Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:(paraphrasing)

Thanks for clarifying, ST

Simple Torture wrote:It's gotta be a woman or a person of color, right? You might almost say it should be some policy wonk or brainy guy, but Romney tried that with Paul Ryan, and he was boring as funk.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:It's gotta be a woman or a person of color, right? You might almost say it should be some policy wonk or brainy guy, but Romney tried that with Paul Ryan, and he was boring as funk.

I dread it would be Ben Carson.

Simple Torture wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:If Rubio sticks in fifth and stays below 10%, this opens this whole thing back up. In terms of winnowing the field, this is the worst possibility. Christie/Fiorina may be the only casualties of tonight. All that means is that it will take a little longer for three from the 'establishment lane' to get kicked out, allowing Trump to win more primaries.
The sad thing about the Dems is that even if Sanders pulls a miracle and is able to win states and stay close to tied with Clinton for delegates, won't the super-delegates hand it to Clinton? I would imagine that most of the people that the Party make super-delegates are behind Clinton, no?

Christie sticks around, I think, because he was basically tied with Kasich until a week ago in the polls, so his camp could probably envision a similar bump.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

stip wrote:It is interesting to watch the Democratic establishment turn against Sanders, now that he is seen as a semi-credible threat.

They turned on him the moment he really started to pick up momentum. They are terrified of him because he exposes them for what they've been for so many years: the party that tries to fight for social and environmental issues but cozies up corporate leaders to maintain their tenuous grip on power.

I think it's fascinating to watch them twist themselves into knots arguing that less change is somehow better.

It's tragic. There is obviously demand in the party for those ideas, they should embrace them.

But the Clinton/Carter model makes them more money.

stip wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

stip wrote: That's one of the cardinal differences between these sorts of centrist democrats and the democratic populist socialism that built the welfare state. The later understood that in the United States you cannot have discussions about growth without also having conversations about distribution, and that in the US distribution is more important than growth, as we have long ago conquered the problem of scarcity (how do we make enough to provide everyone with a decent standard of living).

Not the thread for this discussion, but this is simply not true.

I beg to disagree, obviously.

b_i_revisited wrote:

stip wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

stip wrote: That's one of the cardinal differences between these sorts of centrist democrats and the democratic populist socialism that built the welfare state. The later understood that in the United States you cannot have discussions about growth without also having conversations about distribution, and that in the US distribution is more important than growth, as we have long ago conquered the problem of scarcity (how do we make enough to provide everyone with a decent standard of living).

Not the thread for this discussion, but this is simply not true.

I beg to disagree, obviously.

We could have this one out in another thread, if you like. *tosses gauntlet*

b_i_revisited wrote:

stip wrote:

b_i_revisited wrote:

stip wrote: That's one of the cardinal differences between these sorts of centrist democrats and the democratic populist socialism that built the welfare state. The later understood that in the United States you cannot have discussions about growth without also having conversations about distribution, and that in the US distribution is more important than growth, as we have long ago conquered the problem of scarcity (how do we make enough to provide everyone with a decent standard of living).

Not the thread for this discussion, but this is simply not true.

I beg to disagree, obviously.

We could have this one out in another thread, if you like. *tosses gauntlet*

theplatypus wrote:Christie's out.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:It's gotta be a woman or a person of color, right? You might almost say it should be some policy wonk or brainy guy, but Romney tried that with Paul Ryan, and he was boring as funk.

I dread it would be Ben Carson.

stip wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:It's gotta be a woman or a person of color, right? You might almost say it should be some policy wonk or brainy guy, but Romney tried that with Paul Ryan, and he was boring as funk.

I dread it would be Ben Carson.

Not this year with that candidate. I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but he's clearly not running under the banner of inclusivity. And somebody like O'Riley has a wide following, isn't tainted by any kind of record, plays right into the 'we're a team of winners' platform he's running on, and provides exceptional free media coverage.

This idea scares the crap out of me. It's brilliant.

Spoiler: show

Green Habit wrote:

stip wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:It's gotta be a woman or a person of color, right? You might almost say it should be some policy wonk or brainy guy, but Romney tried that with Paul Ryan, and he was boring as funk.

I dread it would be Ben Carson.

Not this year with that candidate. I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but he's clearly not running under the banner of inclusivity. And somebody like O'Riley has a wide following, isn't tainted by any kind of record, plays right into the 'we're a team of winners' platform he's running on, and provides exceptional free media coverage.

This idea scares the crap out of me. It's brilliant.

O'Reilly hates nitty-gritty politics, though. I don't think he'd be as natural as you think.

BurtReynolds wrote:I thought they didn't get along? He'd have to quit his show I think, and he wouldn't want to do that.