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.