I wonder what effect Jeremy Corbyn (also an 'actual person, rather than just a mask for focus groups') turning Labour into [even more of] a complete fucking shambles in a matter of weeks will have on the 'Bernie' campaign. Probably none.
I wonder what effect Jeremy Corbyn (also an 'actual person, rather than just a mask for focus groups') turning Labour into [even more of] a complete fucking shambles in a matter of weeks will have on the 'Bernie' campaign. Probably none.
Bernie spitting the truths already. Beast.
Couldn't get CNN's stream to work. WANKERS.
Overall, a much more 'in depth' debate than the circus the Republican debates are. Anderson Cooper as moderator was miles above the shit that turned up for the Republicans. I think O'Malley did well in that he managed to distance himself from the two bottomfeeders and look like an actual third option. Maybe. Hilary was your typical well spoken politibot with nothing of substance to say while Bernie stuck to his shtick, perhaps a little to much.
In the end, it can all be summarized by the typical left speech: We will take money from the rich and give you more health, social service, and education with it.
Pepe nailed it. At least Chaffee managed the single worst political debate answer ever with "My dad died and I was new so I voted wrong on Glass Stegal." I'd love to see Lessig get invited just to make them all uncomfortable by talking about reversing gerrymandering so the parties had to compete in more than 5 districts a year, campaign vouchers, and limits to campaign contributions, but they are not that stupid.
I don't think it was 'in-depth' at all. They kept throwing Hilary softballs and the idiotic audience gobbled it up.
Did you watch the Republican debates? That's what it is being compared to.
"In-depth" is relative in American politics. It is too risky and our politicians have not engaged in it since Nixon lost to Kennedy because he did not look good on television. Sander's "free public university for everyone" is essentially as unrealistic and stupid as Trump's "build a wall with Mexico and have them pay for it." Do politicians anywhere talk any other way? All you can get out of it is a sense of if they are credible or not and their vague approaches to governance.
Trump has told all SuperPacs created in his name to give back their money. Real powerplay clearly aimed at Hilary. I think he thinks he's got the primary wrapped up.
Bush has cut most of his staff. Looks like that's him out. So it looks like it's going to be Trump with Rubio and maybe Cruz to challenge him? Carsons got to go Hermann Cain eventually.
If Trump pulls through. :drool:
Oh and Hilary absolutely deflected the Benghazi stuff like it was nothing. Absolutely pathetic attempt from the Republicans. 2 years of trying to drag her name through the mud and they still fail. What a bunch of chumps.
Got to say, didn't think Trump would last this long. Fair play, fair play.
If it's Hilary v Trump they should just get the ship back to Ireland and give it all back to the Indians.
I agree. Still hoping that Bernie and Rand pull through.
Rand has absolutely no chance. He's dead. With Ryan as a Speaker he'd die on his arse anyway.
His Twitter game is pretty shit. It's just pictures of him speaking to white college students and then re-tweeting anybody who isn't a pothead to show that THE MOVEMENT has legs.
It's clear his campaign doesn't have legs outside of his family supporters. He'd probably have a better crack at it going as a Democrat funnily enough.
I don't know about that. Opposing most of the gibsmedats would presumably send the minority vote packing.
She absolutely sailed through it. Vox reckoned it was the best day any political candidate has had since Obama caught McCain floundering on housing prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Tangentially, I wonder how much influence it has on campaigns that the parties lack any influential central organizational structure. Like, Clinton was able to go toe-to-toe with a bunch of nobody backbenchers who clearly didn't remotely have the brains, experience or political capital necessary to take her on. I don't think the parties in Australia or the UK would let that happen - they'd make sure that there was some political heft on any panel that they'd regard as this important.
Surely something like that committee is GOP'd to the hilt?
The GOP is falling apart. This committee was just the most recent embarrassment. Whichever Democrat that's ultimately elected will walk it pretty easily, I'd say, Hillary perhaps more so. I'm more curious to see how the congressional elections go, but this seems like a very good time to be a Democrat here.
You'd think so, but it was a bunch of incompetent nobodies, even by their standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Them embracing the tea party and swinging for the evangelical's really has destroyed that party i na way I didn't think was possible. It seemed to be such a machine at one point with Ailes as your Director of Comms from outside the party.
Don't they control both Houses (one of them by a fair way)? It's more bollocks candidates and demographics shifts than the party targeting the wrong people. Yeah, you could say that they could do more to get blacks voting for them; but what? You can't realistically make half the black people 'middle class' within an election cycle.
They do, but they seemingly can't do shit once they actually get to Congress. Which is why you'd hope that Democrats will take back at least one house of Congress in the next elections. Democrats always do better on Presidential-year elections because the voter turnout is higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
While it's true, there's a fairly strong mitigating issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
While both sides of politics have gotten themselves knee-deep in gerrymandering, the GOP were far better at it, in basically every state that they've gotten control of. They've basically locked it down.
At any rate, the real power is arguably at state legislatures, which the Republicans are still good at winning.
Just realized there is a Republican debate tonight. I guess I'll watch even though it's going to be more of the exact same I'm sure.
https://www.scriptrock.com/blog/info...e-us-sometimes
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/228391/...s/us-alexa.png
An interesting set of graphs on the subject.
This debate is interesting in that it could well be the death knell for Jeb! Bush. It'll be interesting to see if anyone rises to challenge the mental trifecta of Trump, Carson and Fiorina.
Stream?
CNBC not having a live youtube steam :facepalm:
I'm coming to love this Republican field. It's basically like a reality TV show to decide who will lose to Hillary Clinton (or Bernie).
Not directly related to the election, but speaks to a lot about the economic lunacy of the Republican party, uniformly reflected by their candidates for President.
Bernanke quits GOP
Quote:
They saw inflation where it did not exist and, when the official data did not bear out their predictions, invoked conspiracy theories. They denied that monetary or fiscal policy could support job growth, while still working to direct federal spending to their own districts. They advocated discredited monetary systems, like the gold standard.
His attack on Rubio and subsequent battering was fucking painful to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Still don't get how Carson is popular, man is a complete shambles.
Yep. The man is broken. Wouldn't surprise me if he drops out within the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davgooner
Marco Rubio is the one candidate I could see winning for the Republicans, so his rise isn't particularly welcome, although he's also one of their only candidates who I actually think is a decent person.
I didn't realise Paul Ryan was 'still a thing'. Didn't he get lolled out of town in 2012?
It's a sign of the shift in the Republican Party that he's become the man they're literally begging to become Speaker of the House. Nobody actually knows who'd have done it if he turned them down. Band of nutjobs.
Why do you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
He should have been, mind you. He's still presenting himself as a policy wonk even as he proposes the most insane economics around.
He presented a list of demands when he put himself forward as speaker, none of which have been met, and yet here he is.
I was under the impression that he was shown up as a right lightweight (with a twat face).Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
He was just viewed as too right-wing to carry him as a VP when Mitt Romney was so roundly derided by any swing Democrats, no?
He'll be an excellent speaker for a Republican House in a really, really depressing way.
No, Ryan skated through that unscathed in terms of his reputation as a policy wonk. Mainly because he is prepared to discuss policy at all. Not because he has any ideas. He really is just a Ted Cruz or George Wallace style opportunist dressed up a bit better.
Ital is essentially right. Gerrmandering has left both parties incredibly weak. I disagree that Republicans are better; they have just taken advantage of demographic shifts. Instead of people competing for sensible policies to win the center you get whoever parrots the inane talking points of their side the loudest. The choruses of Biden as a savior and not a gaffe prone fool is evidence of that. Or just ask yourself, what other serious Democrats are out there? Warren? Another Cuomo? A decade ago you would have gotten Moynihan, Bradley, Kerry, Clark, Richardson, Albright, or Napolitano.
Other potential Democrat candidates are being shut out by the party apparatus, who want to give Hilary as clean a run as possible, I thought.
Who? Sadly, they don't really exist. Presidential candidates typically come from governors and Democrats have been losing those races for a whole. Where are the Latino candidates from California or New Mexico? Where are the new generation of Southern Democrats like Clinton, Edwards, Gore, et al? Or even the new crop of people from New England? I don't disagree with your premise, but I'm a big Democrat and I really don't even know that generation's names. I know those candidates must exist, but to be serious they need to have broken nationally. Outside of Warren and Booker nobody knows who they are.
Slight favourite with the bookies, who are still expecting the establishment candidate to come good when actual voting begins. It's an interesting question, really, and I'm no longer as certain as I used to be that it'll happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
I still feel like Trump's going to fade, but to be honest, anyone who's still on board isn't going to drift away now. It's not like he can somehow make his rhetoric even more pointless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3PofPbm9fQ
Ben Carson goes on television to defend himself from allegations that he didn't attack people in the past. He insists he stabbed a relative and attacked his mother with a hammer. The liberal media is trying to smear him by painting him as a pillar-of-the-community type who never hurt anyone.
http://i.imgur.com/MgXGVFQ.gif
We've surpassed 2012 people.
Top fella. :DQuote:
“Well, it’s easy to answer,” Carson quickly replied. “I didn’t have an involvement with them. That is total propaganda and this is what happens in our society. Total propaganda.” He then backtracked a little. “I did a couple of speeches for them. I did speeches for other people, they were paid speeches,” he told the crowd before switching back to a full denial. “It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them.” Then he again acknowledged a role. “Do I take the product? Yes, I think it’s a good product.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSoHRwtwvI