Your 2012 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

why not start now/symmetry required/suggest ban/etc

wow. just wow

No

for real

msnbc is so ineloquent right now

and fox: "because now on this planet look at the united states of america the man who um did this who won this election you know um from the beginning this wasn't an evolution that would happen naturally and i think that um this guy put that word before us and man that guy can talk"

what a night. grant park. yes we can. wow

he won florida. the market bottomed before the election. he has a mandate now to do something fucking smart, and he better. hard not to cry right now. go barack!

mccain delivers a humane concession

Come on guys, feel the Mittmentum!

I'm sure they just made that illegal in california.

Because I want to see how the 2010 Congressional elections play out first.

Plagiarism.

Nader.

Not anymore!

really?

oh.

..
:)

nader is busy squandering any dignity he had left, if he is still alive in 4 years he'll get seven votes.

I have no idea who the republicans are going to run. They're obviously going to have to rethink the direction of their party. Huckabee is probably their best shot but he'll have been out of office so long I kind of doubt it.

Right now I feel like they have no one good on the bench, but it always feels like that when you have four years to go. Who the fuck thought W was going to be president?

stfu, all of you, it is wednesday in america

Well, put it his way: If Oba has that Clinton thing, where people vote him because they like him, then anyone running against him is basically fulfilling a role and not hoping for preesidency.

So, Palin to oppose him then, then after the second term, they have someone who might actually win.

Because I want to see how the 2010 Congressional elections play out first.

― jaymc, Wednesday, November 5, 2008 10:03 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

L O L

They're obviously going to have to rethink the direction of their party.

You would think so. However, I hope they run with the idea of a Palin presidential bid in 2012 so that they stay out of power for a looong time.

http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A7983/79832/300_79832.jpg

best case scenario the hardcore convinces themselves they lost cause mccain wasnt truly conservative - and another 10m republican voters peel off

hope to see u there! http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/iceprincess.jpg

let's wait til we see what the new publicly financed system promised for '12 looks like.

destroy thread.

so high last night i misunderstood gabbnebb's prompt. they will run someone as hard right at him as he is "liberal." conventional wisdom took a hit with his win. his opponent'll be a total reaganesque tax-cutter proponent, anti-big gov guy or gal. romney could play that role to a t, with maybe pawlenty or jindal as his veep. palin could too, if her rep recovers over the next few years

Dumber & Plumber 2?

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/13/20081031-palinwurzelbacherresize.jpg

Jindal/Romney

i saw jindal on h+c last night theres no way this insane fundie makes it thru the primaries

dude performs exorcisms

no joke

romney would be the perfect harmless sacrificial lamb after a strong obama 1st term

go ahead mittens u can do it lol

Romney/Pawlenty

Sarah Palin/Todd Palin

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

palin/kristol

palin/sparkles

kristol/gayle

lol starbusts i meant starbursts

lol I was all "what poor stripper are you pairing up with Sarah Palin?"

lol redundancy

email to the base: bush was john the anti-baptist, preparing the way for obamarx the anti-christ

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov/12/121422/dress-vows-vinoy-crists-wedding-details-revealed/

As governor, Crist has tended to lead more on the fundamentals than details of policy, leaving the latter to lawmakers to hash out. Not so, apparently, as bridegroom.
"The governor has been nice enough to participate and be part of the process," Rome said. "He was extremely active, for which I was really, really grateful – I was just so grateful; it's our special day, so it should be our shared vision."

Carole Rome said the couple will take only a few days of honeymoon. Given the governor's obligations in Tallahassee, she said, "I think we're going to keep it fairly short."

He insisted everything be perfect, describing his vision as "like fred astaire and ginger rodgers dancing as one in a luminous spotlight."

roffles

gonna go out on a limb here and say that both Romney and Huckabee will think "now they see I was the best candidate!" and run in '12, as might Bobby Jindal

Huckabee seems very likely to run. I think there's a good chance Romney will too - the mainstream (whatever that means) will probably line/has already lined up behind him. Jindal I'm not sure about - he's young and canny and may keep his powder dry. I want to know who Newt's gonna get behind (if not Jindal?).

anybody know if John Ensign has presidential ambitions?

Your search - "nate silver is attending charlie crist's wedding" - did not match any documents.

http://www.observer.com/2008/media/nate-silver-signs-penguin-two-book-deal-worth-sum-high-six-figures

i can't imagine Ensign as a candidate

no Jindal?

I can see Sanford getting in. Dunno who/what faction, if any, he'd be aligned with.

Ask me in three years. There are some obvious wannabes right now, but nobody who's obviously rising in public esteem. Huckabee needs something noteworthy he can add to his resume to shine it up for 2012 and he can't do that as a talk show host. If he doesn't win a political race in 2010, he's a has been.

we need a suggest ban button for entire threads

change we can believe in

Jon Stewart totally went after Huckabee on the Daily Show last nught. He was kinda merciless and barely made eye contact during the interview.

we need a suggest ban button for entire threads

takes a lot of the fun out of it imo

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/12/10/crist_invites_3_national_newsm.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/12/10/crist_invites_3_national_newsmen_to_his_totally_hetro_wedding.html

LET'S SEE IF WE'RE STILL HERE THEN

2012 Runa Chaki Speculation Thread

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/07/gop-governor-eyeing-senate-run-to-be-outed-in-film/

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/15/obama_taps_huntsman_for_ambassador_to_china.html

veddy interesting

Huntsman is also a self-proclaimed fan of the progressive rock genre and on July 30, 2007, attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater. Later that day, Huntsman signed a proclamation creating "Dream Theater Day" on that date for the state of Utah. According to Dream Theater's website, Huntsman is a keyboard player. Huntsman also joined REO Speedwagon on the piano for two songs during their concert at the Utah State Fair on September 16, 2005.

Mel Martinez, maybe?

He's Cuban!

and a RINO.

let me once again express my disappointment that we wont see a dream theater fan in the white house in 2013

Billy Bush in 2012!

let me once again express my disappointment that we wont see a dream theater fan in the white house in 2013

only because of your tireless opposition to my candidacy

omg lol

j0hn listens to dream theater = disappointment of the day

so all these GOP hacks were feeling up Barbour?

Thank you for that image.

You're very welcome.

Looks like Barbour was feeling up hacks:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/06/23/PH2009062302131.jpg

That side of ribs getting the repub nomination would be a good way to repeal the 22nd amendment before 2016.

RIP gabbneb

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10/22/elizabeth-warren-for-president/

lolz

Is Taibbi still 20 years old?

no, just knows eternal fuckups when he sees them?

http://trueslant.com/assets/images/avatars/matttaibbi_62.jpg

kinda looks like max

dude is doing acid on yer politiks! don't mess with him!

"He promised health care reform and campaigned on a public option, and we all know how that is going to turn out."

O RLY?

lol delusion

Its pretty clear there's gonna be a public option

you can call shit whatever you want...

All's I'm saying is that we don't "all know how that is going to turn out." But political fatalism is such a rad stance to take, I know.

realism is the word yer hunting

I don't think you exactly exemplify "realism", Morbs. Just a different brand of delusion.

I'm sure I asked this upthread and/or before, but: people who know they're voting Obama in '12 no matter what, serious q. At what point would voting for a third party, one that was further left and more traditionally "progressive," not be "unrealistic"/idealistic/unethical/add-in-yr-own? Like, presumably, if there were a progressive party that stood a chance of winning in 2012, then opposing the Democratic party & its candidates because there was a better party and candidate who might win would be A-OK with you: right? But presumably building such a movement, the steps toward it, would, in many elections, cost Democrats seats, power, etc, which would have immediate impact on real people & the services they rely on a less-conservative government to provide, right - I dig that & accept it, and it's why I vote for Dems who I don't think are fit to serve or are worth more than a loud raspberry. But with you guys, is it "move the Democratic party left if you want a left-leaning party because it's Dems & GOP forever, any change to this system is pie-in-the-sky talk" or "build but vote Democratic until the thing-being-built can actually challenge"?

this system isn't designed to accomodate more than two parties, and I don't think it ever will. so yeah, the goal is to push the Dems to the left. I support any effort to break the two party monopoly, but it would basically require re-writing the Constitution, which won't happen until there's a complete and total breakdown of American society, probably something involving the deaths of millions and the accompanying structural changes.

altho tbh I don't "know" I will vote for Obama in '12 no matter what, because in my district I'm perfectly comfortable throwing my vote away on a farther left candidate. The Bay Area will always go Dem in a major way, so if I don't vote Dem its pretty much just a protest vote. Obama may very well do some things that completely turn me off him, but we'll see. He hasn't yet, not quite.

is Morbz afraid NY is gonna opt out or what

the goal is to push the Dems to the left

Can you say never, never, never gonna happen?

Done even posting links on this shit now.

"Can you say never, never, never gonna happen?"

Can you say so so so tiresome tiresome tiresome? Seriously if you don't think anything can change for the better why do you even bother to post on these threads? Doesn't being frustrated only work if there is an expectation that something could be different?

this system isn't designed to accomodate more than two parties, and I don't think it ever will. so yeah, the goal is to push the Dems to the left.[

I agree with Morbius on this. Obama was the most left-appearing candidate of my lifetime, but who really thinks he's moving the party even a little to the left? Anybody? Really? The few lefty Dems are anomalies; we cheer them when they speak up, but they're not even serious candidates for VP when the time comes, they're ideological bread-and-circuses to keep those of us who have a hundred bones to throw in at election time from keeping our money instead. I'll probably vote Dem anyway, why the hell not, if everything's gonna suck shit anyway then standing on principle's an empty gesture, but -- I mean, the Democratic party has gone from embracing the right to choose to ceding all sorts of ground on that question, ditto on the question of whether state-provided services are a good or bad thing, ditto on public works. What is the solution imo, nothin', just abandon illusions that by supporting Democratic candidates any movement of the party to the left will occur. Only when a party loses power will it change, parties don't get support & power & then change: the support they get is explicit approval of them-as-they-are.

Morbius posts because it's fucking frustrating 1) how terrible the American version of "left" is at the ballot level and 2) how saying so gets you attacked by people who should be a lot more vocal imo about a Democratic party without even the minor, minor stones it'd take to prosecute a few war criminals

oh wait I guess I could work with the party at the local level and subvert from the inside by adding my voice to the conversation

that plan has a lot to recommend it right

Obama's to the left of Hillary and Kerry fwiw - and I don't think either of them woulda gotten even close to getting a public healthcare system in place

also I'm all for prosecuting war criminals but that isn't Obama's job - that should come from congress and the courts and that door isn't closed yet

oh yes it is. Obama has sent a clear message on it.

not sure what HRC/Kerry have to do w/anything here

Maybe I should start working with my local GOP instead; a viable Right (rather than frothing loonies) in the USA would make it less imperative to vote for whatever the Dems offer.

not sure what HRC/Kerry have to do w/anything here

um they were recent nominees to lead the party?

ok

you're right, this presidency is awesome & progressive, I have been blind

"I agree with Morbius on this. Obama was the most left-appearing candidate of my lifetime, but who really thinks he's moving the party even a little to the left?"

I don't think Obama is necessarily to the left of Carter, but I hope he's more competent than Carter was.

"why the hell not, if everything's gonna suck shit anyway"

Cuz things can always suck worse, somehow people seem to forget the last eight years. . .

"Only when a party loses power will it change, parties don't get support & power & then change"

The Democrat party is never going to change into the Socialist Utopia party, guys. Even a massive defeat is only going to result in further movement towards the right (cuz that's where the money is).

"how saying so gets you attacked by people who should be a lot more vocal imo about a Democratic party without even the minor, minor stones it'd take to prosecute a few war criminals"

Oooh "attacked". Show me the scars, please?

Seriously, guys, if you want people to listen to your (mostly right) opinions, please stop sounding like whiny condescending dickheads.

somehow people seem to forget the last eight years. . .

ha no they don't! all their policies are still firmly in place!

"attacked" is a manner of speaking, Alex - you're doing it now, actually. I asked a question; you're being dismissive & hostile. Don't know if you're familiar with figurative language, but "attack" can refer to tone of voice, even of written voice; so many ways to use the word. I'm being "sarcastic" right now, yet I'm not actually cutting anything, which is the actual root of the word, "cutting." Weird, right?

I'd never vote third party. As SMC said - the system isn't built for it. Were a major third party to come in power, it would simply replace one of the other parties (very quickly.) Yes...it sucks that we have to vote for people more right-wing than we'd prefer. It also sucks for the hardcore-right-wing people who had to vote for John McCain even though they didn't think he was right-wing enough. There are probably as many of them as there are true progressives, so to think that we'd be better off in some European parliamentary system is sorta silly. The left-wing side of the country *and* the right-wing side of the country have to compromise on their votes.

FWIW I don't think that the % of real left-wing Dems in Congress is actually smaller than the % of real left-wing people in this country. The real problem is that there really aren't that many hardcore left-wing people in this country. It's easy to think that there are, being that most people we know are.

and you're not going to listen to anybody who even suggests that voting Democrat isn't 100% awesome at all times, Alex, at least be honest.

what's even weirder is that you want to use Goat's Head Soup to prosecute war criminals.

you never know until you try Mr Que

all joking aside, i agree with you. it's frustrating that these two lame choices are all we have, and I try to support a third party when I can (LOL voted for Nader in 2000) but i'm not sure what i can do about it. we're stuck with this shitty two party system, DURST v. STAPP

It's easy to think that there are, being that most people we know are.

(Kael's Nixon comment comes to mind.)

Putting my tinfoil hat on for a moment, there are good incentives for the plutocrats to push the GOP as loony as possible: if they do then the "left" can be pushed pretty far to the right without "sensible" people considering anything but a Dem vote.

strikes me as kind of crazy to say that obama hasnt moved the party to the left frankly. not by a lot, sure, but politics is inches, at least in a huge bureaucratic democracy like this one.

The next time someone asks me to explain American politics, I'm going to tell them that Democrats are like Fred Durst and Republicans are like Scott Stapp.

"ha no they don't! all their policies are still firmly in place!"

Yeah all of them. Every one of them. No change at all.

"I asked a question; you're being dismissive & hostile."

Actually I answered some of your questions, but I guess I didn't put an xoxo at the end.

"and you're not going to listen to anybody who even suggests that voting Democrat isn't 100% awesome at all times, Alex, at least be honest."

J0hn that's basically 100% false, but I will be honest and say I don't really listen to you.

in what way, max? rhetorically, or in his governance? he talks an awesome line depending on what room he's in, but "not one federal penny for abortion" isn't even as far left as Billy "the Middle" Clinton

(I know, I know - every time O can't do something it's "that'd be impractical," he rescinded the gag rule, that's all you can really expect, etc etc)

kind of love this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704224004574489700704666232.html

in what way, max? rhetorically, or in his governance? he talks an awesome line depending on what room he's in, but "not one federal penny for abortion" isn't even as far left as Billy "the Middle" Clinton

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, October 26, 2009 4:24 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

both? i mean were going to see a public healthcare plan in this country thanks mostly to him. i dont see how thats not pushing the democratic party left?

This is a weighted, highly-individual discussion; how left you find a particular president is going to be entirely dependent upon which issues are more important to you. If you are looking at Obama socially, he's going to fall into the middle of the spectrum based on what he has done so far if not a little over on the right. If you look at him financially, he falls squarely into the "Democrat" bucket and whether he is left or right depends on where you place that bucket.

if you look at him with one eye closed, you wont be able to see how far away he is in relation to other objects

also oh snap:

The penchant for personally taking the president of the U.S. to the woodshed is an example of that special arrogance that Baby Boomers introduced to this society. It derives not from the notion that any of us could do just as good a job running the country, but that in fact we should be running the country because we are so radiantly principled and implacable and, well, special. It's based on the idea that if take-no-prisoners types like us were in charge we would pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, imprison half of Wall Street and jam that single-payer plan right down the GOP's throat. It's also rooted in the notion that the president is a babe in the woods, a neophyte, a rube who lacks the requisite toughness to succeed. Right, a politician from Chicago who lacks toughness. You know, the guy who hired Rahm Emanuel.

peters out towards the end but the "lol you think you're special" dig pretty much highlights exactly what I hate about everyone in this country

also I'm all for prosecuting war criminals but that isn't Obama's job - that should come from congress and the courts and that door isn't closed yet

― Jesus, the Czar of Czars (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, October 26, 2009 8:06 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh yes it is. Obama has sent a clear message on it.

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, October 26, 2009 8:07 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Obama isn't the Attorney General.

Yeah, but he hired the Attorney General and its pretty clear that he set the agenda for Holder on this issue.

Alex, I am noting that you and I agree here.

You really are expecting them to prosecute the former Vice President for war crimes?

At what point would voting for a third party, one that was further left and more traditionally "progressive," not be "unrealistic"/idealistic/unethical/add-in-yr-own? Like, presumably, if there were a progressive party that stood a chance of winning in 2012, then opposing the Democratic party & its candidates because there was a better party and candidate who might win would be A-OK with you: rig

but this is asked-and-answered. stood a chance of winning in 2012 AND was remarkably to the left of the current democratic party? from which country would it find its constituency? this one?

we don't live in a national parliamentary system so non-mainstream or one-issue politicking is always basically stillborn. either you have a credible chance to get to 50.1% in a given polity or you don't exist. this isn't ideological but structural. considering this basically iron binary, the parties start from the middle point and work "outward" (fwiw i don't think that all issues map onto a left-right line, but our electoral system forces every issue to do so). since parties seek power from voters (and heh donors), they follow and do not lead. you cannot expect the democratic party to be more to the left than the left-ish half of the country (or, of each individual state, specifically)

you could say that the national GOP is doing its idealistic best to lead its coalition further into real principled leadership, against its own middle, and you can see how that is doing for their numbers

this isn't to say that the current two parties are the ones we'll always have. electoral politics looked very different in 1860, and 1964. frankly i think our parties make much more sense now than they did when the status of african-americans was basically THE wrench in the whole works. a world where john lindsay was a republican but strom thurmond is a democrat seems frankly bonkers.

anyway, it's not as if there is no non-electoral politicking. the existence of pressure groups is not well enough remarked upon, they have really very large power, and not just industry-serving ones. MADD, for example, essentially writes our drinking and driving laws, iirc

Matt basically doing the exact thing I'm talking about - no matter what, it's important to remember that asking for anything is asking too much

My mind truly boggles, btw, at the idea that Obama was the most "left appearing" Dem candidate in a long time. He was obviously a centrist. Refusing to be photographed with Gavin Newsom at a campaign event says a lot.

"You really are expecting them to prosecute the former Vice President for war crimes?"

I don't expect anything. My feeling is that the law is the law and I don't take kindly to pretending that it should apply to someone just because they happen to be Vice President of the United States.

"My mind truly boggles, btw, at the idea that Obama was the most "left appearing" Dem candidate in a long time."

I think that sentence is missing two words: viable and presidential.

I wouldn't have my picture taken with Gavin Newsom btw.

So having lolled at that piece, the part I'd like to take exception with is the idea that Obama is having an immaculate Presidency; of course he isn't, in fact it would be impossible for him or anyone else to have one. I think the takeaway point, particularly after speaking with some friends who work in political fundraising this weekend, is this: lobbyists control most of what happens in Washington and the only way to circumvent them is to a) donate money to the people who back your beliefs, like tons and tons and tons of it, or at least get tons and tons of people to donate a little; and b) hold said politicians' feet to the fire if/when they get into office about following through on what you voted them in for. A lot of what is being flung at Obama seems to really be the fault of Congress, both in the Senate and the House, and the issue is that if you're going off of what's being reported, the only people making significant noise to the DC congresspeople are lobbyists (who suck) and right-wing loonies (with the sole exception of the gay rights demonstration). This is perhaps the ONLY area in which a petition makes sense; if you feel like your desire and voice isn't being heard, you need to badger Congress about it and throw some cash behind it, otherwise they're going to puss out and side with the lobbyists because that is who is funding all of them.

My mind truly boggles, btw, at the idea that Obama was the most "left appearing" Dem candidate in a long time. He was obviously a centrist. Refusing to be photographed with Gavin Newsom at a campaign event says a lot.

well, here are the previous Democratic presidential candidates: John Kerry; Bill Clinton; Michael Dukakis; Walter Mondale; Jimmy Carter. Which of these are left of Obama?

facing west, walter mondale's house was to the left of mine, by about a block

so, you know, fight the real enemy and maybe the politicians yuo'd like to see will start appearing (then again maybe not, who knows really; all I know at this point is lobbyists suck and I think they should be abolished)

xp: I was only 7 at the time but I have a VERY hard time believing that Obama is left of Carter or Mondale.

gbx remains political haiku master for all time

My mind truly boggles, btw, at the idea that Obama was the most "left appearing" Dem candidate in a long time. He was obviously a centrist. Refusing to be photographed with Gavin Newsom at a campaign event says a lot.

well, here are the previous Democratic presidential candidates: John Kerry; Bill Clinton; Michael Dukakis; Walter Mondale; Jimmy Carter. Which of these are left of Obama?

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

The question you should ask yourself is, why did Obama "appear" to be to the left of those candidates?

can somebody explain to me the logic behind voting for a 3rd party?

I mean even when the result *did* affect the election (bush/gore) the democrats didn't say "oh I guess we should probably scoot a little to the left because 2% of America are hardcore leftists" - instead it was "wow wtg nader, and nader voters hope your ideals were worth it." the whole protest vote idea is absurd because anyone outside of the major 2 parties isn't even really considered to be in the realm of american politics. it's a protest that nobody gives a shit about but you.

why not donate money/volunteer for some left-wing dem somewhere else in the country? changing the party from within by electing left-wing dems is really the only way things are gonna change (and yes, they will change very slowly, almost imperceptibly) - but I guess that's not as fun as complaining and feeling self-satisfied when you vote for some anonymous dude who agrees with you on everything. yay for not having to give up an inch on your ideals and accomplishing nothing!

The question you should ask yourself is, why did Obama "appear" to be to the left of those candidates?

A: Because he is black.

Thanks, going back to work now.

And seriously, Dukakis? Dukakis opposed the death penatly.

and the death penalty.

who is going to disappoint you least? voting for president has always been a choice between alternatives, what else is it? you're electing the First Bureaucrat, not the King Of Your Life.

xps comparing presidents in absolute terms doesn't make much sense to me, they were more to the right or left of each other on various issues -- but obama was more conspicuously to the left of median political opinion at the time he was running than any other candidate with a real shot.

yay for casting a ballot that best represents your vision of what you'd like your country to look and act like

xp

iatee talkin sense itt

xps comparing presidents in absolute terms doesn't make much sense to me, they were more to the right or left of each other on various issues -- but obama was more conspicuously to the left of median political opinion at the time he was running than any other candidate with a real shot.

― cialis morissette (goole), Monday, October 26, 2009 8:47 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark

What positions of Obama were to the left of median political opinion?

the logic behind voting third party begins with the assumption that the whole "change from within" notion is bullshit being fed to people to keep them donating & voting

I vote Democrat, I'm just offended by the idea that no third party can ever be viable - as was pointed out before, third parties have come in & outright replaced dominant parties in this country - at least twice, right?

t/s: voting for a third party v. not voting at all

at least third party voters are more likely (imo) to be engaged citizens

ffs half this country doesn't even bother

getting butthurt about people actually voting according to their ideals is some weird concern-trolling, imo

pretty sure any individual person's vote in a presidential election accomplishes nothing. you gave obama that one vote that pushed him over the line from 60% to 61% in California, congrats!

ha well after the 06 blowout, maybe not very many. iraq bad, torture bad, negotiating good, healthcare good

xp they did at times when the country was cracking apart, basically over race. the situation came about because the entire political system, not just the party system that exists "underneath" it, could not handle or adjudicate the conflict.

are you offended by math j0hn? 33% vote for nader, 33% vote for kerry, 34% vote for bush and hello president bush. there's no reason why a 3rd party should survive in our system, and not cause the democrats/republicans don't want it to...because the math doesn't.

when you threaten to vote third party angry Democrats will tell you "you should just stay home!!!!" half the time & then explain to you that their candidate is really gonna subvert the whole thing from within and is way more left than he can really practically let on

getting butthurt about people actually voting according to their ideals is some weird concern-trolling, imo

lol browbeating ppl to vote Dem if they're even slightly left is a big part of Democratic ideology at this point

my posts are getting lost in the xps,

to Matt Armstrong: ha well after the 06 blowout, maybe not very many. iraq bad, torture bad, negotiating good, healthcare good

to Sen. Goat [Leninist - Mtn]: they did at times when the country was cracking apart, basically over race. the situation came about because the entire political system, not just the party system that exists "underneath" it, could not handle or adjudicate the conflict.

iatee is that the only way the math can shake out then? helluva probabilities chart you've got there

um neither the democrats nor the republicans want a 3rd party to survive xpost

john d otm

"as was pointed out before, third parties have come in & outright replaced dominant parties in this country - at least twice, right?"

I don't think the Feds/Whigs are good comparisons for our current predicament, unfortunately.

john how would you expect the math to work out?

j0hn d/harbl '12

^^^that seems specious (xp to iatee's "math"), but i will grant that yes, a viable third-party (viable = can win 1/3 of the vote) automatically means that the winner might not represent a majority...but again: not that many people vote anyway!

and you're wrong: the democrats/republicans almost certainly do not want to loosen their hold on the political discourse. i'd wager that any proposed amendment to the constitution (run-off voting, for example) would get shot down very early in its life

they did at times when the country was cracking apart, basically over race. the situation came about because the entire political system, not just the party system that exists "underneath" it, could not handle or adjudicate the conflict.

I hope the Republican party falls apart due to gays. That would be awesome.

why is no one responding to gooles easy-to-understand pretty-well-accepted reasons for there not being a 3rd party

john d otm

― harbl, Monday, October 26, 2009 4:55 PM (41 seconds ago)

as I don't get to enjoy one of these very often on political threads I'll just say thanks and cool my jets now

my math example is an extreme case of why it's not logical and *wouldn't* happen, rather than something that'd actually be likely to happen.

in the 33-nader 33-kerry 34-bush example, what would probably happen is the 33 nader votes plus 16 of the most left-wing kerry votes would clump together to form a new pretty left-wing party and the rest of the kerry votes would go to the GOP, which would have to turn into a moderate party to be competitive.

and then you'd have two parties which were about 50-50 and competitive in most election cycles and spend their entire time to get the 10% of people who are politically! sorta like now!

who are politically in-between*

J0hn's been standing up for my interests nicely since last I poked my nose into this thread. As far as third party vs not voting goes -- well, I didn't vote for a president last November. I still feel pretty good about it.

btw did anyone read today's NYT editorial -- the first real slap-down the editorial page has given Obama?

I tried to change my screen name to "the 10% of people who are politically" but the system doesn't like the % sign so I will not vote for this system either

that people can feel good about doing nothing astounds me

As far as third party vs not voting goes -- well, I didn't vote for a president last November. I still feel pretty good about it.

I know you're "standing up for your principles" and what not and you talk about this a lot, not voting for anyone, but seriously dude: shame on you.

ok that makes more sense xp

still: seems to only underscore why two entrenched political parties would resist any third party contender. not because "it just wouldn't happen" but because party shake ups mean that people lose jobs/power, and people don't like that

I voted for my local rep, Que -- that's quite enough for me.

i don't see why your example is "logical" though. these are both wishful thinking and sort of illogical but sort of logical:

you: "the party will move left if i work from within to change it"
some other people: "the party will move left if i support a third party instead"

i usually end up voting for democrats but tbh i feel more comfortable with the latter

I don't think the Feds/Whigs are good comparisons for our current predicament, unfortunately.

You never know. There are teabaggers on the right pulling one way and fiscal conservatives pulling another. Imagine a center-right coalition to the right of the Dems and their consituencies and to the left of the wingnuts and religious freaks. It might be viable, especially after the last eight years and whatever excesses and scandals the Dems in Congress produce.

doing nothing > doing harm

AND I VOTE FOR THE FUCKING DEMOCRAT EVERY TIME, iatee. it astounds me that even trying to raise the question of not voting democratic brings out the Moonie/Stalinist sentiment in the party faithful.

well i mean i don't believe the latter either but i can imagine feeling better about voting for a 3d party candidate instead of like, a pro-war, pro-life democrat or something xpost to me

that's right I compared democrats to a mass murderer, I'm rollin fox news style now

doing nothing > doing harm

i agree with this, but i strongly disagree with the idea that voting for Obama is "doing harm"

i'll admit that sometimes i think wistfully of a peaceful american balkanization, but it's mostly because i think it would enhance regional differences and make the food better

I'm not being saturnine and rapping people's knuckles for voting for Obama; he was obviously the best Dem candidate in my lifetime. But his positions were so clear on a lot of things -- from state secrets to indefinite detention to gays -- that very little of his actions have surprised me. I just don't want to get fooled again. Obviously if the "public option" and his Justice Dept challenges DADT in federal court, he might start to look attractive in 2012 again.

too late you already fooled yourself when you didn't vote for anyone

why is no one responding to gooles easy-to-understand pretty-well-accepted reasons for there not being a 3rd party

― Bobby Wo (max), Monday, October 26, 2009 4:01 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^ this, btw

if what i've said here sounds "moonie" i don't even know where to start

the political inclinations of the citizenry precede anything the parties are or do. they just have to get to 51% or they don't exist. if they can't translate those inclinations into political power they are not in business. that's it.

you: "the party will move left if i work from within to change it"
some other people: "the party will move left if i support a third party instead"

uh, mine is better because it is true by definition? whereas the other one has very basically zero evidence of having any effect in our lifetimes?

too late you already fooled yourself when you didn't vote for anyone

Que, are you incapable of reading a fucking post?

"Imagine a center-right coalition to the right of the Dems and their consituencies and to the left of the wingnuts and religious freaks."

I can't imagine it for a second.

i read your post just fine, let me amend that

too late you already fooled yourself when you didn't vote for anyone for President of The United States

or is voting for mayor, state senators, and my Congressional rep not "anyone"?

goole i guess everyone has you killfiled but i agree with you & ur reasons seem pretty self-evident

que i think you're being kind of a dick here.

besides, a meaningless act can't be shameful ;-)

Keep dreaming, Que. I have some Bill Clinton campaign posters that you might want to glue over your bed.

it just gets me so angry when people don't vote for President and then act all entitled and full of themselves and cherry pick shit for Obama to do and *then* Obama will have their support.

i do admire your passion for sure--but there comes a time when the only person you're fooling is yourself.

very basically zero evidence

haha I am turning into an ESL student in this debate

I mean, there's Rush fans on this thread, right? READ THE LYRICS TO "FREE WILL" MOTHERFUCKERS!

i agree with this, but i strongly disagree with the idea that voting for Obama is "doing harm"

I think that this position soft-soaps just how shameful his disinterest in the question of state-sponsored torture is. whether it'd be "politically impractical" to prosecute the guilty on this question is of exactly zero interest to me; I'm a frothing moralist about human rights. if no Democrat wins for 20 years, the Bush admin should still be brought to justice, and the innocents detained & tortured (whose torturers were paid by your tax dollars & mine) given their day to testify against them. This is bedrock, not gamesmanship. Most of my other concerns I can go "yeah, right, can't always get what you want, get something close." There is no "close" on the issue of state-sponsored torture; there's right and wrong. Obama is wrong; one nudge to the Justice Dept would do the job, as everyone knows. For him, his agenda over a theoretical eight years is more important; I think that's doing harm, placing that agenda ahead of prosecuting the people responsible for committing torture in the name of this country.

So, that is my v. somber explanation of why I would say that.

i agree with you, what does any of that have to do with changing the math on third parties? changing the math = changing voters minds btw, if i haven't been able to make that clear enough.

nobody responded to my bigger point upthread tho:

why should there be an actual left-wing president if actual left-wing people are a small minority in this country? obama's politics are basically living up to the people who voted for him!

basically my position is, blame america.

If the choice in November 2008 was between a doddering, never too intelligent jingo and a hyperliterate (for a pol) senator whose foreign policy positions were either clever variations on the Bush administration's -- well, that's no fucking choice to me. Sorry if that's being entitled or full of myself. It sounds like you're the one with the issues.

this is probably a dumb idea (and a "waste of time!"), but i'd be curious to know what y'all's "third parties" would look like?

like what would the Bull [REDACTED JOKE RE: J0hn's DAY JOB] Party's planks be? alfred? etc?

because there are times that i think morbius is totally otm, but in a really, really unpleasant grumpy way. and there are def pet solutions to society's problems that i'm baffled we haven't implemented, etc., and not all of them neatly align along a l-r axis

(I think I'm on the same page as goole w/ the math, he's just saying it more elegantly)

if you guys are really looking for third parties that might have some modicum of power you should be pushing for a rewritten constitution w/ a parliamentary system

because there are times that i think morbius is totally otm, but in a really, really unpleasant grumpy way. and there are def pet solutions to society's problems that i'm baffled we haven't implemented, etc., and not all of them neatly align along a l-r axis

I 100% agree with this

many xposts, j0hn D otm, human rights/death penalty is non-political stuff for me, and i really have to delude myself a bit when i vote for someone who will say with a straight face that killing people in prison is OK pretty much any time

it's hard to answer anything on this thread but i have some ideas for my ideal party

first thing is pizza ^_^

None of those ideas involve getting us to join, right?

A bottle of this for every family in America:

http://www.beveragewarehouse.com/images/products/1404.gif

i also think max is right that a new constitution would be needed. it's not math that prevents third parties from surviving, it's that the government is built on keeping stuff the way it is and making it hard to change anything.

haha you guys really have goole killfiled huh

more like the constitution is built on keeping stuff the way it is

no i just couldn't read the whole thread it's too long i'm sorry, i was at target

the constitution made the government, yeah

the new constitution can't be longer than 45 words

it's that the government is built on keeping stuff the way it is and making it hard to change anything.

DING DING

if i were to do one thing it would be to abolish the senate, i think THAT's probably more doable than getting rid of a binary party system.

I would MUCH RATHER abolish the House.

the new constitution is 140 chars from txt

there's a big difference between the government not wanting things to change (people in power / interest groups etc. who are looking out for their own) and the constitution not wanting things to change (it's just really fucking hard to change from a structural perspective...basically on purpose. not all constitutions are, ours is.)

Ah, for the days when senators bought their seats.

btw guys, srs q, how many structural changes could be made at a state-level? which in theory is how it's supposed to work, right?

like how much would it cost for MN to institute it's OWN public health care system?

#newconstitution artcl 1 PIZZA

artcl 2 ^_^

You guys are so high. Getting rid of the Senate?! If there's one thing that isn't going away, it's the Senate. It's precisely because it's the house of the very unequal states, that it will never vote itself out of existence and why most of the voters of smaller states will never ratify its dismemberment.

#newconstitution artcl 3 compulsory marijuana

article 4 try 2B rad 2yrself and 2 others

but the bigger issue is that I don't think a parlimentary system would change anything. I keep saying this and people love to ignore it cause it's not a convenient fact - there are not very many seriously left-wing people in america. the reasons behind this go way beyond "they just haven't seen nader speak enough." a moderate-right wing parliment w/ 10 nader seats who are forced to compromise on many issues isn't much different than a moderate right-wing congress w/ 10 left-wing dems who have to compromise on many issues.

parliament

like how much would it cost for MN to institute it's OWN public health care system?

― how rad bandit (gbx), Monday, October 26, 2009 4:27 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

the same, proportionally, as MA i guess. depends on whether there's grandma-killing or not.

sadly I imagine a center-right party trying to distance themselves from teabaggers & birthers will become a viable 3rd option well before a truly progressive party does the same...

well that assumes we can clone up another 9 naders and i do not think the gov't labs would allow that

i would like a funkadelicary system am i rigt

I keep saying this and people love to ignore it cause it's not a convenient fact - there are not very many seriously left-wing people in america.

this is like a chicken-egg problem though.

i meant that to be italic/quote, sorry

it also depends what u mean by "seriously left-wing"

like is anyone here willing to consider the fact that the majority of america disagrees with a large % of your political views? this is the underlying issue, but it's easier just not to think about it.

i consider it every day actually!

iatee i disagree, in a parliament the parties would not have to be on the same axis. IF we still had an executive branch (ie the parliamentary factions did not have to form a coalition to make a gov't), then it could presumably make finding majorities a little easier. it wouldn't be just nader, but possibly, let's say a 6% stable Libertarian faction -- whenever the right wanted to cut taxes, they'd be there, whenever the left wanted to legalize drugs, ditto, and on and on. you could see the right fracture along religious vs business lines. you could also see the left fracture along more frankly racial lines (or urban - rural ones anyway).

how is that any different from how the american congress works??

goole otm there, i thnk

I can only tell you what I see in South Florida. Here it's so much easier to identify yourself as conservative even when you're not. If Spanish is your first language, "liberal" sounds dangerously close to "libertine," and if you've got a spouse and children, who wants to self-advertise as that? It's stupid but it's the way it is.

Ideally it would be different because many smaller, more focused parties would encourage more people to vote because the probability that their voice was being represented in the viable options would be larger.

also fucking nebraska would get fewer votes

it's impt to keep nebraska out of any kind of power whatsoever. we will not be free until this occurs.

nebraska is rad dudes

Just as the Repubs are turning into a regional party, a parliamentary system in a de-Federalized republic would lead to lots of regional parties.

If we can't abolish one of the wings of the legislative branch, can we at least abolish primaries? Everyone who can raise enough money can run in the general election regardless of party affiliation; make all the in-fighting happen at the same time as the inter-party competition and see who comes out on top. It would be rad!

alfred, i think that might also apply to working-class/rural voters as well, but mapping to a different set of concerns, obv

as much as i don't "like" them, there are xeno/homophobic voters in rural areas that might actually be "progressive" on some issues, but would never vote that way because siding with, say, environmentalists means siding with urban populations they've decided to not like

not that that is revelatory or informative, but it's the root of my frustration with the L-R axis

lets abolish... money

BARTER 4 LIFE

(no seriously, what are you going to trade me in exchange for your life)

and yeah basically i think regional concerns may be the way forward for third parties or the GOP

like the region, in my pants

Pizza!

the voting population's moderate view gets its way either way - whether it's through a clumped up political ideology like the Dems/GOP or whether it's split up and the parties end up making coaltions that end up having to do the same thing. compromise happens on some level - I guess with a parliamentary system you get to pretend like you're not voting for compromise, cause it's not as direct.

people with a minority political viewpoint who are bitter that they have to compromise to have any effect on national politics = ...

. . .more trouble than they are worth?

. . . don't really get the big picture?

... PROFIT!!!

^^ well true, but it seems like there are clear majorities on certain issues that don't translate into majorities for a DEM or GOP slate as a whole

xp

exactly!

. . .more trouble than they are worth?

I dunno, I'm talking to you guys right now

i compromise all the time though, with this stuff

I believe iatee means "...should stfu and just vote Democrat already, since the majority is always right'

I guess with a parliamentary system you get to pretend like you're not voting for compromise, cause it's not as direct.

dude, compromise is inevitable, and good. i am rgiht about everything all the time, but i know that democracy ~is~ compromise. if i were able to vote for someone who more accurately represented my interests, then at least i'd be more likely to find any subsequent compromise palatable---assuming they'd gone to bat as hard as possible, and come to a compromise rationally.

moreover, i really think the main argument for a more diverse party system is that it would stimulate the interest of an otherwise apathetic, disenfranchised voter. more people voting = more accurate rep of the median political temperament (since, as you say, that's what we're going to get ANYWAY)

btw I'm not some moderate dem or something, I'm probably on the same page w/ any of you guys w/r/t political ideology. but I've spent the last half decade in Berkeley and SF - we're not even a majority in those places ffs.

the majority is not always right, as gbx just put it: "I am right about everything all the time." but the majority is going to be in power and have the capability of doing shit in a democracy. sucks!

I lolled pretty hardcore at a friend of mine who is over 40 and was AGHAST when he voted in Cambridge and noticed that the dude next to him whom he knew from the gym voted for McCain. We all asked him "wait, how do you know who he voted for, nosy?????????" and he shut up about it.

votes with a wide stance

pretty sure any individual person's vote in a presidential election accomplishes nothing. you gave obama that one vote that pushed him over the line from 60% to 61% in California, congrats!

― velko, Monday, October 26, 2009 8:52 PM (1 hour ago)

this much is true.

people who live in a deep blue state and spend 10 months in deep meditation trying to decide whether to vote for obama or 3rd party and have to inform their message board friends of their difficult decision making process = ...

(I'm using "..." from now on)

voting is one of the less important things you can do to create political change. nobody cares who you voted for and it's not something to be proud of in any sense. congrats, you can operate a machine and pressed a button. how many of you guys who voted 3rd party actually went door to door for nader/whoever?

Wrong question to ask here.

I've been away and missed some stuff obviously but I can't let this go:

Refusing to be photographed with Gavin Newsom at a campaign event says a lot.

1) Gavin Newsom is NOT A LEFTIST. 2) *I* wouldn't want to be photographed with that slimy asshole either.

how many of you guys who voted 3rd party actually went door to door for nader/whoever?

― iatee, Monday, October 26, 2009 5:43 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark

wait, are the people who did better or worse?

I think since iatee's stance is that voters are chumps whose actions are meaningless in a democracy, the door-to-door people are doing more damage, since they might persuade people to...vote

the monsters

better, cause at least they're trying to live up to their idealism.

if you're gonna be cynical about the political process, at least take that cynicism to its logical endpoint and vote dem.

xp

I think since iatee's stance is that voters are chumps whose actions are meaningless in a democracy

lol 'voting is one of the less important things you can do to create political change.' vs 'votes are meaningless.'

if you're gonna be cynical about the political process, at least take that cynicism to its logical endpoint and vote dem.

xp

― iatee, Monday, October 26, 2009 11:47 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is pretty much how i've justified my incoherent politics since 2006 tbh

I think since iatee's stance is that voters are chumps whose actions are meaningless in a democracy, the door-to-door people are doing more damage, since they might persuade people to...vote

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, October 26, 2009 6:46 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i lol'd

I predict that the Democrats will nominate Obama in 2012, if he's available.

As for the Republicans, I'm keeping my powder dry. Still waaaaay too early. The RRR is just milling around a lot these days. When Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney are jockeying as the voice of the party, you know there's a lot of slack to be taken up.

Dude, we've been through that already. What's important now is TO IGNORE THE VOTERS, so stfu and start going door to door.

If he's available?

Whatyoutalkin'aboutWillis?

http://www.repmanblog.com/photos/uncategorized/gary_coleman1.jpg

D,Esq hush. I was referencing that which must not be spoken of.

Yikes. Okay.

Plus, can't argue with "hush."

Dude, we've been through that already. What's important now is TO IGNORE THE VOTERS, so stfu and start going door to door.

no not 'ignore the voters' - ignore people who are talking about their own vote like it's some big and important thing that everyone needs to care about. or in your particular case, your lack of a vote.

more good shit Obama is doing, dunno if it counts as lefty

it involves putting money into a business venture so it is, by definition, not lefty

(the lefty take = "Obama smokes weed, powers small town on love and rainbows")

makes unicorn sex legal

When Newt is considered a RINO, the 2012 nomination is likely to be hilarious.

(of course the right take = "Obama powers small community via prayer and chastity belts" so, you know, everyone sucks)

no not 'ignore the voters' - ignore people who are talking about their own vote like it's some big and important thing that everyone needs to care about. or in your particular case, your lack of a vote.

my third party hired iatee to canvas for us but it was a huge mistake, according to reports his door-to-door line went something like "nobody gives a shit about your vote or your meager opinions, little man...polls open at 9 a.m., see you there"

it's like getting the mutant offspring of Henry Rollins and Morrissey to canvas for you

LOL

it's like getting the mutant offspring of Henry Rollins and Morrissey to canvas for you

in fairness that was basically what he told us when he applied for the job but we didn't take the time to work out what exactly that might mean, and by the time we stopped to think he was bicycling half-naked & covered in red paint through gated communities

good times

"I would rather not canvas back in the old hood..."

punctured bicycle/ in a redneck neighbourhood

this family man

LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAR

(for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3djWrn_90s)

Vote is meh, duh!

"so can I count on your inconsequential little vote, mr. unknowing cog in the system?"

William Kristol, It Was Really Nothing...

Hank was so much cuter w/ the long hair

Hmm, that must be from one of the Morrissey solo albums I never bothered with.

the rollins comment made me lol

but seriously, some ppl on this thread are the type of people who canvasers *are* supposed to skip - the crazy old men who just want to spend 3 hours talking about themselves and inevitably end the conversation saying "I'm still undecided"

the Smiths should have covered TV party only made it a much shorter song because they only have three channels

Four channels, John. Now we have five (plus digital).

yeah but young Macclesfield gents only had three right? or are you counting "tv is off" as a channel, that ain't kosher afaik

also for iatee's canvassing script

"Are you voting for canidate x?"
"I don't know, I mean probably, but these candidates are some lean pickings imo"
"whatever mr. blowhard are you donating money to us or not"

BBC1/BBC2/ITV/C4

My editor is going to see Morrissey tonight.

C4 is the functional equivalent of "TV is off", isn't it?

C4 actually used to be the best channel :(

takings sides, C4 the channel vs. C-4 the plastic explosive

in America, C4 makes things explode

shit xpost

high five

BANG

C4 is still pretty cool but a lot of what it used to do has been fanned out to their digital channels and the FilmFour channel, where you can see Daily Show etc.

wait which one is the one that's terrible, then

I am so confused

I just want to see a show, now, where iatee canvasses w/C-4.

"No?! Not going to vote for us? Enjoy this, then, bub."

an explosion of terry christians, ugh

terry christian- americans will think this is some type of religious cloth. it isn't.

oh, the time has come

^^^MDC = millions of dead christians LOL '80s hardcore

C4 is still comedy-obsessed. Suckage: Channel 5 (unless you like CSI) and ITV (unless you like the wellspring of American Idol type programmes started there). I have a policy of NEVER watching ITV.

"No?! Not going to vote for us? Enjoy this, then, bub."

very hard very loud LOL, thanking you

http://newsbusters.org/static/2009/11/Palin.jpg

you wish

dream team

you wish

― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Thursday, November 19, 2009

I admit it, I sort of do wish.

nothin to say here

http://www.spaldinggopstore.com/images/01-4-6001.jpg

yeah!

http://pohdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/jeb_bush_2012_button_postcard-p239924136786764599trdg_4001.jpg

let's do it america!

http://politicalparade.com/catalog/images/HOP321.jpg

http://rlv.zcache.com/lou_dobbs_2012_tshirt-p235937616961021568ohvp_400.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/___lfxOzRvDs/SaTUNxgEL2I/AAAAAAAAAZ4/oj1aJP5xxrI/s400/bobby_jindal_2012_sticker-p217707530304516513qjcl_400.jpg

when does Chelsea Clinton turn 35? Let's hasten Armageddon with those two turd families.

I thought the Jindal button said "Taking the party hack."

the ellipsis on the Jindal button is a fucking riot

taking the party back period ellipsis period

or maybe it's morse code

The Republicans have already taken the party back to 1910, we can always hope for Lincoln.

taking the party back period ellipsis period

― congratulations (n/a), Monday, April 25, 2011 4:05 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

full thirty-second LOL. thanking you.

lol

BUSH 2012: WE AREN'T RUNNING OUT OF THESE GUYS, SO ACCEPT THE INEVITABLE

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_48ks5s0AV6M/SkkaGMJHcnI/AAAAAAAAB5Q/rtMirw7fM54/s400/palin_romney_2012_tshirt-p235123259033642097ya19_400.jpg

All of 50 members:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=107315315955124

if the name of the person running the country switches from barack to jeb then I fully support julian assange riding an a-bomb slim pickens style into the mall of america

Realistically, I'd put him ahead of Santorum, behind Haley Barbour:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110420150302AAzpQ07

http://theamericanrace.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/22/bobby_jindal_2_8.jpg

bobby jindal is

a) good
b) god
c) a good dresser

bobby jindal is good!.....

is dude giving jindal a lynndie england there?

I just reread the whole thread and, jesus, it's a US Politics shadowplay.

oh no, Haley's out!

who will represent the fat white racist vote now

jindal's tie has a kinda animal collective sleeve/op-art quality to it, feel like he could entertain the stay-at-home-internet-stoner demograpic

oh no, Haley's out!

This is horrible news! I was rooting for him to run.

"Haley Barbour: Looks like William Shatner if William Shatner ate a racist butter sculpture of William Shatner"

have you never seen the Corman movie w/ Shatner as an inflammatory racist?

haven't seen any of Shatner's pre-Star Trek work (apart from Incubus)

You're missing out:

http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Alexander_the_Great_1964.aspx

http://www.agonyboothmedia.com/images/articles/Alexander_the_Great_1964/alexanderthegreat1964.0406.jpg

This one terrified me as a child:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dxdSiIiqxjs/TK-TJFbkgXI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/RUBNQ3iNiso/s1600/shatner+with+spiders.jpg

They're "assessing the impact" of the Barbour decision on CNN right now. I could save them some trouble.

^^^man I know there's another fat joke in there somewhere but I can't be bothered...

i'm kinda thinkin bobby jindal might be good

at what?

taking the party back!

this fucking guy

all balls no brains imho

You're giving his nut sack too much credit.

all hair and no brains didn't have the same ring to it

"hair"

I'm pretty sure his hair grows out of his brains.

I pretty much lost all respect for a friend of mine who saw Trump in NY once and insisted that he was "very charismatic" in person

'Trump' is a euphemism for 'fart' used by Britishes, FYI.

Am I a bad, bad person for wanting someone, anyone to randomly fling crazy glue at his hair so he'll HAVE to cut it?

a friend of a friend is some crewmember on the celebrity apprentice and he was telling me that trump is exactly as bad as you imagine IRL, just like, the worst person you could imagine being around.

(also meatloaf is nice.)

Waiting for someone to ask Trump if he will find his VP via Celebrity Apprentice method.

yeah the idea of having a trophy wife as the first lady is so bizarre to me

i'd give him the same chance of making it out of the primaries as Palin, though I guess there's a 50/50 shot he's not really intending to run for president when it actually comes down to it.

He'll never get through the financial audit business.

doesn't have a prayer of getting the GOP nom. could bankroll his own run though, which would be funny

i mean, he's 64, an egomaniac, and filthy rich - you either buy the Lakers or do something stupid like this

could bankroll his own run though

he almost certainly could not! the guy's a fraud. real rich people don't go on tv.

He had his chance to buy Massachusetts from Mittens six years ago and didn't.

you could be right goole, I wouldn't know

realistically, what are ron paul's odds?

Real rich people don't admit to OWNING a TV. xp

He's right though. The landed rich – Newport types - wouldn't do anything so vulgar as to run for president. "Governor" is the extent of it.

hes always been a huge failure as a businessman. his success is in marketing the "trump" brand. he has at best a seven-figure net worth

trump the man is not the story, being out in front of everyone else among primary voters is. but it's really early so even now it probably doesn't mean very much.

xps the guy has a long and hilarious history of going after business journalists who put his record as a developer together. he's burned through a lot of other peoples' money, basically. he just doesn't have a whole lot of money, as far as our billionaires go.

realistically, what are ron paul's odds?

about 0, the only way I think he could get support is if Obama completely tanked everything

I can see a Ron Paul-type candidate winning in like 2032 though

hes always been a huge failure as a businessman. his success is in marketing the "trump" brand. he has at best a seven-figure net worth

Forbes 400 list has him at $2.4 billion fwiw

real rich people don't go on tv

http://images.buddytv.com/articles/the-oprah-winfrey-show/oprah.jpg

HI DERE!

fwiw, the guy whose company made beanie babies is listed at $2.4 bn, just one slot under Trump.

Oprah is nouveau riche.

The old line rich "do" politics, too, but only in the Averell Harriman mode.

also Oprah kind of owns tv so she gets to do whatever she wants with it

The old line rich "do" politics, too, but only in the Averell Harriman mode.

and he was governor of New York!

but, tastefully!

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani thinks real estate mogul Donald Trump is the "most exciting candidate in the race" for the White House in 2012.

i mean, he probably IS "the most exciting candidate in the race," at least right now

but... the Mittmentum!

the bass solos!
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/McCain+Attends+Campaign+Rally+Cincinnati+5vHoaOFBZMkl.jpg

As Katie Couric gets set to leave CBS News after five years in the anchor chair, it doesn't appear as if Sarah Palin will be sending any flowers.

Appearing on Fox News Tuesday, Palin mocked the CBS newswoman who told People Magazine she is looking forward to a new position that will facilitate "multi-dimensional storytelling."

"Yeah, and I hear that she wants to now engage in more 'multi-dimensional story telling' versus I guess just the 'straight on, read into the, that teleprompter screen story telling,'" Palin said. "More power to her. I wish her well in her - 'multi-dimensional story telling.'"

like, uh, er, um...zing?

lamest zinger in the west

When has a Palin zing ever been executed as intended?

At one point in the unedited interview footage, Palin derisively says "book-smarts," makes a snorting sound, then quickly asks for a tissue and wipes her nose.

It doesn't matter what Palin says or does, the sycophants gonna be sycophantic and the toadies gonna eat toads.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/29/trumps-f-bomb-tirade/#more-157219

please run please run please run please please please please

Trump/Bachman '12 could bring me nothing but joy and racism

trump's analysis of the iraq war is kind of otm!

does Brooklyn need more schools?

I dunno, man: some of those Williamsburg hipsters hide IED's under their scarves.

Trump > Obama on Iraq

He'd change his tune after the inauguration, of course.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/29/trumps-f-bomb-tirade/#more-157219

please run please run please run please please please please

a few f-bombs, eh? Look to the media to make that into a "big fucking deal" and not his racism or transparent lies or completely moronic policy ideas... that stuff is par for the course it seems, but oh no - not swears!

LOL I hope Trump ties up the GOP primaries with his nonsense and when he finally loses to Romney, he runs third-party and the show never ends...

well remember, they tried to make Biden's "this is a big fucking deal!" over an open mic into an issue (although Biden's defense of "well, it was!" was pretty much awesome)

an awesome lie, it turns out.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID43585/images/DebbieDownerRachaelDratch.jpg http://geekdome.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/plus_sign2.jpg http://www.moonbattery.com/church_lady.jpg

i've never gotten Church Lady before. That other one, yeah.

But ask for forgiveness on Sunday!

I was certain I had accused you of doing a superior dance before but a cursory search shows that I have apparently accused everyone on the boards EXCEPT you for doing one

:)

lezbee friends

^_^

Seth Meyers went after Donald Trump hard at tonight White House Correspondents' Dinner, WITH Donald Trump in the audience. It filled me with great joy, largely because Trump couldn't tell him to shut up like he does everyone else. He just had to sit there and take it like a bitch.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Live-Coverage-2011-White-House-Correspondents-Association-Dinner/10737421177-3/

bam laid into him too!

I haven't watched his part, but I'll queue it up.

Lion King video -> potshot at Fox News is the best thing he's done as President.

how many jokes about Wall Street dough, rendition, and indefinite detention?

Which seems like a good time to remind everyone that Jude Law is one of our very finest actors.

boy, Trump really does rhyme with "grump."

yeah set missed a lay up imo -- "i had written some jokes about the president but unfortunately they're being held indefinitely in guantanamo bay"

seth*

i did think he was pretty great tho -- i figured that trump would be hamming it up soaking in all the publicity but he looked pretty pissed

it is probably kinda a tightrope btw joyless & moronic but having a straight face throughout seems ridiculous. obama cracking up at only if the blacks are a family of white people was lol

i did think he was pretty great tho -- i figured that trump would be hamming it up soaking in all the publicity but he looked pretty pissed

he looks that way to me too but in fairness every camera shot of him I've seen during the speech is like half-lit & from a distance and it's like - if he was smiling and taking it in good humor I'm not sure you'd be able to tell, those shots are all grim-lookin dude with a toupee in the Hilton halflight

I will always enjoy pictures of Mike Huckabee playing bass guitar.

First Trump said he didn’t expect to be so much of a focus during the event, but “I guess when you’re leading in most of the polls, that tends to happen.”

Then he turned his focus to Meyers: “I thought Seth Meyers, frankly, his delivery was not good. He’s a stutterer and he was having a hard time.”

Seth Meyers you're fired

Trump not particularly convincing at the PR strategy of "just say what you hope people will think is true"

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/easel/images/galleries/063728_santorum_richard.jpg