Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Obvious troll is obvious...Rover is the perfect mouthpiece for his candidate.

And I highly doubt Liz Warren is going to do anything to bolster a Wall Street Mistress like Clinton. She can have Barney Frank talk he is about as likeable a person as The Shrill.

Man I am happy I dont have to vote in this election. Frank Underwood FTW!

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Obvious troll is obvious...Rover is the perfect mouthpiece for his candidate.

And I highly doubt Liz Warren is going to do anything to bolster a Wall Street Mistress like Clinton. She can have Barney Frank talk he is about as likeable a person as The Shrill.

Man I am happy I dont have to vote in this election. Frank Underwood FTW!

Sanders must have stolen Rover's girl back in 1975 for him to be so mad.

But it would obviously be insanely stupid to freeze Bernie out, when he represents 40% of the voters who we need to beat the orcs this November, and Hillary aint stupid. Nor is Bernie, who understands that having any (D) in the White House is preferable to any (R), if for no other reason than to save the Court from any more Scalia / Thomas / Alito hatchet men. Come to think of it, Bernie could use his leverage to put forward a slate of anti-corporate justices to counter the influence of the Four Horsemen of Mahogany Row for Hillary to pick from for either the Scalia or Ginsburg seat and trade full-throated support for Hillary in the general. He is a pragmatist and he knows he will never have more influence than right this moment.

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I've been trying to decide if Rover has been serious this whole time or if it's been a long con. I've been leaning towards serious because the latter seems like too much of a commitment.

Bernie's in this to the end, it'll be fun to see how it plays out.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Obvious troll is obvious...Rover is the perfect mouthpiece for his candidate.

And I highly doubt Liz Warren is going to do anything to bolster a Wall Street Mistress like Clinton. She can have Barney Frank talk he is about as likeable a person as The Shrill.

Man I am happy I dont have to vote in this election. Frank Underwood FTW!

Its called "Earned Arrogance" Handy. We know we're going to win. You know we're going to win. Just need to let it happen.

Your next point is stupid. Warren isn't going to help Hillary get elected, and therefore allow Trump a better chance of winning? Oookaayyyyyy then...

Feel free to write in a fictional character's name. The rest of us will be busy electing President Hillary!

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Sanders must have stolen Rover's girl back in 1975 for him to be so mad.

But it would obviously be insanely stupid to freeze Bernie out, when he represents 40% of the voters who we need to beat the orcs this November, and Hillary aint stupid. Nor is Bernie, who understands that having any (D) in the White House is preferable to any (R), if for no other reason than to save the Court from any more Scalia / Thomas / Alito hatchet men. Come to think of it, Bernie could use his leverage to put forward a slate of anti-corporate justices to counter the influence of the Four Horsemen of Mahogany Row for Hillary to pick from for either the Scalia or Ginsburg seat and trade full-throated support for Hillary in the general. He is a pragmatist and he knows he will never have more influence than right this moment.

Well if he was after girls the same age as I was in 1975, that would make him a sex offender. Kep, are you trying to tell us something? Sanders isn't a pragmatist. He's a self centered loon. Warren is a pragmatist, and would be doing a lot better than senile old man Bernie if she had run instead. Make the deal with her and tell him (quietly) to go screw. His actions the last month have proven a lot about the man, and none of it is good.

I've been trying to decide if Rover has been serious this whole time or if it's been a long con. I've been leaning towards serious because the latter seems like too much of a commitment.

Bernie's in this to the end, it'll be fun to see how it plays out.

I like making fun of irrational people that live in fantasyland. That used to be exclusively conservatives and fans of Boston College athletic programs. Now apparently some far lefties, who we'll call Bernouts, qualify.

Oh, and I can tell you how this will "play out". Sanders will lose.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Again people are underestimating how much hatred there is of Hillary. Every single poll out there has Kasich beating her. A guy who can't even get any State besides his own to vote for him.

If Hillary wins it's not because she's inevitable or because anyone is voting for her. It's because the other party is in shambles.

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Bernie wins in states with least income inequality, Clinton in states with most.

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Again people are underestimating how much hatred there is of Hillary. Every single poll out there has Kasich beating her. A guy who can't even get any State besides his own to vote for him.

If Hillary wins it's not because she's inevitable or because anyone is voting for her. It's because the other party is in shambles.

Part of that because Kasich's other name is "Generic Republican"

If he actually got press coverage, his favorables would plummet like every other (R)

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Sanders isn't a pragmatist. He's a self centered loon. Warren is a pragmatist, and would be doing a lot better than senile old man Bernie if she had run instead. Make the deal with her and tell him (quietly) to go screw. His actions the last month have proven a lot about the man, and none of it is good.

You've made a fool of yourself the past few months. You've absorbed Clinton's electioneering strategy and rhetoric as if they were facts. Rookie mistake. A campaign is about perception, not fact, and you're old enough to know better.

However, the people in charge of Hillary's and Sanders' campaign are serious, experienced, and professional, and over the next few months they'll make the pivot to unity. Bernie will have a major speech at the convention and unleash a can of whup-as-s painting the GOP as the Official Spokesmen of Plutocracy, something Hillary could not do without drawing guffaws. Hillary will continue to back channel signal to Wall Street that she's house broken and won't upset their crime syndicate, and will probably wind up getting almost as much in contributions from them as the Republican since really what choice do they have? In so doing, we will nullify one of the major systemic advantages the GOP typically enjoys.

Now yes, it would be nice to have a liberal VP to balance the ticket, but we don't want to lose any Senate seats by doing it, so I'm not sure who that leaves for Hillary to pick. Has the country grown up enough to have two women, or do we need another round of avuncular old white guy to step in if the Student Driver gets careless? Good question.

The only things that matter between now and November are winning the White House, retaking the Senate, and closing the GOP House lead to where it can be drowned in a bathtub.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Part of that because Kasich's other name is "Generic Republican"

If he actually got press coverage, his favorables would plummet like every other (R)

Losing to Generic Republican is still bad. It's like no one actually reads their party platform or pays any attention to what their Governor's are doing at the State level, never the less the **** show in Washington.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This happens about once a year: a piece in the WSJ that's both factually and morally correct.

(Note it's an Op Ed, not an Editorial. Don't ask for miracles. But heck, they actually printed it.)

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

From the You Think You Got Problems? department, Steve King gonna Steve King:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), said on Tuesday that the Republican party could split if Cruz wins the presidential nomination over Donald Trump on the second ballot at the July convention.

"If the establishment comes in and tries to amend the rules to disadvantage either of those top two candidates or to advantage either one of those top two candidates, I think that there could be chaos erupt [sic] in Cleveland. And the result of that could be a party that could be split," King said on the "Frankly Speaking" radio show, according to audio posted by Buzzfeed News.

He then said that the greatest risk to the party would be a Cruz win at a contested convention.

"The greater risk for the split of the party, though, would be if say we get to convention, nobody’s got the 1,237 and on a subsequent ballot, a second or subsequent ballot, if Ted Cruz wins the nomination –– which I would predict if there’s a second or subsequent ballot — and if Donald Trump decides to say, take his ball and go home, or go run on an independent ticket, that would be what would split the party," King said.

[BassAle]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Part of that because Kasich's other name is "Generic Republican"

If he actually got press coverage, his favorables would plummet like every other (R)

yep, no one knows enough about him to hate him yet.

[BassAle]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Now yes, it would be nice to have a liberal VP to balance the ticket, but we don't want to lose any Senate seats by doing it, so I'm not sure who that leaves for Hillary to pick. Has the country grown up enough to have two women, or do we need another round of avuncular old white guy to step in if the Student Driver gets careless? Good question.

I know he's no progressive like Warren, but what if we just went with good old Uncle Joe as a VP again? It doesn't remove an incumbent senator from office, so there is no risk in losing a seat. He is an old white guy. He isn't running for president, but would have given different family circumstances so he isn't ready to retire from politics. He's experienced, and would be able to step right in when Hillary goes to jail!

[joecct]

I know he's no progressive like Warren, but what if we just went with good old Uncle Joe as a VP again? It doesn't remove an incumbent senator from office, so there is no risk in losing a seat. He is an old white guy. He isn't running for president, but would have given different family circumstances so he isn't ready to retire from politics. He's experienced, and would be able to step right in when Hillary goes to jail!

Doesn't the 20th Amendment say something about that?