And it showed. He had way too much idealism and naivete, imo.

We just elected a Prime Minister in Canada you could say the same thing about, and I'm hopeful because of it. The world needs more idealism imo.

 

Here's hoping the system doesn't beat him down like it did Obama and makes him another rhetoric spewing droid.

I hope that doesn't happen but damn, that'd be a spectacle.

Sort of like watching Rome burn.

Anyone catch Colbert holding a Trump vs Trump debate? Awesome.

 

Anyone catch Colbert holding a Trump vs Trump debate? Awesome.

 

Should probably bump him up a couple more points...

No she's not, and I wish people would quit saying this. She is way more presidential than he is, by far. She should not be relegated to anyone's second. And, frankly, if Bernie does win the nod, he's going to need someone from a big-vote state who isn't in the same realm of liberal that he is. He will need someone more moderate to complement and balance him.

Plus, sorry to imply ageism, but that ticket also has way too much grey hair.

 

No she's not, and I wish people would quit saying this. She is way more presidential than he is, by far. She should not be relegated to anyone's second. And, frankly, if Bernie does win the nod, he's going to need someone from a big-vote state who isn't in the same realm of liberal that he is. He will need someone more moderate to complement and balance him.

Look, I agree that she's more Presidential and more electable than Bernie.  I like her better.  But she's not running, so it's by her own choice she's relegated to a possible VP choice; certainly not my choice, nor my implication.

Look, I agree that she's more Presidential and more electable than Bernie.  I like her better.  But she's not running, so it's by her own choice she's relegated to a possible VP choice; certainly not my choice, nor my implication.

I don't think she'd take it, tbh. I don't think she'd even be a good choice for VP.

Plus, sorry to imply ageism, but that ticket also has way too much grey hair.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

The ageism? I am saying it's a bad thing.

 

It's in play for voters though unfortunately. Or at least the candidates believe it is. At least it works both ways though as evidenced by the younger Obama picking an experienced vet in Biden.

 

Then start by changing the make up of Congress. It's fine to vote idealistically, it's everyone's right to choose who they want. But Congress as it currently is is NOT going to let Sanders do a dang thing.

 

Then the question is which candidate creates the best turnout to turn congress.  I know Democrats have a good chance of significant gains no matter what.  I'm having a hard time figuring who I think that would be but the fact it might be Sanders should at least be considered.

Edited January 30, 201610 yr by mikecgrimes

Mike, an article that suggests a historic parallel and potential driving force for your future civil war theory.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/29/are-trumpists-simply-the-people-who-are-getting-screwed-by-the-information-age/

 

I think the country is much more likely to break up than shed significant blood, and I don't think either is all that likely.

The Des Moines Register poll is out, historically pretty accurate.

 

Trump and Clinton with narrow victories, Rubio in third hovering around 15%.

 

If Trump wins Iowa he almost certainly sweeps the first four contests.

 

The Des Moines Register poll is out, historically pretty accurate.

Trump and Clinton with narrow victories, Rubio in third hovering around 15%.

If Trump wins Iowa he almost certainly sweeps the first four contests.

 

I don't know if it would happen after Iowa or after New Hampshire, but once Bush Kasich Christie Carson and Fiorino drop out the game changes.  Also the states that come in March and the distribution the way states distribute delegates favor establishment, if the establishment candidate becomes Rubio I can't complain much.  Every area Rubio might fail me is an area I know Trump will fail me.  If that poll is accurate Trump isn't getting a significant enough share of the vote to tell us if he has a real shot.  If Trump is closer to my prediction even if he wins a close one it's not going to happen for him.

I think I need to alter my guess again as Bushmentum doesn't seem to exist.  Cruz 32 Trump 22 Rubio 18.

 

Sanders 53 Clinton 40 O'Malley 7

Edited January 31, 201610 yr by mikecgrimes

Hadn't seen these before, but now can't get enough of Honest Gil.

 

http://honestgil.com

 

http://youtu.be/-pjAQ5wuC8M

Edited January 31, 201610 yr by Craig Arko

Hadn't seen these before, but now can't get enough of Honest Gil.

http://honestgil.com

http://youtu.be/-pjAQ5wuC8M

So they ask for donations at the end. Is that just to make more comedy videos?

So they ask for donations at the end. Is that just to make more comedy videos?

So they can afford a left-handed relief pitcher.

I don't know if it would happen after Iowa or after New Hampshire, but once Bush Kasich Christie Carson and Fiorino drop out the game changes. Also the states that come in March and the distribution the way states distribute delegates favor establishment, if the establishment candidate becomes Rubio I can't complain much. Every area Rubio might fail me is an area I know Trump will fail me. If that poll is accurate Trump isn't getting a significant enough share of the vote to tell us if he has a real shot. If Trump is closer to my prediction even if he wins a close one it's not going to happen for him.

The first four are Iowa, NH, Sout Carolina and Nevada. Trump has big leads in the last three.

 

I'm not convinced it will be as easy as those individuals all dropping out. If NH returns a nig Trump win with the four of them (Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich) all about the same, there is no incentive for them to drop out yet, continually splintering the field, giving Trump more momentum and then who knows what.

 

That strikes me as the disaster scenario for the Republicans.

 

I fear your guy Cruz may have peaked.

So they can afford a left-handed relief pitcher.

Then they're LYING to us!!1!

 

There's none left.

I think I need to alter my guess again as Bushmentum doesn't seem to exist. Cruz 32 Trump 22 Rubio 18.

 

Sanders 53 Clinton 40 O'Malley 7

I'm going the other way for the Democrats. I think voters break late for Clinton, giving her a clear victory of 7-8 points.

 

And I think Trump and Cruz are much closer.

 

The first four are Iowa, NH, Sout Carolina and Nevada. Trump has big leads in the last three.

I'm not convinced it will be as easy as those individuals all dropping out. If NH returns a nig Trump win with the four of them (Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich) all about the same, there is no incentive for them to drop out yet, continually splintering the field, giving Trump more momentum and then who knows what.

That strikes me as the disaster scenario for the Republicans.

I fear your guy Cruz may have peaked.

I agree Cruz has peaked except one thing Ben Carson is still polling at 10% so when he drops out Cruz goes back up.  Problem is Iowa is probably one of the strongest states for Cruz so that factor doesn't help as much as if Iowa came after Carson was gone.

 

Also as for Trump getting momentum this is different then Romney getting momentum and the party deciding OK fine pretty quick.  Trump can have a clear win going into the convention and a decent percent of the party will still do whatever it takes to try to stop him.  There's still a lot of good stuff that can be put out against Trump, it might be that the establishment has decided to let Trump do well early to squash Cruz, these are really smart political people if you know you can beat Trump later why not let him knock out some of the competition. 

 

I'm going the other way for the Democrats. I think voters break late for Clinton, giving her a clear victory of 7-8 points.

And I think Trump and Cruz are much closer.

 

I get being against Sanders I can't comprehend being for Clinton which is why I knocked O'Malley up over his poll #'s.

What Ted Cruz's daughter thinks of Ted Cruz

https://giant.gfycat.com/CornyDesertedAmmonite.webm

Edited February 1, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

 

What Ted Cruz's daughter thinks of Ted Cruz

https://giant.gfycat.com/CornyDesertedAmmonite.webm

Looks like a normal teenage reacting to a parent trying to hug/kiss them in public.

 

It's a funny gif, and Cruz is a scumbag, but it's annoying how people are trying to make this a bigger thing then it is (reported all over the place etc).

 

 

I agree Cruz has peaked except one thing Ben Carson is still polling at 10% so when he drops out Cruz goes back up. 

I know you think that Trump is a super secret Democrat and all, but why do you just blindly assume Cruz would get all of Carson's support? Trump and Carson are closer to each other than Carson and Cruz.

 

People like Carson because he is a Washington Outsider....sorta like Trump.

 

 

 

Seriously? That's all you think there is to foreign policy is that he voted against the Iraq War way back when? Really? Wow.

 

I mean war, generally, not just that one. Clinton is hell-bent on a war in Libya.

 

Yeah, I have a hard time blaming anyone for voting on the Iraq War back in the day, Bush and co basically fed congress a **** salad and told them Sadam was building WMD's and was going to send everyone back to the stone age, plus things were pretty shaky after 9/11 and all that jazz. I have a hard time blaming anyone who voted for the war since they had no real reason to know that their pres, VP etc were feeding them **** sandwiches on this data. Bernie playing the "i told you so" card is annoying and cheap pandering.

 

No. Anyone who paid the slightest of attention knew that entering that war was a horrible mistake.

I recommend "Why We Fight."

 

Yeesh, that is a might flat club you are whacking the foreign policy argument with.

 

I don't think Bernie Sanders can do diplomacy.  Bernie Sanders yells what he thinks and you either agree or you don't.  There isn't a lot of nuance to the guy.  Diplomacy is built on nuance and negotiation.

 

He does not yell what he thinks. Where are you folks getting this "angry old man" nonsense. He actually provides arguments in a rational manner as opposed to Clinton platitudes.
 

 

I think his domestic policy hurts too.  If he got a quarter of what he wanted, the national debt would double in four years.  That's going to be a real problem as people tend to resist tax increases and you can only print so much money before the entire system collapses on itself. 

 

Sad thing really is that the Dems are acting like the Republicans back in 2008, forcing bad candidates on the people and rolling out the red carpet for Trump.  They'd almost be better off unifying behind Rand Paul or something like that. 

 

Me thinks this is going to be another Gary Johnson year for me personally.

"National debt would double in four years."

What on earth are you talking about?

 

In 2020? She's a natural match with Bernie, as he'll double down on the anti-Wall St. campaign, for sure.  (No way he'd lurch to the center with a VP pick).  I'd love to see a Trump/Palin v. Bernie/Warren general election.  Let's see whose base value survive scrutiny.

I would end everything else I was doing to make damn sure that latter pair won.