Meanwhile, in DC

[mtangelsfan]

The establishment is freaking out:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-ryan-isnt-interested-in-being-the-republican-nominee/ar-BBqxm6n?li=BBnb7Kz

 

 

John Boehner is already angling to get Trump and Cruz out of there.

 

He's a disgusting politician.

 

I honestly believe they would easily push for Clinton than either Trump or Cruz.

[Angelsjunky]

I've seen talk of Mitt, Jeb, or even Paul Ryan stepping in as the Republican nominee. Crazy times.

 

EDIT: OK, I checked your link after writing that - it is about Paul Ryan.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[nate]

Putting Ryan in there is all about beating Hillary.  Ryan is widely liked by most of the Republican party and they know that neither Cruz or Trump could beat Hillary in an election.  Trump is a buffoon and Cruz is a complete idiot.

[HeavenlyHalos]

The establishment is freaking out:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-ryan-isnt-interested-in-being-the-republican-nominee/ar-BBqxm6n?li=BBnb7Kz

 

 

John Boehner is already angling to get Trump and Cruz out of there.

 

He's a disgusting politician.

 

I honestly believe they would easily push for Clinton than either Trump or Cruz.

 

Yes, my guess is that Hillary is looking better and better to them. She's not too different than the establishment Republicans anyway. It would be great to see them try and set-up a third party to run against Trump, while Bernie runs as an Independent. There would be four candidates looking at a possible 10%+ of the general election votes, which could hopefully set up a precedent for future elections.

[Glen]

The establishment is freaking out:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-ryan-isnt-interested-in-being-the-republican-nominee/ar-BBqxm6n?li=BBnb7Kz

John Boehner is already angling to get Trump and Cruz out of there.

He's a disgusting politician.

I honestly believe they would easily push for Clinton than either Trump or Cruz.

That article is dated from the future. Or else it's a year old.

Edit: my bad, it was the picture that is from last year.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Glen

[Tank]

i'll say it again . . . if we keep hearing mitt romney's name in the news over the next few months, then something is definitely up.

 

the convention in cleveland in july is shaping up to epic mo-fo.

[Angelsjunky]

Yes, my guess is that Hillary is looking better and better to them. She's not too different than the establishment Republicans anyway. It would be great to see them try and set-up a third party to run against Trump, while Bernie runs as an Independent. There would be four candidates looking at a possible 10%+ of the general election votes, which could hopefully set up a precedent for future elections.

 

I've considered something similar, and often thought that you could have four or five parties that would each garner 10%++ of the vote: Traditionalists (Cruz, Santorum, etc), Centrists (Hillary, Bloomberg, etc), Libertarians (Paul, Johnson), and Progressives (green, Bernie, Warren, etc). Or something like that.

[Amazing Larry]

If Trump has a clear lead going into the convention and they choose someone else as the nominee the republican party will probably be mortally wounded. I expect nothing less than the '68 Chicago convention style riots. It would be awesome TV though.

[Glen]

It's amazing that the Republican party is in meltdown and yet they still have a legitimate shot at the presidency.

[mtangelsfan]

That tells me how horrible a candidate Hillary Clinton is.  

[red321]

Yes, my guess is that Hillary is looking better and better to them. She's not too different than the establishment Republicans anyway. It would be great to see them try and set-up a third party to run against Trump, while Bernie runs as an Independent. There would be four candidates looking at a possible 10%+ of the general election votes, which could hopefully set up a precedent for future elections.

 

Which means that nobody would have enough Electoral College votes and the House would decide who the president is....good plan.

 

More I think about it, the Electoral College may be the biggest limiting factor in having only two parties.

[red321]

That tells me how horrible a candidate Hillary Clinton is.  

 

How dare the Democrats not pick a candidate conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans would like!

[mtangelsfan]

How dare the Democrats not pick a candidate conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans would like!

 

and progressives?  you just want to fight today.

[red321]

and progressives?  you just want to fight today.

 

I think most progressives are fine with Clinton. At least early exit polls from the first few primaries I saw showed that most Sander supporters would have little issue supporting Clinton. Yes, you have certain folks who will take things to the extreme...just like you had Clinton supporters who refused to support Obama.

 

You toss in a candidate like Cruz or Trump as opposition and outside of the most idiotic of folks you will find most Democrats will rally around Clinton.

[mtangelsfan]

and yet she could still lose.  She will win more because of who she is running against than because of who she is.

[Angelsjunky]

Yup. If anything, Hillary and the behavior of the DNC has reaffirmed why I am not a registered Democrat and likely never will be.

 

That said, I will vote against Cruz or Trump because I have children. If I didn't, I'd say "**** it, let's see it all fall apart so we can rebuild." Sort of like rooting for the Angels to do really bad so they can get a high draft pick and will take rebuilding seriously.

[red321]

and yet she could still lose.  She will win more because of who she is running against than because of who she is.

 

You are right...she could...though I'm not sure if there is a current Democrat who would have been a stronger general election candidate. I think some of that comes from having a fairly quiet Democratic race for the nomination with only two real candidates. Democrats really need to be looking at their bench and next generation of party leaders.

[red321]

Yup. If anything, Hillary and the behavior of the DNC has reaffirmed why I am not a registered Democrat and likely never will be.

 

That said, I will vote against Cruz or Trump because I have children. If I didn't, I'd say "**** it, let's see it all fall apart so we can rebuild." Sort of like rooting for the Angels to do really bad so they can get a high draft pick and will take rebuilding seriously.

 

It's dumb statements like that that make folks on the extreme left no different from the nihilists on the right. I'm sure some of the Nader voters in Florida said the same thing.

 

Hell, if only for the Supreme Court nominations this election is incredibly important for generations to come and you would throw it away over Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.

[HeavenlyHalos]

Which means that nobody would have enough Electoral College votes and the House would decide who the president is....good plan.

 

More I think about it, the Electoral College may be the biggest limiting factor in having only two parties.

 

Not necessarily true. I doubt that Sanders, for example, would actually win any states, sans Vermount. If it did end up to the House selecting, I could see a change that abolished the Electoral College, replaced with a true popular vote, which is what most everyone wants anyway. (Shoutout to Al Gore)

[arch stanton]

Not necessarily true. I doubt that Sanders, for example, would actually win any states, sans Vermount. If it did end up to the House selecting, I could see a change that abolished the Electoral College, replaced with a true popular vote, which is what most everyone wants anyway. (Shoutout to Al Gore)

It's not what everyone wants and there's no chance that the small states give up the only voice they have.

[Angelsjunky]

It's dumb statements like that that make folks on the extreme left no different from the nihilists on the right. I'm sure some of the Nader voters in Florida said the same thing.

 

Hell, if only for the Supreme Court nominations this election is incredibly important for generations to come and you would throw it away over Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.

 

You imply that the decision must be left or right or, worse, Democrat or Republican. I don't know why it is "dumb" to say that I wouldn't vote for Hillary if I didn't have children. Some on this forum aren't voting at all, or will vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Vermin Supreme over Hillary or Trump. All I'm saying is that the choices of Hillary or Trump is like a root canal or anal rape. I'd pick the root canal if I have to, but would greatly prefer a third option.

[Jay]

It's dumb statements like that that make folks on the extreme left no different from the nihilists on the right. I'm sure some of the Nader voters in Florida said the same thing.

 

Hell, if only for the Supreme Court nominations this election is incredibly important for generations to come and you would throw it away over Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.

 

left = "folks"

right = "nihlists"

[ten ocho recon scout]

left = "folks"

right = "nihlists"

[Rico]

left = "folks"

right = "nihlists"

Yeah, why can't the left be nihilists?  Aren't both sides equally useless?

[Amazing Larry]

We believe in nothings Lebowski.