Horror Story Open Thread: Nate Silver Is Trying to Kill John Cole

Or maybe it’s just the Aspen Institute has it in for DougJ?… Via Garance Franke-Ruta, at the Atlantic, “Hillary Is the Strongest Non-Incumbent Ever“.

And we’ve already got a [semi]declared candidate from the Other Party, according to Robert Costa at the National Review:

Almost everybody has written off Rick Santorum as a 2016 contender — everybody, that is, except Rick Santorum.

Behind the scenes, the former Pennsylvania senator is quietly preparing for another presidential run. Trips to Iowa are in the works, he’s meeting daily with his advisers, and he’s already fine-tuning his message for the early primaries…

… For now, Santorum’s nonprofit organization, Patriot Voices, is his chief vehicle for staying in play. He’s working to develop the group into a film and educational outfit that informs voters about issues he considers important. Brabender tells me that more than 400 chapters of Patriot Voices are being formed. Those clusters of Santorum supporters will likely be important as he maneuvers to run again.

Nadine Maenza, the finance director for his 2012 campaign, has also been keeping the senator in touch with his major donors, including Foster Friess. According to several sources, Friess, the top financier of Santorum’s super PAC, has privately said that he’ll once again be a major backer.

“The presidential election is a long way away,” Santorum says. “I know we’re not on the front burner of anybody’s mind right now, and there’s a lot going on that’s getting people’s attention. But I’m going to stay out there, and you’ll see me in Iowa soon.”…

The Return of the Sweater-Vest, or C.H.U.D. in the Heartland. “Santorum/Random Token 2016 – “Tomorrow Belongs to Us!






153 replies
  1. 1
    Amir Khalid says:

    I think Rick Santorum’s chances of becoming president of the US are no better than mine — and at least I can claim to have intelligent supporters.

  2. 2
    Cacti says:

    Hillary’s got name recognition, experience, an ex-POTUS spouse, and the backing of one of the country’s premiere political machines. Nate’s right in that I can’t think of any POTUS candidate who had all of those things working for them out of the gate.

    But she had all of those last time too, and was still badly outmaneuvered by the Obama campaign.

  3. 3

    Almost everybody has written off Rick Santorum as a 2016 contender — everybody, that is, except Rick Santorum.

    Don’t throw me into the brier patch Santorum leak!

  4. 4
    Mark B says:

    Biden is a terrific campaigner, and he’s the kind of person who comes across as warm on camera. His history of gaffes is going to actually work for him, because he can pretty much say anything and not get in trouble for it. Hillary, bless her heart, is on the right side of most of the issues, but she’s just not charismatic. If she had half the political gifts of her husband, she’d already be president.

  5. 5
    the Conster says:

    Please please please, Rick, run. The country needs your prudishness and sweater vests! Tomorrow belongs to the past! Wimmins and blahs wait for your leadership to return us to the good old days of patriarchy, where all the women are subservient, the men are white, and all the children are raised Christian.

  6. 6
    Lyrebird says:

    Since this says “open thread” in there…

    Anyone like to comment on RawStory stories? This one is from AFP but has more than usual typos and a gross mischaracterization of why Deen was fired:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....-tensions/

    ..and I can’t leave a comment…

  7. 7
    burnspbesq says:

    Gaah. Feels like NJ in SoCal today. 87 degrees, overcast, and about 45 percent humidity.

    The fact that apparently sentient beings vote for Santorum is strong evidence that tribalism is the biggest determinant of voting behavior.

  8. 8
    Dolly Llama says:

    I know there’s plenty of Nate Silver video out there, but I can honestly say this is the first Nate Silver interview video I’ve ever watched, ever. God damn, no one ever prepared me for the Rain Man experience. But because he’s always right, yes, I’ll say whatever he says will happen, will happen. But damn if I’ll ever read his words in the same way again.

  9. 9
    MikeJ says:

    @Amir Khalid: That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!

  10. 10
    Violet says:

    @Amir Khalid: Santorum is Next In Line. The Republicans always seem to end up picking that person. It’ll be interesting to see if they break the streak this time.

  11. 11
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Paul / Santorum 2016: White Privilege’s Last Stand

  12. 12
    grandpa john says:

    @Cacti: I would assume that she also unlike say Santorum, has the intelligence to not repeat the mistakes of her previous campaign.

  13. 13
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    What took you so long Annie? /eyeroll

  14. 14
    Redshirt says:

    It’s Rick’s turn! Santorum/Bachman Overdrive 2016!

  15. 15
    raven says:

    @burnspbesq: We met my brother and family in Nashville this weekend. They are from the valley and enjoyed the weather in the Music City!

  16. 16
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @grandpa john: Her 2008 campaign was nothing but repetition of past mistakes. Which explains the outcome.

  17. 17
    grandpa john says:

    @Roger Moore: We can feverently hope that the GOP will be that gracious to us again, to nominate Santorum 4 years after Romney

  18. 18
    MikeJ says:

    @grandpa john: The question is, does she know what the mistakes were? She was up against a charismatic opponent who mobilized the youth vote. She could easily think it’s just a personality thing.

  19. 19
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    This country does not owe Hilary the presidency because her husband cheated on her. Get over it pumas, she will never be president.

  20. 20
    Violet says:

    @Anybodybuther2016: From your name it sounds like you’d be content with a President Santorum or President Perry?

  21. 21
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Violet: Can we have President Warren?

  22. 22
    Violet says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: Sure! I’d be for that. How about a President Hillary Clinton and a VP Elizabeth Warren? All female ticket? Could they win or would men freak out and not vote for them?

  23. 23
    WereBear says:

    If the Republicans stick to their reliable narrative of “our last loser wasn’t conservative enough!” then I can see how Santorum would look good… to them. Next to his competition. Through those hate-filled rheumy eyes their primary voters have.

  24. 24
    lamh35 says:

    Sitting here watching Heathers and yeah, realizing setting aside the through away quotable lines in the film it really is a pretty dark story over all…

    I know, I know…duh, but IJS I’m pretty sure I watched it as a teen and absolutely loved it and LOL at a lot of it.

    But watching it as an adult, I gotta say this bit from a 2011 article from Vulture sums up my reaction through most of it:

    f you haven’t seen Heathers in a while, you almost have to watch it twice, just so you can spend the first viewing doing what comes naturally: thinking in an endless loop, eyes wide and mouth agape, I can’t believe this movie got made, this movie could never get made now; I can’t believe this movie got made, this movie could never get made now … (The second time around, you can just revel in the camp of the opening shot: a close-up on the red scrunchie of power. When are those making a comeback?)…

    http://www.vulture.com/2011/06....._heat.html

    So has anybody else watched Heathers as an adult and had the same reaction?

  25. 25
    drew42 says:

    Is anyone here actually excited about the idea of a Hillary Clinton candidacy? I find it too depressing to think about.

    It would be a guaranteed nightmare of hostile media and hostile Republicans, all of whom hate the Clintons with every fiber of their being, and too much of the public happy enough to see them used as punching bags again. And it will start the minute she gets the nomination.

    Please don’t do this — we have plenty of qualified potential Democratic candidates.

  26. 26

    @grandpa john: I wouldn’t. Hillary has been making those same mistakes for decades, and Bill made them as well. Bill’s election was something of a fluke with a strong 3rd party spoiler. With a strong economy at his back, he did barely better than Obama (with a terrible economy) for reelection.

    The Clintons choose these absolutely awful yes-men staffers. Not just Mark Penn, but Dick Morris? Seriously? They’ve never learned from that.

  27. 27
    drew42 says:

    @Violet: Knock it off — it has nothing to do with her being female. It has to do with her being a Clinton. And you know that.

  28. 28
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @Violet: I’m not a teabagger, so no. I just think we can do better than her.

  29. 29
    Violet says:

    @drew42: I think no matter who the Dem candidate is it’s going to be a hotbed of hostile media and hostile Republicans. There is no one the Dems could nominate who would not be torn apart by the Republicans. The only difference with Hillary is they don’t have to work as hard to come up with the slurs. They’ve been doing it for decades.

  30. 30
    Violet says:

    @drew42: Knock what off? What is it I’m supposed to know?

  31. 31
    Redshirt says:

    @lamh35: “I love my dead gay son!”

    I haven’t seen Heathers in a long while. How does Christian Slater’s Jack Nicholson impression hold up?

  32. 32
    grandpa john says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Since that was her first campaign for an office how could it be a repetition of previous Campaign mistakes?

  33. 33
    Lolis says:

    I would vote for Hillary and give her money, but she is not my first choice. I just want to win though and I think she would win so easily it wouldn’t even be funny. I also think she is very liberal but very calculating. I think she will be as liberal as we can make her and will follow the mood of the country in that direction. I think she will be less hawkish than she would have been if she had beaten Obama. I think she has learned a lot in management as Sec of State. So whatever deep reservations I have had about her in the past have been mollified.

  34. 34
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @Violet: I’m not a teabagger, so thanks but no thanks. I just think we can do better than her.

  35. 35
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Santorum would, IMHO, gin up the pro-life vote and make things very uncomfortable for somebody like Christie.

    And I’m fine with pointless way too early speculation. There is a sports talk radio aspect to political obsessiveness that I enjoy. I only wish it were a sports bar aspect, ’cause I’m feeling like a couple of pints and maybe some nachos, or wings if they’re well made.

  36. 36
    drew42 says:

    @Violet: I don’t see how that would be an advantage for Clinton.

  37. 37
    grandpa john says:

    @MikeJ: Well that depends upon if she is as intelligent as we are told she is.

  38. 38
    scav says:

    @drew42: All of which will likely get the same nightmare of coverage, or at least nightmares that rhyme. And we’ll likely also get the unknown superstar of the week, up-like-rocket down-like-a-stick blanket coverage that keeps the media ticking over. I find this element useless as a means to choose a candidate: reminds me too much of thinking there will be terms that the repubs in congress will agree to as a compromise. Futile.

  39. 39
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Lolis: I think she has learned a lot in management as Sec of State.

    I don’t know. Her hawkishness is my biggest concern about her. Aren’t the rumors that she was one of those trying to get Obama to be more aggressive in Syria?

  40. 40
    bill d says:

    HRC tried to get in late last time too. Is she as inevitable as last time?

  41. 41
    MikeJ says:

    @lamh35: I don’t patronize bunny rabbits.

  42. 42
    Yatsuno says:

    @grandpa john: We won’t be that lucky. There may not be a consensus pick until well into April then there might be some momentum for someone. But it won’t be Frothy Mixture. Too much stink of loser.

  43. 43
    jonas says:

    Santorum will never be president, but until he runs, and goes down to a Mondale-Reagan level electoral defeat after proposing mandatory virginity testing and promising to have the FBI investigate people suspected of being witches, the Republican party will never escape being in thrall to the lunatic fringe. So here’s hoping he makes 2016 a year to remember!

  44. 44
    Chris says:

    @Violet:

    Aren’t there exceptions every now and then? Like Bush who had no “next in line” standing in 2000, he wasn’t a former vice-president or runner-up, or conversely, Nelson Rockefeller a generation earlier who was enough of a big shot that everyone thought it was only a matter of time before “his turn” came, but actually it never did?

  45. 45
    Ted & Hellen says:

    I hate to see Nate Silver assimilated.

    He needs to stay the hell away from one percent insider circle jerks like the Aspen Institute.

  46. 46
    grandpa john says:

    @drew42:

    t would be a guaranteed nightmare of hostile media and hostile

    Do you really think that it will be any different with a different Dem candidate?

  47. 47
    drew42 says:

    @Violet:

    Knock what off? What is it I’m supposed to know?

    I was referring to:

    All female ticket? Could they win or would men freak out and not vote for them?

    From that, it’s clear you’re trying to claim the anti-Clinton sentiment by Anybodybuther2016 and others is rooted in misogyny. Or how else was I supposed to interpret that?

  48. 48
    CanadaGoose says:

    @Violet: Two white women? It won’t fly even with white women.

  49. 49

    Oh, please, please, please make it so. I had the good fortune of witnessing the great man himself at a rally before the Missouri presidential beauty contest:

    Rick Santorum in Lee’s Summit, Missouri: the Blutarsky sermon on the summit

    The crowd was all kinds of awesomeness.

  50. 50
    Violet says:

    @drew42: Not saying it is an advantage. Don’t see it as a big disadvantage either. I think the media is hostile to Democrats and picking a candidate based on what the media might do is not a good idea.

    @Lolis: I hope you are right. I wonder if she learned anything after working in the Obama administration for four years. Hopefully she learned some things that mean she’d not only run a better campaign–pick better advisers and campaign managers than in 2008–but also run a better White House. I wasn’t a Hillary supporter at all the first time around and have concerns this time. But I want to win. I’ll support the Democrat. I just hope Hillary doesn’t get anointed without having to do the work and show she’s learned a thing or two.

  51. 51
    Chris says:

    @👽 Martin:

    Bill’s election was something of a fluke with a strong 3rd party spoiler.

    Nitpicky, but, didn’t the polling at the time show that Perot had taken away pretty evenly from Democrats, Republicans and independents?

  52. 52
    drew42 says:

    @grandpa john: Absolutely. Obama has actually had a much friendlier media than Clinton. The scandals will always come, but the much of the media let them go soon after.

  53. 53
    srv says:

    Everyone please email John Cole now to start an Act Blue for Santorum and set us a $100K goal.

    I will dollar match the first $500.

  54. 54
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Anybodybuther2016: Some of the people who still hate Nader voters more than Bush voters are going to face an interesting dilemma if it’s Hillary versus Santorum. I’ve voted for plenty of Democrats who didn’t meet my own high standards, but then, I’m a Democrat even when the party’s not in White House.

  55. 55
    MikeJ says:

    @jonas:

    after proposing mandatory virginity testing and promising to have the FBI investigate people suspected of being witches, the Republican party will never escape being in thrall to the lunatic fringe.

    After any loss the teabaggers will still say the candidate didn’t run as a true conservative. Why didn’t Santorum run on sending black people to concentration camps?

    They will never believe that people don’t like their policies.

  56. 56

    @jonas:
    Sorry, but if Santorum gets the nomination and goes down to fiery defeat, it will just be proof that he was insufficiently conservative. Virginity testing and FBI investigation of suspected witches is just a mamby-pamby compromise from the true conservative solution of mandatory chastity belts and the dunking chair.

  57. 57
    Violet says:

    @drew42: It was just a question. Could two women be on the ticket and win? Two white women, in that specific example. Was in response to someone else’s post, not yours. Nothing to do with any anti-Clinton sentiment at all. Just speculation put out there for discussion.

  58. 58
  59. 59
    Violet says:

    @Chris: Probably. I haven’t followed the Next in Line Republican rule that closely. I’m sure you’re right that off and on they seem to deviate from it. Maybe 2016 will be one of those times. I do think Santorum is officially Next in Line, but he’s pretty far right and I’m not sure the money boys will be eager to support him and risk another defeat.

  60. 60
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Chris: That’s my recollection, but given how many still persist in believing in the myth of The Clintons (including a seemingly growing number of those in the Establishment who spent years baying for his blood over a blow job and now resent Obama precisely for his lack of neediness), it’s useful to remember that Bubba was at least as lucky as he was good. I wish someone could get that through his thick ego.

    ETA also too– Perot ran against Bush more than he ran for President, like Nader did with Gore.

  61. 61
    SarahT says:

    Just can’t bear to think about Santorum today (or ever, really). Here are Dogs vs. Sprinklers:

    rtsp://v3.cache6.c.youtube.com/CjYLENy73wIaLQljgMJ8a-ILmxMYJCAkFEIJbXYtZ29vZ2xlSARSBXdhdGNoYJH5meLGnIy0UQw=/0/0/0/video.3gp

  62. 62
    Redshirt says:

    @grandpa john:

    Do you really think that it will be any different with a different Dem candidate?

    You’re right. Any Dem candidate will get smeared by the Repukes and their accomplices, the “Liberal Media”. But this is a point in Hillary’s favor, in my mind, as she seems inoculated against their attacks since she’s already gone through their wringer for decades, and has come out stronger than ever.

  63. 63
    Bort says:

    Run Rick run! I get all frothy just thinking about it.

  64. 64

    Why is the media and everyone else so eager to anoint Hillary? As I recall, it did not help her last time. Uncrowned queen remained without a crown.

  65. 65
    Violet says:

    I’m eager to see if anyone else will run on the Democratic side. Will Biden run? Or will that be sorted out prior to the whole thing starting?

    One of the good things about primaries is it gets voters in the states engaged and helps get the organizing machinery working again. If it’s only Hillary and the primary ends a month after it begins, that leaves most of the voters disengaged. Plus other candidates running helps the Dem candidate sharpen their debate skills (remember how awful Obama was in the first debate–he was really rusty after no debates for four years) and gets them local media. In addition it helps candidates that might be running in four or eight years or for another office get experience and visibility. There’s a lot of upside to a longer primary season.

  66. 66
    Chris says:

    @Violet:

    Yeah, that’s my thought too – about “the money boys.” While I do think there’s a “wait your turn” default, I was just saying that there are times when they make exceptions and I could definitely see a Santorum presidency being scary enough to warrant one.

    He just seems like too much of a True Believer to me. The Republican establishment will tolerate one of their own going out and playing True Believer with the hicks (George W. Bush), but they’re not at all fond of actual True Believers ascending to wield the power (Mike Huckabee).

  67. 67
    Doc Sportello says:

    @Cacti: True. But she should know this it, and should want to rope in the Obama machine (especially its Big Data types) as soon as possible.

  68. 68
    WereBear says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: it’s useful to remember that Bubba was at least as lucky as he was good.

    I think the secret of the Big Dog is that, dang it, you can’t help but like him.

    Likeability is a severe Republican issue; I think (though it did not work for me AT ALL) W had it for enough of the populace to get him within cheating distance.

  69. 69
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Violet:

    I do think Santorum is officially Next in Line, but he’s pretty far right and I’m not sure the money boys will be eager to support him and risk another defeat

    The GOP wing of the Permanent (Money) Party would rather run Ronald Reagan’s corpse (with Jeb Bush in the VP slot) than Rick Santorum. But I’m not sure they’ll have a choice. Apart from his Talibangelical rhetoric, Sanctorum has a pretty good line of pseudo-populist yammer (“Obama thinks every kid should go to college — what a snob!”) that appeals to the Older White Working-Class demographic the Repubs have been using as foot soldiers, even the ones who aren’t very “religious”. None of the other clean articulate young monied Repub sprouts (Paul Ryan, for instance) seems to have that gift.

  70. 70
    El Cid says:

    It should be noted that Hillary Clinton has now also been a Senator and a Secretary of State. It’s not like her record ended as spouse. (That doesn’t mean one has to like this or that thing or this or that broad theme of her activities in either office, but she is ‘former Senator Hillary Clinton’ and ‘former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,’ not just ex-FLOTUS.)

  71. 71
    Chris says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Oh, yeah. Although to be fair, I believe that of just about every successful politician.

    Just about every successful person, actually. There’s a pretty good interview of Harrison Ford from back in the day, where he candidly admits that “you cannot get to where I am without luck – bags and fucking bags of it” that I think should be required reading for every movie star, businessman, politician or other big shot who’s ever made it big. Call it a variation on the “Remember Caesar thou art mortal” guy.

  72. 72
    lamh35 says:

    @Redshirt: not well IMHO

  73. 73

    My reaction to speculation about the 2016 election.

  74. 74
    MomSense says:

    If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. I will probably be focusing most of my energy on our state legislature. My focus in the midterm is also on the Governor’s race and keeping the legislature.

  75. 75
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @El Cid:

    Please list her accomplishments as Senator, SoS and First Lady, go ahead I’ll wait.

  76. 76
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @WereBear: I think the secret of the Big Dog is that, dang it, you can’t help but like him.

    I can, but I recognize I’m in the minority. What most people see as his “connection” I see as facile mugging, and in terms of politics (I’m willing to concede that the CGI has done some good stuff even though I have to turn off the TV whenever I see him talking about it), he has been a disaster as ex-president (with, again, the exception of that one moment in Charlotte). Besides all the campaign stuff and the sucking up to Republicans, I’d say his interview with Colbert was telling. He was wary, pompous and humorless, clearly threatened by someone who was not going to touch his forelock to our youngest elder statesman, not exactly the Regular Guy he likes to play when he’s in control of the room. I actually “like” him (whatever that means with politicians) the least of all the Democrats I’ve voted for for President, and that will include his wife, when and if.

  77. 77
    MikeJ says:

    @Anybodybuther2016:

    Hillary Clinton to collect three awards this summer for work as secretary of state
    The American Bar Association, National Constitution Center and Children’s Defense Fund all recognize Clinton’s work

  78. 78

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I don’t like him much either. I was disappointed by both Bill and Hillary during the 08 cycle. The one thing Bill Clinton does far a better than Obama, is explaining economics.

  79. 79
    Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS) says:

    Did someone just turn on the 2016 Candidate Sprinkler System? Fuck, it’s THREE YEARS AWAY!!!

  80. 80
    JWL says:

    Santorum brought a miscarried fetus home so his children could say hello and goodbye.

    One daughter has already developed 3 personalities, and is working on her 4th (“Tammy, the happy hooker”).

    Or so I’ve heard.

  81. 81
    gogol's wife says:

    @WereBear:

    I don’t like him. But I guess I see why some people do. I think he’s smarmy, and I couldn’t stand to watch him on television when he was president. I also have a good memory, and the Republican-lite stunts he pulled every few months or so nauseated me. Welfare reform, anyone? A friend of mine basically had to talk to me for three hours to convince me to vote for him for re-election.

    Nevertheless, I do realize that this country was a land of milk and honey when he was president compared to what it was like under his successor.

  82. 82
    gogol's wife says:

    @Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):

    You’d rather discuss Greenwald and Snowden? :)

  83. 83
    gogol's wife says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    I can’t seem to scroll down to add this: I live in a safe Democratic state, and my planned option was to not vote at all, not to vote for Dole.

  84. 84
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @MikeJ: @MikeJ: I read the article, they didn’t list anything she did to EARN the recognition of any “accomplishments”. It’s just another wankfest for Clinton peons.

  85. 85
    gogol's wife says:

    @Anybodybuther2016:

    I can’t explain this with any hard facts, but I just get a good vibe from how Kerry’s handling the job of SoS.

  86. 86
    lojasmo says:

    @👽 Martin:

    he did barely better than Obama (with a terrible economy) for reelection.

    Obama won a bigger share in 2012 than Clinton did in 1996.

  87. 87

    @gogol’s wife: Repeal of Glass Stegall (sp?) also happened under Clinton.

  88. 88
    Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS) says:

    @gogol’s wife: Hell, at least it’s somewhat relevant. This is bullshit wankery of the highest order. We were doing the same thing around here the day after the 2012 election.

    A LOT can change between now and the first person announces sometime in 2015.

  89. 89
    Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS) says:

    Also, Fuck the Fucking Aspen Ideas Festival – aka Davos Lite. A bunch of Rich Fucks hanging out talking about the problems of a bunch of Rich Fucks.

  90. 90
    IowaOldLady says:

    @Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): This is so true. Mr IOL cheerily pointed out that one of them could have a heart attack.

  91. 91
    lojasmo says:

    @Lolis:

    I pretty much feel the same way.

  92. 92
    Redshirt says:

    @MomSense: Hell yeah! Getting that gasbag LePage out of the Statehouse is my current goal number 1.

    I wonder if Michaud entering the race would clear out the threat of the third party candidate taking too big a share of the vote. Michaud has quite the broad constituency.

    But, if Michaud gives up his House seat, can the Dems hold it? Raye will probably run again, and could win. If LePage runs, I think he loses.

  93. 93
    trollhattan says:

    Of course Santurum is going to run–he has absolutely nothing else to do and last go-round was quite proud of having campaigned in all 99 Iowa counties. Fine, go do it Rih. Ain’t no way he’s getting the nom but he certainly adds a whackdoodle component to the debates. Another anchor dangling from the good ship Republican.

    I’ll join the majority and presume Hill’s running but I expect one of the Dem’s rising stars to take the nom–someone who won’t be identifiable until the 2014 midterms.

    In the meantime, chill the fuck out. We have a tankfull of bigger fish to fry.

  94. 94
    Violet says:

    @IowaOldLady: Yep. A lot can happen. Tragic accidents, health issues–cancer for instance could mean one of them has to get treatment and can’t deal with the rigors of the campaign trail. Heart attack that has dire consequences. Family issues–maybe they’re cheating on their spouse and it gets out (like John Edwards), maybe spouse turns out to be a wack job and sinks the campaign. Maybe they say something really stupid (Perry in the debate) or it turns out that a prisoner they released kills someone in another state–like happened with Huckabee. That kind of thing can tank a campaign. Money issues–illegal campaign antics, questionable accounts overseas–okay, I know Romney got away with it but not everyone will every time.

    There are a whole bunch of things that can happen that can turn a campaign. It’s not always easy to predict what those are and when and if they’ll happen. The character of the candidate can give one insight into whether they are more or less likely to happen, but even from the outside that’s not always easy to determine.

  95. 95
    Hal says:

    Hopefully Hillary Clinton puts Lanny Davis, Carville and his awful wife, and Mark Penn in the airlock faster than Sigourney Weaver in Aliens. If I don’t ever have to hear from them I’m fine.

    I will vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican any day of the week. Especially Chris Christie who is showing his true self more and more every day.

    And on that note:

    http://www.eclectablog.com/201.....alker.html

    Why Chris Christie is just about as extreme and even more dangerous than Rick Perry and Scott Walker

  96. 96

    Since this is an open thread… I’ve been reading a lot in the last few days about how many blowhard pundits have been slamming Trayvon Martin’s friend–the one he was talking to on the telephone the night Zimmerman killed him, but I forget her name–because she “doesn’t speak good English” or some variation on that theme. They then go on (some of them) to lecture us about how this shows how ignorant or dysfunctional or something that African Americans are, and how the parents and the teachers all suck, because they aren’t teaching their children to speak “good English”.

    I’d like to see a thread about this, maybe ABL could write it, hitting back against that ignorant and bigoted attitude about how many Black Americans speak. As it happens, they just speak another dialect of English from that which the self-important, judgemental assholes speak, and the assholes are too ignorant and dumb to understand that judging speakers of Black English Vernacular (BEV), as linguists sometimes call it) by the standards of Standard American English is as dumb as judging, say, speakers of Australian English by the standards of Caribbean English.

    Indeed, by the standards of BEV, I can’t speak or write English to save my sorry ass, if I were to use the same narrow-minded standards these turds are using to judge BEV speakers. BEV is as subtle and expressive a dialect as any other, but too often, ignorant, pedantic white assholes use words like “incomprehensible” and “ungrammatical” and “barbaric” when they talk about it. But there’s nothing “ungrammatical” about BEV. It has as many rules of grammar and usage as any other dialect or language.

    And by “rules”, I don’t mean things like “don’t split infinitives” or any bullshit like that, but rather rules we don’t even know consciously, like how the sentence “Go did earlier to work I” is a sentence that any native English speaker would recognize right away as being “wrong”. Anybody could understand what I meant, but they would know, without even thinking about it, that the words didn’t go together in the way we all learned as babies that they should go in English. You have to stop and think about split infinitives, because it’s a made up rule. It isn’t the least bit unnatural to split infinitives in English, and only assholes care about shit like that. My example in “ungrammatical” in that it’s unnatural.

    Anyway, I recall a while ago, maybe when I was in college, Oakland schools (I think) were going to teach “Ebonics”, which was just another name for BEV, and people shat themselves with rage and indignation. But they didn’t know the first damned thing about what they were talking about, and still don’t, and they denigrate a long-lived and highly expressive dialect out of sheer bigotry, stupidity and willful blindness. I’d like to see a real push against this longstanding disrespect, and, well, what the hell, somebody has to start it, and this place is as good as any and better than most.

  97. 97
    Suzanne says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): my husband is a bilingual SLP, though he works mainly with Latino students. I hear a similar rant from him often.

    To say nothing of how Rachel Jeantel is judged for her weight and coloring.

  98. 98
    lojasmo says:

    @Anybodybuther2016:

    Well, she served in the senate and as SoS, so those are accomplishments in themselves.

    Used to be a Hill Hater, now ambivalent.

  99. 99
    mikefromArlington says:

    Luvs me some chud. Brain Damage is up there too

  100. 100
    trollhattan says:

    @Suzanne:

    In this case all that really matters is whether the prosecution was wise to put her in front of a jury of six. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of those who pick at the young lady’s testimony, what we want here is a conviction.

  101. 101
    Suzanne says:

    @trollhattan: Concur that we want a conviction. But that’s not all I want.

  102. 102
    JoyfulA says:

    @Suzanne: She (or her parents) is Haitian; her first language is Haitian Creole, and she’s also fluent in Spanish. I haven’t seen any of the trial or heard her speak (I don’t have a TV), but I’d give her a break on imperfect English; I’m sure it’s better than my Spanish (negligible) or my French (worse).

  103. 103
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.):

    My shorter retort would be, “How many white teenagers always speak standard English?”

  104. 104
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I’ve gotta agree. Unfortunately, the Librul Media and their ilk have been talking about the 2016 election since well before the 2012 election.

  105. 105
    quannlace says:

    voters about issues he considers important.

    I.E. Abortion, abortion, abortion…..and abortion

  106. 106
    Crouchback says:

    OK, just to be clear where I stand here, I’m not a big Hillary Clinton fan. I think she’d be a little old for president (Biden even more so) and I have painful memories of Reagan’s second term. I remember the Clintons triangulating their way apart from the rest of the Democratic party after 1994. I see a candidate who has yet to win a competitive election and who could be the one Democratic candidate too proud to ask Obama for the help of his voter mobilization machine. I’m worried the Clintons could screw up the 2016 general like they did the 2008 primary. On top of that, I think the feminists need to stop waiting for Wonder Woman and start copying the Christian Right and building from the ground up.

    All that said:

    1. Any Democratic candidate will face exceptional hostility from the Republicans. So I’m not worried about Clinton in that respect. With a female candidate I’d expect the creepy sexism to come out in the open but that could actually help. If the Republicans pull a frat boy act it could drive suburban white women to the Democrats while doing nothing to help Republicans. Sometimes I think the Democrats should only nominate women and minorities for the next few cycles – it drives the Republican crazy and makes them do stupid things.

    2. Hillary Clinton would be light years better than any conceivable Republican candidate so if she gets the nomination, it’s Hillary all the way to 2024 if she wants two terms. Clinton could stay bombed on cosmos for the next eight years and still not screw up the country as badly as any likely Republican. She’d protect Obamacare,, keep right wingers off the Supreme Court and most likely avoid stupid wars.

    3. Assuming Clinton gets the nomination, by November 2016 we’ll all be enthusiastic supporters of Clinton if only because the Republicans will have pissed us all off and we’ll want to get even. So there’s that to look forward to.

  107. 107
    quannlace says:

    Of course Santurum is going to run–he has absolutely nothing else to do

    Hmmm. What is he doing these days? Some wingnut think tank?

  108. 108
    Kay says:

    I love you guys but I feel as if you’re ignoring Silver’s analysis.
    Clinton is a very strong candidate. Which shouldn’t really surprise anyone, not because of some punditry-invented “aura of inevitability” but because she got a ton of votes in the ’08 primary.
    I was in the Obama camp in the ’08 OH primary and she beat us by a mile.

    A lot of things can happen between now and 2016, but Silver is just looking at numbers, a snapshot, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me, based on her performance among Democrats the last time.

    Those were actual votes, real people. That they voted for the nominee, Obama, in 08 isn’t indicative of anything, really. I like to think it’s because were so wildly persuasive after the primary fight, but I doubt it :)

    Is she a strong candidate going in? Sure. Does she have “grass roots” support? Absolutely, here she does. They genuinely supported her in 08 and they will again.

  109. 109
    MikeJ says:

    @quannlace: “Christian” film studio.

  110. 110
    trollhattan says:

    @quannlace:
    Per his Wiki page he “joined” WorldNetDaily in December and will have a column. That’s what, five minutes/week? He has a 501(c)(4) which, as Colbert has shown us, means UNLIMITED CORPORATE CASH to dick around with.

    He’ll be back in our living rooms, welcome or not.

  111. 111
    trollhattan says:

    @MikeJ:

    Oh yeah, I’d driven that from my lobes for obvious reasons.

  112. 112
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Kay:

    She’s probably the strongest Dem candidate right now (with maybe Biden as a close second), but I do worry about her health between now and 2016. That whole “blood clot in the brain after a minor fall” thing was pretty dangerous for someone her age.

  113. 113
    Chris says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.):

    They then go on (some of them) to lecture us about how this shows how ignorant or dysfunctional or something that African Americans are, and how the parents and the teachers all suck, because they aren’t teaching their children to speak “good English”.

    I’m sure these people say the exact same thing about their white counterparts who say “ain’t,” “y’all” and, uh, whatnot, which are disturbing signs of ignorance and dysfunction rather than quaint, adorable, folksy regionalisms hearkening back to a simpler time of Traditional Values and Rugged Individualism.

    I’m sure these people say the exact same thing about the rampant anti-intellectualism among their white counterparts who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, global warming is a liberal plot and all school teachers and university teachers that weren’t vetted by the local Baptist church are really plotting against Jeebus.

    I’m sure these people are equally concerned when the likes of Sarah Palin can’t be arsed to look up a single Supreme Court case or read a single newspaper, seeing it as evidence of serious lack of respect for the value of education, rather than a delightfully feisty person who should be celebrated for showing the teacher that he’s not the boss of her.

  114. 114
    Chris says:

    @Crouchback:

    Any Democratic candidate will face exceptional hostility from the Republicans. So I’m not worried about Clinton in that respect.

    True.

    I’m not married to a Clinton candidacy or anyone else’s, but I’d point out that if anything, the fact that the GOP has been publicly crucifying her for over twenty years now to the extent that they have would be an asset. She’ll know exactly what she’s heading into, and they really don’t have anything left to throw at her.

  115. 115
    Kay says:

    Republicans believe that they lost GOP working class voters. NOT “to” Democrats, but because they didn’t come out.
    There would be rwo groups, religious voters and secular voters.
    Santorum is the main proponent of this argument, strategy, whatever.
    So he’ll say that he can capture the fundies AND the secular working class GOP with his (imagined) “lunch bucket” appeal.
    He and Huckabee have this weird GOP “populist” version, Huckabee had it first, of course, because Santorum is a moron, but that’s what Santorum ran on in OH in ’12, “Wal Mart voters”.
    I think it’s catching on! Republicans here are madly in love with it.

  116. 116

    There’s one thing I don’t really understand, and that’s how Hillary Clinton gets such strong loyalty from so many people. I do understand the drive so many people have to see a woman elected president; hell, I’d like a woman president myself, and the sooner the better. But I look at her and I don’t really see any reason to choose her over any number of other women. I think Mazie Hirono would be a great candidate. She was born the same year that Clinton was, she’s a Bhuddist, and it would be pretty cool to have somebody other than a Christian in the presidency after 200-odd years She was Hawaii’s lieutenant governor and served in the House and is now senator. There’s Elizabeth Warren, whom I think would be about the best person to lead the country we could have. Why is Hillary Clinton the one woman everybody wants to see in the presidency?

  117. 117
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @lojasmo: Yeah, but what did she do? What legislation did she help write/pass? What did she do as SoS? Wasn’t Benghazi her phuck up?

  118. 118
    Kay says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I think Biden is a fine VP and the “gaffe” thing is media-invented nonsense, but I don’t think he’s strong at all as a primary candidate.
    I’m not sure where people are getting this. Is it polling? The little I’ve seen looks completely uninspiring.
    Not to mention that I don’t think he’d get in if Clinton declared. She’d win and then he’d end his career with a divisive primary loss.
    I have all the same concerns as others here regarding Clinton (some additional, actually, because she never got to the general so some wasn’t “litigated”) but I think she’s obviously very strong right now, based on some REAL factors, not media BS.

  119. 119
    Woodrowfan says:

    Santorum just doesn’t get it. The more people get to know him, the more they can’t stand him…

  120. 120
    feebog says:

    HRC puts states into play that Obama never had a chance of winning. Arkansas, West Virginia, Texas and Georgia to name four. I saw a poll a few months ago where she beat every potintial Republican candidate, including Perry and Christie, in Texas. Look, if Citizens United and the recent decision gutting the Civil Rights Act didn’t serve as a wake up call, nothing will. Flipping the Supreme Court to a solid 6-3 or even 7-2 majority is the single most important thing that needs to happen over the next ten years. And if that means putting HRC in office for eight years, so be it.

  121. 121
    WereBear says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): You really think a Buddhist from Hawaii is going to have a shot at the Presidency? It has nothing to do with how good she is, of course. This is simply The Way It Works.

    I wasn’t a huge fan of Clinton during the primaries, but she’s smart, always hard working, and she has HUGE name recognition. Her husband can still make great speeches. She can tap into pools of money.

    THIS is what gets a person running for President. It’s not a job interview and it’s not about work qualifications.

  122. 122
    Mark B says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): Well, Hillary has way more name recognition than the people you mention. In fact, the only other woman in politics that i know of with similar name recognition is the grifter former half-term governor of Alaska. And that’s really fucking sad.

    I’d rather have Biden running that her. He’s an excellent campaigner, and he’s going to be someone middle America is comfortable with. And there hasn’t been nearly 20 year hate indoctrination campaign run against him on talk radio like there was against Ms. Clinton. I just think he gives the Democrats a better chance of winning. I like Hillary, and I think she’s tough and smart. I just don’t think she’s good at connecting with people.

  123. 123
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @Kay: Clinton is the default candidate, people will only go with her if there is no one else. The American people want something else i.e. Obama. :)

  124. 124
    Hal says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    Santorum just doesn’t get it. The more people get to know him, the more they can’t stand him…

    Wasn’t that how it worked for him in the Senate as well? I remember reading something last year about how even other Republicans couldn’t stand his self righteousness.

    Careful what you wish for aside, Santorum has no chance of being President, but hey, if people on the right want to stick with that delusion, go for it. Maybe the DOMA decision will push just enough Republicans to vote for Santorum in order to save America’s soul, and whoever the Dem candidate is can sail into the WH. Especially Clinton.

  125. 125
    Mark B says:

    @Woodrowfan: I don’t see how the guy who got roundly defeated for re-election to the U.S. Senate gets off thinking he has a shot at the presidency. It’s really hard to lose a reelection bid to the Senate. You have to be an incredible fuckup. Maybe that’s the quality that makes him think he has a chance to be president.

  126. 126
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    Clinton haz name recognition just like McDonald’s. I think the average persons approach to both is the same, I’ll vote/eat there if nothing else looks good. ;)

  127. 127
    Chris says:

    @Hal:

    Careful what you wish for aside, Santorum has no chance of being President, but hey, if people on the right want to stick with that delusion, go for it. Maybe the DOMA decision will push just enough Republicans to vote for Santorum in order to save America’s soul, and whoever the Dem candidate is can sail into the WH. Especially Clinton.

    It’s been a popular saying the right for ages that they only lose because they run “moderates” and that the country prefers a “true conservative.” They were saying nothing but that for months after McCain lost, and if they apply it to McCain, you can definitely apply it to Romney. Should Christie run and lose, they’ll definitely be saying it about him.

    Because of that, I kind of want to see them run Santorum, or someone else who’s so fucking out there on the right wing fringe that not even they can deny he’s One Of Them… and then get their asses kicked.

    I’m not saying it would shock them into calming the fuck down and realizing that the country really doesn’t like their ideas, but hey, it’s worth a shot.

  128. 128
    Taylor says:

    @Mark B:

    I just do not understand people that take Biden seriously. I think his heart is in the right place, and he can sometimes deliver a wry turn of phrase. Presidential material? Please.

  129. 129
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @Chris: She’ll know exactly what she’s heading into, and they really don’t have anything left to throw at her.

    that’s what you think, she wasn’t the nominee the last time. ;)

  130. 130
    2liberal says:

    i won’t be trolling the soccer threads anymore. they are getting nasty over there.

    NFL Cardinals WR FA pickup runs 25 MPH on a treadmill for a few seconds. My sister said he could outrun her horse.

    LINK

  131. 131
    Kay says:

    @Anybodybuther2016:

    I don’t really agree with “default” I don’t pretend to know what “the American people want” but Clinton has run and very strongly, so continuing to say that her support is media-created to me seems to ignore the facts.
    Ignoring her pundit fans, the people from the Clinton WH who wanted jobs, just talking about votes she got.
    The PUMA thing was media created. There were ( and ARE, actually) PUMAS in the pundit class and as bloggers, but I was the ’08 convention and there were LITERALLY fewer PUMAS among the delegates than there were Code Pink protestors outside.
    They interviewed the same disgruntled OH delegate over and over. It was hilarious. They INVENTED it. I watched it happen.
    So, I draw this distinction between pundits and normal people, re Clinton :)

  132. 132
    KmCO says:

    @drew42: anybodybuther’s first comment was quite clearly misogynistic, as it quite clearly stated that the only reason anyone would vote for Hillary is out of pity for her marital problems. Are you a misogynist? Don’t know or care.

  133. 133
    raven says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): Take a look at John Ogbu’s work on “involuntary minorities”.

  134. 134
    raven says:

    @2liberal: Quit your fucking whining. If you think that was nasty you need to lose yourself.

  135. 135
    Jose Padilla says:

    Actually, Santorum’s chances of getting the Republican are good, based on history. Ever since 1976 the loser in the last contested Republican primary has gone on to be the nominee in the next contested primary. Reagan, Bush, Sr., Dole, McCain, and Romney. The exception is Bush, Jr.

    But I still think it will be Jeb.

  136. 136
    Anybodybuther2016 says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): I think the “loyalty” comes from some women who think that hills must be compensated for putting up with bills shenanigans and in their minds the presidency will do just fine.

  137. 137
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @Mark B: “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” Lotta truth in that.

  138. 138
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Taylor: would this be third or fourth run. I considered him in 1988. He ran in 2008. I’m not sure, he has built an organization and he had 20 years to get one.

  139. 139
    CaseyL says:

    I have no great animus toward Hillary. I think she’s a lousy judge of character, though, with Mark Penn being Exhibit No. 1. I also think she’s reflexively triangulating, having become so as a defense mechanism when she caught royal hell for being plain-spoken early in her husband’s campaign and then Presidency.

    I think that response is one of the more interesting things about her development into a global political player (and make no mistake: the Clintons are major global players).

    She used to say what she really thought, and a lot of it was music to liberal ears. Remember “I could have stayed home and baked cookies”? Or her early, and accurate, warning about a “vast RW conspiracy”?

    And her health care reform initiative tried to shut the insurance companies out, which is a big reason they (and the GOP) went to the mat to destroy the whole thing.

    So she was, once, a fiery liberal spirit. She crashed. She came back as a careful, consensus-seeking, triangulating politician – and succeeded beyond all expectations. She’d be a damned idiot if she didn’t learn from that. Maybe we don’t like the lessons she learned… but we didn’t go through what she went through.

    I have reservations about what policies she’d pursue as President… but I’m also damn sure she’d do her best to do “the greatest good for the greatest number.” I supported Obama early on in 2008 because I thought he was the better candidate; I’m certainly open to candidates other than Hillary in 2016, if they can convince me they’re offering a better deal… but if Hillary is the candidate, I will happily work my butt off for her.

    (It would also be sweet, sweet beyond telling if the country’s first female President, like its first Black President, are both Democrats. Take that, GOP!)

  140. 140
    Kay says:

    Also, Kasich is feeling out a run, and Politico is promoting him, so that horror will be in play. My personal hope is Republicans “fight the last war” and re-play Romney’s pathetic play for the Great Lakes states, because that’s a bad idea. Romney had a Great Lakes “strategy” IMO, so they can run that again.

    That’s the end of my punditry for today.

    I promise :)

  141. 141
    Mark B says:

    @Suffern ACE: I think his earlier presidential runs were hampered by his lack of name recognition. As a U.S. Senator from Delaware, very few people knew who he was. After 8 years as VP, he’s going to be a lot better positioned. Also he’s pretty smart at getting press, even the recent saber rattling with the Ecuadorian president over Snowden is going to be a positive thing for most Americans.

    And the ‘gaffes’? I think that’s a real positive PR move. Most Americans hear what he says and agree with him.

  142. 142

    @Kay: You are a much better pundit than the ones on TV because you are not in the DC bubble.

  143. 143
    trollhattan says:

    @efgoldman:

    Yeah, no shit. Any mention of Ben Gazarra is a trialtroll balloon, full stop.

    Hillary righted the ship with her SOS stint, pure and simple. Obama took a chance appointing her and she came through with flying colors, meaning she has a clear path to run in ’16. I still don’t think she’ll win the nomination but has at least as good a shot as in ’08, only with less Bill baggage because she has more of a record on which to run.

  144. 144
    catclub says:

    @Taylor: ” I think his heart is in the right place, and he can sometimes deliver a wry turn of phrase.” Sounds like Reagan. Did he win?

  145. 145
    Kay says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    I was at this incredibly elaborate wedding all weekend, the kind of wedding with a list of “events” and complicated logistics so I’m honestly feeling relief to be out of that PRESSURE COOKER :)

    Just crazy. I was all invested in whether it would “go off”.

    You get caught up: “WILL the lady get the bows on the chairs before the rain starts? Jesus. Can she move a little faster here?”

  146. 146
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @Kay: Please don’t stop!! It will be interesting to see what the Fox News Personality does with the horrifying heartbeat bill if he’s considering a run. Either choice cut cut both ways, deeply. Painted hisself into a corner, he has.

    (Typo was too perfect to fix)

  147. 147
    Kay says:

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):

    He’s signing, I bet.

    I was thinking he’d make a deal, horrible abortion bill signing for Medicaid expansion. That’s my bet. He extracts Medicaid deal in return for the abortion provision the douchebags need to appease the lunatics.

    So, now what do we do? :)

  148. 148
    drkrick says:

    @efgoldman: Benghazi was a CIA screwup – it was their facility – and trying to cover that up is what made the media response such a mess. The fact that the McCains and Grahams (as opposed to the rank and file ignorant Teahadis) know that and exploit it anyway is the most irresponsible political FP maneuver since JFK’s use of the phony missile gap that Nixon couldn’t refute without revealing classified intel.

  149. 149
  150. 150
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Kay:

    Was it an Asian wedding (Hindu or Chinese)? Those seem to have a long list of specific ceremonies that have to be done in a certain order (with accompanying dress changes), but I think Anglos are starting to adopt similar ideas.

  151. 151
    Joseph Nobles says:

    I have to admit: watching Hillary crush Rick Santorum in 2016 would be mighty satisfying to watch.

  152. 152
    fuckwit says:

    THAT’S NOT A FUCKING NON-PROFIT, THAT’S A PAC!

    Fucking get the IRS on their ass, goddammit!

    Jeebus fuck…. a fucking presidential campaign is TAX-EXEMPT????

    No fucking way. I don’t care how much FAUX “news” will howl, TAKE THEIR GODDAMNED TAX-EXEMPT STATUS AWAY!

  153. 153
    pattonbt says:

    Re Sanatorum – He’ll run because, as someone else pointed out, he’s got nothing else to do and people will pay him to do it. He’ll get about 1/2 as much exposure as he did last time. The person who gets the R nom will be a “RINO” and it will be Christie or Bush. Sanatorum doesnt fit the “next in line” mold and the R’s have never thrown a Social Con the nomination, none have ever gotten close no matter how much attention theyve generated. Social Con’s stay in longer even after they are realistically toast because they can bring the noise the red meat people love and the money boys like having that distracttion around because the RINO candidate can play a bit more to the center and still get some “cred by associattion” from the knuckledraggers for being an R. But Sanatorum won’t get 5% of the delegates, but he’ll run like Forrest Gump until he dies.

    As for the D’s – Hillary will not get my primary vote. Iraq War vote and Clinton fatigue. But if she wins the nom, I will vote for her with a smile on my face. I’d like to see a good field of newer more unknown candidates get a real shot. I’d like to know who they are. So I wont mind the long lead up to the primary, get out there D candidates and get your names known. Let the games begin.

Comments are closed.