The quadtruple post comes because I was reading through the thread pages from when I was away.
I want to make one libertarian-nut comment on Ron Paul/Sanders comparisons. In 2012, Ron Paul actually won states and slates of delegates, his supporters gained control of state and local parties, etc. Because the Paul team took everything they learned from the rules in 2008 and applied it, while candidates like Gingrich, Perry and Santorum were forgetting to even get on ballots, while most supporters in Iowa cast their straw poll vote and left the Paul people were staying behind at caucuses, attending every convention, etc. Paul actually won Iowa because the "reported" vote has nothing to do with delegate selection. (Obama's team told his supporters to stick around for the same reasons in 2008.) And Rand is trying to keep this network together and build it up, cross it over with some tea party types, etc. So it was a bit more than a quixotic campaign in 2012. (See note below from JesseEwiak about the other part of the Ron Paul/Rand Paul campaigns.)
Unless things change with Sanders, I can't see him having that kind of effect, winning any states or stacking local parties and so on. Especially since he won't have a follow up campaign that's learned the rules or an obvious heir to the "throne" like Rand. Hillary voters would turn out for a Warren just as much and Warren would use far more of that infrastructure. (Using her as an example middle ground candidate between Hillary and Sanders. Insert Cuomo or Franken or Biden or whoever you want.)
This is actually something Johm McCain applied in 2008 from 2000. McCain's operation in 2000 was pretty fly by night, relying on the media in place of an actual on the ground operation outside of NH so once they faltered it was over. (Not to mention plenty of infighting) In 2008 they worked a lot harder to put those in place and run a tighter ship even as his polls were collapsing and when the other candidates who hadn't realized it like Rudy and Fred Thompson (and even Romney) couldn't keep up once it started because they never setup operations past the early states hoping to ride momentum. McCain had dropped in the polls and early states because he was shoring up South Carolina, Florida and Super Tuesday endorsements and staff after his campaign in 2000 collapsed there. Even though Romney alone outspent him. Once the momentum had started towards McCain he could win a bunch of states with like 35% of the vote and create a "sweep" appearance that just further drove out his opponents.
Bernie up 90% to 10% in head-to-head with Hillary on Democratic Underground. Around 850 total vote so far.
Bernie has the liberal base(the people who vote, and most surely in a primary/caucus) and as I've said before will most likely win Iowa and New Hampshire or any other place he gets on the ground and speaks quite frequently. As the campaign progresses only the super delegates, big money from corporate interests and mainstream media will save Hillary. The base doesn't want her.
From the posts I missed while away, and this is the most amazing one.
The DU's threading system alone disqualifies it from relevance now.
But oh man, was it great in its heyday a decade plus ago. I think it peaked with the Bush wearing an earpiece to cheat for the debate they thought he failed completely at.
The GOP equivalent was Kerry's secret folded paper/index card.
My favorite though was Kerry's sudden attack about Bush's "timber company" and Bush's response "
I own a timber company? News to me. Need some wood?" And Kerry was laughing probably because he realized he messed up whatever the talking point was supposed to be.
This should have become a meme like "you forgot Poland" and "strategery."
Because the only thing Reddit posts about the Paul Family MLM scam is that they're anti-war, pro-criminal reform, and pro-pot, so how bad could they be?
). Still, I would not have predicted Rubio being the guy to suffer most from Trump's entry in the race.
