Here are the latest stats taken from today’s New York Times:
I’m not sure whether Cruz’s victory over Trump was “decisive” (and note that Rubio finished a strong third), but it’s essentially the end of Trump since he needed to win big. Frankly, I don’t much care who won the GOP race, as I think Clinton will trounce any Republican candidate. As for the Democratic results, although Sanders finished very well (and in fact might be the winner when all the votes are in), he didn’t finish strongly enough to convince other Democrats he’s a viable candidate. He’ll also win New Hampshire next week, but Clinton will beat him in the South on Super Tuesday (March 1), cementing her nomination.
Or so I think. I still feel Rubio has a chance at the GOP nomination, but I don’t think any Republican on offer can beat Clinton.
And remember, in August we had a “guess the three candidates” contest, which is now closed. The first person who answered these correctly wins a book:
- Name both the Democratic presidential candidate (not a hard one at this point) AND the vice-presidential candidate.
- Name the Republican presidential candidate.
Dem: Hilary Clinton and Mark Warner
(I’d like to see her pick Deval Patrick)
GOP: Marco Rubio and Kasich
Let’s not count out Jim Gilmore for the GOP. He received a staggering 12 votes!
Jesus started out with 12 supporters!
Hahaha. +1 😀
We’ll have to find those 12 people. I want to know who they are and if they’re spreading the word.
… which got him a trial in front of Pontius Pilate. Good luck to Jim Gilmore with that!
Can I revise my prediction?
Dems: Clinton and Julian Castro
GOP: Marco Rubio and Kasich
I must respectfully disagree that the Iowa results mark the end of Trump. He may win next week in New Hampshire and will likely win quite a few states starting in March. I don’t think we’re quite done with Donald yet.
I agree; but he has built his house upon, “I am the winner!!!!!” meme. This injures his case quite a bit.
Unless of course, he goes baseball on us and says this is only the 4th inning. He hasn’t lost because the game isn’t over. He has time to have a YUGE rally, bat around a couple times and completely decimate his opponent.
Meh–I say he gets designated for assignment.
And plus, remember in the last two Republican Iowa caucuses, the winners went on to lose the nomination.
I was going with that tradition. The winners should be worried right now.
I wonder how Iowa caucus voters spin that, as refulgent as they are with their now fading moment in the sun.
“You’re in I___-o-wa now! But what the heck? You’re welcome! Join us at the picnic! You can have your fill of all the food you bring yourself!”
Trump thought he was their Music Man. (Without all the talent & charm and inner heart of gold…)
It definitely takes the air of inevitability from Trump.
Yes. He definitely takes a hit, but this is nowhere near the end. If he loses, say, three contests in a row that will undermine his story too much, but one… not at all. Let him win NH and we’ll see the same bombast in action again, “I’ve always said Iowans are stupid. Horrible state. No one wants to be there. Sad.”
But the Donald says he loves Iowa so much he’s gonna buy a farm there (a yooge, unbelievable one, I’m sure).
When Trump said that, a buddy of mine commented “yeah, well, his campaign just ‘bought the farm’ in Iowa, too.” 🙂
I think Trump deliberately allowed Iowa to fall, in order to focus on more important and more likely arenas. He probably expected Cruz and Rubio to split the evangelicals. I hope it was also because Trump couldn’t stomach the evangelicals and was willing to write them off. He didn’t lose by that much. And this loss isn’t the war, it’s merely one battle.
I don’t know that it is the end of Trump, although he’s now a big loser. So maybe we’ll see him fade finally away. Or maybe he’ll do well in New Hampshire.
Ultimately, I guess I’d put my money on Rubio being nominated. No matter, though, the Republicans are all pretty much insane.
I’m a Sanders supporter and am very pleased that he’s done as well as he has. But Hillary is still the odds-on favorite. I’m wondering if she might go for an unnoticed VP candidate, someone like Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota. Se’ll want to have someone to shore up the more liberal side of the party without picking someone who will outshine her.
Before anointing Rubio as the presumptive Rethuglican nominee, it should be pointed out that Cruz and Trump together got more then 1/2 the votes in Iowa. However, his showing might be enough to get Bush out of the race, which would be a big boost for his chances.
As for vice-presidential choices, if Hillary is the nominee, IMHO, she should pick a running mate from a purple state. That would imply someone from from a state like Virginia, Ohio, or Florida.
I just don’t see Trump or Cruz as able to close the deal with the overall GOP. Rubio made a surprisingly strong showing in Iowa, which, in my opinion, boosts his candidacy more than anyone else’s based on the Iowa results.
He’s more middle-of-the-road and seems more sane, more adult than either of them.
As was noted several times in this thread — they are all nuts (the GOPers). But Rubio seems (maybe) a bit more sane. Or at least more of the adult in the room. Or maybe I just haven’t looked into him enough!
Krugman expresses skepticism that Rubio is “Middle of the Road”. He points out that the foreign policy team is the one that got us into Iraq and that he’s proposing tax cuts for the 1% that far exceed anything Bush ever did.
That probably qualifies as “more middle of the road” in the GOP right now.
Rubio is out on the far rightwing, and a hardline neocon on foreign policy to boot. He was a Tea Party favorite when he won his senate seat in Florida in 2010. So yeah, smack dab in the mainstream of today’s GOP.
Rubio is what an old-timer Southern Appalachian mountineer would call a “banty” rooster, one more foreign policy “chicken hawk” not inclined to walk that talk by having submitted to military service to possibly go in harm’s way.
I’d love to see her pick Dayton. He has vastly exceeded my expectations and has done a good job facing down the GOP in MN.
However: He’s too folksie (in my opinion) and he stumbles too much in his public speaking. (Actually, he’s a pretty bad public speaker; I like what he says; but his delivery …) This will not fly at the national level, in my opinion.
I follow politics somewhat, but not super closely. From what I’ve seen of Sanders, I do tend to agree with him on more issues than any other candidate. But my concerns for him as the Democratic candidate are two-fold.
First, would he do as well in the general election as Hillary, or could one of the Republicans beat him? Especially with the specter of Supreme Court nominations, not to mention doing something about climate change, it would be a tragedy for any of the potential Republican candidates to win.
Second, would he be as effective of a president as Clinton if he were elected? Having good principles doesn’t mean much if you don’t have the political skill to get your policies enacted.
Yeah, that pretty much nails my feelings on the Bern.
Why does this need repeating so often? Sanders polls better than Clinton against the Republican contenders in the general election.
Clinton, besides being a quasi Republican, has enormous negatives among Republicans – they despise her. Sanders actually gets a lot of love.
Bernie has a record of getting things done in Congress, even working well with Republicans. And for decades before that, he was a master at developing coalitions. Give the man his due.
One phrase: “I am a socialist”
That kills the Bern’s electability in the general.
“He’s a Muslim, Kenyan born BLACK SOCIALIST!”
We’ve played this game before, America.
See the video below. The Bern has owned the designation (socialist).
The Bern has publicly stated that he is a socialist. I doubt he’d disown that now. (And would anyone care even if he did disown it?)
I prefer Bernie over Hilary; but a much prefer Hilary over any GOP candidate and I think that’s the real decision.
The curious thing is that Bernie is not a socialist by any historical definition of the term. He really is a liberal Democrat. Sanders’ biographer has posted an article providing the details as to why he is not a socialist. To the extent that calling himself a socialist hurts him, it is a self-inflicted wound.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/16/bernie_sanders_is_no_socialist_socialism_is_his_brand_but_hes_a_democrat_in_every_way_but_name/
I agree; but he has draped the name over himself; and that’s political death in the US nationally.
I like Bernie. It is also exciting that he creates a lot of excitement among young people, and that he is touting a revolution in changing the way things are. But one problem that exists is that a lot of his base is among younger voters and that slice of society is not good at voting. The socialist card will also be used by the republicans, and that will stir hesitation among the swing voters.
Here’s Bill Clinton’s secretary of labor with 6 arguments,
https://youtu.be/OIhnSybqTR4
Well, yeah, I agree with the Bern’s ideas; but I don’t see him getting elected. Polls taken before even Iowa happens don’t say much about the final result, nearly a year later.
The skeptics (me included) are concerned about electability in the general, this November.
My big concern is the SCOTUS. We can’t stand another Roberts or Alito.
” . . . political skill . . . .”
I take that to mean the skill of human herd management, “hoi polloi” and all that.
Sanders hasn’t yet been exposed to the Republican attack machine; if he’s the nominee, gloves come off and he likely will be destroyed.
Bernie has nothing to hide, and he gives as good as he takes.
I swear to God, if I hear another Clinton talking point here, I am going to explode.
Another way to look at it: If Bernie is the nominee, are you saying that Hillary won’t or doesn’t have the skills to get him elected? If not, she wouldn’t have the skills to get herself past those scary scary Republican smears.
How do you know he has nothing to hide? And even if he doesn’t, what difference would it make?
I think the Dems are “keeping their powder dry” with Trump, especially. I imagine they have plenty of juicy clips and ridiculous statements on film from the Trumpster. He has left a wide swathe through the media.
His bravado might appeal to the nut wing of the GOP (I heard one woman from Iowa waxing lyrical about him “having the right stuff” to be president this morning on the radio) but not in the general. Not when(if) the ads get out there showing that he’s a misogynist bigot blow-hard egomaniac.
Gallup has Trump polling with the highest unfavourable rating of any candidate ever since they started polling that “quality.”
The only thing the GOP can attack Bernie on is his politics. He’s been in congress for 25 years, and in public office for 35 years, and there’s never been so much as the hint of a scandal.
Plus, once they got past the “socialist” label, a lot of independents (and almost all Democrats) would find they agree with his policy positions. As to independents, keep in mind that Bernie is one himself (as signified by the parenthetical “I” before the “-VT” you see following his name).
Hillary is the one burdened by grist for the GOP attack mill. Her main upside is that most of the stuff is old, such that the public has been exposed to it, and nobody seems to much give a damn.
There doesn’t need to be a hint of a scandal for something to be manufactured or reinterpreted. His time in Congress is no indication that this can’t be done….witness John Kerry.
Fair point.
But where there are hints of scandal — as there are with Hillary in an unbroken line from her days with the Rose Law Firm and Whitewater through the fundraising for the Clinton Foundation — well, that’s enough fuel to keep the GOP attack machine humming 24/7 from now until election day.
Whether any of it will get traction is another question. But it certainly won’t burnish her image (though it may help her lock down the women’s vote, to the extent she’s seen as being unfairly attacked).
So what you’re telling us is that with Bernie – the Republicans have to refocus their attack machine, giving him time to get his message out while with Hillary, they can go for the jugular right out the gate?
Sure, Bernie probably has stuff to hide, but right now it is actually hidden. Bernie has the advantage.
I don’t know about Trump, he still has twice the support of the number 2, Cruz, in New Hampshire. Cruz doesn’t have the same organisation in New Hampshire that he had in Iowa. If Trump wins in New Hampshire, then there is still a real possibility he might win the nomination. I think Rubio is the most electable of the Republicans. But he wants to be a pastor in chief instead of a commander in chief. I wonder if the religiously unaffiliated will be an important voting bloc in 2016. Hillary Clinton will probably benefit the most. If you love the First Amendment and hate the Second, vote Democrat. If you hate the First Amendment and love the Second, vote Republican.
And what the hell happened to Jeb Bush? I read he spent between 14 and 15 million dollars in Iowa and he finished 6th, behind Rand Paul. I knew it was going to be a bad day for him, I did not imagine it was going to be that bad.
Bush has never gotten any traction. I think the US is very (very) tired of Bushes (as his own mother said before retracting it later).
His own mother stabbed Jeb in the back? That’s brutal.
I guess I just don’t see most Democrats hating the First Amendment, especially if you go with what seems the more plausible interpretation about it being all about militias and not an individual right. But even going with the individual right, I don’t see a majority of Democrats wanting to take that right away, just put some reasonable regulation in place to help reduce gun deaths.
Hillary Clinton and Julian Castro
Marco Rubio and John Kaisch
As an observer from afar, I don’t think you can rule out momentum. Clinton was supposed to win Iowa, so a virtual tie there makes her a loser, and Saunders came from behind to scare the bejabbers out of her camp. New Hampshire may not be a big one, but if Saunders wins more than he’s expected to, that will be a telling sign.
In the meantime, the GOP and Clinton continue to get the bulk of the MSM coverage.
The analysis by 538 (which is about the only one I trust) suggested that for Bern to be on track to win the nomination he had to beat Clinton about 2/1 in Iowa. The states after Iowa and NH trend demographically much more in her favor than his. He didn’t come close to that, so (barring some major hiccup) I think Hilary is the shoo-in for the Dem nomination that we have assumed for a long time.
The demographics for the rethuglicans have never favored Trump or Cruz – they are much more weighted with larger saner states towards the back end of the nomination process. However I would not look to Rubio for sanity – he’s just slightly less crazy than the Canadian or the “dead clown walking” that were ahead of him. And that puts him in position for the major donors to open their wallets.
I’m less sanguine than PCC(E) about Clinton’s chances against anyone other than Trump or Cruz. She is certainly not someone I would choose to vote for, were there an option.
What Simon said (pun intended). Well said.
What Simon & Garfield sang.
Garfunkel … damned auto-correct.
Garfield was funnier… Especially here, where cats rule!
Agreed. I don’t think Bernie is the candidate to win it, and I think Clinton has many liabilities, so it’s not a foregone conclusion. Clinton is just not that popular or enthusiasm generating. While I think she she starts off in the best position in terms of support, I do not think it would take much to push her over from the “meh” winner to the “meh” loser. If the fake email scandal turns into a real one, for example (e.g. it turns out that she really did knowingly send then-secret information over her home server… if it turns out there is a crime there), it could act as a catalyst to accentuate her other negatives.
It’s a very unfortunate situation, IMO. I think the GOP still has a real chance at winning, especially if they put someone young, able to speak in complete sentences, and smart enough to tack to the center in the general election. I think Rubio is all of those things.
She’d trounce Cruz into mush, even with a federal charge against her. And most of the other candidates too. Trump? I don’t know. Trump has defied the laws of cause and effect. I don’t know how Trump would fare vs Clinton.
Although Clinton would probably beat Trump, Cruz and Rubio would be far more difficult as either of them, just with their names, would likely pull in a sizable fraction of the Hispanic vote and I think could beat Clinton. I doubt there will be much enthusiasm for Clinton in the campaign, especially after the disappointing Obama presidency and if word gets widely known of the nasty deals made over the last few years by Hillary and her husband. See the New York Review of Books essay:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR%20Clintons%20Bizet%20Soviet%20artists&utm_content=NYR%20Clintons%20Bizet%20Soviet%20artists+CID_299cb6b9c73a72af9d751324b48c30cc&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=The%20Clinton%20System
I agree with you about Rubio, but not about Cruz. Although Rubio is nearly as far right as Cruz, Cruz’s far-right fanaticism is of a more inflexible, doctrinaire, authoritarian bent. Cruz also makes for a much less attractive candidate. (There’s good reason why so many people who know him dislike him intensely.)
In addition, unlike Rubio (who is the true son of the Cuban exile community), Cruz is a guy who happens to have one Cuban parent (one who is a Baptist preacher, at that). Cruz has no base of support among Texas’s large Mexican-American community, and his intransigence on immigration reform will likely alienate him from Hispanics nationwide. He is, thus, much less likely than Rubio to siphon off Latino voters from any Democratic nominee.
“I agree with you about Rubio, but not about Cruz. Although Rubio is nearly as far right as Cruz, Cruz’s far-right fanaticism is of a more inflexible, doctrinaire, authoritarian bent. Cruz also makes for a much less attractive candidate. (There’s good reason why so many people who know him dislike him intensely.)”
Hope you’re right, Ken, if it comes to it. Still, as Mencken said, “Never underestimate the capacity of the American people…” or something like that.
Rubio scares me the most. He polishes his batcrap craziness with a veneer of respectability. He is young and handsome and not lily white. He will pull votes from the middle simply for those reasons, even though none of them has anything to do with his qualifications. Plus don’t underestimate the votes that he in particular can pull from “Obama fatigue” that someone more polarizing like Trump or Cruz is unlikely to get. Recall from 16 years ago that we elected a dimwit simply because much of the middle of the electorate was tired of Clinton (yes, I know, Nader yadda yadda yadda). Change for its own sake can be a powerful motivator. I think Hilary would have a very tough time with him. It was disheartening seeing him do so well yesterday because that marks him as viable. I still think Trump will get the nomination (and that is what Sam Wang and 538 still think, and it is hard to argue with their track record), but there is room for a Rubio surge, especially if he does well in NH, where Bush and Kasich are putting in all of their effort.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote. Would’ve won the electoral vote, too, if the Supremes would’ve let Florida count all the chad-less ballots (of if Palm Beach County hadn’t have used that cockamamie, Pat Buchanan butterfly ballot).
You can’t blame the Dems’ 2000 loss on Clinton fatigue. BC left office with high approval ratings. If anything, Gore lost because he failed to have Bill Clinton campaign for him (owning to Gore’s squeamishness over the Lewinski scandal).
In an election that close, the loss can be pinned on any number of things, including most of what you cite (although recent studies have found that almost all other recount scenarios still would have had Bush winning Florida: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/). My point is that some non-trivial fraction of people vote for change for its own sake. That Bush was an imbecile was self-evident, and yet independents swung 48-46 for him when it shouldn’t have even been close (http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/). Would those people have been swayed by more campaigning by Bill Clinton? I doubt it. I have no hard data on the matter, but I have heard enough comments from non-liberal friends, neighbors, etc., of, “well, I voted for Obama, but…” This is the squishy middle, and it is easily swayed by whether someone is telegenic, likable, and simply different from the status quo. I doubt Cruz or Trump would appeal to those folks but Rubio has a charming enough veneer to do it.
I always thought that Bush#2 was delivered to the world as the bastard child of Ralph Nader in 2000.(I Know I sadly threw out my “Nader’s Raiders” T shirt at the time)
Also as an evil foreigner, I see the only centrist is Bernie.
He wouldn’t be socialist enough for any left wing party in Europe or Australasia.
Hilary is too extremely right-winged for the conservatives in those countries as well.
I am hoping that vast numbers of the non-voting American public will wake up, when presented with any of the GOP offerings. They all terrify me.
At least here, in semi-democratic Australia, the compulsory, and weekend, nature of elections makes most of us turn up, and put a little thought into it. (our recently departed tea-bagger prime minister aside)
Good Luck USA (and thus the world)
Hillary is just a ‘flawed’ (sez Carl Bernstein) middle of the road Republican. If Bernie wins the nomination, Michael Bloomberg says he will throw in his hat as a Hillary surrogate.
I wonder if he would select her as his VP running mate.
Which I fear would totally give the vote to the Republicans.
The problem with Bernie is, he’s a Social Democrat. If he is the nominee, the Redumlicans will paint the entire Democratic party as socialist. Americans hate socialism as it equates to communism communism. Very hard to be a socialist/communist POTUS.
No, he has publicly stated, “I am a socialist”. Think the GOP might air that clip in a few ads?
Indeed. The GOP would never mention Sander’s name without adding the word “socialist”. There would be red stars and hammers and sickles in every campaign image. Socialism would be equated with communism (already is in the minds of most Americans, so it wouldn’t take much pushing). And it would work.
Yet there is a venerable history of American anarchists!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
Yes, but were any ever elected — to any public office?
“Sacco/Vanzetti 2016”?
All the way! 🙂
It’s wishful thinking to write Trump off already. If he can hang on to his big lead in New Hampshire, coming out with a win while maintaining his lead in the South Carolina polls, he’s back to being a major player. If, OTOH, he falters in NH, he’s done. Any way you cut it though, his Teflon has melted down; the days when he could skip a debate, or make ridiculous statements with impunity, are over. And nobody will again talk about his “running the table” coast-to-coast (as would have been the media narrative had Trump met expectations in Iowa).
If Trump does falter, Marco Rubio may wind up in the GOP driver’s seat — if he gets a bounce in NH from his better-than-expected Iowa finish, and if none of the other three candidates in the so-called “establishment lane” (Christi, Bush, and Kasich) makes a move in New Hampshire. Ted Cruz has yet to prove he’s a viable national candidate; his win in Iowa may prove to be the same kind of fluke, based on the same huge Evangelical turnout, as happened with the last two Iowa winners. (You remember Presidents Santorum and Huckabee, don’t you? They both got under 2% of the caucus vote this time around.) Plus, the Republican Party regulars hate Ted Cruz and will do everything they can to sabotage his campaign.
On the Dem side, Hillary is still odds-on to win the nomination. But The Bern has earned himself a seat at the table. Especially if he keeps his lead to win in New Hampshire, he has the money (generated by small, private donations averaging $27; no super PAC) to slog it out with Hillary through the rest of the primaries.
Also, keep in mind that, with just two candidates in the race now, if anything happens to Hillary, Bernie is essentially the nominee by default (unless a Biden or a Warren were to jump in the race). I don’t think anything will come of the Republican BS concerning her getting indicted over her emails. The wildcard is Bill. (Is it just me, or does he look really frail since his 2010 heart surgery? Seems like he’s aged 12 years in the last six. Providence forfend, what would Hillary do if something happened to him?)
If Hillary does win the nomination, look for her to do some ticket balancing with her VP selection. The perfect balance would be a youngish, male Latino Catholic from a southern or western state — essentially a center-left Democratic Marco Rubio of her own. I don’t know if such a candidate exists, but especially if Rubio or Cruz is the GOP nominee, the Dems will want a Latino on the ticket to keep the Repubs from peeling off Hispanic votes.
Well, yeah, if he wins more primaries than the other guys, he’ll win. I don’t see him playing well in the south.
But who knows, the US elected W in 2004 (but not in 2000).
Not sure which “he” you’re referring to, jbillie, but whoever he is, he’ll win the nomination if he wins more primaries and those primaries carry at least 1,144 delegates to the party convention.
I suspect your “he” is Rubio. If so, and if he’s the nominee, he’ll win the South walking away. It’s a given — he’s a rightwing Republican who regularly beats the drum for Jesus. The South has been solidly red since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The only Dems to make any inroads there since were sitting southern governors themselves, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The Dems won’t run such a candidate this year. No way will Hillary or Bernie win the states of the former Confederacy.
No, sorry, not very clear there. The Trumpster.
My point was that, of course if Trump stacks up the wins, he’ll win. And he very well might. He ain’t dead yet.
In many ways, I’d prefer him as the GOP nominee. I think HC can beat him. And, even if he were elected, although he’d make the US look stoopid — again!, he is also likely less right-wing-nutty than than the rest of that field, in reality. If elected, I think he’d veer center not right. I think he has much of the GOP bamboozled.
I remember well how my parents were disappointed in Nixon for not being conservative enough!
I think Rubio is the most likely GOP nominee. I thought that before last night and I think his campaign got the biggest boost from Iowa. Both Cruz and Trump under-delivered. Heck, Rubio got as many RNC delegates as Trump did.
I agree with this. However his authoritarian bent is worrying. I don’t think he’d really become authoritarian semi-fascist who would jail unfavorable press on trumped up charges and ignore the constitutional limits of his office and so on… I don’t think… but his bluster sounds like that kind of guy, so it seems really foolish not to take it seriously. So I don’t know if I’d prefer a true-believer with a limited conception of himself and the office or a malleable opportunist with strong-man sentiments, unlimited self-aggrandizement and a dim, at best, appreciation or acknowledgment of the limits of the office.
Ride his coffin into the White House, of course. Seriously, I think she’d parlay the good feelings for Bill and sympathy into support (much as Johnson used Kennedy’s ghost to move his agenda).
Could happen, especially if it occurred after she secured the nomination (either de facto by delegate count, or after the convention).
But what if he fell gravely ill or lingered in extremis?
Plus, she seems to be counting on him to be her main surrogate and to carry a lot of the weight in the campaign.
I have not heard O’Malley mentioned in the news here… (UK) obviously he is the man to watch!
He dropped out today.
I have to admit, though, he did better than me in the Iowa caucus.
With all precincts reporting, you two are tied in the delegate count …
Woo hoo! I’m off to prepare my Rubioesque “victory” speech.
“He can’t win a general!”
– Beats every GOP candidate by a wider margin than Clinton in polls.
“He will be attacked as a socialist!”
– Is that worse than being attacked as a Kenyan born black Muslim Socialist?”
“The GOP attack machine will beat him!”
– See: Election of 2008.
“NO WE CAN’T!”
– What the hell happened to Yes We Can?
Yes, because those accusations against Obama were bollocks (well, except the black part) and even the GOP knew it.
That video clip I linked to above would appear in every GOP ad in the fall.
sub
All the way from the other side of the Pacific, is there anything more faux than Hillary’s smile? I suppose it is not as scary as Cruz “I am a Christian first …” patter. And that attempted kissing of his teenage daughter was hilarious and creepy at the same time. Her reaction was priceless.
Based on past history, losing in Iowa doesn’t spell the end to anyone on the Republican side. Rick Santorum won in 2012 and Mike Huckabee won in 2008. If Donald loses next week in New Hampshire, then he can start getting worried.
1. I’m torn between Sanders/Warren, Sanders/Reich, and Sanders/Grayson. I’ll pick Sanders/Warren, though.
2. Trump.
Maybe even Trump/Boehner!
The U.S.A. has had white presidents, a black president; now it’s time for an orange president and vice president.
Yes! Instead of “Orange is the New Black”, it will be “Orange is the New Vice!”
Trump/Boehner — the 2016 Oompa Loompa unity ticket!
1. Although I prefer Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic Nomination, I still think it is more likely that Hilary Clinton will win the nomination. She will pick Julian Castro as her VP to solidify the Latino vote.
2. Anything could happen on the GOP side, but at this point I will guess Marco Rubio to be the Republican Nominee.
Trump gave a surprisingly gracious speech for his second place. He still looks likely to win New Hampshire next week, with Kasich polling a strong second. Rubio, despite appearances, is not middle-of-the-road; he’s probably the most conservative of the establishment candidates. He ran as a uniter in Iowa to differentiate himself from Trump and Cruz. He’s the establishment choice of evangelicals. Trump still has a very good chance of getting the GOP nomination, but he can’t win a general election.
Sanders had to win well last night. Clinton being equal with him there was a big positive for her campaign. I understand that Sanders didn’t get as many college votes as Obama, though I haven’t looked at the figures yet. Sanders will win New Hampshire, but he’ll struggle in the south I think.
On a happy note, Mike Huckabee suspended his campaign, so we don’t have to listen to his revolting ideas for a Christian theocracy and stupid policies any more.
Unfortunately that has been said in the past. I expect he’ll find a way to keep pushing his theocratic idiocy in our faces. 🙁
Unfortunately, I suspect you’re right.
Trump’s kudos to his “good friend Mike Huckabee” in his concession was hilarious.
If Huckabee comes out in support of Rubio, how long before Trump will be tweeting that Huckabee is “a terrible fat-fuck loser”?
Haha! Good call!
They’ll all be praising him until he endorses someone, and I’d bet a lot that it won’t be Trump.
On the other hand, it would have been funny to see Mike Huckabee as nominee and Kim Davis as running mate.
Funny? Or just plain scary? The thought of who could be President of the most powerful country in the world next year is worrying enough without adding Kim Davis into the mix.
Still, sharing a stage with Davis and supporting her bigotry and failure to do her job doesn’t seem to have helped his campaign much. Perhaps there’s hope for the US after all! 🙂
I’d love to know more about the algorithm that chooses the “Related” links, and in particular why it chose a post about Homo floresiensis.
Just guessing, but take a good long look at Ted Cruz — like homo floresiensis, but homelier. 🙂
R: Trump/Trump (he’ll be his own vice-presidential candidate!)
D: Sanders/Biden (no limits for VP as there are for Preznit.)
Sanders/Biden — the Alter Kocker ticket (a combined 147 years old).
I’d like to see Sanders and Julian Castro as the Democratic candidates, but I don’t think it will happen.
As for the Republicans … who knows? Their motivations and decisions defy logic, rational thought, and reality. NPR reporters are quite smitten with Republican voters at the moment, and broadcast interviews with them several times a day (much to my annoyance). Here’s part of an interview from reporter David Greene, featuring S. Cass and her husband, D. Cass:
S. CASS: I’m just listening to what everybody in the country is saying. And I listen to Rush Limbaugh and what he’s saying. And I just really want someone that’s going to beat Hillary or whoever the Democrat candidate is. And it just seems like Trump is pulling in all the independents. People are signing over their Democrat ticket and wanting to sign up for the Trump ticket. And he’s just not as polished as Cruz, you know? Cruz looks a little more presidential. And Cruz would do an amazing job. But Trump is just pulling in more people. And so I just maybe think in the end, that’s probably the direction I’m going to go, even though I’d probably rather vote for Cruz.
GREENE: Why is defeating Hillary Clinton so important to you?
S. CASS: Oh, my gosh, can imagine what our country would be like if we had four years of her after Obama? Our country would be gone. You would not be able to turn it back. The debt and…
D. CASS: Corruption.
S. CASS: …She would probably finish out everything Obama had started. We wouldn’t have guns, we wouldn’t have rights. I’d – we wouldn’t be safe. It would just be unreal. She has no idea how to do anything. She doesn’t even understand her emails.
BARN OWL: WTFBBQ????!!!??
My personal feeling is that no candidate is a shoo-in regardless of who the Republicans put out there. It’s going to come down to which party can mobilize voters to show up at the polls. I can see the Republicans having success with motivating the religious base through fear tactics (not as overt as Trump has used), but it will come down to attracting enough people from the wide swath of the population who doesn’t always vote.
As for the Republican candidates, I’m going to double down on crazy and go with Cruz/Palin.
Cruz/Palin? Even after she done him dirty with the Trump endorsement in Iowa? Heard an interview with her yesterday where she said taking Trump over Cruz wasn’t even a close call for her.
They’ll kiss and make up and join far right wing nuttery forces to take on the evil Democrats. Far fetched? Yes, but I said I’m going with the crazy ticket. 🙂
Maybe when Hollywood makes the next “Game Change” movie after this year’s campaign, it can get Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels for the title roles in “Crazy and Crazier.”
Great. An antivax film. Just what the world needs…
Have you read any of the conservative popular forums? In ones I frequent I read it was said that Trump get surprisingly good result in Iowa, as they initially expected them to lose there badly, then only few days ago started to suspect he may have chance at winning. They also hate Rubio and Bush alike as “part of the establishment”.
Also, I heard now several times that bar the immigration, Trump is the most liberal Republican candidate… and the hate he receives is because he is really the candidate of the lower social classes (note: social classes, not economical)
As much as I dislike Trump, and as much of a stain his success is on the country I’m hoping he wins. IMO he’d be the easiest challenge for Hillary.
OH, And if Sander won I don’t think he’d have a chance with the other two frontrunners. Both of them would be perceived as centrists in comparison.
It’s always amazing how much strength people want to attach to the executive office. The weakness should be fairly apparent after the past 8 year example.
Aside from that comment it would be good to remind everyone that the Iowa caucus is a very poor example of what the overall voters in this country think. If the results sometimes show this caucus to match the end results – it is purely accidental. This is said with hope, because Cruz is about as nuts as anything we have seen running for this office. Northern and Western republicans will never go for him.
I also hope that Trump will last for as long as possible and assist in destroying this republican party.
Is there anything in the US system that prevents them from choosing Clinton (H) as presidential candidate with Saunders as vice-candidate?
If you are assuming Clinton gets the nomination and then she selects Saunders to run as her VP and he accepts then it good happen.
I don’t see them agreeing to that but it could happen.
sorry…forgot how to type – could, not good.
So, no institutional issue, just politicians and their egos getting in the way.
Almost an argument that anyone with the ego to win an election should be retroactively disbarred for being of unfit character for any post higher than “Sewage Filtration Engineer (2nd class).
No, that’s happened a few times. Joe Biden was an opponent of Obama in the 2008 primary election cycle but ended up as vice-president. Likewise George Bush in 1980, and I think there have been others.
Yes, not uncommon at all.
I do wish that more places (i.e., any) would show the margin of error on these sorts of things. Looks like Clinton and Sanders are effectively tied, for example.
1: Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren
Sanders’ lost in Iowa, but that was the expected result. The South has a long history of being inundated with anti-Clinton propaganda and may well end up going Sanders.
While the current media narrative is that Sanders needed to beat Clinton, actually all he needs is to show he is a viable candidate.
Warren works in the current political climate as a running mate. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that what the electorate is tired of is the constant fighting in government between the political parties – whereas actually what the public is tired of is voting for people who say they will do one thing, and then wuss out on it.
By going for a running mate who is not there to “balance” the message, Sanders does the unexpected, communicates that he is serious about his agenda and thus stands out.
2: Cruz/Trump
I think Cruz will actually take the nomination, but pick Trump as his running mate to avoid Trump running as an independent.
Trump will never play second fiddle.
“Sanders’ lost in Iowa.” The Iowa raw vote count was withheld by the Democratic party. Both candidates won 22 electors. Between June 1, 2015 and Feb 2, 2016 Hillary lost a 50% advantage.
Dems = Sanders/Warren
Repugs= Rubio
Granted, as far as the Dems go , my Heart rules my Head, as for the Repugs, Rubio will get the nod over Cruz because the GOP hate him.
Since June 1, Clinton’s advantage in Iowa fell 50%, and she `won` with a 0.2% margin, if my informers are right, by shenanigans and a coin flip.
Maybe not.
This was how the Independent put in their yesterday’s headline: “Iowa caucuses: Donald Trump suffers surprise defeat to Ted Cruz, while Hillary Clinton wins on a coin toss”