Red Mosquito

tommymtcom wrote:

Bammer wrote:Fucking idiots out there are all "Hilary sucks! Feel the Bern!"

If Hilary wins the Dem nomination same assholes will be all "Yeah Hilary rocks!"

I'm not so sure about that. I think a lot of people who support Bernie would vote for Hilary if it came down to it, but I think they would do so begrudgingly. Among Sanders supporters I think Hilary is seen as just another bought out insider who doesn't truly represent their interests.

Yep, and i'll hold my nose and vote for her to avoid a Trump or Cruz administration.

Question for Hillary supporters. Do you think that the whole email thing is nothing to be concerned about? Or is it even a little worrisome as it pertains to her running for president?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Question for Hillary supporters. Do you think that the whole email thing is nothing to be concerned about? Or is it even a little worrisome as it pertains to her running for president?

It's doubtful she'll get in any real trouble for it. Essentially, the FBI director, the attorney general and Obama would have to decide to convene a grand jury. I don't see that happening.

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Question for Hillary supporters. Do you think that the whole email thing is nothing to be concerned about? Or is it even a little worrisome as it pertains to her running for president?

It's doubtful she'll get in any real trouble for it. Essentially, the FBI director, the attorney general and Obama would have to decide to convene a grand jury. I don't see that happening.

Right, but that doesn't mean the perception of her won't be that she did something shady. Would that perception affect her results?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Question for Hillary supporters. Do you think that the whole email thing is nothing to be concerned about? Or is it even a little worrisome as it pertains to her running for president?

It's doubtful she'll get in any real trouble for it. Essentially, the FBI director, the attorney general and Obama would have to decide to convene a grand jury. I don't see that happening.

Right, but that doesn't mean the perception of her won't be that she did something shady. Would that perception affect her results?

so what? nobody is gonna change their minds one way or another.

My bet is that he wouldn't launch a bid until after the conventions, or at least until the two nominees are settled. If that's possible.

tragabigzanda wrote:Really hoping Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring, as is being reported today. If he ran as an independent, I think he'd syphon a lot of votes from the more conservative Hillary supporters, as well as the socially liberal Republicans. Bernie's platform would be more galvanized relative to Bloomberg, and the Republicans would be forced to nominate Jeb so they didn't have to totally rely on the batshit contingency who would vote for Trump or Cruz.

A Jeb/Bernie/Bloomberg fight could be good, and my least favorite outcome of that scenario -- another Bush in the White House -- is still miles better than any of the other Republican contenders.

The threat of a Bloomberg candidacy helps Trump... a lot. The GOP would want to push out the most right-wing, non-establishment candidate possible because Clinton/Bloomberg would split the liberal to moderate vote. That "batshit contingency" could put Trump in the White House. Also, I think the latest polls show Jeb at less than 3% nationally.

A Bloomberg candidacy is a fucking nightmare for the Dems.

WTF was up with Cruz lying about not having health insurance? This whole race is tiring as shit.

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Question for Hillary supporters. Do you think that the whole email thing is nothing to be concerned about? Or is it even a little worrisome as it pertains to her running for president?

It's doubtful she'll get in any real trouble for it. Essentially, the FBI director, the attorney general and Obama would have to decide to convene a grand jury. I don't see that happening.

Right, but that doesn't mean the perception of her won't be that she did something shady. Would that perception affect her results?

so what? nobody is gonna change their minds one way or another.

That is what I'm asking. And I'm genuinely asking, burt. I'm curious. No agenda in my question. Please don't get lippy with me.

turned2black wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Really hoping Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring, as is being reported today. If he ran as an independent, I think he'd syphon a lot of votes from the more conservative Hillary supporters, as well as the socially liberal Republicans. Bernie's platform would be more galvanized relative to Bloomberg, and the Republicans would be forced to nominate Jeb so they didn't have to totally rely on the batshit contingency who would vote for Trump or Cruz.

A Jeb/Bernie/Bloomberg fight could be good, and my least favorite outcome of that scenario -- another Bush in the White House -- is still miles better than any of the other Republican contenders.

The threat of a Bloomberg candidacy helps Trump... a lot. The GOP would want to push out the most right-wing, non-establishment candidate possible because Clinton/Bloomberg would split the liberal to moderate vote. That "batshit contingency" could put Trump in the White House. Also, I think the latest polls show Jeb at less than 3% nationally.

A Bloomberg candidacy is a fucking nightmare for the Dems.

Yeah, while this does depend on who the republicans end up nominating Bloomberg is not particularly safe for the democrats.

statements like this kinda drive me nuts:

“He governed more in pragmatic ways than in ideals,” Mr. Donovan said, adding, “That may be different from some of the folks, like Senator Cruz, who are apparently doing well among primary voters.”

This is from a Times article on a Bloomberg run. Obama was pragmatic and far from an idealist. Pragmatism requires viable partners. Right now this doesn't exist in Washington, and Bloomberg is not going to get elected on a wave that will create the mandate he would need to overcome/ignore that. Instead he will get into office, discover that he has no one to be pragmatic with, and recognize that he had far more autonomy as mayor of New York with a fairly compliant city council then he will as an independent candidate in a pseudo-parliamentary system with both parties pissed off that he cost them the presidency.

Support Bloomberg if you like his policies and you think he'll be a better president. But the idea that his 'pragmatism' is going to be a virtue is nonsense.

This just popped up in my feed..Pretty damaging if it does get to air I guess.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... s-get-real

I think most of this anti-Trump stuff is coming too late. In many ways, EVERYTHING has fallen in Trump's favor. The one candidate that the GOP "establishment" probably hates more than Trump is Cruz.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Question for Hillary supporters. Do you think that the whole email thing is nothing to be concerned about? Or is it even a little worrisome as it pertains to her running for president?

It's doubtful she'll get in any real trouble for it. Essentially, the FBI director, the attorney general and Obama would have to decide to convene a grand jury. I don't see that happening.

Right, but that doesn't mean the perception of her won't be that she did something shady. Would that perception affect her results?

so what? nobody is gonna change their minds one way or another.

That is what I'm asking. And I'm genuinely asking, burt. I'm curious. No agenda in my question. Please don't get lippy with me.

I'm not being lippy! Not with you anyway. Never with you, ruddo.

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Really hoping Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring, as is being reported today. If he ran as an independent, I think he'd syphon a lot of votes from the more conservative Hillary supporters, as well as the socially liberal Republicans. Bernie's platform would be more galvanized relative to Bloomberg, and the Republicans would be forced to nominate Jeb so they didn't have to totally rely on the batshit contingency who would vote for Trump or Cruz.

A Jeb/Bernie/Bloomberg fight could be good, and my least favorite outcome of that scenario -- another Bush in the White House -- is still miles better than any of the other Republican contenders.

The threat of a Bloomberg candidacy helps Trump... a lot. The GOP would want to push out the most right-wing, non-establishment candidate possible because Clinton/Bloomberg would split the liberal to moderate vote. That "batshit contingency" could put Trump in the White House. Also, I think the latest polls show Jeb at less than 3% nationally.

A Bloomberg candidacy is a fucking nightmare for the Dems.

Yeah, while this does depend on who the republicans end up nominating Bloomberg is not particularly safe for the democrats.

I don't really understand how Bloomberg would even have a significant amount of people to vote for him. I would think Democrats would still have strong enough memories of the Nader debacle to ignore him, but maybe the moderates don't have the kind of memories over that that the lefties do.

many democrats will continue to believe that Americans won't actually vote for trump, which will make it easier for pro corporate types to justify Bloomberg over sanders

Ones who truly think sanders would be horrible may also decide they'd rather have a republican win in 2016 and have a shitty president give dems a stronger hand in the more important 2020 election, especially since a Bloomberg candidacy won't hurt their senate chances - so they can block the worst excesses of a republican administration

Is there an implicit agreement that candidates aren't going to talk about the Supreme Court until the general campaign?

More chaos? Bloomberg's got my vote!

Simple Torture wrote:Is there an implicit agreement that candidates aren't going to talk about the Supreme Court until the general campaign?

I've heard some talk about it on both sides, but you're correct that it doesn't get debated enough, with almost half of the court being above 80 before 2020.