a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

Feel like there should be a collective noun specifically for prez candidates at this point.

a loose affiliation of millionaire and billionaires and babies

JEB! re Pope's leaked encyclical

"I think religion ought to be about making us better as people, less about things (that) end up getting into the political realm."

the gall is simply breathtaking

http://i.imgur.com/6MdCik8.gif

you'll have a separate one for the serious Dem death match that none of u r entertained by, right?

http://assets.inarkansas.com/61159/hillary-clinton-mike-huckabee.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFVC3qYGYiE

A friend told me that in early May she and her husband hung out briefly with Rubio, his wife, and kids on the beach (they have a common friend). All I wanted to know was what he looked like in a bathing suit.

"Nothing remarkable. Slight gut, bad sunglasses," she said.

Did Rubio ask 'em for money (he's got debts to pay)?

If they let Trump into the debates--I'm not sure which is the worse option, letting him in or keeping him out--I expect you'll get a lot of screenshots of Bush looking like this:

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/content/uploads/sites/3/2012/10/1015-romney-debate.jpg

I don't know if Jeb! can pull off that bemused, slightly condescending patriarchal gaze quite like ol' WMR.

http://i.imgur.com/klzQBzs.jpg

and Ned Beatty as Jeb

looks like a ceo who knows the sec investigators are coming while he's talking to reporters who don't know yet

In photos like the one above of Romney at the debates, I always saw a kind of sad, resigned nausea as he looked at some of the other people on the stage with him (Gingrich, Cain, Perry), and that's how Bush will look upon Trump and one or two others this time.

Nah, Romney looks at everyone like that.

Trump in the debates will be great cuz he will say some obnoxious shit that the base will love and then the other participants will be forced to either dispute it (at their peril) or agree w it (at their peril)

Romney even pulls that shit at McDonalds.

http://i.imgur.com/XI4EKU5.jpg

tbf sad resigned nausea is the only appropriate response to McDs

two dogwhistle right-wing coworkers today spent a good portion of the morning talking about Trump on Hannity last night

"say what you want about the guy, he's got some good points." "he's right about the tax situation. i could see myself voting for him"

....is a conversation that was actually had, zero laughter

I dont know whether to kill myself or them at this point

they should totally vote for him

That McDonalds photo is great--maybe that expression is indeed frozen into place.

resting condescending-patrician face

looks like a ceo who knows the sec investigators are coming while he's talking to reporters who don't know yet

― j., Thursday, June 18, 2015 1:03 AM (19 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in love with this ^

http://i.imgur.com/AuS67tKl.jpg

uhhhhhhhhhhh
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH31ZopVEAAYGqD.jpg

the greatest photograph in the history of the primaries

I just got back from a brief trip and found this thread. May I say congratulations, Οὖτις, on the thread title. It gave both me and my wife irl lols.

brutal xxp

GOP clown car

About 328,000 results (0.37 seconds)

greatest photograph

not to discount the value of photos or to inflate the value of HRC, but Abe Lincoln was one awkward, ugly mofo, and if he were running today, an age where every candidate is photographed a minimum of 5000 times a day, we'd no doubt have some pretty brutal material to laugh at, too

however, he could tell a story, and a joke.

The fish swallower is certainly not a clown, and boy has she mastered the optics since '08. It's a transformation!

That fish picture really reminds me of the first episode of Veep, where Selina asks Mike what went wrong with her campaign, and he answers (apron) 'The hat. And that picture of you with a hotdog...'

I've found my primary protest vote.

Oh, and pickled herring eater is Angela Merkel.

To be comprehensive:

German chancellor Angela Merkel eats a pickled herring after the name giving ceremony for the fish trawler ROS 777 of the Warnemuender fishery in Sassnitz, eastern Germany.

o i c

why the fuck is it in this thread then?

do people really think bernie has a chance? i can't believe there are people who think that. so silly. Hill -vs- Jeb is such a done deal.

hill yes j.e.b. no imo

Yeah this time four years ago we were waiting for Perry to officially enter the race and sweep all before him.

I guess it's either jeb(!) or walker or maybe rubio? I can't imagine any scenario where it all lines up for anyone else.

"scott seward
Posted: June 19, 2015 at 10:47:23 PM
do people really think bernie has a chance? i can't believe there are people who think that. so silly. Hill -vs- Jeb is such a done deal."

Hmmm yes I remember when Hillary was also a done deal in 2008, good point

Hmmm yes I remember when Hillary was also a done deal in 2008, good point

Young (for a politician), hyper-charismatic black dude vs. cranky 95-year-old white guy who won't even comb his hair = not exactly the same thing.

obama had a ton of support by this point last cycle, already wrapped up a a bunch of endorsements and was polling well, also he was just a better candidate than ol bernie bless his heart

Feel like enough non-Republican people are sick of the Clintons to make it a thing.

Bernie will get a noticeable amount of protest votes, but nowhere near enough to mount a Eugene McCarthy-like challenge to the status quo. If he gets as much as 25% in any primary it will be a laudable miracle.

i've said it before and i'll say it again, if hill or jeb win it would mean 32 years of bush/clinton world rulership. frightening but true!

Something wrong w yr math there

Hw = 4
Bubba = 8
Dubya = 8

That's only 20. Even if hillary wins 2 terms that's 28.

Went back and checked - 10th June four years ago was when Perry first appeared on the relevant thread, by 14th July people were saying it was him Romney and Bachmann.

Which I think more goes to show that we know nothing at this stage.

My suspicion is that it won't be the endless free for all that happened last time, partly because that happened last time and clearly didn't help Romney, and partly because unless Jeb's face falls off at the first debate, the Republicans as a party are generally comfortable with him, unlike the animatronic Mr Burns that they went to any lengths (remember Herman Cain got a push?) to avoid four years ago.

xp "in the white house" is generally how that factoid's phrased.

Hw = 4
Bubba = 8
Dubya = 8

That's only 20. Even if hillary wins 2 terms that's 28.

I think people who care about this usually also include HW's 8 years as Reagan's VP.

yeah, i count the raygun/bush years.

Went back and checked - 10th June four years ago was when Perry first appeared on the relevant thread, by 14th July people were saying it was him Romney and Bachmann.

wait who was saying that Bachmann had a legitimate shot

Romney of all people calling for taking down confederate flag in SC

On mobile sry

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/20/mitt-romney-calls-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-at-south-carolina-capitol/

I'm not a gigantic fan of Romney by any stretch of the imagination but, as that article points out, he has been vehemently against the Confederate flag since forever.

"A legitimate shot" isn't really a concept that works well with 2012? But there's a bunch of people considering her as seriously in the race on the thread - comparison with Sarah Palin helps a bit of course.

Dammit

Bernie won't get the nomination, I don't think; but if he did, I legitimately think he would probably win the general against any of these fools.

Winning the nomination would certainly prove that Bernie had wide and deep support among the democratic base. Right there that gives him a good 40% of the vote. He'd be susceptible to being McGoverned by the Republicans, though, and the media would definitely echo that party line for them.

election fan fic

it's a nice fantasy, but the corpo-media-political complex simply would never permit him to be president.

also most pol dont want to vote for him

I don't think even Morbs is suggesting that Clinton isn't going to be the candidate? But it would be nice to have someone to publicly drag her back to the left.

the corpo-media-political complex won't even allow that

to have someone to publicly drag her back to the left.

until she's elected, right? I know after 2008 we don't believe lies from lying shitheads, right?

i mean, my God, Salon articles are already swooning over HilRod's "lefty" pronouncements so far.

http://www.fulwood-cadley.lancsngfl.ac.uk/images/library/Classes/Class%202/Song%20Collection/Pictures/Nursery%20Rhymes/mulberry%20bush.jpg

http://www.fulwood-cadley.lancsngfl.ac.uk/images/library/Classes/Class%202/Song%20Collection/Pictures/Nursery%20Rhymes/mulberry%20bush.jpg

Walker has true believer written all over him. He's not just pro-life; he ran for student council on an anti-abortion platform in college (he also promised to bring INXS and REM to campus). He doesn't just like Ronald Reagan; he and his wife got married on Reagan's birthday and hold an annual Reagan-themed anniversary dinner. Apparently he can't even pretend to be insincere about marriage equality.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8831247/scott-walker-true-believer

honestly I can't see someone with this weak a chin getting into the White House (important commentary, I know):
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/scott-walker-promising-bold-leadership-faces-gop-discord-in-wisconsin.html?_r=0

i am physically repulsed by his limp jaw, it's true

he's a less cute version of Vincent Kartheiser/Pete Campbell

plus slightly crosseyed

it's amazing what a hot show can do; Kartheiser is reptilian.

I was about to say that Ted Cruz has even less of a chin than Walker, but then I GISed and huh, I guess his isn't bad. Why do I always think of him as chinless?

His droopy eyes make him look like a cartoon nebbish, and a weak chin goes along with that type.

"he ran for student council on an anti-abortion platform in college (he also promised to bring INXS and REM to campus)"

did he succeed? if not then how can we possibly trust him to run our country?

otm

Black metal-style logos for 2016 Presidential candidates (both teams)

https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/status/613745877639802881

first response hall of fame

^ what was the first response? can't comprehend order of tweets due to awful new embedding/nesting system

"who isn't?"

so glad he's in, it's been a slow couple of days on the GOP-prez-candidate-announcement trail

welcome bobby!

I’m running for President of the United States of America. Join me: http://www.bobbyjindal.com/announcement/

join you bobby ok i will run for president too

gt it was this:

https://twitter.com/Treeee15/status/613746259812294656

you're right, twitter's new threading interface is just loathesome

idk if I can vote for you Marcos, how do you look in an oversized suit

welcome bobby digital

Tre` Lain ‏@Treeee15 1h1 hour ago
@BobbyJindal Are u fucking serious? I'm starting to think u might be on drugs . U just can't be this stupid

Jeb has seemed like a total moron so far, but Walker and Cruz are very weird looking. Real horse race I think.

I tuned into NPR the other afternoon for the first time in months and they were running not one but two completely content-free puff pieces on Rubio.

Like if I was running against him I'd just do a voiceover of whatever my message is over a repeating loop of him sipping off that water bottle for every ad.

jeb at one point seemed to have the invisible primary locked up but now ppl seem to be hedging, rubio seems like the only other conceivable establishment candidate, walkers too much of a true believer

Cruz surrogate Chumley (!) weighs in:

Another of Cruz's campaign co-chairs in the Palmetto State, state Rep. Bill Chumley (R), voted against opening debate on the flag. Chumley also told CNN on Tuesday night that he believed it more urgent to debate the fact that no one present at the massacre of nine black Charleston churchgoers was armed.

"We need to be focusing on the nine families that are left and see that this doesn’t happen again," Chumley said in the CNN interview. "These people sat in there, and waited their turn to be shot. That’s sad. But somebody in there with the means of self defense could have stopped this. And we’d have had less funerals than we’re having."

strikes the right tone

"people seem to be hedging in re. inevitable candidate" -- 2012 all over again.

these people sat in there, and waited their turn to be shot

GOP state representatives are a really deep bench of total fucking assholes, aren't they?

"people seem to be hedging in re. inevitable candidate" -- 2012 all over again.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:28 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the establishment was fully behind romney the whole time

^^ this

the diff is that in 2016 the establishment and the "Tea Party" and whatever you want to call Tenth Amendment dead enders and secessionists are all the same.

Yeah, all that claim means is that what "the establishment" wants is not by itself that important.

the establishment was fully behind romney the whole time

right, but the narrative was that voters were hedging.

xps don't think that's true. multiple & significant divisions, tensions, internal conflicts on the right

Yeah, all that claim means is that what "the establishment" wants is not by itself that important.

― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:05 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if the establishment doesnt get its candidate through the gop primaries itll be the first time

hard to imagine where that narrative came from:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hnhI6-fxOGU/TwtKuSKLYUI/AAAAAAAAAa4/wlNLDCi8AnA/s1600/poll+collapse.png

The final graph from RCP is more impressive, even - he went under to Gingrich for a second time, and finally to Rick Santorum.

isnt this kind of what the media wants? build em up, tear em down, rinse repeat?

I also subscribe to the conspiracy theory of polling that the media wants to show the race as close as possible at all times. It happed in 2012 here and also happened in the UK a couple months ago.. Media teased closest election evar then turns out they were totally rong.

polling in the usa is much more reliable than in the uk, poll averages/algorithms regularly call 95+% of congressional races correctly, the presidency w/in a point or two etc

the media def tends to over hype each individual poll in order to make races seem more exciting and volatile than they are but if you look at the averages/models it paints a much more realistic picture

The graph posted by Andrew F. is one of my favorite things ever. Mitt had steady, consistent support the whole time; the fluctuations were all from a restless and fickle group of people searching for the right NonRomney to coalesce behind.

Compare that with the current spaghetti:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

...it is no comparison at all. With so many people running, it is inevitable that they'll dilute each other's support, and tiny differences may become magnified in impact. Which may make for some entertaining hijinks, but could also just mean a mass of confusion and boredom.

I am pretty sure that the demographics make a Republican president unlikely. Perhaps the number of candidates indicates the amount of energy and hope on the Republican side. The way they see it, the president is unpopular, and Hillary has Titanic-level baggage. So PERHAPS their energy and hope are justified. But I doubt it.

Like a lot of people, I wish we had better choices on the Democratic side, but that's another story.

In the meantime I am hoping for good popcorn-munching fun. Bring it, GOP!

JE wanted the Romney path (which is p funny in and of itself) but it doesn't look like he's gonna get it

the media def tends to over hype each individual poll

Good grief yes, this morning CBS was telling me Trump's ahead in some poll. Maybe it's worst hair. A head in the hair poll.

I think 2016 looks like it does because of 2012, which looked like it did because of 2008, when the outgoing president's team were rat poison and the incoming "been waiting his time" candidate got beaten like a drum.

The future of the party was all up for grabs in 2012 - and against such a clearly incompetent incumbent, the presidency was within their grasp! But they were all terrible and it went to the Burnsbot, so now, against a candidate that serves as a personal affront to the longer-memoried of them, surely their time has come!

Mr. Jindal’s announcement address, here in the New Orleans suburb of Kenner, comes two days after the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found him sharing the bottom of a list of 16 candidates. In the telephone survey, zero percent of Republican primary voters said Mr. Jindal was their top pick to be the nominee

saw something that one of those polls found one (1) likely voter for bobby

Was it him?

its also possible these graphs illustrate the fact that voters dont know shit about candidates. in 2012 people would get all pumped about 'not-romney' but once they learned who the actual candidates were they tuned out asap.

idk, is he still in the phonebook as piyush?

The RCP 2016 graphs of course (and I'm assuming they're reflecting the underlying polls) start from way out with "has anyone heard of any of these" - the 2012 graphs only start when the candidates actually announced their candidacy.

Which doesn't mean a hell of a lot, it's not like there's some great hope which if they'd only looked 10% more likely to announce the others would have stepped aside - though it's interesting that the early leader, Christie, is only due to announce next week.

I don't know why Christie's gonna even bother announcing - he's such a loathsome (and loathed) sack of human garbage, he's never gonna break 5% in any poll. The smell of failure is on him so strongly at this point, I can't even see him getting on board anywhere as a commentator once his governorship's over. I bet he goes corporate board and is never heard from again.

Early leader + massive arrogance + the (completely insane) hope that this will allow him to move on from Bridge-related troubles, I guess?

we're comparing degrees of loathsome sacks of human garbage though

I wouldn't be surprised if Christie doesn't bother

then again, looks like he's set to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/25/report-chris-christie-to-announce-presidential-campaign-next-week/

If Bobby Jindal is going through with a run, then none of these clowns are taking it off the table.

Have to assume "I might get to be the next president" is low on the reasons a lot of these republicans are running this year

Piyush and Christie kinda similar really - once lauded as a new, different kind of "get things done" GOP governors w national potential who have seen their accomplishments fade and their approval ratings sink. If neither of them can make it on the national stage, where do they go from here? Nowhere to go but down, really - or out of sight racking up consulting fees.

xp

It's like American idol where winning means being tied to a shitty contract but competing just means lots of publicity

Spending the next 16 months compiling their Fox News audition tape and getting someone else to pay for it -- couldn't be a sweeter grift.

To that end, Fuckabee already had his own Fox show and left it to run. He's not going to win a single state this time.

otoh Fox give Sarah Palin the boot. Space is limited.

kinda wierd Palin *isn't* running. I mean at this point, why not?

Her leaving an elected office midterm to do fuck all probably hurt her chances even within the crazy base.

well she had already accomplished all of her goals in office

ie, she had put everything in the office in plastic bags and moved it to her house

I think Charles Pierce had that one right - running a full campaign rather than being parachuted in at the last minute would be too much like work.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIbpWSAWEAAvKMT.png

I do find Obama/Hillary crowing about this to be p disingenuous given their records

True. However, I suspect they were on board with the concept for a while before they were publicly on board with the concept, because they are politicians.

"However" sort of implies that that's a mitigating factor, but it surely ain't.

whither "leadership"

yeah i mean lincoln pretended he didnt want to end slavery for a long time and no one believed him not sure if ppl r still mad at him abt that

hmm how well did that strategy work out for Lincoln and the country can you remind me

slavery ended

i dunno, i figure obama was playing a long game and history will recognize that, as it largely has with lincoln

(not that obama can claim the same sort of credit, and not to claim that the liberations in question are equally momentous)

In an appearance on Sean Hannity's radio show on Friday, Cruz, who is running for president, made it clear he thought the rulings represented a sad moment for America.

"Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," Cruz said after Hannity asked how he was doing

poor guy

I wonder what the other dark hours were

That day his 5th grade teacher gave him a D on a grammar assignment.

heh

"today is some of" is such a horrible trainwreck

that construction makes me think of "i can has..."

I can has presidency?

hmm how well did that strategy work out for Lincoln and the country can you remind me

― Οὖτις,

are you really questioning this as strategy? Border state revolt, likely northern Democratic revolt -- not sure what he could've done, especially as he kept a coalition together that was FAR more radical than he between 1865-1868.

Not entirely serious but civil war + dead president is kinda a weird example of an optimal outcome

Also disingenuous to suggest o and hillary had as much on the line w gay marriage as lincoln did w slavery, and neither had the foresight or instincts that lincoln did.

~results~

(sorry morbs)

Not entirely serious but civil war + dead president is kinda a weird example of an optimal outcome

― Οὖτις, Friday, June 26, 2015 10:17 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we are standing at the precipice of a truly moronic alternate history i can feel it

What if.. Robert Bork had been president in 1861?

http://e.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/inline/2015/06/3047747-inline-i-8b-2016s-presidential-hopefuls-redesigned-as-black-metal-bands-copy.jpg

lol

What if.. Robert Bork had been president in 1861?

― here i am in the land of large breakfasts (Doctor Casino),

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/176729/judge-bork-martinis-kathryn-jean-lopez

Right now, George Pataki is thinking 'Look at these schmoes - maybe I should run.'

'Look at these schmoes - maybe I should run. hey, I'M A SCHMOE TOO!'

god, i hope trump can keep this up for a few more weeks. having him in the GOP debates would be amazing

http://deadline.com/2015/06/nbc-donald-trump-cancels-miss-usa-miss-universe-1201461913/

The reporting is a little bit ambiguously worded, because while it's clear that they've dropped the pageants, it also states that it's keeping its relationship with the Mark Burnett company which produces Celebrity Apprentice.

yeah was wondering how this was going to work out:

The network said that it has already begun exploring ways to air future seasons of the reality series "Celebrity Apprentice" without Trump as host. Reality show producer Mark Burnett continues to work on that show. "The Apprentice," which Trump also hosted and does not feature celebrities, is on hiatus.

Aww man... just looking at that 2012 chart up aways... Jon Huntsman was the only likeable guy running in the GOP, of course he was universally hated. Funny cause if had switched to the Dems the DLC probably would have funded him all the way to Veep, you know there's a large Dem. constituency that wets itself at the idea of slightly more liberal Jack Kemp.

interesting

I wouldn't have expected the donor base to tilt so far - p much ensures she'll continue her lefty populist schtick

hey i need to go on the record somewhere as saying i think chris christie will win the nomination
i just need to say it. i need to be on the record, laughed out of town, humiliated, i need to elicit eventually-historically-ironic responses, like all the conversation in the first twenty minutes of titanic. i still just feel like people love a strident muscular guy, & that any variation from such in a democratic nominee will mean they can double down on it.

Muscular?

i agree that people gravitate toward really large brash confident loud people, but he really shot himself in the foot with the scandals before he even started.

The sphincter is a muscle.

people gravitate toward really large brash confident loud people

Really? I sure don't.

yeah me neither

but lots of people do

nobody has to debate the merits of this, really i would prefer it to be swept aside, for me to be cast out, left derelict & ruined but desperately clutching this post's bookmarkedmessageid so that one day i might wield it as proof. & muscular like muscular, not like "muscular", you know. i don't think anything matters anymore in terms of scandals, or like it does but just in this thin rhetorical sense of creating a dicey linguistic puzzle, solving which would demonstrate one's eligibility, proving one's power as a table-turner. like with jeb & iraq or whatever. nobody cares about iraq at all, but the fascination of how well he can walk the tightrope of not specifically bowing to its gravity is like a useful contest. christie just needs a bunch of material to adult-in-the-room over, i think, of which there is a bunch, & then he can be reassuring commanding dad president.

it would be really fun to walk on chris christie's back

We are in many respects an intensely superficial country and Chris Christie is an ugly, sweaty, loud-talking (and probably close-talking) fat man. He will never be president.

*prints this post*

Gaze intently at every face at the top of this thread (and add Jindal and Christie.) Can you picture ANY of them being president? I mean, GWB was an unlikely president (to me), but these guys and gal are a pretty amazing bunch...

Gaze intently at every face at the top of this thread (and add Jindal and Christie.) Can you picture ANY of them being president?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/17/article-2294821-18BDAEB9000005DC-441_306x423.jpg

There have been and probably will again be periods when an unattractive/unappealing/appallingly-grotesque person could be elected President, but I don't think this is one of those periods.

GOP base hates Christie, kinda a big problem

Christie has a 'big' problem.

i'd love to see a GOP roundtable debate without a moderator or any questions. just 10 candidates (or 15 or 20 or whatever they're up to now) shouting over each other and competing for attention for 2 hours

The scandals can serve (unless he's far more dextrous than anything else has shown) to paint him as petty. He'd rather they painted him as the wrong man to cross, but it would take a lot to make that stick at this point.

let's see who the true leader of the GOP is

i'd love to see a GOP roundtable debate without a moderator or any questions. just 10 candidates (or 15 or 20 or whatever they're up to now) shouting over each other and competing for attention for 2 hours

― 1992 ball boy (Karl Malone),

how do you tell the difference

in my version a fistfight breaks out at the halfway point

between who?

a moderated and unmoderated GOP debate

The god of GOP candidates demands more sacrifices! More! Bring them to me so that I may feast!

lol

i imagine an involuntary eyeroll from lindsay graham could be like the assassination of archduke ferdinand

roy innis should run

they should have round-robin cage-match style debates

they should make them all stand on little poles out in the water, like on survivor. just to winnow it down a little. last five or six get to be real candidates. winner gets immunity for the next primary.

The official 'only 10 candidates' debate has an satellite linkup to an 11th podium in the cage, suspended by chains 8 feet over the floor. There are ladders.

NCAA-style brackets, dude

i think there should definitely be a wildcard "mystery candidate" slot, where one of the candidates eliminated in the early rounds gets to come back and the camera cuts to the stunned faces of the others, who thought they'd gotten away with burning their bridges. oh shit -- now it's on!

finale features final grudge-match battle w reanimated corpse of Ronald Reagan

reagan corpse has been keeping track of how many times candidates name-checked him. his wrath is terrible.

I want Issa to run, if only so he can shout "BENGHAZI!" as the answer to every question

Couldn't stand the guy and he was a recovering alcoholic, but that said, I would've had a beer with Shrubya.

It would've been like me walking into the bar at about 2:30 in the afternoon, and he's there by himself, and I'm just about to turn back out before anyone sees me, but no, he's all WHERE YOU GOING, PLAINS? COME HERE AND HAVE A DRINK. Then he holds up a sketch of a poodle he's drawn on a receipt pad, and I'd be all OK, JUST ONE.

But this zoo that's running now? Not a one. Maybe Rand if I was already blitzed, but that's it.

i would have a beer with W if part of the deal was that i could poison the beer

Sneaky bastard would hold up a vial of antidote between his finger and thumb and say, WAY AHEAD OF YOU, DOC. BEEN TAKING THIS STUFF FOR YEARS.

i'd go to a wedding with carly fiorina

I would have a beer w Lady Lindsey, feel like partying w him could get p weird

all right i tried to dream up some more activity+candidate ideas and that's p much it

xp

like you have a heineken and the next thing you know you're both going with a hippie to a second location which turns out to actually be a drone-control center and you spend the rest of the night blowing up weddings in Yemen

Feel like an afternoon drunk with Lindsey would be full of vague statements and awkward stares.

He'd say, "you understand what I mean by that, right Plains?" and not blink for a solid minute. My mind would bounce back and forth between "Is he talking about his sexuality?" or "does he think I'm racist too because I'm white?"

i'd enjoy a nice afternoon stroll with the jindals, maybe some coffee and gelato, maybe a oh fuck it im kinda diggin bobby jindals wife

whens she gonna ditch the goof with the supercut and get with a real thug

lol @ ethan

which turns out to actually be a drone-control center and you spend the rest of the night blowing up weddings in Yemen

c'mon, this is an Obama fantasy, give credit where it's due

not a fantasy

as you would usually be the first to point out

tried to dream up some more activity+candidate ideas and that's p much it

I would shoot an apple off the head of Scott Walker.

in obama fantasy you'll do a bit of augustine & aquinas reading at the drone-control center

i meant the fantasy of giving Shakey a clearance

wd get stoned with carly but it appears she's anti-pot :(

Jindal has a 27 percent approval rating as gov of Louisiana. 27 percent! I don't understand the mentality of someone who has a 27 percent approval rating as governor and thinks they will/should get elected president.

Christie on his heels

Jindal's been told he's viable for like 8 years now. He's smoking his own dope.

Maybe with enough Abitas I could convince Jindal to try to [exorcise me](http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/the-exorcism-of-bobby-jindal.aspx).

i caught part of a glenn beck radio show broadcast a few weeks ago. he interviewed jindal and told him at the end that he was one of the top 5 candidates he would support. he also said that jindal is "a good guy"

one of the top 5 candidates he would support

glenn beck has wide sympathies

maybe he does instant-runoff voting all by his lonesome

will Christie be indicted before January, y or n?

really need one of those Bill Safire "Nixon analyzes the race from the afterlife" columns now, alas.

ok wait. seriously, christie is running?

it's like every time i say oh there's no way he'll run now, that guy runs anyway.

you're up, sarah.

Well, Christie is waddling, actually...

http://youtu.be/_K0sRkvX4KE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=49&v=_K0sRkvX4KE

YouTube parsing code could use an update, I think...

wtf is that

I think my brain just exploded.

constitutionally incapable of presenting himself as anything but a smarmy jagoff. he's a human cringe. unreal.

Trumpinatas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06ziDffd7lE

Would have Mimomasas with Graham... go antiquing. Guy probably has a great eye for Colonial period.
then he'd say stuff like, "I value culture, but these Arabs just want to burn it all down. Its more sad than anything else."

People who make fat jokes about Christie instead of jokes about all the shit he deserves jokes about can go fuck themselves.

probably easier than fucking Christie.............................................. because he's fat

so Jerrold Nadler is not funny bcz he's a liberal Democrat.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIxmR1pWsAAddCg.png

aw :(

loooool

stinkball '16

stinky balls

The governor’s standing in New Jersey has fallen so far that a poll last week showed his approval rating lower than that of Jon S. Corzine, the unpopular Democrat he unseated and still uses as a punching bag. Most voters dislike “everything about him,” the same survey found of Mr. Christie.

lmao

http://i.imgur.com/6iV5ahS.jpg

I met a guy who really liked Christie. He was on the New Jersey Casino Commission.

=\

What is the relevance of Jerrold Nadler to this thread, exactly?

he is/was large, and no one makes fat jokes about him.

(btw he is my rep and i vote for him)

oof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE

http://i.imgur.com/kiLfinD.gif

ted "chameleon" cruz

._.

I expect some political consultant told cruz that nixon appeared on laugh-in and that this softened and humanized his image as an uptight asshole, therefore cruz should try to get on the simpsons to do the same for his image

comedy has gone too far. the line must be drawn here

@TPM BuzzFeed's Ben Smith says Ted Cruz "approaches going viral like it's his job"

.______________________.

it kind of is his job

That's kinda like the radio show host I used to work with saying I was so good at finding stuff off the 'net, I "could do it all day one-handed."

I expect some political consultant told cruz that nixon appeared on laugh-in

I thought of this, and also Palin on SNL. Nixon's pretty good for the duration of his epic six seconds. Palin was awful, though the stuff going on around her was funny (that hip-hop thing Amy Poehler did).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qRZvlZZ0DY

Ted Cruz, a one-handed viral

haha – I was gonna say that Nixon was awful in those six seconds, someone telegraphing funny instead of being funny, and in true Nixonian fashion he probably rehearsed for days covered in flop sweat.

I love the little blink at the end..."Whatever you do, don't look shifty-eyed--blink if you have to."

Palin was presumably on SNL as damage control after that amazing (and viral) Pohler/Fay sketch.

*Poehler

Yes--she seemed to want to convey the idea that she was a big fan of Fay's impression. Which wasn't believable for a second. I'm sure she hated it, and hated Fay. As she should have--there wasn't a trace of affection in that impression, just loathing and ridicule.

Tina Fey

Best thing about Palin's SNL appearance was Baldwin saying "Oh, hey, Tina" to the real Sarah.

Most voters dislike “everything about him,” the same survey found of Mr. Christie.

this was actually an option in the poll? ouch.

Trump seems to have created some business problems for himself by running for Prez

LOL never heard the real "Sock it to ME??" wow what a terrible line reading.

81 things Huckabee has denounced

18.) The actress Jamie Lynn Spears, for being pregnant and unmarried. "why because she look intersting" (2007).

"I just can't picture Jesus going into a restroom with a magic marker and writing his name all over the walls."

photoshop plz

who needs magic markers when you've got stigmata.

let's see if this works...

                    LIKELY REP CAUCUS-GOERS.............................
                                   Wht    POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
                            Tea    BrnAgn CONSERVATIVE  Mod/
                     Tot    Party  Evang  Very   Smwht  Lib    Men    Wom
 
Bush                  8%     1%     6%     3%    10%    15%     8%     9%
Carson               10      9      9     13      8      6      8     12
Christie              1      -      -      -      1      3      1      1
Cruz                  9     19     11     16      4      2      9      7
Fiorina               3      2      3      4      2      3      3      4
Graham                1      -      2      -      3      2      1      2
Huckabee              5      1      8      6      6      5      5      5
Jindal                3      3      3      4      1      2      2      4
Kasich                2      3      1      2      3      1      2      2
Pataki                -      -      -      -      -      -      -      -
Paul                  9      9      7      7      8     15     12      4
Perry                 4      6      7      5      5      2      5      4
Rubio                 7      4      6      5     13      6      6      9
Santorum              4      7      6      4      4      3      3      5
Trump                10     10      8      7     11     15      9     12
Walker               18     22     18     21     18     12     21     14
DK/NA                 5      3      4      4      4      8      4      6

phew. that's the latest quinnipiac poll

Walker with 18%, Trump tied with Carson at 10%. lol

who would have thought trump would have more support (in this fleeting instance) among women than men?

although one could just as easily write,

who would have thought trump would have more support among women than men at all?

RIP Pataki

is scott walker in the "we havent gotten sick of his bullshit yet" honeymoon phase with gop voters?

59% chose either Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Graham, Jindal, Perry, Carson, Paul, Santorum, Christie, or Trump

surprised to see Walker doing so well with the white evangelicals. i thought that was huckabee's thing?

is scott walker in the "we havent gotten sick of his bullshit yet" honeymoon phase with gop voters?

― not a garbageman, i am garbage, man (m bison), Wednesday, July 1, 2015 3:34 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for what it's worth walker is having major problems dealing w/ his own party in wisconsin right now (he's moving /to their right/, if you can believe that!), which is reason #4,765 why scott walker is a horrible horrible candidate.

those m/f breakdowns are wild

trump beating j.e. bush maybe the most interesting thing long term. would be hilarious if he became the horse to beat and the whole primary process becomes an "anyone but trump" saga.

surprised to see Walker doing so well with the white evangelicals.

his anti-abortion rhetoric is off the chain

those m/f breakdowns are wild

GOP women are into bloviating blowhards with fake hair, little boys in oversized suits not so much

i think he also mooted a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (!), which is pure dog whistle, since the chance of it actually happening is complete nil.

xpost

walker polls better with the ultraconservatives, bush does better with the more "moderate" conservatives. not surprising. but that's an advantage for bush in the general election, right? assuming the logic that 90%+ of voters have already decided which team to vote for, so the focus is on the small chunk of voters in the "middle" that can be peeled away? although there's always the other argument, which is that the teams should pick the candidate who can motivate their base more and drive more of them to the polls on election day.

so basically trump for president

assuming the logic that 90%+ of voters have already decided which team to vote for, so the focus is on the small chunk of voters in the "middle" that can be peeled away?

well, that and motivating your base to vote, but that dynamic isn't as media friendly.

whoops that's what i get for accidentally skimming past your 2nd graf.

i have no idea who a "GOP woman" is after all those NYT feature interviews with The People that includes a red-state female who needs help via guvmint programs -- unemployed, kids, no health plan til ACA, bad diet -- whose central philosophy is "Obama is lettin' the whole world step all over us."

xpost
i don't even know that either of those narratives is correct. i suppose it depends on the election and the candidates.

Bush (and the GOP Establishment) is going to have to spend a lot of money buying this primary season.

It's going to be Bush. Remember that in August '11 Bachmann dominated discussion after that bullshit Iowa strawman poll or whatever it's called.

I kinda can't see it being anybody but JE but man he has really fucked up so far

jeb kind of has it by default so maybe he's not taking it as seriously as he should

walker and rubio are the only two others that i can possibly imagine.

but yeah, jeb will take it, then lose. then the gop will finally learn that they need to nominate a TRUE conservative in 2020, and there will be at least 35 candidates

Bush will sweep in all the Pataki supporters when Pataki throws in the towel. There's his margin of victory for nomination!

pataki will NEVER throw in the towel, he's tenacious!

does Pataki even have a towel

he is currently searching for bed bath and beyond online coupons online, but none of them seem to work

Rubio won't get anywhere near the nomination. This fight will eventually come down to J.E. Bush and Scott (My Own Worst Enema) Walker.

Carly Fiona will stay in the race until she eventually has spent $488 of her own money for each primary vote she gets.

Rand Paul will hang on to his 62 pledged delegates to the last moment and try to use them to broker the convention.

Trump will act like he's still running after New Hampshire, but stop scheduling any campaign events.

Trump will file lawsuits against all the other candidates

but yeah, jeb will take it, then lose. then the gop will finally learn that they need to nominate a TRUE conservative in 2020, and there will be at least 35 candidates

― 1992 ball boy (Karl Malone), Wednesday, July 1, 2015 5:15 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

surely some huge swath of GOP primary voters is already thinking this way, right? after mccain and romney? no reason this can't be their goldwater moment.

not so sure that Jeb! will take it over walker

Walker seems like an unknown quantity to the rest of the country (he certainly is to me, at least moreso than a lot of these other bozos), dunno if he can capitalize on that sufficiently to counter the JE establishment backing

J. Establishment Backing Bush.

"of the new hampshire Establishment Backings"

I dunno, Walker vs. public unions was pretty widely covered (esp. via Facebook memes.) Many of my friends are teachers, so he's kind of the personification of evil in the upper Midwest.

yeah but how many GOP primary voters, to the extent that they followed that, came away thinking of him as their new superhero?

(18% of them, based on that chart above. j.e.b. hasn't exactly got that crowd cornered.)

again, even most of the primary voters are scarcely paying attention yet

Chris Christie will hire Donald Segretti to sabotage the campaigns of all the other candidates, but Segretti will actually be a mole for the Bush campaign.

Rick Santorum will be puzzled when his fund-raising phone calls consistently get very bad connections, causing the party at the other end to sound like they are hissing or gargling, then are suddenly cut off. Changing phones or carriers doesn't seem to help at all.

Surprised to see Trump implode so quickly--so immediately. I was looking forward to him gumming up all the debates, but--and maybe I'm completely wrong here--I don't think he'll get anywhere near them after the last few days. In any event, enjoying his ordeal thoroughly.

implode? he's number two!

I know, I know, but there are the polls, and there's what the party will allow. Wasn't Cain still pretty high in the polling as his campaign was falling apart (don't remember the exact timing)?

Trump/Cain '16

I just think that, after the freak show of all those debates in 2012, which clearly didn't do party any good, the people who put the debates together will do whatever they can and whatever they have to to keep Trump away.

Cain peaked and then bombed out when the sexual harassment stuff surfaced

Trump getting to be at the debates and the others having to shut up and act like they're listening while he's talking is not in itself sillier than steve forbes getting the same pass in two elections. different kind of kajillionaire vanity campaign (and trump is much richer and more ridiculous than nerdy old steve forbes) but still. it's not really some kind of unprecedent illusion-shattering twist. trump himself might be disappointed to realize that.

and lest we forget:

http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_notches/c4994cd9-d303-4b6b-8796-2999ae70cee2-2perotmanual.jpg

Yeah, just checked that. Maybe Trump will slide in the next few days, I don't know. I know his antics will only cause wingnuts to dig in, but I would think he'd see a general slide in support.

The thing with Forbes is that he wasn't a ticking time-bomb ready to say just about anything--he was just kind of stodgy, as I remember him.

Trump is more of a wildcard than Forbes or Perot - he's wildly irresponsible and completely fucking moronic, who knows what he will do. But there's no way that unpredictability gets converted into actual support, he's too incoherent and offensive; at some point he's going to say things way beyond the pale of what anybody will accept.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump comes out of this whole thing seriously damaged - either disgraced, broke, or in jail

he's wildly irresponsible and completely fucking moronic

i.e. like the rest of the GOP candidates

agree most primary voters aren't paying much attention
most candidates still unknown quantity to most of them (but trump is known celebrity)
& those paying most attention are prob those most angry at establishment (e.g. for being, in their view, cowardly compromisers)
that's why trump & his wild rhetoric seemingly gets early traction (same thing happened in last election iirc)
but it's just mirage imo

Axelrod otm: “Every Republican candidate now has to calculate how they deal with him, particularly in the debates. If he says something outrageous and no one challenges him, that’s bad for them and bad for the Republican Party.”

maybe mirage, maybe not. trump could totally soak up that buchanan/bachman/palin wing, that 12-15% of the electorate that is just really and truly bonkers. that's probably not enough to win all or even many primaries, but it's enough to screw things up for somebody else, or drag things out. cain was done in by his scandal, not by just being a blowhard with crazy ideas. however tbh what's most likely imo is that him staying in saps strength from the other wingnuts and further enables your JEBs. walker has the most to lose to trump.

xpost yeah actually that may also be another way this plays out - - - first really dumbass outrageous thing said by trump is opportunity for everyone else on the stage to shun him, symbolically turn their backs (and pat themselves on them while they're at it). trump's numbers collapse to nothing as the viewers at home learn that he is Not Presidential, and that's that.

Trump's not gonna win any primaries

(xxpost) That's exactly why I think they'll keep him out of the debates under some pretext--they don't even want to have to deal with figuring out how to respond to what he's already said and what he might say during a debate.

Trump would need to invest in actual ground operations, get people to polls, buy ads effectively etc. I don't think he has any actual interest or capacity for the nuts and bolts of running a campaign, he just wants to show up and shoot his mouth off.

Plus I'd say the odds of him getting into some malfeasance/misuse of funds is really high

is trump kind of a gop working class hero?

uh in what way is trump working class

I'm sure he's an aspirational figure for the terminally stupid portion of the electorate

pat buchanan won four, steve forbes and gingrich each won two (in '96 and '12), huckabee won eight, santorum won eleven. fifty states leaves plenty of room for wingnuts to win some states here and there and have it not matter in the slightest, ultimately.

i think a lot of americans do like the idea of a loud guy who tells people off. we have versions of this in our cultural mythology - the plainspoken, unspoken, badly-dressed guy, in this case with extremely tacky and materialistic tastes, ridiculed by elites, who speaks truth to power, who cuts off their pontificating BS with some straight talk -- you tell 'em, trump! whether or not the person was born into hundreds of millions of dollars may not actually be relevant to "working class" appeal and signifiers. i mean, lots of people would like to get themselves some marble columns and gold-plated ashtrays.

his basic appeal is alger-esque tho right? his views seem like the kinds of things lower-middle whites will have believed in as the things to believe in in order to get ahead in this country.

wait was trump born rich? know very little about him / don't want to google.

yeah there is no surprise to Trump's rise in the polls. He's part of a tradition. What's remarkable is that a man with his hair is allowed a place.

he looks kinda like a fat edgar winter. is he camp?

*dreams of john waters biopic*

ridiculed by elites, who speaks truth to power, who cuts off their pontificating BS with some straight talk -- you tell 'em, trump!

For these reasons and others, Trump definitely has great appeal to people who otherwise--materially--might have nothing in common with him. And yes also, he's an old story Perot had that too--he might have been even richer than Trump, I don't know.

Trump comes from money.

He's lost his fortune at least once, though.

real estate magnates are uniformly terrible, aren't they.

trump comes from very big money - his daddy built huge swaths of the outer boroughs. daddy was the son of immigrants -- originally the drumpfs -- who i do not think were particularly wealthy. wiki says they ran a restaurant during the klondike gold rush. huh. i would guess fred had tens of millions in the bank by the time young donald set out to learn 'the art of the deal' but maybe way more than that (adjusted for inflation) - not sure.

the donald today is slightly richer than ross perot (4 vs. 3.7 billion according to very quick searches) and thus about sixteen times richer than mitt romney's supposed net worth ($250 million), which is a hundred times poppy bush's. old money ain't worth what it used to be. hillary's just below the h.w. level. bloomberg, america's eighth-richest person, is worth $35.4 billion dollars. mark zuckerberg (#7) will be eligible to run for president in 2020. look out world.

dudes, walker is not gonna get close to the nomination.

xpost

holy christ bloomberg is rich. couldn't he just solve NYC's problems by giving away his cash (yes, i know he's a big philanthropist)

amazingly, even that would not really be enough. even just talking transit, the unfunded budgetary hole in the MTA's capital plan for just the next five years is fifteen billion. and most of that is just to bring things to a state of good repair and implement a new farecard system, with very little in the way of new track, etc. cities are expensive.

We should all move to seasteads!

I don't think he has any actual interest or capacity for the nuts and bolts of running a campaign, he just wants to show up and shoot his mouth off

yes, & afaict (though tbh haven't bothered to check it out) trump has no thought-out set of policies he's presenting; he's just bloviating clickbait

which at this stage might seem, to some, blunt speaking truth to power (or just provides audience with entertainment value; trump knows reality show after all)

btw DC otm upthread that walker vs public unions not necessarily political handicap, not in the primaries

v improbable he'll get nomination, but it's within realm of possibility at least

Trump couldn't carry Perot's jock.

His aggressive racism and misogyny is more compelling electorally than the flat tax was for Forbes tho.

it is shocking to me how many of my friends are throwing in for Sanders, who I'd consider a sure loss against generic (R)

That's the spirit!

mark zuckerberg (#7) will be eligible to run for president in 2020. look out world.

― a chamillionaire full of mallomars (Doctor Casino), Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:05 PM (3 hours ago)

this makes me feel worse than anything i have read on the internet all day (and i have checked the facebork)

xp it’s understandable
on gop side, presumed inevitable nominee jeb at least has competition & fight ahead

only person challenging inevitable nominee hillary in any way so far is bernie
& afaict her campaign so far consists in avoiding answering any difficult questions
(ultimately imo bernie is mirage too)

how many of your pro-Sanders friends think he has any chance of being elected?

O'Malley and Chafee are also challenging Herself, technically

xp zuckerberg as potus is fascinatingly dystopian prospect

but tbh don't think u.s. presidency holds much if any allurement in terms of will to power
for chairman & ceo of faceborg

wd like to hear more from o'malley, really don't know anything about him

Well, he still wakes up white in a city that ain't, and we're still not sure whether Norman actually voted for him.

heh, i see so many politicians through prism of carcetti

o'malley strikes me as a john edwards type -- mouths the right words, lacks substance

i would have said he's not as transparently phoney as edwards, but then again i had friends who were fooled by edwards so

The Donald's wealth is a matter of wild speculation - a great article (that I can't find) goes over his history with Forbes' Richest Persons List, which dropped him for a few years after overestimating his wealth massively, but which he rings and goes over in detail every year (he's generally arguing for a figure 2-3 multiples of theirs, but again that fluctuates wildly).

All real-estate empires are built on a mountain of debt. Trump may still have money, but IIRC the equity investors in his public companies have lost everything invested, twice.

Trump leads among ppl who are fans of circus geeks

Morbsbait:

In December 2009, toward the end of her first year as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed to a joint interview with perhaps her best-known living predecessor, Henry Kissinger.

As she pondered the encounter, she began to worry that her distant relationship with President Obama, who beat her for their party’s presidential nomination, might contrast unfavorably with Mr. Kissinger’s close collaboration with President Richard M. Nixon.

“In thinking about the Kissinger interview, the only issue I think that might be raised is that I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon every day,” she wrote in an email to aides, using the acronym for the president of the United States. “Of course, if I were dealing w that POTUS I’d probably camp in his office to prevent him from doing something problematic,” she added cheekily before returning to the main point: “Do you see this as a problem?

twice
Ahem,

Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts. He has never filed for personal bankruptcy — an important distinction when considering his ability to emerge relatively unscathed, at least financially.

Found it: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/business/yourmoney/whats-he-really-worth.html

Yeah that was posted earlier - good article.

Required financial disclosures are gonna be a problem for Chump

that I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon every day

"Hillary, I know we do not share the same faith, but we do believe in the same God. I ask that you kneel down and pray with me."

"I'M A METHODIST."

Some Facebook back-and-forth has made me realize that Trump is totally Morrie from Goodfellas: 1) the hairpiece, 2) "He's a nut job. He talks to everybody...Nobody cares what he says, he talks so much."

I always thought of Trump as a kind of LaRouche dude. No one really gives a shit, or knows why he is in jail, but everyone still knows his name.

There's still some time to go, but the country seems like it's in such a weird place that I have no idea what may happen come election day. In my little region, the fact that certified moron Scott Walker has stuck around and Walker wannabe Bruce Rauner got elected in IL reflects some real discontentment, but also a sort of incoherent discontentment. I could easily imagine HRC losing, or winning while losing further local Dem ground in the states. I think her biggest problem - and this stems from general Clinton fatigue - is that after the burst of excitement about fresh, new candidate Obama, can election-on-a-silver-platter Clinton really rally people to campaign for her? Obviously awareness is not her concern, but getting out the vote I imagine could be tough, given our general disinterest in going to the polls in the best of circumstances.

The only thing really working in her favor on this point I think is the near total lack of enthusiasm about the dozen GOP candidates. To keep things interesting, maybe they should do a reverse Monopoly house rules election to see which candidate can get the least amount of votes. Lowest tally wins.

President Pataki for life!

I am hoping that if a real cackler like Walker gets the nomination, that will push up Clinton's vote - I can see that a Bush-Clinton choice would probably not.

feel like sanders could beat most of the GOP candidates

mostly because they're all insane, but maybe i'm being too charitable to the voting public

thinking about sanders again. still think it would be cool if his momentum holds out for a while. not so much for what it'll do to the presidential race but maybe, hypothetically, if people see an out-and-out leftie barnstormer actually performing competitively in primaries etc., it could have some kind of impact on other races. people running for congress or the city council, collectively ratcheting back down that giant invisible party ticker that says "well, we can't run on THESE issues, they're seen as 'too left' these days" etc. not expecting a miracle but some kind of very mild adjustment back in the vague general direction of ye olde democratic party would be nice to see. probably naive of me though.

ratcheting back down that giant invisible party ticker that says "well, we can't run on THESE issues, they're seen as 'too left' these days"

this is already happening afaict

(albeit not really because of Sanders)

So the Post has this headline: "As Donald Trump surges in polls, Democrats cheer."

As a Democrat I understand the impulse: "Yes, PLEASE, let us have more trainwreck on the GOP side."

Though I wonder whether this is tipping our hand too much, if we're seen to be cheering on the trainwreck.

There was a conservative talking point in 2008 along the lines of "the left and the media (but I repeat myself) will tell you who they fear." According to this view, tearing Palin down was an indication that you feared Palin, which means Palin would be a sure winner in a fair fight.

Can we repeat this magic with Trump?

At this point I go off into spirals of head-fakey tactical horse-racey shit that can get to truly absurd levels. See here: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=357581#c23822017 "I see more libs raging about Trump than I do conservatives. Hmmmm, gets me thinking. He scares them." So. A conservative believes liberals' denigration of Trump means that Trump is ACTUALLY a viable candidate.

Great! So we could continue to push the message that Trump is unsuitable for a dignified public office. So the right will conclude that we're doing this in order to hamstring someone who is a genuine threat. (Of course, he isn't, which is exactly the kind of Republican nominee Democrats truly want.)

But this line of thinking is a little too much like a double agent trying to convince a triple agent that he's actually a quadruple agent, and that way lies madness.

u mad, puffin

*bites cyanide cap*

But this line of thinking is a little too much like a double agent trying to convince a triple agent that he's actually a quadruple agent, and that way lies madness.

this is 47th dimension chess, where you look up from your eternal concentration and find that your opponent is actually yourself

A new poll shows Sanders, a self-described "democratic socialist," winning 33 percent of likely participants in the Iowa Democratic caucus, while 52 percent said they would vote for Clinton if the Democratic caucus was held today.

The poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University, which surveyed 761 likely Iowa Democratic caucus participants from June 20-29, with a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.

Sanders still has a long way to go to catch up to Clinton. However, Thursday's poll shows he has more than doubled his support from a May 7 Quinnipiac survey that showed him polling at only 15 percent to Clinton's 60 percent among caucus-goers. Thursday's poll shows the Vermont progressive having particular appeal among participants who call themselves very liberal, who chose him 47-43 percent over Clinton.

Dem primary base has moved left, as evidenced by the NYT piece about how Dem funding has shifted left as well

Polarization: it's what's for dinner.

For more Trump fun, see

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=357640

"The Trump bubble is what you get when a significant part of the GOP is tired of being lied to and screwed over. They want to be heard and they want to see their values (in this case anger, which is an emotion not a value but it's a reasonable stand in at this point) reflected in a candidate.

"The mostly mealy mouthed response to the recent Supreme Court ruling from most GOP candidates does not match the anger a lot of conservatives are feeling.

"There's almost no recognition by candidates that people feel something important about America is slipping away. They aren't seeing that being acknowledged by Jeb, Marco or even Walker."

This sort of through-the-looking-glass perspective is instructive. Ace of Spades and his commentariat typify the sort of conservative who feels the Republican Party is too lefty-squishy, and is not doing enough to fight Obama.

Reading there is an interesting inverse of reading here, and seeing e.g. Morbs criticizing Obama and Hillary for being insufficiently liberal.

In any case, people (left or right) who view electoral politics as primarily entertainment are obliged to be grateful for Trump in all his Trumpiness.

that site is bizarre. not sure why they call Trump a liberal

Left of Goldwater.

is he though?

it's prob fair to say trump isn't a coherent political anything

comments on that site are a p awesome pic of how fractured and dispirited the GOP is, there's no way they're gonna win this or unify behind anybody

sanders is a dead end, i love bernie but he won't win the nomination and honestly in another universe when it's bush v sanders there is no way old man bernie would win

sanders votes are protest votes against Hillary, everybody knows that (including Hillary)

bernie sanders, the angsty teenage facebook macro who became a person

corporations are bad! i'm gonna stopp.. all the.. corporations!

absolutely, which is why it is weird seeing the "can bernie do it?" pieces floating around

xp

ShaMo: "there's no way they're gonna win this or unify behind anybody."

Yep. Exactly.

As a Democrat I am buoyed by this knowledge, but I am also simultaneously sad that we don't have a better choice of candidates to take advantage of that fractured and dispirited Republican situation.

Dems don't have a deep bench of rockstar governors (altho personally I would vote for Jerry Brown in a heartbeat), and none of the high profile Senate people are ready to run, is the thing. It is kinda funny that nobody gaf about Biden.

xp ace of spades site is especially anti-establishment, though
to use ymp's analogy, through the looking glass, it's roughly in morbs's general area of the political disappointment & disgust with DC/party spectrum
i.e. not necessarily typical of gop (or primary voters) in general
but it's def reflective of significant contingent on the right

"I have said for years now that it will be the GOP who gives us amnesty, who gives us more unfettered spending, who will protect socialist healthcare and it will be the GOP who will ultimately give us freedom killing gun restrictions.

As the dems moved to be far leftists, the GOP moved well left of center. The country is not there though, so the GOP lies about who they are during elections and we continue to move leftward. Its why I don't vote in federal elections anymore, I don't believe them."

(from the link)

Biden found his level as veep. His only job now is to smile, be personable to random infants and foreign leaders, and try to contain his bumptiousness enough to avoid public gaffes. Hillary should pick him for veep, too.

haha that would be perfect

the new George Clinton!

the GOP moved well left of center. The country is not there though

I really don't grasp this -- are there people who authentically think, as a matter of empirical fact, that most of the country is to the right of the Republican party?

Are there liberal Democrats who actually think MOST PEOPLE are liberal Democrats?

"His only job now is to smile, be personable to random infants" - I would like this job, where do I sign up, thxbye

eephus, the thesis is not that most people are tea partiers. The thesis is that there would be ENOUGH votes if only the GOP candidate would go Full Metal Tea and Embrace the Base. Taking such a principled stand would fire up a silent majority of disaffected angry white guys who would carry said candidate to victory. Because the problem (on this view) is that the GOP keeps nominating milquetoast moderates like Romney who fail to motivate the TruCon base.

To which I say, fine: bring it, please. Bring the Confederate remembrance bills, mandatory school prayer, EPA elimination proposals, mandatory gun ownership, National Reagan-Worship Day. Bring it all.

Let's have that talking point killed for good.

tbf it looks like the GOP is nearing that point

sanders votes are protest votes against Hillary, everybody knows that (including Hillary)

absolutely, which is why it is weird seeing the "can bernie do it?" pieces floating around

Because political journalists are utterly cynical flecks of ambulatory feces who will write literally anything in order to get that daily byline and the clicks and payment that come with it.

Trump used to be a registered Dem IIRC, but yeah, his ideology is opportunism and spotlight hogging.

Let's have that talking point killed for good.

This never happens!

Also from the blog http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ycdrTkaUfGo/U7wACu4SJgI/AAAAAAAAAMs/eI_zEWq3avs/s1600/a_aif-i-were-ted-cruz2.jpg

I love that this guy thinks the plan would be additive.

bernie sanders, the angsty teenage facebook macro who became a person

corporations are bad! i'm gonna stopp.. all the.. corporations!

― Nobody ever knows anything. (sleepingbag), Thursday, July 2, 2015 10:39 AM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes, because throwing away one's moral compass and not pushing back against corporate rights is just so mature.

honestly the funniest thing about that comic is the implication that the Founding Fathers all got along and shared ideologies, goals, etc.

all mythical dads do!

also cabinet members apparently have the authority to abolish departments established by Congress. who knew!

political journalists are utterly cynical flecks of ambulatory feces who will write literally anything

beat me to it.

you always have the frontrunner (who nobody has voted for yet) to eat out all the corporations, sleepingbag.

lol xp

i feel like so much of politics is basically driven by mass daddy issues. also i feel like scott walker's appeal and part of the reason he has money backing him whereas the other hard-right candidates are sinking is bcz he basically looks and acts like the beta guy / wingman / attack dog in the fraternity who will literally do anything the other guys tell him to. this is incredibly appealing to "powerful" male egos.

Bring the Confederate remembrance bills, mandatory school prayer, EPA elimination proposals, mandatory gun ownership, National Reagan-Worship Day. Bring it all.

tbf to aos, that crew of bloggers are genuine limited-gov conservatives (aos is atheist small-l libertarian, one of the bloggers is gay)
they loathe someone like huckabee
there are socons among the commenters, but that's not really the focus of this particular contingent of the right (though concern about 'religious liberty' is)

of course, there are trucons of other stripes elsewhere

bernie sanders, the angsty teenage facebook macro who became a person

corporations are bad! i'm gonna stopp.. all the.. corporations!

― Nobody ever knows anything. (sleepingbag), Thursday, July 2, 2015 10:39 AM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes, because throwing away one's moral compass and not pushing back against corporate rights is just so mature.

― e-bouquet (mattresslessness), Thursday, July 2, 2015 1:24 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^This. HRC's main contributors are from the same financial industry than ran itself with all the self-discipline of a juvenile playing hooky who came crying home to the gov't when they ran out of money.

i just get very 😴😴 re: anyone with such a basic, preaching to the choir, 'no-compromises' message that is undoubtedly going to fall on the deaf ears of its recipients. like, that's not how things actually change, that's not how politics works...

good 4 you

wake me up when dude is president dogg

One of the many ways in which politics works is how a threat from your flank, which could mean anything from drawing away voters or voters staying home, forces candidates to appease this flank.

wake me up when dude is president dogg

― Nobody ever knows anything. (sleepingbag), Thursday, July 2, 2015 11:59 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not a dogg

you're very obviously the simplistic thinker here

HRC's main contributors are from the same financial industry

this is not entirely true btw.

NYT: Democrats now get far less money from Wall Street, military contractors, health care companies and other industries that for decades ladled out cash more evenly to both parties, according to a New York Times analysis of data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. And the party now relies far more on constituencies that have achieved new clout in the era of “super PACs” and carefully targeted digital fund-raising... Almost two-thirds of money from investment banks and three-quarters of donations from credit card companies and lenders now flow to Republicans, and donations from hedge fund and private equity executives were a significant source of cash for Republican super PACs during the 2012 election cycle.

same article notes that: Unlike Mr. Obama, her campaign is aggressively raising money from business PACs, according to two Clinton fund-raisers. And Mrs. Clinton, like the Republicans who wish to run against her, has not yet pledged to voluntarily disclose the names of her bundlers.

so she kinda wants that money, but it isn't necessarily flowing to her, and she's highly conscious of the fact that she has to walk a fine line to get both the liberal bundling donors and the Wall Street cash.

Drash: fair point. I don't intend to say AoS is the whole dextrosphere - just that those attitudes are out there.

And at the same time, Οὖτις is correct that the existence of those attitudes speaks to the degree of fractiousness and intramural animosity on the right.

Good thing the left doesn't have the same problem, right?

Uh, right, guys?

[nervous laughter]

i just hope president christie doesn't make weed illegal here again, gawrsh...

Pointing out that "almost 2/3 of money" goes to Republicans means that a majority of financial industry money goes to the congressional majority. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase are in her top 5 contributors for 17 years. That is not counting the PACs and secret money that has yet to be voluntarily disclosed. Democrats are feeding from the same trough as republicans.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

they are but they're getting less in general - which is significant, and is one of the reasons she's leaning left in the primaries, because she needs to make up that funding shortfall from non-Wall Street contributors - and without full disclosure there's no way to authoritatively say who Hilldog's "main contributors" are for her prez campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I have zero faith in Hilary's anti-corporate platitudes precisely because of her deep ties to the financial industry, but she's on an altered playing field at the moment.

also that 17 years thing is misleading given that she hasn't been raising money to run for office between the time she left the Senate and declared her Prez candidacy, or am I misreading something...? How could she be raising money from PACs as Secretary of State when she wasn't running for anything?

webb's in

woop woop

What's up with Paul Ryan? Can he run, too? Also, Palin. And how old is her daughter? She can run, too, with McCain's daughter. Also, Bruce Willis and Sly Stallone.

can Poppy Bush run?

i don't think that Webb believes he can win, but i also can't think of what limited constituency he thinks will be drawn to him either

maybe a lost poker bet?

people who like boots?

surprised Ryan hasn't announced. everyone else has.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/11/11-paul-ryan-time-p90x.o.jpg/a_250x375.jpg

Dude, chill, I'll announce when I'm good and ready. Soon as I finish these reps...

Man, that never stops cracking me up as the VHS box cover for some horrible '80s movie that never was.

https://broadcouching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/kelly-and-jessie.gif

wild wild webb, jim webb, desperado

If Bernie Sanders stays in the primaries long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory I'll be grateful for his service. CW at one point in '08 was that the drawn out Obama/Clinton primary was hurting them both but it didn't really turn out that way.

CW at one point in '08 was that the drawn out Obama/Clinton primary was hurting them both but it didn't really turn out that way.

yea, the 08 general election in retrospect seems like such an afterthought after the clinton/obama primary

i mean was there anything notable apart from the palin noise in the 08 general?

McCain got older.

economy melted down

ohhhhhhhhh right the economy jeez

lmao

McCain debates were hilarious

never forget
http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mccainassgrab.jpg

Some of Paul Ryan's demographic has presumably been leeched away by his anagram, and also losing Vice Presidents tend to go have a bit of a sit and think - only FDR after 12 years and Bob Dole after 20 have ever come back.

Had to look twice at your wording; I thought of ex-VP Nixon winning eight years later, but I see what you mean.

What if the Democratic field in 2016 is reprising what the Republican field did in 2012? What's the saying - history does not repeat itself but often rhymes?

Plenty of Democrats reject every Republican but are not thrilled about Clinton (understandably). This bloc will search longingly for an unHillary, just as Republicans tried in vain to fall in love with a half-dozen nonRomneys.

Hence a Sanders Surge. possibly to be followed by O'MalleyMentum, and WebbMania. (Wake me if there's a ChaffeeFeenomenon.)

I suspect that those will likely peter out like the Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum surges did. Negative motivation ("dear god, anybody but her/him") can be a fickle and unreliable motivation.

Dem field in 2016 assuming Clinton loses in '12, is that yr scenario here?

I think we can probably call that one.

The answer is obvious: Chelsea is eligible to run in 2016.

Man, that never stops cracking me up as the VHS box cover for some horrible '80s movie that never was.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 July 2015 19:00 (1 hour ago) Permalink

"Dem field in 2016 assuming Clinton loses in '12, is that yr scenario here?"

There must be a joke I am missing.

there are no jokes in this thread, important work is being done here

haha sorry forgot what year it was for a second there

If your time machine has room for passengers, Οὖτις, there are a few things that need fixin'.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/2009_called.png

long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory

Could everyone plz explain what they mean when they resurrect this hoary phrase whenever they use it? Does anyone think this has anything to do with changing policies that will be implemented by her putative Administration? Why would it? If not, who cares? "good goin Hil, you fooled the rubes again!"

sorry for grammar, 3 hrs sleep, sick etc

i think the basic problem is that ppl are going to care more about "pushing HRC to the left" while she's running for president than when she actually becomes president. leaving aside the fact that HRC's politics are probably pretty set-in-stone at this point, we haven't really figured out an effective way to hold politicians accountable once they reach the presidency.

otoh, like doc casino says upthread, someone like sanders actually making any impact at all could well have unforeseeable effects on american politics, making certain issues more ok to bring up, making the electorate less automatically fearful of "socialist" ideas, pushing other candidates to the left. or maybe it won't do anything. but who knows? weirder things have happened.

we haven't really figured out an effective way to hold politicians accountable once they reach the presidency.

in their first term they want to be re-elected to a second term, so they are more susceptible to public pressure/opinion polls etc. in guiding their policies. By the end of a second term they are p much doing whatever the fuck they want/true colors are revealed.

long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory

Could everyone plz explain what they mean when they resurrect this hoary phrase whenever they use it? Does anyone think this has anything to do with changing policies that will be implemented by her putative Administration? Why would it? If not, who cares? "good goin Hil, you fooled the rubes again!"

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, July 2, 2015 1:51 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My assumption is not so much that a putative HRC Administration would accomplish or even attempt to accomplish any particular element of a socialist or simply Sandersesque agenda. But ideas in campaigns (to the extent any exist) are part of the like background noise that shapes what's possible nationally, on the state level, locally. It's all about gravity. If whoever the Dem front-runner is is being dragged into making policy speeches in favor of stuff like more progressive taxation, higher minimum wages, mass transit infrastructure, sustainable energy, whatever, it lends credence to the idea that the center is further to the left than 1992 or 2008 HRC would've said it is.

“For too long, we Republicans have been content to lose the black vote because we found we didn’t need it to win," he added. "But when we gave up trying to win the support of African-Americans, we lost our moral legitimacy as the party of Lincoln, as the party of equal opportunity for all. It’s time for us once again to reclaim our heritage as the only party in our country founded on the principle of freedom for African-Americans."

Perry's affirmation of the protections of the 14th Amendment did not lead him, however, to reverse his position on voter ID laws that critics say disenfranchise elderly and minority voters. In a Q&A after his speech, Perry said it was important that states "protect that precious right of voting and make sure it is not fraudulently used."

In case there's any public records requests about legislative actions in Wisconsin you wanted to make, you should probably get that done sooner rather than later

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wisconsin-public-records-20150702-story.html

that is entirely consistent with everything they have done since they came to power in 2010.

Republican Sen. Leah Vukmir, another member of the budget committee, continued walking by reporters without speaking when asked what she thought of the open records changes.

how appropriate.

sorry it's hard for me to respond to stuff like this with anything except a mix of acidity and despair. it's been five years of nonstop assault on democracy and decency, and they've gotten away with everything. the most despicable human beings -- just completely craven, foolish hypocrites -- are in control of this state and there's nothing i can do about it.

Does now seem like legislature may be teeing this up for Walker to veto so as to establish anti-HRC talking point re State Dept. email

^ if so, then it demonstrates a good practical grasp of Machiavellian politics

i don't think the state legislator is that invested in walker's presidential prospects

knowing the GOP in this state i have no doubt that their interest in seeing this passed is entirely sincere

Yeah, on a legislature level, they don't give a shit about helping out any governor. As far as they're concerned, that's just a seat that one of them could fill in the near future.

i don't think the state legislator is that invested in walker's presidential prospects

I disagree -- see e.g. reporting that the governor was directly involved in crafting wording of 20 week no rape exception abortion ban passed by legislature, surely aimed at GOP primary voters. Not saying there aren't lots of legislators who sincerely support this, but they wouldn't be pushing it now if not for SW's campaign needs.

but someone was arguing that legislators were crafting this piece /specifically/ so that walker could /veto/ it (not support it). that seems like a level of chessboxing i'm not convinced the state legislature is capable of playing.

by "this piece" i mean the provision in the budget that basically does away with open-records laws and prevents people from having a look at what legislators are up to outside of the chamber.

walker has everything to gain btw from that passing

"The answer is obvious: Chelsea is eligible to run in 2016."

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Chelsea-Clinton.jpg

When Bill was her age, he had already lost his first re-election campaign for governor.

Sad to see this sf shooting be used as an excuse for trump to double-down on his racist bullshit

As soon as I saw who the cops picked up the first thing I thought was oh shit here we go again, while everyone pretends that the gun is the infinitely more trivial of the two issues.

My thoughts exactly

http://www.jsonline.com/news/scott-walker-calls-for-open-records-overhaul-to-be-completely-removed-or-changed-b99532073z1-311638151.html

yeah he does

Republican sources have said that at least some lawmakers were told by backers of the motion before the vote that Walker's office had given an assurance that the governor would not veto the public records provision

so basically they thought they could sneak this by without an uproar

Looking like that. But they've built in a decent number of layers of deniability.

have they done ANYTHING without trying to sneak it in one way or another

sneaking in a pro-sneaking initiative is just piling it on

The proposed changes come as Walker is being sued for refusing to release such records related to his proposal to alter the University of Wisconsin System's mission statement to eliminate the Wisconsin Idea. The Wisconsin Idea says the system is committed to improving people's lives in all corners of the state.

Walker backed off on rewriting the Wisconsin Idea after the issue came to light.

LOL

The conjunction of 'Scott Walker' and records mad me think of the wrong one. That's really starting to get annoying.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJPagnVUAAAgkwU.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJKWuAjWwAAGKPZ.jpg

thread delivers

hipsters in checkered shirt

pool of blood under the "I" is a nice touch

i know that town btw they have an outlet mall

hey, maybe he just really likes beghazi as a tourist destination

https://igcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11137768_1423987927916577_901126524_n.jpg

hell yea badas

Liefeld still can't draw feet I see

https://berniesanders.com/news/live-portland-maine/

Bern just said we are living under an oligarchy; it's like he's been lurking!

Statement from Donald J. Trump:

I don’t see how there is any room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the statement I made on June 16th during my Presidential announcement speech. Here is what I said, and yet this statement is deliberately distorted by the media:

“When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”

What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc. This was evident just this week when, as an example, a young woman in San Francisco was viciously killed by a 5 time deported Mexican with a long criminal record, who was forced back into the United States because they didn’t want him in Mexico. This is merely one of thousands of similar incidents throughout the United States. In other words, the worst elements in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by the Mexican
government. The largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs. The Border Patrol knows this. Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world. On the other hand, many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally. I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it.

The Mexican Government wants an open border as long as it’s a ONE WAY open border into the United States. Not only are they killing us at the border, but they are killing us on trade … and the country of Mexico is making billions of dollars in doing so.

I have great respect for Mexico and love their people and their peoples’ great spirit. The problem is, however, that their leaders are far smarter, more cunning, and better negotiators than ours. To the citizens of the United States, who I will represent far better than anyone else as President, the Mexican government is not our friend…and why should they be when the relationship is totally one sided in their favor on both illegal immigration and trade. I have pointed this out during my speeches and it is something Mexico doesn’t want me to say. In actuality, it was only after my significant rise in the polls that Univision, previously my friend, went ballistic. I believe that my examples of bad trade deals for the United States was of even more concern to the Mexican government than my talk of border security.

I have lost a lot during this Presidential run defending the people of the United States. I have always heard that it is very hard for a successful person to run for President. Macy’s, NBC, Serta and NASCAR have all taken the weak and very sad position of being politically correct even though they are wrong in terms of what is good for our country. Univision, because 70% of their business comes from Mexico, in my opinion, is being dictated to by the Mexican Government. The last thing Mexico wants is Donald Trump as President in that I will make great trade deals for the United States and will have an impenetrable border--only legally approved people will come through easily.

Interestingly, Univision has just announced they are attempting to go public despite very poor and even negative earnings, which is not a good situation for a successful IPO or high stock price—not to mention that I am currently suing them for breach of contract. Remember, Univision is the one who began this charade in the first place, and they are owned by one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest backers. After the speech was made, there were numerous compliments and indeed, many rave “reviews”—there was very little criticism. It wasn’t until a week after my announcement that people started to totally distort these very easy to understand words. If there was something stated incorrectly, it would have been brought up immediately and with great enthusiasm.

The issues I have addressed, and continue to address, are vital steps to Make America Great Again! Additionally, I would be the best jobs President that God ever created. Let’s get to work!

totally delusional

Univision started it! It's really about bad trade deals! One of thousands of similar incidents!

the Mexican government is not our friend…and why should they be when the relationship is totally one sided in their favor on both illegal immigration and trade.

That... sounds like a pretty good reason for them to be?

the Mexican Government playing even more dimensions of chess than usual here

it would be nice to get a full list of our friends and enemies from donald trump

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2013/06/joe-mccarthy.png

They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico.

Palin-level syntax there.

their leaders are far smarter, more cunning, and better negotiators than ours.

I look forward to Trump's plan to dump all of our drug-dealing murderous rapists in Mexico. can't believe no American leader has thought of this before!

predictably, obama caved at the 2011 murderer trade summit, conceded everything to the Mexican Government --- never again!!

I look forward to Trump's plan to dump all of our drug-dealing murderous rapists in Mexico. can't believe no American leader has thought of this before!

sam peckinpah had this idea decades ago and NOBODY LISTENED

you tell em, bernie

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-speaks/

good stuff.

I would love it if journalists would ask each candidate two questions:

1) Describe, in as much detail as possible, your strategy for winning your party's nomination for President.
2) Describe, in as much detail as possible, how you plan to get legislation through Congress if you are elected.

If you don't have a realistic, real-world answer to either/both of those, you're not worth paying attention to.

there's no real way anyone can accurately predict the latter, given that the make-up of congress is variable

And explaining your strategy for the campaign upfront would mean that your opponents know exactly what you're planning on doing...

"well, first I would demonize Mexican immigrants"

"the trick is to appease the base using exaggerations and outright lies during the primary, and then move toward the center during the general elec- SHIT! all of that was off the record"

"my strategy is to say whatever the majority of the American people want to hear"

2) Describe, in as much detail as possible, how you plan to get legislation through Congress if you are elected.

"Firing squad."

you're basically asking for more spin.

"realistic, real-world answers" get you shitfucker Survivor Politicians. Which again is why this is all deck chairs on the Titanic.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/140227202405-rick-perry-story-top.jpg

"By secession!"

I guess ultimately my real problem is that the presidency is the shiny object everyone focuses on, but it doesn't seem to be in any way the real center of power in the US government. If you really want to change things, you want to either be the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader. But everybody runs for president like somehow they're going to overcome the system.

but you get a lovely book deal and Secret Service detail for life

you want to either be the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader.

hmm no this is not really accurate. the President has a much freer hand than either of those - the Imperial Presidency is a thing, executive power has expanded massively since the 20th century and there are all sorts of things a President can (and does) do without Congress.

POTUS is much more boring now that they all have the same paymasters. Frankly, only a GOP administration gets Dems out in the street yelling (until Occupy at least).

top man obv wants all Sanders talk to cease and desist, overlooking that the only answer he'd get from HRC on his first question is "by listening to everyday Americans."

as president you can do whatever you want in foreign policy; the Constitution is magical that way.

there's no real way anyone can accurately predict the latter, given that the make-up of congress is variable

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, July 7, 2015 1:27 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah this just seems like a recipe for dumb boilerplate answers "i will work hard with both parties blah blah blah"

congresspeople -- even the leadership i believe -- spend like 70% of their time on the phone begging for money. it's a sales job! everybody hates those. get in the cabinet and at least you can order people around.

tbh I'd fight like hell to be vice president

Honestly, Clinton's contempt for people who ask her questions is one of the things I admire most about her. I think if she were to actually spit in a Washington journalist's face, she'd win the presidency in a landslide, with like 90% voter turnout.

why do you admire that? isn't it part of her job to be as transparent as possible (he asked naively)?

xps

the presidency is the shiny object everyone focuses on, but it doesn't seem to be in any way the real center of power in the US government.

To the extent a single "real" center of power exists in the US government, it is the presidency. But in reality, power is gathered into several clusters, each with its own center. The authors of the Constitution thought Congress would be the biggest power among the three branches, but it hasn't exactly turned out that way in practice.

Clinton's contempt for people who ask her questions is one of the things I admire most about her

I keep my admiration on this front to Barry Bonds.

To the extent a single "real" center of power exists in the US government

http://d329y26hx05pom.cloudfront.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/nedbeatty.jpg

barry bonds would get my vote, for sure

Ohh, I want to play!

To the extent a single "real" center of power exists in the US government
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/internet-world-wide-web-spider.jpg

why do you admire that? isn't it part of her job to be as transparent as possible (he asked naively)?

― wizzz! (amateurist),

99.999 of those questions are silly "process"-type questions.

https://twitter.com/CapehartJ/status/618531514100391936

"I'm rubber, you're glue
whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you
because you're racist"

pretty sure it's a thing with journalists to hang on to & post their personalized hate mail from trump, gotta be hundreds by now.

i don't understand what happened there. was that signed by trump?

yes

that signature looks more like "DashBunnnnngh"

trummmmmmmmmp

the donald is probably sad he can't write his name dollar $igns

maybe he can move to britain?: Dona£d Trump

i hear that someone named "Jim Gilmore," who exists, is running for president as a republican

"I'm rubber, you're glue
whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you
because you're racist"

Downside: read that note. Upside: have Daphne and Celeste stuck in my head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/us/politics/a-political-lifer-scott-walker-has-long-been-his-own-strategist.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Just as it is considered unwise for a lawyer to represent himself in court, though, Mr. Walker’s self-reliance on political strategy could prove problematic.

His penchant for veering off into the arcana and mechanics of politics can divert him from his message, unintentionally raise expectations and, more significantly, reinforce an impression his opponents are hoping will take hold: that he is a political lifer with a shallow grasp of policy who lacks the gravitas the presidency demands.

fingers crossed

oops, posted in the wrong thread. from rubio's snapchat:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJZuT5AUYAEqeYd.jpg

assembling an elite senior commando squad to parachute in to Iraq and fight ISIS 1-on-1

Iowa's role in the primaries is so comical. Is there any other time when anything that happens in Iowa matters at all to the rest of the country.

not sure what's funny about that, other than the idea that marco rubio would know anything/have any ideas on how to defeat ISIS

do you eat wheat and corn

Iowa's role in the primaries is so comical. Is there any other time when anything that happens in Iowa matters at all to the rest of the country.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, July 8, 2015 11:42 AM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no more or less than other states. you guys are being snobs. iowa is actually a pretty cool state.

xpost

yes

Looks like an awesome party.

I'm not knocking Iowa, just that it's political significance in the process is fairly random - it isn't really representative of the rest of the country, it doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, it's not a center of political or economic power, etc. But hey, it's FIRST! and that's what matters right.

is it any more or less representative than any other state? i mean somebody has to be first.

not really. you could have multiple primaries. or rotate the first primary among different states.

i was born in des moines btw so i know everything about iowa

xpost

yes

― wizzz! (amateurist)

ha – I was answering Shakey.

Puerto Rico's more representative of what the country will look like.

broke?

all right screw it, i'm going to repost mine too.

http://i.imgur.com/18Ui4Bf.png

were the participants trying to hide their identities or did they just not want to interact with the photographer?

the photog was hillary clinton, peering through the living room window

"who is watching me?", she said to herself in the bushes

have any of you seen this photo series?

http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/meetings%20revA/

really amazing stuff imo

something something quotidian nature of democratic governance

who periscopes the periscoper

omg that is incredible goole

'quotidian' is a lovely word

hail Fredonia
http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/meetings%20revA/images/KS%2C-FREDONIA.jpg

(this should maybe go on another thread)

lean back
http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/meetings%20revA/images/UT%2C-WAYNE-COUNTY.jpg

the whole primary system is anti-democratic. never more apparent then when they've been leapfrogging the dates last two cycles.

is it any more or less representative than any other state?

Iowa could claim to be a reasonable proxy for the region that includes it, Minnesota and Nebraska. I'm not sure any state could be a reasonable proxy for the entire country.

they should let Kansas City, Mo., have the first caucuses. Just them.

Surely an actual swing state like Ohio would be a better proxy than Iowa.

Iowa's a pretty decent proxy for the GOP primary voter tho xps

i vote for Truth or Consequences, N.M. xp

The disproportionate political influence of Iowa has negative effects, eg ethanol mandates and high-fructose corn syrup subsidies.

and grown men and women going to a hog castration fair

I'm not sure any state could be a reasonable proxy for the entire country.

California's conservative interior and liberal western edge seems pretty close.

https://twitter.com/Philip_Elliott/status/618830916450807808

Phil Elliott Verified account
‏@Philip_Elliott

Donald Trump tells NBC that he will win the Latino vote, says he still doesn't think Obama released his real birth certificate.

as an example of how deluded and isolated our ruling oligarchs are, Chump is p perfect

i don't know, he seems like ... if not an outlier, then not exactly representative

his form of evil isn't sufficiently mundane

I don't mean his specific personality, just the level/degree of remove from daily reality of the rest of us proles

in his levels of self-deception he's highly representative of a large number of americans of whatever economic class

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/why-bernie-sanderss-momentum-is-not-built-to-last.html

sadly, this is probably mostly true. that sanders is unlikely to generate the kind of enthusiasm among black voters that obama generate seems, i guess, a historical inevitability, though it although suggests the limits of "identitarian" politics (in adolph reed's formulation).

also in that piece:

Mrs. Clinton is a liberal Democrat by any measure.

really? by any measure?!

lol @ that

identitarian is a terrible term wtf

why?

the NY Times pimping for an Elite American rep, shockah

not the concept, just the word itself sounds really awkward

yeah it sounds like trustifarian or something

that article isn't "pimping" for anyone

Mrs. Clinton is a liberal Democrat by any measure we can conceive of in our glass tower, have you checked out the $10 million condo ads?

who are all these allegedly liberal ppl who love HRC, anyway?

i mean they obviously exist, but i don't think i've talked to one person who was excited about her candidacy.

celebrity worshippers who believe election-season pandering

i think the article is mostly right about bernie's chances, deluded about clinton's politics, but it's not actually endorsing either

save the "pimping" language for the numerous puff pieces that are actually pimping

i don't think it's at all a given that black voters would prefer HRC to sanders -- her husband was awful on race issues and she ran a pretty vile campaign against obama in 2008 with some really low moments.

Nate Cohn is cute, you guys

i wonder if that veteran troll i killfiled still thinks i am going to engage in dialogue with him? guess i'll never know

Polls suggest that Clinton remains popular among black voters. About three in four African Americans viewed Clinton favorably in a Washington Post-ABC news poll in early 2014. About half of those respondents gave her “strongly” favorable ratings, although not quite as high as the roughly three-quarters who strongly favored Obama. And in a recent Gallup poll, Clinton got her most favorable reviews from nonwhite men and women. Indeed, nonwhite women gave Clinton a higher favorable rating – 71 percent – than white women, 50 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/27/are-black-voters-fired-up-for-hillary-clinton/

because, tho?

Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency.[21] In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president," saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas," and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.[22]

In 2008, Morrison's sentiments were raised anew as Barack Obama, who would later become the country's first African-American president, ran for the presidency. After endorsing Obama, Morrison distanced herself from her 1998 remark about Clinton, saying that it was misunderstood. She alleged that she has "no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race" and claimed she was only describing the way he was being treated during the impeachment trial as an equivalent to a poor black person living in the ghetto.[23] Obama himself, when asked in a Democratic debate about Morrison's declaration of Clinton as "black", replied that Clinton had an enormous "affinity" with the black community, but joked he would need to see Clinton's dancing ability before judging him to be black.[24][25]

One measure of Clinton's popularity among African-American and other minority citizens was demonstrated in 2002, when the Compton Unified School District in Compton, California chose a name for a new primary school. The district is evenly divided between African American and Hispanic students; community leaders decided rather than name the school after an African American or Hispanic figure, potentially snubbing one of the communities, they would christen name the school after Clinton, whose popularity in both communities was enormous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton#Popularity_among_African-Americans

i wonder if that veteran troll i killfiled still thinks i am going to engage in dialogue with him? guess i'll never know

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:35 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

good riddance!

no one has ever explained to me how to killfile someone; is there a thread for that?

Effectively, I have no idea where the idea that black people en masse are going to desert the Clintons is coming from. Sanders needs to introduce himself if he's going to pull focus; right now, he seems to be playing to the same political nerds who freaked out over Howard Dean.

Otm

no direct reasons in the WaPo except "strong woman" xxp

well, that's Bill. And he done the strong woman wrong. xp

i watched a good chunk of Sanders from Portland the other night, and he was addressing black-specific issues more than any lefty prez upstart i can recall.

Was he addressing them to a black audience? Because that would be an important thing for him to do if he would like to attract black voters.

well, it was Maine, but it was on the internets.

anyway, Hil riding Bill's Toni Morrison transference to the presidency in exchange for that lil blue dress, wow, what a great feminist role model.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/how-black-voters-could-determine-the-2016-election/

The most pertinent charts are the Republican vs Democrat matchups and Hillary's support compared to Obama's support, along with this:

This, of course, is highly hypothetical, and it seems unlikely either drop would be so severe -- especially given black turnout was already on the upswing before Obama came along and that Democrats haven't taken less than 89 percent of the black vote since 1996. But it demonstrates the potential for millions of votes to swing under a certain set of circumstances.