biden is very, very smart but he's a loose cannon, he doesn't stick to the script. But he's more of a politician than Obama is and I think he knows DC well enough to get stuff done. I'd vote for him or Hilary no problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I appreciate the differences between the Presidential race, and the Senate and House races. Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race. The House is indeed gerrymandered. And the two-Senators per State structure works differently to the Electoral College in dealing with overall votes and popularity.

The real question is, will that built in advantage be enough? Can the Democrats recover/maintain sufficient support to have a good chance of winning in 2016? I don't think they can this time; unless the GOP helps them out e.g. by mobilising the ethnic minorities against themselves. (That can't be ruled out, of course.) Turn out looks likely to be a key factor.

I'll be keeping my eyes open for the next 538 blog on the topic.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62: Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
As a foreigner and one who does not really understand how US politics work, four things strike me as really surprising.
. . .

2. How much so many people seem to be driven by hatred towards Barak Obama. I know the rules don't allow him to stand again. So this shouldn't really be relevant anyway. From abroad, perhaps he's not that scintillating but it doesn't look as though he's been doing too bad a job. He's a lot better than his predecessor, and he at least tried to do something about the absence of a proper health service. Why this acrimony? To a foreigner he actually looks quite a good president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
3. How early this speculation is starting. This election is two years away. It's as though one starts thinking about Christmas in June.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Porridge:
Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.

And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.

(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.

---

I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.

---

There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.

Apparently the Cherokees are quite angry about it. Her claim was based mostly on family lore; when this was questioned, instead of examining the question and then saying 'Oops!, she dug in her heels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?

Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.

They were wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Canadian media report today that $4 billion was spent on this election of your's (Maclean's, CBC), with the big spenders and advertisers are such wonderful people as the Koch brothers who aired 44,000 ads, one in ten of the total ads aired, spending $300 million. Tom Steyer was reported as spending $73 million mostly against pro-pipeline candidates.

A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?

Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hillary--possibly with Elizabeth Warren for VP.

In 2008, I voted for H in the primaries. I thought both she and Obama needed a lot more experience, but they were who we had. Interestingly, any of the candidates in the fall election would've broken a glass ceiling of some sort.

For once in my life, I got to vote for a woman for president. That means a *lot* to me. I think H has earned it, this time. She was a good secty. of state, and I think she's finally found herself. She knows DC and the White House from the inside. I think she'd do a good job.

I don't know much about Elizabeth Warren. I did see her in a great interview with David Letterman. She grew up poor, still remembers it, and doesn't want anyone else to go through that.

If E and H run against each other, they'll split the Dem. vote. If they run as a team, they might just sweep the election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.

---

This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.

And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.

(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)

---

Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.

What Hebrew or Greek word does your Bible translate government provided health insurance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ IngoB
... as long as it's not Sarah Palin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.

---

quote:

---

The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...

---

That's still a matter of debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Also worth pointing out that while we had a swing to the right for the Senate, we also had three states (well two and DC) legalize recreational marijuana.

Just a reminder that the US is a large and very diverse country when it comes to politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.

---

Okay, a mistaken claim. The point is that confronted with very solid evidence of the mistake*, she refused to look at it. She still insists she's part Cherokee.


*The Cherokee genealogists had very extensive records.

Moo

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.

--Tom Clune

---

Nice one
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Moo, I am part Cherokee, but none of the official people will acknowledge it, papers and family history--and physical resemblances--notwithstanding. My ancestors, like so many others, missed out on the Dawes Roll thing. In our case we applied too early and then didn't reapply--IIRC there were several years worth of applications where this happened to people, so much so that the gen. research sites suggest alternative methods for those caught in this bind. But that isn't going to get me tribal recognition regardless of what I prove. Great-great-granddad didn't sign up properly and so we missed out on land ownership, among other things (which is the humorous example I use with students to remind them to sign my attendance sheet!). There are also plenty of tribes (since Warren has claimed two) that won't officially recognize people who don't have a certain percentage of Indian blood, which means that in one generation you can go from accepted to "go away." There is also the problem of the freedmen--people (often black) who lived with the tribes and sometimes intermarried, who were Cherokee or whatever in all ways except birth--there are fights about how to designate these people and their descendants. Do they count as Indian or not?

Indian gen. research is complicated by the fact that some families have generations that purposely hid their identity for reasons of shame or racism. Grandma V did this, and the family history was whispered in corners. Easy not to know if no one whispered to you! like some of Warren's cousins. In my case, Grandma's mother was still living and damn proud of her ethnicity when I questioned her (not too pleased with daughter's hushhush attempt, which probably contributed to their alienation over the years). But what if she'd been dead already? I would never have known they sent her to Indian school.

I'm guessing at least half of those with Indian ancestry are in similar nonprovable boats. And I am worse than Warren as I have always checked the Indian box on forms, and even benefitted from cultural enrichment programs in primary school, despite having even today no official "proof" of my ancestry. (And I refrain from allowing school pubs etc to designate me as first Indian whatever, just as Warren did, because I'm embarrassed to do so when I retain neither the language nor the culture nor anything but blood by my generation. Too embarrassing to claim a distinction that should go to someone with a clear and living tie to the modern tribes.)
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.

Which isn't the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.

Which isn't the same thing.

---

Here is some evidence.

Even if her family story were true, she is only 1/32 Cherokee. This should not qualify her for affirmative action. I would have no problem with her claiming to be Cherokee if she had not claimed special benefits.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...

---

Well they will reap what they sow, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship. Is he a socialist spy from the North? They have free healthcare up there - gasp!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Here is some evidence. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...

---

That's still a matter of debate.

---

My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seekingsister:
[qb] Going back to Barak Obama, am I right that the accusation by the conspiracy theorists isn't that he is barred because Hawaii isn't really in the US - even though the rest of us all think it is - but that he wasn't really born there at all and the records have been faked? Presumably this was by someone who had a strange foreknowledge that in 48 years time this small baby was going to run for president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

If the US is a secular state, why would being a Moslem - if he were one which it seems very clear to everyone else that he isn't - bar one from being president?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

I've wondered why this was never brought up when Mitt's dad was trying to get the nomination. (He was born in a Mormon settlement in Mexico.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya. Being a Muslim wouldn't disqualify Barack Obama or anybody else from serving as president. Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.

The 'birtherism' nuttiness is merely a thin veil for racism. Which is why it is important for the fantasy birth place to be Kenya. It would never do for the late Mr. Obama to have his future-president son in, say, Belgium or Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The issue WAS raised about John McCain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's because Obama won the election and McCain did not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.

--Tom Clune

---

Nice one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Also a concert pianist. That definitely would rate highly in my book. Not that I have a vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.

---

Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.

---

quote:

---

And like Lamb Chopped, I haven't seen anything in my research this evening that demonstrates Warren claimed special benefits. As far as I can see, she made the claim after being employed, not before, and in fact it's her failure to claim any special benefit while a student that has people saying she's been inconsistent.

---

quote:

---

The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
But Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority.
{snip}
Harvard hired Warren for a temporary position in 1992, and the law school reported a Native American woman on its federally mandated affirmative-action report. The program did not report a Native American woman for 1993 through 1995, during which time Warren was back at Penn — she had spurned Harvard’s initial offer of a tenured position, according to a Globe report.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.

---

Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

---

I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.

---

That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.

--Tom Clune

---

Nope, it was 5-4.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
If her mother had any Cherokee ancestry, then Elizabeth has only half as much. If her mother did not have enough Indian ancestry to list it on a census form, Elizabeth, with only half as much, should not have listed it on any application.

I read a lot more about this two years ago when the subject first came up. I don't remember what all the websites were, but I read Warren's side as well as the Cherokees. The Cherokees were far more convincing, and I hold it very much against Warren that she refused to talk to them.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't mind the legal qualifications for federal aid, etc. That's reasonable, since some test must exist.
{snip}
I'm not claiming aid. I wouldn't take it if it were offered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doesn't mean you won't get a conservative Republican in the Oval Office. Just that he or she will need to be a smart conservative Republican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Given the choice between her and Elizabeth Warren, I'd hope that registered dems would choose experience and political savvy over youth and energetic speeches this time around.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's early to tell for the GOP, but I suspect they'll do what they did in 2012 and 2008 and nominate Chris Christie. He's moderate to quasi liberal now (well, at least he acknowledges man-made global warming) and I'm sure he can gin up enough conservative rhetoric to convince the right-er leaning members of his party that he's both electable and actually a conservative.

---

Bridgegate is too much of a liability for Chris Christie. Ted Cruz is scum. Jeb Bush is a has been and missed his opportunity to be president when he lost the 1994 governors election to Lawton Chiles and George W. Bush beat Ann Richards. Rick Perry is an idiot. Mitt Romney is a two time loser. Rick Santorum hasn't held elected office in years. That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP. My money would be on Rand Paul. I stopped taking Rubio seriously after the stupid comment about Republicans not needing any new ideas because they had an idea called America and it still worked. Of the Republicans beloved by the Tea Party, Mike Lee would be my choice. However, 2016 would not be the year to run a senator for president. Republicans have to run one of their governors.

Now, if the Republicans let me control the legislative agenda for the next two years, they would pass bills increasing the minimum wage, raise the earned income tax credit, forgive some student loans, and pass sentencing reform. Democrats couldn't oppose them. Obama would sign them. Hillary Clinton couldn't claim a bit of credit for any of it. After that, they would attack all of unpopular parts of Obamacare and put the Democrats on the defensive. Then, the Republicans could run a senator for president.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Beeswax Altar--

Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.

Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.

If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.

 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--

Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.

Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.

If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--

Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.

Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.

If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.

---

What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, if the Republicans let me control the legislative agenda for the next two years, they would pass bills increasing the minimum wage, raise the earned income tax credit, forgive some student loans, and pass sentencing reform. Democrats couldn't oppose them. Obama would sign them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republicans have supported raising the EITC in the past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Every time the Republicans win an election, the supposedly impartial talking heads tell them the voters want them to compromise and work with the Democrats. When Democrats win, it's a mandate for change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.

Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE] My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.

Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
-she might be more moderate than either her progressive challenger or Republican opponent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.

Clown cars, start your engines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.

Clown cars, start your engines.

---

Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.

Another conservative to split the tea party vote and nominate a moderate in the primary.

---

quote:

---

Former Virginia senator Jim Webb on Wednesday evening announced that he is launching an exploratory committee to consider running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

"Over the past few months thousands of concerned Americans from across the political spectrum have urged me to run for president," he said in a video released on YouTube Wednesday. "I have decided to launch an exploratory committee to examine whether I should run for president in 2016. I made this decision after reflecting on numerous political commentaries."

<snip>

The announcement came as a surprise to political watchers. Webb, who had said previously that he was considering a presidential run, is the first potential Democratic candidate to launch an exploratory committee. It is unclear if his announcement will precipitate other Democratic exploratory committees in the near future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.

Moo

---

Census reports don't go into details of mixture, though, do they? I mean, if someone asked me about my national heritage I'd want to tell them I was half-English with a fair amount of Irish believed to be in the other half, and a suspected dash of Cornish but we can only find that bloke's marriage certificate in London where he says he was from St Ives but we've not found anything to verify that claim... but I doubt there's a box for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


In other words, do not rely solely on the documents as sometimes family tradition can make more sense...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For example He dismisses Wisconsin reelection of the Governor as irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I came across this entry at the "GOPlifer" blog at the Houston Chronicle website. The basic gist is that unfavorable demographic and electoral trends prevent any Republican candidate from realistically obtaining the White House in 2016.

From my perspective, I think Chris Ladd is reading too much into the mid-term results. It's almost impossible to project mid-term results into presidential year turnout. For example, Mitt Romney carried West Virginia by a margin of 26.8 percentage points in 2012, yet we're supposed to believe (according to Mr. Ladd's map) that the state is up for grabs in 2016 because of close mid-term results this year? Or that Nevada, which Obama carried by a much slimmer margin of 6.7 percentage points in 2012, is completely out of reach for the GOP in 2016? I don't think the American electorate has shifted that far in two years.

---

quote:

---

Vote suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races. Meanwhile we kissed off minority votes for the foreseeable future.

---

quote:

---

RuthW: She didn't do a great job at HP, and she was forced out of the job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--

Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.

As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I suspect the supporters of Obamacare, though a minority, are more likely to allow its defence to influence their vote than critical Democrats to desert.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--

Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.

As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.

---

The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.

So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.

---

Bingo.

 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
The Hill just published its list of thirteen most likely Republican presidential candidates. Most of the names above the "Waiting in the Wings" section have been mentioned on this thread already with the exception of Mike Huckabee. While the opening quote calls this "the most open field we’ve ever seen", to me it seems eerily reminiscent of 2012.
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


Now, the Democrats are determined to give Hillary Clinton her opportunity to run for president in a general election. Few people of any political persuasion are in love with her. I don't get it. Democrats should nominate Amy Klobuchar. She has all the same policy positions as Clinton and she's likeable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--

Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.

As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.

---

The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.

So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).

---

I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
So unless they nominate her for wrecking a worker-friendly culture...which is not out of the question...

---

quote:

---

Next month, Gov. Bobby Jindal is bringing a mass prayer event to LSU's campus sponsored by a conservative Christian group that has espoused controversial views on a number of issues, including the causes of Hurricane Katrina.

---

Isn't this how Rick Perry kicked off his presidential bid in 2012, with a supposedly non-political prayer rally? Of all the Republican efforts in 2012 that seems like the the one future candidates should try to avoid emulating. It was poorly organized, the candidate was ill-prepared for public appearances, and . . . there was a third thing but I forget what it was.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
It doesn't surprise me at all. The US is not really a democracy. If we were a real democracy, we'd have real choices when choosing major-party candidates for president during the primaries. What actually happens is that all the money lines up behind the few preferred candidates of the rich, powerful elites, and we get to choose among those few people. The rich, powerful elites are fine with political dynasties -- they're all about keeping things in the family.
 

---

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.

---

Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
We could have added the Kennedys if only they didn't keep getting assassinated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
The only reasons the Republicans are doing well in Congress is

A) gerrymandering of districts in the House
B) standard shift away from party of the incumbent president in the Senate

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presidents having to show Christian credentials? Meh. What you have to do is show alleged MORAL credentials. Which is why a Mormon made it as far as he did in the last race, and why Jimmy Carter got bagged on all the time for actually believing all that stuff and letting it affect his actions. (Mustn't go that far, of course!) Basically what you must have is church membership in a mainstream denomination, the duller the better (we're not looking for much more than that as an electorate, and we'll get squeamish about active activity such as teaching or preaching, or even membership in some of the denominations with a more "active" reputation.) and an ability to make broad sweeping statements that can't offend anybody (for example, Muslims/Jews/extreme patriots/other Christian groups, which means avoiding a lot of potholes, most notably all but the most glancing of references to Jesus). So no praying in Jesus' name or mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you, which includes your private life (which won't be private, of course). But you can quote him as a great human teacher all you want, and it will add to your moral cred (don't ever come out and say that, but do act from that perspective and you'll be all right).

---

This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!

Republicans
There are so many Republican contenders (declared, soon to be declared, and still "exploring") you could almost do a statistical analysis of their religious beliefs. So how do they shake out?

Declared Candidates (listed in chronological order of declaration of candidacy)

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.

Randal “Rand” Paul – Born into the Presbyterian faith and still allegedly an adherent. Some would say his true gods are libertarianism and capitalism, but he is officially a member of a "mainstream denomination".

Marco Rubio – Rubio is the most interesting case of all the announced candidates. He was born into Roman Catholicism, spent time as a Mormon, then attended a Protestant megachurch before returning to Catholicism. He identifies as Catholic but also still attends that Protestant megachurch. One blogger described it as "Sunday mornings with the Virgin Mary, Saturday nights with Fun Jesus!" Neither one of these qualifies as a "mainstream denomination", a term which in an American context typically means "Mainline Protestant". Besides, whatever other criticisms can be leveled at the Catholic Church, "squeamish[ness] about . . . teaching or preaching" isn't one of their faults.

Benjamin “Ben” Carson – A Seventh Day Adventist, definitely not considered a "mainstream denomination".

Cara “Carly” Fiorina – Raised as an Episcopalian but currently "an irregular churchgoer who is not affiliated with a particular denomination". I'm not sure birthright membership really counts as "church membership in a mainstream denomination".

Michael “Mike” Huckabee – Not just a Southern Baptist but a Southern Baptist minister. Still not a "mainstream denomination". (See entry for Ted Cruz above.)

George Pataki – A lifelong Roman Catholic. Despite much more widespread social acceptance of the faith in the U.S. since it was a stumbling block for JFK, it doesn't fall into the usual parameters of a "mainstream denomination" for either American political purposes or LC's description of the term. (See entry for Marco Rubio above.)

Richard “Rick” Santorum – Not just a Roman Catholic, but a Catholic so secure in his faith he feels comfortable lecturing the Pope on the contents of upcoming encyclicals. (Ironically the Pope being lectured by Santorum to "leav[e] science to the scientists" has a master's degree in chemistry and is thus a scientist himself, something that cannot be said of Santorum.) Like Marco Rubio and George Pataki, not a member of a "mainstream denomination". In fact, given his advocacy of re-criminalizing homosexuality, Santorum is arguably outside mainstream Catholicism (by U.S. standards) as well.

Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.

Scheduled Announcements (have scheduled events to announce candidacy)

James Richard “Rick” Perry – Grew up in the United Methodist Church (the mainstreamiest of American "mainstream denominations") but suddenly switched to a non-denominational megachurch not long before his last attempt at the Republican Presidential nomination. Pretty much by definition you can't be a member of a "mainstream denomination" if you go to a non-denominational church.

Donald Trump – Born into the Presbyterian faith and claims to still be an adherent. This does qualify as a "mainstream denomination".

Exploratory Committees (have an exploratory committee but no announcement date scheduled yet)

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush – Surely this scion of old money New England belongs to some crusty "mainstream denomination", right? Nope. Although raised as an Episcopalian (a very "mainstream denomination"), Jeb Bush converted to Roman Catholicism in 1995. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, and Santorum as to why this isn't a "mainstream denomination" as the term is being used here.)

Christopher “Chris” Christie – A member of the Roman Catholic faith. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, Santorum, and Bush as to why this isn't a "mainstream denomination" as the term is being used here.)

Piyush “Bobby” Jindal – Another Roman Catholic. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, Santorum, Bush, and Christie as to why this isn't a "mainstream denomination" as the term is being used here.)

John Kasich = Interestingly identifies as "Anglican". Most Americans in communion with the Anglican Church identify as "Episcopalian", but either way I think he still gets credit as belonging to a "mainstream denomination".

Scott Walker – Currently a member of a non-denominational evangelical church. As noted under Rick Perry, you can't belong to a "mainstream denomination" if you go to a non-denominational church.

Democrats
A much smaller field here.

Declared Candidates

Hillary Clinton – A member of the United Methodist Church. As noted above (see Rick Perry) this is usually considered a very "mainstream denomination" in the U.S.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders – Although not particularly observant, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Though this is likely to help him avoid LC's mentioned pitfalls of "praying in Jesus' name" or "mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you", he's still not a member of a "mainstream denomination".

Martin O’Malley – A Roman Catholic. (See entries on Rubio, Pataki, Santorum, Bush, Christie, and Jindal.) It's interesting that half a century after JFK's Catholicism was considered an impediment the most numerously represented faith in the 2016 presidential primaries is Catholicism.

Scheduled Announcement

Lincoln Chafee – A member of the Episcopal Church, a "mainstream denomination".

Exploratory Committee

James “Jim” Webb – I can't find much about Webb's religious beliefs other than that he's identified as a follower of "non-denominational Christianity" on his Wikipedia entry. Once again, if you're non-denominational you can't belong to a "mainstream denomination".

So, if we abide by LC's rule of thumb, if the Republicans want to win the White House in 2016 they should nominate Rand Paul, Donald Trump, or John Kasich. Everyone else is just wasting their time and their donor's money because they don't belong to a "mainstream denomination". The Democrats, on the other hand, could choose either Hillary Clinton or Lincoln Chafee and still have a shot at the presidency.

There. That clears out and simplifies what was becoming a very cluttered field.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Short answer: Wait till after the primaries. Anyone and everyone can announce candidacy now, including a 35-year-old belly-dancing chain-smoking baboon. Just as long as it was born here.

And playing word games about non-denominational denominations is just silly.

[ 03. June 2015, 18:37: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.

---

Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The election is not for more than a year!

---

But it's only two months until the Iowa State Fair, where candidates will be evaluated on whether or not they can eat a corn dog in a dignified manner. I truly cannot think of a better way to evaluate leadership ability.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!

. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.

. . .

Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.

---

But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!

. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.

. . .

Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.

---

Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.

As for "denomination," I know plenty of Southern Baptists who have no problem at all with the Southern Baptist Convention being called a denomination. But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.

---

• dull (optional)
• not engaged in active activity such as teaching or preaching
• don't have an "active" reputation
• make broad, sweeping, yet inoffensive statements
• never make any but the most glancing references to Jesus
• never pray in Jesus' name
• never mention Christian doctrine where anybody can hear
• only quote Jesus as a "great human teacher"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:

• dull (optional)
• not engaged in active activity such as teaching or preaching
• don't have an "active" reputation
• make broad, sweeping, yet inoffensive statements
• never make any but the most glancing references to Jesus
• never pray in Jesus' name
• never mention Christian doctrine where anybody can hear
• only quote Jesus as a "great human teacher"

These characteristics don't make me think of Southern Baptists generally or any of the various presidential candidates claiming to be Southern Baptists specifically. They do sound s lot like the standard criticisms white American evangelicals have been leveling against mainline Protestant churches for the past several decades, ever since they decided that "evangelical" and "mainline Protestant" were mutually exclusive categories. You can see why the equivalence was noted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.

---

With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.

---

quote:

---

Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?

Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it. I doubt either, that the CofS would want to have links with a Presbyterian church if it really met the Crœsos test.

There are plenty of people in the CofE who would pass the Crœsos test, but we don't all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich

You saw it here first!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich

You saw it here first!

---

How do you figure that?

---

That would be awesome...for the Democrats. Rubio is very unpopular with Hispanic/Latinos and since approximately 50,000 Hispanic/ Latinos turn 18 and become eligible to vote each month, in states with large numbers of electoral college votes, that doesn't bode well.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Rubio is a well funded candidate acceptable to all factions of the Republican Party. Kasich has the experience in congress and as a two term governor that Rubio lacks. To win the White House, the Republicans need to win Ohio and Florida. Rubio will carry Florida. Kasich just won re-election in Ohio by a landslide.
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
According to Quinnipiac University's latest poll of Florida voters:

Clinton at 46 percent to Rubio's 44 percent

Bush at 45 percent to Clinton's 42 percent
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Bush likely won't win the primary. Polls are within the margin of error and a year and a half before the election. Besides, I'm not predicting Rubio can win the election just that he will be the nominee.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
Being well funded certainly is a healthy indicator at this stage (which is a sad statement on our system), but as the stragglers start falling off the big question for the remaining candidates will be "who can defeat Hillary?"

Rubio might be the best bet, but as has been stated, his unpopularity with Hispanic voters might sour his image as a suitable candidate for the showdown with Clinton.

It's hard to tell right now, but if last time is any indication then look for the guy consistently placing second in all the polling.

Also, if Republicans do manage to shaft Obamacare recipients via the upcoming supreme court decision, then look for the more moderate GOP candidates to surge in popularity, especially in red states where the court decision is going to be felt most.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Republican primary voters want to see Obama care eliminated.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Voldemort is polling better.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Voldemort is polling better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

Also, if Republicans do manage to shaft Obamacare recipients via the upcoming supreme court decision, then look for the more moderate GOP candidates to surge in popularity, especially in red states where the court decision is going to be felt most.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Here is the thing. The potential Supreme Court ruling only affects 6 million people in the 37 red states. 6 million seems like a large number but it is stretched out over 37 states. How many of those 6 million people were ever going to vote Republican in the first place? Of the ones who were going to vote Republican, how many of them only purchased insurance to avoid the fines? Of those who were potential Republican voters who like Obamacare, how many of them are voting strictly on that issue? How many of them will vote in the primary? The backlash against candidates who oppose Obamacare in the Republican primary will be negligible. What there is will be more than offset by Republican voters delighted with Supreme Court decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.

---

Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.

---

As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
certainly the case.

Either way, the man-child will be replaced. That will be great whether it's Hillary or any of the (r)s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.

---

This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.

---

Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.

Now, many in the Republican Pary believe they are to the right of the American people on social issues and to that end have all but thrown social conservatives under the bus. Unfortunately, social conservatives make up over a 1/3 of the GOP vote. Hard to believe their votes could be replaced by all the social liberal hawks who believe the rich are getting a raw deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich

You saw it here first!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich

You saw it here first!

---

ouch

---

That's OK. I intend to vote for Elizabeth Warren even though she insists she's not running...

 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Warren is great. I haven't voted for a Republican for president since elder Bush. The only one that scares me is Cruz, he reminds me of a Stephen King character for some reason.
 

---

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich

You saw it here first!

---

ouch

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Jeb Bush has unveiled his new primary campaign strategy: sending waves of his followers on a hopeless charge against entrenched artillery. Casualties are expected to top out at no more than 50% overall. Seriously though, if you're going to make an historical reference you should at least be familiar with the events you're referring to and how it turned out for the participants.

Then again, maybe it's just the Bush family's natural foot-in-mouth speaking style coming out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What I find telling is, successful or not, the campaign Jeb is referencing is a famous Confederate Army action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.

---

This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.

---

Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.

If I owned an MLB team and I was picking a manager, I'd be more interested in your managerial experience then what's on the back of your card. Two different jobs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Being able to deal with Congress is therefore a pretty vital component of the job. I therefore query whether having been "in charge" of something is actually the best indicator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".

---

I'm only familiar with the TV series. But IIRC Stillson was the seriously-disturbed politician, whose life kept intertwining with Johnny's?

I can see the comparison. My main problem with Ted Cruz (besides his being a Republican) is his father's Dominionism theology, which involves Ted and other men being anointed as kings/princes and producing an "end-times transfer of wealth" from evil people to Christians.*

Makes me wonder if Rafael Cruz is like Stillson's dad.


*That isn't exactly the wording in this particular article, but versions vary.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

I can see the comparison. My main problem with Ted Cruz (besides his being a Republican) is his father's Dominionism theology, which involves Ted and other men being anointed as kings/princes and producing an "end-times transfer of wealth" from evil people to Christians.*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!

---

quote:

---

[P]opularity is performance in politics, and Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him. A whopping 57 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to an average of the three most recent polls. That beats former record holder Pat Buchanan, who had a 43 percent unfavorable rating at this point in the 2000 election cycle.¹ Buchanan, of course, ended up running as an independent.

-----
¹For each candidate, I averaged the three most recent polls in the first half of the year before the primaries. But for some candidates, only one or two polls were available.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... The reason he is to be feared is because he is a spoiler. He may, from pure nuttiness, draw support and money away from more viable candidates. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.

---

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LeRoc--

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.

---

Are you being serious or sarcastic, please? Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda--

Yes, but... (re Trump)

--People do sometimes elect a nutter, or someone who's incapable, or unqualified, etc. IMHO, Dubya Bush springs to mind.

--People who are overly enamored of Trump's "Apprentice" reality shows and celebrities in general may feel he's a fine choice.

--Trump's still a Truther, and there are others out there. And they may be as relieved to get rid of Obama and get a Truther as many, many people were to get rid of Dubya and get Obama.

We may not be out of the Truther woods yet...

 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
His financial record will do for him - didn't he famously get a billion pounds in (entirely legal) debt during the eighties ?
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I was referring to a statement from the Democratic National Committee after Donald Trump announced that he would run. More information here.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LeRoc--

Aha. ROTFL. Thanks for the link!
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
... People do sometimes elect a nutter, or someone who's incapable, or unqualified, etc. IMHO, Dubya Bush springs to mind. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?

---

quote:

---

Enoch: A crackpot then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?

---

A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?

---

A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."

---

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?

---

A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."

---

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html

---

Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.

---

What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.

---

To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html

---

Is that article really true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Of course, the main point of such articles is to create a false equivalency, which mostly serves to shut down any kind of thoughtful analysis (both sides are exactly equal in crackpottery) and to give the reader a sense of his or her own moral/intellectual superiority over all those fools. I'm pretty sure that no Democratic presidential candidate has suggested George W. Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.

---

http://www.trump.com/charities/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.

---

http://www.trump.com/charities/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that he gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand. So it's not that he doesn't care about human beings as a whole; he simply doesn't care about Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that [Trump] gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.

---

http://www.trump.com/charities/

---

Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other . . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.

---

In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?

Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?

---

quote:

---

Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?

---

quote:

---

Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.

---

In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?

Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.

---

You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.

---

quote:

---

irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?

---

No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.

quote:

---

Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?

---

yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.

quote:

---

Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.

---

It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.

---

quote:

---

I've never heard it even argued that it should be anyone else's business in a country where voting is not compulsory, to be entitled to know whether you voted or not.

---

quote:

---

Most of us would be very sensitive of any suggestion that local authorities should decide who to employ depending on how they voted. The suspicion does exist, particularly of some authorities, but it is regarded as one of the most obvious markers of corruption.

---

quote:

---

We don't have primaries here. There've been arguments for them, but I hope we never do. I can't see the point of them or where they fit into the system. But surely, if you have them the parties are responsible for running and paying for them, not the government.

---

quote:

---

What is the difference between 'Libertarian' and 'Unaffiliated'? Unaffiliated translates to me as 'undecided' or 'none of your business', but presumably that excludes you from both primaries.

---

quote:

---

But Libertarian sounds like sex drugs and rock and roll.

---

quote:

---

The press is a different issue altogether, but at least nobody is obliged to take any notice of what they say. I don't. Do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.

Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?

---

Even if he wasn't able to do anything about it, it would make enduring it that much easier.

The greatest gift the GOP could give the country would be to keep running the fools they've put forth so far, to the extent that Stewart decides its just far too much fun to get outta the game now just when the work is writing itself, so that he cancels his plans for imminent retirement.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I think that some of them don't even need to be mocked. Some of them can mock themselves quite effectively.

I guess it's not easy for a comic presenter sometimes to think of something even weirder than the candidates have already done.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.

---

I understand that this depends on the State you live in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that some of them don't even need to be mocked. Some of them can mock themselves quite effectively.

I guess it's not easy for a comic presenter sometimes to think of something even weirder than the candidates have already done.

---

...especially if the comedian doesn't want to give even weirder ideas to the candidates!

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.

Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:

Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?

---

Again, Minnesota leads the way. Well, in the Senate anyway...
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Cher's expressed her opinion of the Donald's candidacy.

 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

When another follower asked her to choose between Trump and fellow Republican Ted Cruz, her response was just as frank: "That's like saying 'would you rather have a Migraine or Throw Up.'"

---

BURN.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, is Trump insane, a publicity whore or is he there to set a floor so low that it raises every other Republican candidate by comparison?
Or is he just drumming up support for Ted Cruz, the only Republican who can get away with saying shite* like this?


*though he should generate outrage amongst voters of Mexican decent as he is not Mexican.

[ 07. July 2015, 01:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A better theory is that he is a secret Democratic mole, sent in with a brief to make all the other Republican candidates look like idiots. He will be at the debates, for sure. He will say something outrageous, about women or rape or Mexicans. All the other candidates will hem and haw, or blink helplessly, or blurt out a foolish agreement. It will be on YouTube for months, and the vilification will be continuous.
And Hillary will win!
 

---

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.

Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?

---

Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
The only good thing if Jeb Bush wins is that we'd have a Latina first lady. AFAIK, they've all been white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think Trump has just about guaranteed that a Latino will get the Republican nomination...unless party's brass are so anti-Latino that they can't see that it might get them a ton of Latino votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, is Trump insane, a publicity whore or is he there to set a floor so low that it raises every other Republican candidate by comparison?
Or is he just drumming up support for Ted Cruz, the only Republican who can get away with saying shite* like this?


*though he should generate outrage amongst voters of Mexican decent as he is not Mexican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Unfortunately the GOP seems to be treading the same well-worn path yet again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
They will enthusiastically support a tired, not particularly bright or charming, demonstrated liar and cheat for POTUS, and move Slick Willy back into the whor...er, White House again in the process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see myself voting in the general election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.

---

In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.

---

quote:

---

But then I'm getting to the point where I think the best plan may be to dissolve the US and form smaller more regional provinces or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.

---

In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.

---

I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.

---

quote:

---

At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Does anyone else take comfort in the fact that the election won't come down to one vote?

---

quote:

---

I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.

---

quote:

---

I'm just really glad that I don't have to know that my vote one way or the other made half of my family really upset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the North Carolina Jury Service website,

quote:

---

At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.

---

(emphasis added by me)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.

---

Yes. It's like that for most all of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.

---

quote:

---

A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.

---

This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:

quote:

---

A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They both ask, and I am a terrible liar. Not to mention the weeks building up to the election when I am the subject of "I can't believe he might vote for that guy" conversations among friends and family. It is ideally a personal, private matter, but these days so few people keep it to themselves that lots of people feel no shame in asking "so who are you going to vote for," or just launching into a rant on the assumption you agree with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
For people who don't want to read election news: Slate's election news blocker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So the warning was, if you see a police looking guy walking down the street for you, casually move away as fast as you could.

---

Could be good advice in lots of places and circumstances.

 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The latest news from the clown car; in a recent poll Trump poll lead widens. It's a small poll and many Republicans are hoping things change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Photo Geek:
John Kasich is officially in the race. I hope he can make it into the top 10. I want to hear him lecture The Donald about St. Peter.

---

• Mark Everson
• Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz
• Randal "Rand" Paul
• Marco Rubio
• Benjamin "Ben" Carson
• Cara "Carly" Fiorina
• Michael "Mike" Huckabee
• Richard "Rick" Santorum
• George Pataki
• Lindsey Graham
• James Richard "Rick" Perry
• John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
• Donald Trump
• Piyush "Bobby" Jindal
• Christopher "Chris" Christie
• Scott Walker
• John Kasich

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.

---

Why on earth do you think he will flame out by October? What could cause him to do that? Do you think he'll say something incredibly offensive? He already did that that and its put him the the lead in the polls.

I don't think he'll get the nomination but I think its quite possible he could win some of the Primaries. If Rick Santorum could win 11 primaries in 2012 why shouldn't Trump be able to win a few.

Then when he doesn't get the nomination there's the prospect of him doing a Ross Perot and running as a third party candidate. Seems to me Trump is having the time of his life and has no real motivation not to keep going.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about. Perhaps other non-US shipmates will tell me I'm just ignorant. But the only two that are likely to be known to even a moderately well informed foreigner are Jeb Bush because of his more famous dad and brother and Donald Trump for a collection of wrong reasons all of which mark him out as depressingly disturbing presidential material.

Are the rest all nonentities, or is there hidden gold somewhere in there?
 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.

---

I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?

That's almost too funny to wish against!
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Bill Clinton, at his best, would be an awesome First Gentleman. He'd have a great time planning who's going to sit next to whom at state dinners--both to help and provoke, and for his own amusement. Kind of like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's jewelry.


Unfortunately, he hasn't been at his best for a long time. Plus he's addicted to being center stage. And then there's the whole matter of keeping himself to himself...
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.

---

I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?

That's almost too funny to wish against!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about. Perhaps other non-US shipmates will tell me I'm just ignorant. But the only two that are likely to be known to even a moderately well informed foreigner are Jeb Bush because of his more famous dad and brother and Donald Trump for a collection of wrong reasons all of which mark him out as depressingly disturbing presidential material.

Are the rest all nonentities, or is there hidden gold somewhere in there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.

Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.

---

Not the first time I've heard those names linked. Although I generally think Nixon was more trustworthy than Dubya.


 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.

Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He doesn't need the party. He could run as a third-party candidate.

But I wouldn't get too excited about Trump enthusiasm.

---

quote:

---

Trump has also largely eschewed the poverty-shaming strain of Republicanism espoused in Paul Ryan's "makers and takers" rhetoric, Scott Walker's drug testing of food stamp applicants, and the "let him die" episode from a 2011 primary debate. But not all of the GOP base wants to stick it to the poors. Many of them are poor, and fed up with a government that doesn't seem to be looking out for them. They like Medicare and Social Security, and think Democrats are raiding the programs to fund Obamacare and Obamaphones. They don't see why banks should get bailouts while their friends get pink slips.

Trump is targeting that segment of the Republican party, which shares many economic concerns with Democrats and independents. Trump's campaign speeches don't revert to the time-honored Republican promise to "save" Social Security by slashing benefits for retirees. Instead, he vows to preserve the safety net -- even Medicaid -- by making everybody so rich that the programs would be on sound financial footing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Donald Trump has doxxed Lindsey Graham. After Graham called him a 'jackass' in a TV interview Trump responded by reading out Graham's cell phone number at a live televised event and Graham now has to get a new number.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.

---

I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.

---

quote:

---

Bibliophile: I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY

---

 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.

Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.

---

This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.

---

quote:

---

NEW YORK — Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will “absolutely” increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.

“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”

Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that “so many people want me to, if I don’t win.”
“I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans,” Trump said. “Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think any Republican candidate can win the 2016 Presidential election unless the GOP finds both policies and a candidate to attract the (very distrustful) Hispanic and Black voters. At present, there is not much sign of both of those things happening in time.

Here is a link, with a voter composition table which makes interesting reading.

Trust once lost is hard to regain. Coupled with state voting patterns, the electoral college structure is at present (and for the foreseeable future) more favourable to the Democrats, even if the popular vote is close. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?

---

Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.

You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?

---

Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.

You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.

---

That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.

I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?

---

Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.

You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/

---

Hilarious!

 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
A whole thread on the Electoral College from 2012 can be found here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.

You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/

---

Hilarious!

---

quote:

---

Brenda Clough: Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...

---

Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.

---

I know. I've been going to bed with Stewart (wink, wink) every night very years... it won't be the same.

I keep hoping that Trump et al will cause him to have a change of heart-- after all, with them in the race you don't even have to work all that hard, the jokes just write themselves... But sadly, he just keeps saying it's his lovely parting gift.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There's an interesting graphic showing where 2012's presidential campaign donors are bestowing their 2016 contributions (at least to date).

Barack Obama's backers, interestingly, are going to Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton by a fairly significant margin.

A plurality of Mitt Romney's backers seem to favor Marco Rubio. Who knew?
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
Also interesting to note how a number of Ron Paul sponsors went to Sanders...
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Politico says Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Walker will be auditioning for the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors this weekend. This may thin the herd somewhat.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Charisma Magazine says that Donald Trump has been anointed by God. Hope they'll do a retraction in two years.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
Triple
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.

article
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.

article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.

article

---

Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.

Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.

article

---

Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.

Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.

---

Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".

---

• Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
• J.E.B. Bush
• Scott Walker
• Marco Rubio
• Ted Cruz
• Rand Paul
• Mike Huckabee
• Ben Carson
• Chris Christie
• Rick Perry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.

---

quote:

---

As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.

article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.

---

Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps our Nick could arrange things so he could lounge in the swimming pool, drink beer and watch the comedy show all at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?

---

The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.

---

I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues

---

• Republican frontrunner Donald Trump
• J.E.B. Bush
• Scott Walker
• Mike Huckabee
• Ben Carson
• Ted Cruz
• Marco Rubio
• Rand Paul
• Chris Christie
• John Kasich

• Rick Santorum
• Bobby Jindal
• Carly Fiorina
• Lindsey Graham
• George Pataki
• Jim Gilmore

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless I'm missing something, the only woman is on the reserve list.

---

No, no. Lindsey Graham is a man...

Oh, wait. You meant Carly Florina. Never mind.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The "other six", who will be participating in the earlier "kiddie table" debate, are:

• Rick Santorum
• Bobby Jindal
• Carly Fiorina
• Lindsey Graham
• George Pataki
• Jim Gilmore

---

• Rick Perry

I'd like to claim I was being deliberately ironic (because, you know), but I was just sloppy.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
And the Democrats have finally gotten around to announcing their debate schedule. The first one will be in about two months, on October 13. Six debates overall, with (at least) the first four taking place before the first primaries/caucuses.
 

---

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
This article (NSFW language ahead!!!) is probably the best thing I have read about the election, the Trump candidacy, and the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Well, all I can say is, the competition for Next Faux Network Star did not disappoint.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
It was certainly interesting seeing "family values" voters out in force to defend against charges of misogyny made by a Fox news anchor.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August

---

Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.

---

That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.

---

That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.

---

Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

Oh well. Fox got its content, perhaps a little ratings bump, and advertizing dollars. If ESPN can invent a need for bowl games featuring mediocre college football teams so that it has something to show in December, I guess Fox can invent a need for debates in August, as long as the candidates show up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that the size of the Trump ego is such that he not only really believes that he can win the nomination, he believes he can win the election and become a viable president. This man's attachment to reality is of the most tenuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

I mean look at who he picked as his target. Prior to this, all sorts of people would have told you that Megan Kelly was only on TV because she has a pretty face and can spout Fox talking points.

---

quote:

---

If there is anyone who he can be sure that people will stop siding with in a few weeks max, it's Megan Kelly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?

Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.

I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

7lPeriod- shaming? Really? What is this, 1985?

Actually, what he seems to be implying is that women are sharper, more aggressive pundits when on their periods, so maybe we ought to use that superpower more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?

Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.

I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.

---

Bingo.

Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?

Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.

I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.

---

Bingo.

Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.

---

You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Does it really outway the cost of running in the first place ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What worries me about Trump is that when Hitler rose to power everyone thought he was a clown, too. His very presence in the lineup shows that there's something deeply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Why can't we have someone like him for president?

---

Well, he is running... when he first got in, I just thought he was too independent and too liberal to win... but I dunno, he's gaining a lot of traction. I thought the same thing of Obama around this time in the election cycle, was just praying he'd hang in there til the Calif primary so I'd get to vote for him at least once... and look what happened... in many ways, Sanders reminds me of Obama.

One little fantasy I've been spinning in my head has to do with the timing of Jon Stewart's exit from the Daily Show.. so odd for him to leave on the same day as the Republican debates which would have been a field day of fun for him... So I wonder... what if he quit so he can run Sander's campaign? Or a PAC that will support candidates and causes he cares about?

A pipe dream, but...

 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Try this on for size:

President Bernie Sanders and Prime Minister Tom Mulcair, sitting down at a Canada/US summit.


 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And in candidate news:

Ted Cruz Cooks Bacon With A Machine Gun (HuffPost).
 

---

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
I'm not sure that Trump cares about his place in history, but assuming that he does (and I see nothing suggesting that he doesn't), he will certainly be given a larger place if he forms a third part and runs, and an even larger place if he manages to carry a few states.

Also, the publicity garnered by a third party run would be enormous, particularly for someone likely to say or do something outrageously newsworthy every day.
 

---

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
Perhaps a Trump/Palin ticket?

I could see it winning a big chunk of the popular vote, and perhaps the electoral votes of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota....
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ldjjd:
Perhaps a Trump/Palin ticket?

I could see it winning a big chunk of the popular vote, and perhaps the electoral votes of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota....

---

Hey, we were having a moment there.
Don't go putting you-know-what in the punchbowl.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?

I'm wondering if Trump is going to win the nomination? Given unlimited funds and support by the tea party, I can imagine him sticking around for a long time.

I am marveling that a Drudge Report poll is being cited as evidence that he did well in the debate. Not what I would call an unbiased source. I saw a comment asking how many Democrats voted to continue the mischief.
Some of this is the unlimited money and some is the media not wanting to give up the excitement for the next few months of primary infighting with the other candidates.
 

---

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?

---

If Trump sends some money her way, she'll likely do whatever he wants. It will definitely be "TRUMP for President in 2016", not "Trump/Palin in 2016."

I think she still has a fair number of hard-core supporters who could provide a margin in some states although there is likely a considerable overlap with Trump boosters. Palin has a good record of stirring up such people.

Putting a woman (albeit Palin) on the ticket would

those who criticize his blatant misogyny.

In any case, it's hard to imagine that even Palin could say anything more damaging to Trump than the things he routinely says himself.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Palin/Trump:

At the RNC convention for the 2008 election, there was quite a tableau some time after McCain chose Palin over Lieberman for VP. IIRC, the speeches were over for the night. McCain and Palin were sitting next to each other on stage. Lieberman was just behind them, angrily looming over them like a vulture. I thought, "oh, neither Lieberman nor Palin should be behind any of the others on the stairs". Lieberman wanted the VP spot, expected due to his friendship with McCain, and both Palin and Lieberman probably wanted the top job.

I wonder what undercurrents there would be in a Trump/Palin candidacy?
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
Putting a woman (albeit Palin) on the ticket would

those who criticize his blatant misogyny.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?

---

I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.

---

There's always this.
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”

It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”

It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!

---

It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

The Donald is the real wild card in this election. I find very few redeeming qualities there (OK, I find none) but he stands a good chance of playing kingmaker--for the Democrats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Trump doesn't need the Fox News money but he definitely needs their unfair, not balanced backing from their various talking heads. The Fox Faithful are ditto heads.

This morning Trump says anyone who thought his remarks referred to anything other than nose bleeds are "deviants." He also says he will be "phenomenal to the women." Thanks for being so specific, Donald. I feel better now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So Trump has been uninvited to speak at a Red State forum after suggesting that Megan Kelly asked him pointed questions because she was on her period.

This is too easy. He makes a big fuss about how neither of the parties are ready for a straight talker who can cut through the B.S., drops out of the Republican primaries, but reminds everyone that he never said he wouldn't run as an independent. He goes out on top, and he gets will he or won't he coverage for the next 12 months.

I'd set the over / under at Labor Day, but that's three weeks out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A "Janet and John" summary of Trump's immigration policy now follows.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bibliophile

For your information, Fox News is not a news service. Its stock in trade is propaganda. I learned this by watching its coverage of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.

YMMV but if it does you are wrong.

---

Bear in mind -- it was founded by Rupert Murdoch.

 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Pigwidgeon

You may find this link interesting, despite it being a bit long in the tooth.

Particularly because of this observation.

quote:

---

The creation of straight-up propaganda networks like Fox News in America has done enormous damage to the quality of democratic discourse in that country. Many people blame the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission’s “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, under President Reagan, for setting this process of degeneration in motion. This rule had required broadcasters, both radio and television, to inform their audience about matters of public interest, and specified that “coverage of these issues must be fair in the sense that it provides an opportunity for . . . contrasting points of view.” This doctrine was, over the years, unpopular with both the left and right, depending on the tenor of discussion in the media. It seems clear, however, that a lot of current right-wing talk radio, as well as Fox News, could not operate as it currently does without the abolition of this rule.

---

"Straight up propaganda network" as a description fits in very well with the coverage of the last two Presidential elections by Fox which I personally observed. There were times when the bias was so blatant, I couldn't believe my eyes and my ears.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I mentioned elsewhere that the great tragedy of Christianity in the past twenty years or so is how it's been co-opted by politics:
A truly sad witness to us
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
A couple of days ago - I might be mis-remembering - I heard that Donald Trump said his favourite book was "The Art of the Deal" and his second favourite book was the Bible. Today, I heard the same two books, but reversed. Anyway ....



Does anyone really believe Donald Trump's favourite book is the Bible? Is anyone going to challenge him <cough> Pastor Huckabee <ahem>? And if I may be allowed a follow-up, what will the Bible-lovers make of his "I will be great on women's health issues"?

How long until the wheels come off the Donald Clown Car? I wanna see Bernie Sanders face off with Scott Walker, gorrammit.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I wonder if The Donald tithes.
 

---

Posted by Photo Geek (# 9757) on :
 
I have come to believe that no republican candidate has ever studied the Constitution and only one (John Kasich) has actually read any part the four Gospels.
 

---

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A couple of days ago - I might be mis-remembering - I heard that Donald Trump said his favourite book was "The Art of the Deal" and his second favourite book was the Bible. Today, I heard the same two books, but reversed. Anyway ....



Does anyone really believe Donald Trump's favourite book is the Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is anyone going to challenge him <cough> Pastor Huckabee <ahem>? And if I may be allowed a follow-up, what will the Bible-lovers make of his "I will be great on women's health issues"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How long until the wheels come off the Donald Clown Car? I wanna see Bernie Sanders face off with Scott Walker, gorrammit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.

---

quote:

---

Og, King of Bashan: People get upset with BLM for protesting Democrats rather than Republicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.

---

Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't know about State, but in my Agency the use of email for Classified information is discouraged. so yeah, I do find it believable that she never sent or received an email containing information designated as "classified". Such material may have been exclusively sent/received in hard copy, or via diplomatic data systems which are more secure than email. email is, in my experience, rarely use for that sort of thing. But my experience may be outdated, since it's been a while since I dealt with diplomatic issues at work. Nevertheless, I find it completely plausible that she did not handle that sort of email herself, but rather that staff would have handled it for her, and provided her with hard copy when necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The rule is simple: "Never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want a jury to see."

---

quote:

---

In my official days, I treated emails as if they were formal correspondence, and the only difference was that they appeared on screens rather than were inserted in envelopes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.

If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type. . . .

---

I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school. . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.

If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.

---

In my high school days in Ontario (1967-72), academic-stream girls would usually not take typing as that was for girls who intended to become secretaries and not go to university. I was one of the few males in the class (64 wpm on manual, IIRC) as I suspected that typed essays would soon become mandatory. By 1980, the tide had turned and all academic-stream students were taking typing.

I wish I had taken shorthand as well.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Yeah, I don't get that. Sure, typing was "girly" in the last century, but since the personal computer revolution, most of the male academics I talk to - especially those who come from countries with more rigid gender roles - *wish* they had learned to touch-type. Now they are always looking for someone to type stuff or complete complex web forms for them, and trying out every new voice-recognition product that comes out. When they do use a proper keyboard, they use a combo of hunt-and-peck backed up by autocomplete and spell-check, which produces some pretty wild results. That's the social cost of denigrating traditionally female sills.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Speaking as a two finger keyboard operator since entering the IT industry in the late 1960s ..

It was only the ease of real-time correction which enabled me to do the job at all. Touch-typing would have been a very useful skill to have had, but not essential.

The above post required, oh, about half a dozen(!) corrections, but since these days I just make them "on the fly" I'm not that aware of how rudimentary my two finger keyboard operating really is. Until I stop and count, realise how crappy I am.
 

---

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
I was watching the TV news tonight at a friend's place (I very rarely do so at home). There was an item with Donald Trump addressing a rally in North Carolina.

I was so glad to hear further up thread that he is unlikely to win the Presidential nomination, much less the race. I was beginning to think NZ might have to offer asylum to all sensible Americans if he did .

What an embarrassment he would be in office, akin to North Korea's Beloved Leader, but at least with more checks and balances.

Huia
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
In other news; a candidate called Deez Nuts is rising in the polls to 9% in the North Carolina polls against Clinton and Trump. The name is an alias for a 15 year old High School student in Iowa. After substantial social media support, he may be entering in the polls in other states.
 

---

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Wait, did that poll just show Trump polling ahead of Clinton in a three-way contest with Deez Nutz?

I was at a rock festival this weekend. I saw a man walking through the crowd leaning over to groups of people as he walked by and shouting "Trump for President," presumably hoping to get a rise out of someone. I was going to suggest that this was a perfect example of why people say they support Trump, but even I am beginning to wonder if he's got legs.
 

---

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
Which of the "family values" men in the legion of Republican candidates will be the first to hurriedly announce his withdrawal just before his name appears on the rapidly becoming public Ashley Madigan website?
Your bets are invited.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Tukai and all Shipmates

No they aren't. Remember Commandment 7 and the depth of pockets of the candidates compared with the more or less empty SoF pocket. After stories break and are carried by news media - well that's different.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.
 

---

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In other news; a candidate called Deez Nuts is rising in the polls to 9% in the North Carolina polls against Clinton and Trump.

---

On the link quoted above is a further link to
Limberbutt McCubbins who should be a shoo in given the interest in cats on the net.

Huia
 

---

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
I accept the hostly concerns about naming names but presume we can still speculate about when such an event, if any, might happen. My guess is sometime in the next month or two, firming to near certainty if we include not just the candidates themselves but also their staffers.
 

---

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I wonder how soon one of them will be the focus of an FBI investigation?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
I wonder how soon one of them will be the focus of an FBI investigation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?

---