Only Kasich (can't win the primary) and the Zodiac Killer remain.
Calling a Trump/Kasich or Cruz/Kasich ticket right now. Place your bets.
You really think Trump would pick Kasich? What would Kasich bring to the ticket that someone like Rubio or Jeb wouldn't? I honestly have no idea who Trump would pick.
This is my tickets if neither get enough delegates to win at the convention on the first vote. They would need Rubio's or Kasich's delegates to win the second round. Rubio would help with Florida but Trump is already strong there, better to try and secure Ohio with a VP who is popular there.
What would that accomplish? The parties evolved from a climate of divisive politics in the first place, and time whittled them down to two primary parties.
I'm not saying that a multi-party system with numerous alternatives isn't viable - but we had that at one point, and things dovetailed to where we are now. Is such a thing really truly sustainable?
Two-party is also pretty good with preference voting - sure, it's still the same two parties, but it gives much more power to those outside groups, because they can wield enough votes to play kingmaker. Labor would struggle to win majorities without the support of the greens, for example, so they have to actually catch the greens and their base so that they don't lose those voters, which pushes them left of where they'd be if they had a simple majority.
He lucked out that he is doing as good as he is doing.
Strongly disagree. He worked smart rather than hard, and it's not luck - at least, not entirely - that has gotten them this far, it's brilliant campaigning.
It's just that Clinton also played smart - Smarter, in fact, this isn't her first rodeo - as well as playing hard, with the long game in mind. Her campaign hasn't been as purely brilliant as sanders, but if you don't have the classics as well as the all-new-all-different campaign game, then you end up as the technically brilliant second place.
We need young activists to usurp local Democratic party structure with a progressive equivalent of the Tea Party. The problem is that almost no young activists are actually willing to do the grunt boots on the ground work that actually builds winning coalitions.
It also doesn't help that literally every bit of crazy bullshit I've mentioned either out of amusement or frustration - all the conspiracy theories, lies, freakouts over discovering the basics of how a primary works, etc - are all those same young progressives.
The problem with the Tea Party isn't (just) that it's right wing. It's that it's an ugly, desperate mob willing to do and say whatever it takes to get what they want, even if that thing is stupid, ill-considered, or simply wrong. The face of the future isn't a progressive version of the tea-party, because we have it right now. It's USUncut and the BernieBros, and all of their nastiness, conspiracy theories and bull-headed ignorance.
I was stating in the beginning he lucked out and found a base, everything he did after was the hallmarks of a good campaign. I don't think he expected to do as well as he did when he first set out.
The opposite example would be Rubio who just didn't have anything...
"I’m intrigued by the parallels to the 2008 campaign perhaps because it’s where FiveThirtyEight cut its teeth. I spent a lot of time in the spring of 2008 arguing that Obama’s lead in elected delegates would be hard for Clinton to overcome. But Clinton’s lead over Sanders is much larger than Obama’s was over Clinton at a comparable stage of the race. At the end of February 2008, after a favorable run of states for Obama, he led Clinton by approximately 100 elected delegates. Clinton’s lead is much larger this year.1 Clinton entered Tuesday’s contests ahead of Sanders by approximately 220 elected delegates. But she’ll net approximately 70 delegates from Florida, 20 from Ohio, 15 from North Carolina and a handful from Illinois and Missouri. That will expand her advantage to something like 325 elected delegates." - Nate Silver
Looking at the results, Bernie is finished. He needs to get at least 60% in every remaining state to reach a majority of elected delegate. That's just not going to happen.
The Sanders transition away from the preliminaries race into some kind of cabinet-level role in the Clinton administration is going to be interesting.
He still has a lot of money from donors. It seems a big waste to spend that on a losing battle against Hillary in the next three months. Is it possible for him to use that to pay for adds to encourage his current supporters to support Hillary in the general election?
… orthogame, which we define as a game for two or more players, with rules that result in a ranking or weighting of the players, and done for entertainment.
As long as he encourages the youth to keep voting and keep caring...Yeah.
Otherwise, this will be a rough general election season.
The easiest way to do that would be take Hillary up on her public offer of a VP slot. As long as people still have skin in the game, they'll do it. They'll even turn Hillary into an angel sent by god himself just to put Bernie within sniffing distance of the white house.
Also we'd get to see the more ardent ones squirm, which is a bonus.
I honestly don't think Bernie would want to be VP, he's got a sweet spot in the Senate and being VP is kinda a crappy job (and it's not like he can run again in 8 years when he's 82) He would be better to attempt to build a progressive caucus in the Senate stronger than the one that currently exists.
For Clinton she's going to go with a young up and comer type like Corey Booker or Castro. Which gives her a bit of a dynamic and with Castro at least makes Republicans worry a little about Texas. I see no upside with going with Bernie, she's be better off making Elizabeth Warren her VP and even that's not great for either of them.
I don't disagree, but Sanders wants (and likely needs) continued visibility. If he goes back to his senate position, he will forever be "That crazy progressive that lost after the kids didn't vote like they were supposed to." If he's VP, he will *at least* get to have visibility for his ideas.
Like I said, if Clinton actually made the offer, he should take it. I don't think it's necessarily Clinton's best idea, but...
Getting real tired of the Bernie supporters in my feeds (almost all of whom are my friends) claiming in various ways that Bernie hasn't been getting a fair shot in the campaign. He had a disadvantage in the beginning because of lower fundraising and worse name recognition, but it's been like six months of debates and coverage now. He's simply lost, and he's lost because not enough Democrats want him to be the nominee over Hillary.
I'm honestly hoping the man can live for another decade just so he gets another reasonable shot. It's really hard for someone not to come up like that who's essentially an independent. I imagine if we had someone like Bernie who was in his 40s or 50s, he would be ignored at first but slowly given enough influence and time to move forward. The bigger fear is if him losing the nomination will take all of his voters to Clinton or Trump...and I imagine more are going to Trump.
Also...why did people in the Missouri Race continue to do write-in votes or vote for Martin O'Malley despite the fact he's gone? Why are those votes put into consideration? That was such a close race that a fraction of the votes to O'Malley or written in could have actually won for Bernie. Undecided is more understanding, but what's the thought in voting for someone who has publicly left the race?
Yea, this is Bernie's last shot at the Presidency running at 76 would be extremely tough, which is why they should be looking at young folks that have the potential to take his mantle from him and run when they are younger.
Also...why did people in the Missouri Race continue to do write-in votes or vote for Martin O'Malley despite the fact he's gone? Why are those votes put into consideration? That was such a close race that a fraction of the votes to O'Malley or written in could have actually won for Bernie. Undecided is more understanding, but what's the thought in voting for someone who has publicly left the race?
Several reasons.
Some people do it as a protest vote. But I suspect most of them do it because they literally don't know he dropped out of the race. Low Information Voters probably aren't aware enough to know.
Getting real tired of the Bernie supporters in my feeds (almost all of whom are my friends) claiming in various ways that Bernie hasn't been getting a fair shot in the campaign. He had a disadvantage in the beginning because of lower fundraising and worse name recognition, but it's been like six months of debates and coverage now. He's simply lost, and he's lost because not enough Democrats want him to be the nominee over Hillary.
I stopped putting up with it today and told someone that if Bernie wants more attention and coverage he should demonstrate some skills that a President would need and GO NETWORK AND TAKE THE STAGE. I get that they like him because he "refuses to engage with a broken system." Guess what, that's why your guy doesn't have any coverage. You can't have it both ways.
You want to be the leader; this is your audition. Show us your sweet leadership skills. You think he can get anything significant done as President while refusing to engage with a broken system? You're an idiot.
Who is it you people are seeing online and why do you subject yourselves to them? I know there's Bernie Bros out there, but the only one I've seen on my internet as opposed to in an article was Muppet (and that brief strange moment in the Onion comments section, but those weren't too bad). Why don't you guys purge your social media of this bullshit?
A lot of my good friends post Bernie stuff on Facebook all the time. I don't find it annoying at all, because a lot of the memes are quite funny. I rarely see any of the conspiracy theory stuff.
I'm sure in a month they will all have moved on. Except for one friend, who I just know is going to get into the conspiracy theories hard.
I'm all for purging my feed though. There are multiple members of my immediate family who I have unfollowed on Facebook to reduce my stress levels in different ways.
Comments
It's just that Clinton also played smart - Smarter, in fact, this isn't her first rodeo - as well as playing hard, with the long game in mind. Her campaign hasn't been as purely brilliant as sanders, but if you don't have the classics as well as the all-new-all-different campaign game, then you end up as the technically brilliant second place. It also doesn't help that literally every bit of crazy bullshit I've mentioned either out of amusement or frustration - all the conspiracy theories, lies, freakouts over discovering the basics of how a primary works, etc - are all those same young progressives.
The problem with the Tea Party isn't (just) that it's right wing. It's that it's an ugly, desperate mob willing to do and say whatever it takes to get what they want, even if that thing is stupid, ill-considered, or simply wrong. The face of the future isn't a progressive version of the tea-party, because we have it right now. It's USUncut and the BernieBros, and all of their nastiness, conspiracy theories and bull-headed ignorance.
The opposite example would be Rubio who just didn't have anything...
The Sanders transition away from the preliminaries race into some kind of cabinet-level role in the Clinton administration is going to be interesting.
He still has a lot of money from donors. It seems a big waste to spend that on a losing battle against Hillary in the next three months. Is it possible for him to use that to pay for adds to encourage his current supporters to support Hillary in the general election?
As for what he can do with the money... it's complicated.
http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/campaignfinance/lawsandinstructions/Pages/Instructions_General.aspx#link_1435323048795
He could use the money for a "get out the vote" campaign.
Otherwise, this will be a rough general election season.
Maybe Trump's playing for entertainment.
Also we'd get to see the more ardent ones squirm, which is a bonus.
For Clinton she's going to go with a young up and comer type like Corey Booker or Castro. Which gives her a bit of a dynamic and with Castro at least makes Republicans worry a little about Texas. I see no upside with going with Bernie, she's be better off making Elizabeth Warren her VP and even that's not great for either of them.
Like I said, if Clinton actually made the offer, he should take it. I don't think it's necessarily Clinton's best idea, but...
Also...why did people in the Missouri Race continue to do write-in votes or vote for Martin O'Malley despite the fact he's gone? Why are those votes put into consideration? That was such a close race that a fraction of the votes to O'Malley or written in could have actually won for Bernie. Undecided is more understanding, but what's the thought in voting for someone who has publicly left the race?
Some people do it as a protest vote. But I suspect most of them do it because they literally don't know he dropped out of the race. Low Information Voters probably aren't aware enough to know.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/16/donald-trump-warns-of-riots-if-party-blocks-him-at-convention/
Win or lose, I'm being the Trumpettes are going to turn to random violence.
You want to be the leader; this is your audition. Show us your sweet leadership skills. You think he can get anything significant done as President while refusing to engage with a broken system? You're an idiot.
I'm sure in a month they will all have moved on. Except for one friend, who I just know is going to get into the conspiracy theories hard.
I'm all for purging my feed though. There are multiple members of my immediate family who I have unfollowed on Facebook to reduce my stress levels in different ways.