Yeah, McCain supposedly wanted Liebermann to be his VP but the GOP shit a brick over that suggestion. Though I don't necessarily think its true that candidates typically choose their VP based on the fact they'd make a good President. I mean, I doubt George H.W. Bush thought Dan Quayle would make a good President (although he was actually a far more intelligent Senator than the media would make him out to be). And it's well known that Eisenhower was definitely not a fan of Nixon being President. Speaking of Nixon, I doubt anyone thought Agnew would be a decent President. And Shriver wasn't necessarily a very Presidential pick for McGovern. I think the VP choice is a political signal and that, usually, the candidate can't be some political neophyte.

Surprisingly Harvard professor Larry Lessig became the latest candidate to drop out of the race. Though he hadn't been invited to any of the debates, and wasn't included in most polls. He was all-in on campaign finance reform, but wanted an exception for unions. He also is a big name in fighting against copyrights, particularly in software and music. He's definitely an interesting and busy character, but gaining traction would have been nearly impossible.

"Unsurprisingly", surely?

Hillary had a commanding lead in 2008 as well. Until she didn't.

However, since the email/Benghazi issue has not derailed her campaign, this isn't 2008 and it's hard to see her not winning the nomination.

On the R side, Bush isn't gaining new endorsements. His lead here (and on such a small level) isn't significant. I'd put his odds at around 8-1 or 10-1 at this point.

This is fun :)

How Honest Is Your Favorite Candidate? | Mother Jones


And who is the most honest you ask... :D

Honesty has a liberal bias.

So, I watched the whole Democrat forum last night. I came out with a couple of thoughts.

1) Why hasn't O'Malley made any kind of move yet? He seems like an attractive candidate to me, but has gained no traction that I can see. Hillary with her high poll numbers has such a low likability rating that you would think the anti-Clinton crowd that is in the establishment would have already started really working with him instead of sitting out, or trying to draft Biden. Am I missing something about him that makes him a no-go?

2) I just can't get over disliking Hillary. There is just something about her that has always bugged me. I can't see myself ever voting for her.

3) Bernie is Larry David. Are we sure that he isn't just an elaborate practical joke? Have they ever been seen in the same room?

1. He's Tommy Carcetti.

2. OK, fine.

3. Are you sure you're taking this seriously? :p

Lol. Yeah, I know. I was telling my wife how weird it was while we were watching that I kept thinking of Littlefinger.

Agreed.

Shouldn't that be in the facebook thread?

Oh, so now you are asking me to delete it. Deleting shit is cool now...I see how it is. :)

O'Malley makes Al Gore look exciting. Also it isn't like Maryland is looking that great these days for the Dems. The Dems lost the governorship after O'Malley and Baltimore really exposed O'Malley's issues.

There is also the fact that Clinton is very, very popular with establishment Democrats (at the very least those who were skeptical really jumped on after Clinton was a team player and jump on as Secretary of State for Obama).

Not looking that great in what regard? MD was recently redrawn to effectively flip a Congress seat from R to D, giving the Dems 7 of 8. I can't tell you when MD last had a R senator, and there is next to no way that it will vote R in the presidential election. I count it as a small miracle (and some really bad D campaigns/candidates) that Ehrlich or Hogan got elected.

I meant the governor's election. It was seen within the party and in the media as a massive repudiation of O'Malley.

And then protests in Baltimore showed how the government (state and local - all Dems) failed the city.

Heh. Well, that may be the case but there's no chance of a non-Dem getting elected in Baltimore, mismanagement or not.

That's not my recollection at all, FWIW. Although O'Malley's record was certainly a factor, Obama fatigue was probably more of one. And, frankly, Anthony Brown was a poor candidate that ran an even worse campaign. Conversely, Larry Hogan ran a campaign that played right to his strengths as a plain-speaking outsider.

But I think you're spot on with why O'Malley can get no traction. His natural appeal, as a former governor from a state near DC, is to the Democratic establishment. Those voters are already tightly locked down by Hillary. The only oxygen remaining in the room is for an outsider--the role Bernie is playing.

Anyone who doesn't view Climate Change as being a legitimate thing should auto-drop to zero.

Thoughts on the second debate, which was supposed to be about Wall Street, but started with a section on the attacks in Paris yesterday...

Martin O'Malley: He had a few zingers lined up, and stuck mostly to sound bytes about his record in Maryland and the need for new leadership in a new century. I doubt most viewers will remember he was there.

Bernie Sanders: His biggest applause line was reminding us that the highest post-war marginal tax rate was over 90% during the Eisenhower administration (which remained until the Johnson administration). His attacks on Clinton regarding Wall Street money were effective, but so was her response. I'm not sure his talking points change and I'm not sure calling Wall Street corrupt resonates, but the response is better when he's more specific - like when he talks about the need to break up the banking system. He seems a little more into this than he was in the last debate. However, he was way out of his depth when talking any specifics about the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton: Her biggest challenge at this point is not to allow Sanders to take the left away from her, because the risk would be losing the ability to inspire new voters. The problem is that Sanders isn't going to let anyone near the left. The debate started with a section on Paris. All three candidates were appropriately bland. But what do you say at this stage? Clinton's geopolitical knowledge is far superior to the other two, and she wasn't challenged on her decisions as Secretary of State (the gift from a friendly media), so that was a plus.

Overall, an easy win for Clinton. Probably even safer than a Ronda Rousey bet, as far as tonight's conflicts go.

I fell asleep halfway through the debate. But from what I saw Sanders isn't going to be able to sway enough Clinton voters to vote for him. And I'm still surprised that Malley has gotten no traction at all. I think he's just gunning for the VP role at this point.

Gravis, which was the first organization to poll Sanders as within the margin of error in New Hampshire back at the start of August, shows Clinton with a 46-25 lead in New Hampshire.

The poll was taken before the last debate and includes registered voters rather than likely voters. And a sample of only 214 taken in one day.

So, like its rather shocking Republican poll that showed a huge decline for Carson, this could be a serious outlier. Or a sign that Sanders is in decline.

They just don't understand young people.

My son is just months away from being a teenager. I am terrified of this fact.

The Republicans only chance this year is if Clinton wins the nomination, largely because the majority of Dem's would just opt out of voting (again).

I don't think that's true. If I can't have the steak, I'll settle for salmon. I'm not sitting back and letting them put roadkill on my plate.

Bernie can't even get Democrats to vote for him. What makes you think he'd pull in more independents and center-right voters than Hilary?

From the Republican Primary Season thread:


I don't want to oversimplify, but what I took from that article is that Republicans run candidates who are what they need to be to get elected and then expect them to legislate rightward while Democrats run candidates who push leftward in their campaigns and then get constituents disappointed when they hew center/right in order to compromise.

While there are plenty of exceptions, and the Tea Party fucked things up for GOP operatives there for a while, I think that's generally how it's played out since the dawn of "modern" campaigns (let's say 1992/94).

What does the phrase "GOP operative" mean?

GOP political consultants, mainly working on campaigns. Also guys like Rove & Luntz running PACs / SuperPACs or otherwise trying to influence the direction of the party, from the inside.

I'd argue the bigger problem is that the Dems don't stand for much of anything. If you asked the average voter what the GOP stands for I'd bet most people would be able to pick out lower taxes, strong military, pro-life, etc. If you aske the same question about the Dems, what would you get? I'm very engaged politically and I couldn't even tell you three things the Dems stand for nationally. They've run for years on we're not as bad as the GOP.

Do Democrats have operatives?

Yes

Is it said negatively when we say "GOP Operative", "Republican Operative", or "Democratic Operative"?

Depends on what your general overall view of politics is. You hate the way campaigns works then you'll hate operatives. If you view campaigns as a necessary evil then that's how you will probably view them.

Just to be clear, I wasn't using "operative" with a negative connotation. There are both Republican and Democratic operatives. Another term for the role I'm describing could be "campaign consultant", although that's not exact because the folks I'm talking about work, in a number of ways, to help guide their party even between campaigns. The rise of SuperPACs has helped this because it means they can have income between campaigns, although once upon a time that was the role of think tanks.

Examples on the GOP side: Karl Rove, Steve Schmidt, Frank Luntz

Examples on the Democratic side: David Axelrod, John Podesta, Terry McAuliffe (though he's a governor, now)

Bump

Just to give the Dems equal time here. Anything to chat about other than the GOP circus?

Nope, MSM hasn't reported on them outside of getting Trump reactions since early October when Sanders got beat up by some #BlackLivesMatter chicks.

Did I answer your questions, Dutch?

The question is, "Did I answer your questions satisfactorily"!!!

But seriously, yes.

:p

I don't think he can win, but I thought Lawrence Lessig brought up some really interesting points during the last debate... oh wait he wasn't allowed in it. I thought given all the agita over "Obamacare" nationally that it was really interesting to hear Elizabeth Warren describe what we've learned from implementing a very similar program in Massachusetts for several years now... oh wait she didn't run. I thought that John Hickenlooper had some nice insight into both how marijuana legalization has gone in his state and the challenges in passing "gun control" laws despite a relatively "pro-gun" populace... wait, no he's not running either.

No. No, there is not. Nor will there be.

And Clinton's lead is still high. 55% nationally as well as 52% in Iowa. Sanders is up by like... 5% in NH? But Clinton is like at 70% in South Carolina.

Debate coming up Saturday on ABC. Yes, Saturday. I think that's the first day of the bowl season. This is the last debate of 2015 for either side.

Participants are Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. No word on whether Lessig will be invited, though that would be an interesting change of pace.

This will be in New Hampshire, and given it's hosted by the local ABC affiliate which was (when I lived there) the only major network station in the entire state, I expect it will get decent ratings there. That gives Sanders somewhat of an opportunity to make his case, since he's still ahead in the polls there, if nowhere else.

Well, decent ratings for a Saturday night in December going up against bowl games involving 5-7 teams. Maybe there's a rerun of NCIS somewhere. And don't miss The Big Bang Theory on Thursday. Rumors are that it's a game-changer. This could help Sanders.

Lessig dropped out over a month ago.
Certainly can't let some lunatic with fringe ideas like these in. :rolleyes: I'm not 100% on board, but Democrats have the better ideas domestically. So why are they so terrified to propose and defend them? Lawrence Lessig was never a threat to actually win any state, let alone the nomination, yet Hillary Clinton and the DNC are running scared from a person who could barely poll 1%. Mock Donald Trump and the Republican circus all you want, but people are listening to them, considering and discussing their ideas. I know it's a year+ away from the election, but it's not like Barack Obama is a popular figurehead or there is literally any leadership coming out of Capitol Hill - Hilary (and Bernie) should be desperately trying to get the message out and give the librul ideas a seat at the table. Your party is losing in the Senate, and at the house level, and especially at the state level, so why are the Republicans the ones churning for fresh candidates or throwing new ideas out there (as terrible as some of those are)? Congrats on increasing your chances of being the Democratic nominee from 99% to 99.5% by staying silent, but you're decreasing the chances of your party being able to effectuate your ideas in the next decade.

Can anybody explain what this kid is thinking?


Is he just interested in looking at losing campaigns on both sides?

Maybe, we all have our standards whether they are winning or not. I'm still backing Rubio, for instance.

Sanders campaign scandal brewing.

Sanders announcement is sadly not a horrifying sex scandal, but apparently instead a boring IT-laden database matter:

DNC Bans Bernie Sanders From Voter Database After Campaign Exploited Software Error to Access Clinton Data - Hit & Run : Reason.com

*yawn*

I was rooting for something straight out of Cards Against Humanity...

hehe, wasn't the 'software error' an outage to some firewall that was supposed to block his team from seeing this info?

So, in non-IT terms. The door to the sensitive filing cabinet is supposed to be locked. Sanders kept jiggling the door handle until one day, somebody forgot to lock the door and it...just popped open. So in went Sanders.

But yeah, nobody cares.

Now Sanders is threatening to sue the DNC.

This won't help the DNC which is already 7 million dollars in debt and is run by the incompetent Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Not a good week for Sanders. On top of the scandal, the two national polls that came out this week (Monmouth and ABC News/Wash Post) show Hillary Clinton with leads of 30+ points.

It seems that it might be more sordid than that.

Bernie Sanders Campaign Locked Out Of Key Voter File After Data Breach : NPR


The Sanders campaign claims they notified the DNC about security going out as far back as October. If that's true, it lends credence to charges that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is actively tilting the scales for the Clinton campaign. The press conference today was the first time I've ever noticed the Sanders campaign actually acknowledge that charge. Things could start turning nasty in tomorrow's debate.

It's moments like these that remind me Hillary can fuck things up. She's way ahead and facing no real danger. I don't buy Sanders' excuse, but so what? She should say no harm no foul, and move on. Alienating the Sanders folks won't help her in the general election.

Bernie needs to take the gloves off and go negative here. O'Malley as well.

I agree, move on. Even if there was "foul", she owes Bernie for the email out.

O'Malley is feisty tonight but a "normal" debate so far. I'm glad they got the security drama out of the way early.

Is there any truth to the rumor that the next debate will be New Year's Day at 4:00 a.m.?

Anyway, didn't get through the entire debate. It's harder when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

It's clear Hillary is going to make the Republicans pay for Trump, even though her effective line about ISIS making Trump videos was a whopper.

O'Malley is getting more and more desperate, and is starting to lose the composure necessary to make people feel he's presidential. Sanders is still too much the angry old man. Hillary wins these debates rather easily, but is still having to move too far to the left, which makes her vulnerable later.

I thought there's no way I'm watching all of this 25 minute video, but this was some eye opening shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ

Honestly if there was anyone remotely electable on the right, I would have considered it. This looks like it very well may be a vote for "lesser of two evils" this election cycle for me.

If it's against Trump/Cruz, it's Hillary easy.
Against some of the others, I'm open.

According to RealClearPolitics, Clinton leads every GOP nominee except Rubio (and it's close with him).

I don't honestly think that means a lot at this stage.

What means more is that Clinton is widening her lead over Sanders.

But Bernie is really winning and the media won't report it because Hillary owns them!

:D

The Bernie fans really do amuse me. I enjoy how any positive article for Clinton indicates that the writer is a corporate shill and how, of course, Bernie won all of the debates handedly, but the media has bought Clinton and wants their person to win. It's all really interesting to see it in motion.

Sanders' supporters increasingly remind me of Perot supporters from back in the day. Not ideologically, of course, but dogmatically.

No offense to any reasonable and sane Sanders supporters here, of course.

What is the over/under, in months, that Impeachment talk begins if Clinton is elected?
I can see her doing some shady things. Even more than any other president. And I think she has the 2nd biggest ego in both parties. Plus, I think she thinks she can do whatever she wants.

I think the number should be at 18 months.

What I find funny is that many (not all) of the Bernie Sanders supporters I know were flying Hillary's flag for the past 8 years. Any time Obama compromised or failed to follow through on something, it was, "if only we had Hillary". It got to the point where they wanted her to challenge him in the 2012 primary. Now the same people are blasting Clinton for being a corporate whore and refusing to vote if Sanders loses the nomination.

Impeachment talks? Those will start the moment she becomes the nominee.

Impeachment proceedings? I'll be disappointed if it takes 6 months after the new Congress forms.

waiting for a return of Ken Starr, then : :popcorn:

Yep. All of a sudden these same people who were wishing Hillary was elected because she'd make sure some progressive bill would get through (due to political dealing and just not bending over backwards to get a GOP Senator's vote that wasn't forthcoming) are now calling her a DINO and Republican-lite (REALLY, Sanders' supporters? Really?!)

That's pretty much where I'm sitting although I'll go one step further and actively campaign for Hillary if Trump is the nominee.

Hillary doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside but I really don't see myself voting for a Republican anytime soon. Even if a Republican is running for local dog catcher unopposed I'd just as soon write somebody else in.

A far cry from my first time voting in the 2000 election.

Does Hillary really think that it's a good idea to get her husband on the campaign trail? Seems like a nightmare just waiting to happen.

Certainly wasn't a nightmare for Obama in 2012.

This is a year old, but I'd expect the numbers haven't changed.

She'd be stupid not to use a guy that popular.

For the majority Bill's a rockstar. I'm not sure he'll have quite the same impact as he did 4 years ago to get out the vote, but by and large, he'll still draw crowds.

*cough* Al Gore *cough*

That was stupid, too. Clinton still have comparatively high favorables during that campaign season: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/pr...l-clinton.aspx

The GOP was making hay with Clinton's personal misconduct, but many (myself included) thought Gore should have run on the economic successes (to that point) of the period 1992-2000 and used Clinton's popularity and charisma, especially when Gore definitely lacked charisma.

Exactly. I was agreeing that she'd be stupid not to use him and just "reminiscing" about someone who was that stupid.

To be fair to Al Gore, he did try by saying he invented the internet. :)

+1, then. What a shitshow that election was.


Do you even remember the internet back then? :D

Prodigy & AOL!

Don't forget Compuserve!

New NBC poll has Bernie trailing Clinton by only 3 points in Iowa and winning in NH by 4.

Bill Clinton has that effect on people. It's like they forgot he's a package deal here until he started campaigning for her. Now, they're suddenly thinking, "wait, I don't want that idiot back in the White House".

I'd add that she doesn't even really need him. She needs to focus on herself, not ride his coat tails.

Again, Bill Clinton has a higher favorability rating than anyone actually running. There aren't hordes of Dems running from Hillary because of Bill.

The favorability rating of a politician who hasn't made any meaningful policy decisions in 15 years has to be one of the most meaningless ratings I've seen. They don't dislike him because he's not relevant anymore, though I'm sure he'd tell you otherwise.

Find me these hordes of Dems not voting for Hillary because of Bill. The only people turned off by Bill are not voting in the Dem primary.

The Bill problem is not that people don't like him, it's that he overshadows her. It makes her look weak if her former president husband has to lead her to victory. The challenge is capturing his popularity and charisma and being able to use it in a way that helps HRC.

That may be a factor in the general, but in the primary nobody is going to not vote for Hillary because Bill is campaigning.

I think we can all agree that the only thing in a primary that's actually meaningless is a policy decision.

:D

There are a few feminists that would love to see a female president but absolutely despises Bill. I could see them turning.

Unless they've had a head trauma, they didn't forget she was married to Bill.

JPhillips bring the snark in the past few posts (in multiple threads). Approve!

Oh, I agree with that. Was disagreeing with the position that people not liking Bubba is what is hurting HRC.

My preview of the democratic debate

Listening to the debate now. I'm enjoying listening to them debate without all the childishness from the GOP debates.