Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

That Walker crater.

 

[Macho Madness]

That Clinton crater.

 

[Wilsongt]

That Walker crater.

PD's boy is toast, thank God. A derp is a derp is a derp. Congrats on his 4th election win in Wisconsin, though.

 

[Retromelon]

Today I was sitting alone in a mcdonald's booth, slowly eating my fish sandwich and thinking about my life. I was starting to feel sad when a beautifully clear quality version of chantilly lace started playing over the speakers and I felt happy again
RIP Big Bopper

 

[BertramCooper]

That Clinton crater.

Awwwww, they're kissing!

 

[Wilsongt]

Awwwww, they're kissing!

Now kith.

 

[Metaphoreus]

First off, "not knowing whether the footage reveals any information about Planned Parenthood" still means that we can't use to indict Planned Parenthood, because we indeed don't know if it reveals any information about Planned Parenthood.

Do you understand that the clip cited by Fiorina includes two distinct aspects--(1) footage of an intact fetus in a metal bowl kicking its legs and moving its arms and (2) a narrative description by Holly O'Donnell about removing the brain of an intact fetus moments after seeing its heart beating--and that only the relationship of the footage (not the narration) to Planned Parenthood is unknown? This is like you arguing that videotaped witness testimony about a crime would tell us nothing about the criminal described if it were played over a reenactment of the crime or footage of a similar crime.

Taxpayer money already doesn't go to funding abortion services... but then why is she calling for a funding cut to the parts of Planned Parenthood unrelated to abortion services? What exactly would that accomplish? You yourself admit that defunding the rest of Planned Parenthood would not have a noticeable impact on the independently privately funded abortion wing.

Because Planned-Parenthood-when-performing-abortions is not a different organization than Planned-Parenthood-at-all-other-times. It's just Planned Parenthood. To continue the analogy I suggested in my last post, this is like you arguing that the IRS should have only revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University's admissions department, but not the rest of the University.

And yet, the lack of federal funding is exactly the reason why the abortion wing of Planned Parenthood is breaching ethical conduct - to make enough money to sustain the independently privately funded wing of the organization, and if allegations are true to further pocket some profit as well.

Prove it. Show me any evidence that supports your theory that Planned Parenthood profits off of baby parts to make up for a funding shortfall. (Not that this has anything to do with Fiorina's statement.)

 

[Oblivion]

Where is the part where a PP employee says they need to "keep the fetus alive in order to harvest its brain/organs"?

 

[NeoXChaos]

who knows Oblivion. Fiorina was after a soundbite and she most certainly delivered. She can't escape her failure of a record however.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-ceo-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-2016-213163

 

[Sianos]

Do you understand that the clip cited by Fiorina includes two distinct aspects--(1) footage of an intact fetus in a metal bowl kicking its legs and moving its arms and (2) a narrative description by Holly O'Donnell about removing the brain of an intact fetus moments after seeing its heart beating--and that only the relationship of the footage (not the narration) to Planned Parenthood is unknown? This is like you arguing that videotaped witness testimony about a crime would tell us nothing about the criminal described if it were played over a reenactment of the crime or footage of a similar crime.



Because Planned-Parenthood-when-performing-abortions is not a different organization than Planned-Parenthood-at-all-other-times. It's just Planned Parenthood. To continue the analogy I suggested in my last post, this is like you arguing that the IRS should have only revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University's admissions department, but not the rest of the University.



Prove it. Show me any evidence that supports your theory that Planned Parenthood profits off of baby parts to make up for a funding shortfall. (Not that this has anything to do with Fiorina's statement.)

You were right about this portion of the video being a legitimate source and I was wrong, but I still don't think the video provides a compelling reason to defund the general womens' health service wings of Planned Parenthood. Or that defunding Planned Parenthood is a reasonable idea at all.

Your analogy does not work if the behavior you are trying to stem through punishment in the form of withholding funds is motivated to compensate a lack of funding in the first place. Defunding a nonprofit organization will only serve to make their services inaccessible to the public or force them to adopt a terminal goal of maximizing private internal revenue flow which will in turn further motivate the behavior of acting contrary to protocol to maximize tissue recovery to maximize private internal revenue flow (aka the given justification for why Republicans want to shut down Planned Parenthood). Considering the fact that abortion services are already "defunded" I am not sure what the call to defund Planned Parenthood will accomplish... besides raising the rate of unwanted pregnancies and proliferation of sexually transmitted infections, of course. Look at Louisiana, they are undergoing a syphilis epidemic, are ranked number one for cases of gonorrhea, number two for chlamydia, number three for HIV and syphilis! And you still haven't answered me as to how cutting funding to the parts of Planned Parenthood unrelated to abortion services will solve the (fabricated) problem of Planned Parenthood supposedly selling baby parts for profit.

For the record, I don't believe that Planned Parenthood is attempting to profit off of selling baby parts either. They request money for shipping costs because the shipping costs cannot be covered by federal money granted to the rest of the organization, and this practice has been taken out of context by those calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. You are correct, there is no evidence of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts! I was steelmanning the (false) Republican narrative to show that even if it was true, the solution would still not be to defund Planned Parenthood. It appears that neither of us believe in the primary reason why the Republican party is calling to defund Planned Parenthood.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Where is the part where a PP employee says they need to "keep the fetus alive in order to harvest its brain/organs"?

As I pointed out in my first post on this subject, Fiorina got some important details wrong. I'm still not sure how much better a reception "we have to cut through its face to procure its brain" would have received, but I see no reason to deny that Fiorina's description was incorrect in some ways.

You were right [etc.]

You should have stopped while you were ahead.

I don't think the lack of funding has anything to do with whether the analogy is valid. The analogy doesn't relate Planned Parenthood's reasons for selling baby parts (which sales are undeniable--the only question is whether they're profiting from the sales) with BJU's reasons for rejecting students in interracial marriages. It relates the removal of funding for Planned Parenthood on account of its conduct in violation of public policy (or the law) with removal of tax-exempt status for BJU on account of its conduct in violation of public policy (as embodied in Treasury Regulations). So even accepting your theory about a lack of funding prompting Planned Parenthood to seek additional revenue--a proposition for which you've yet to provide any evidence--the analogy holds.

What's more, the purpose of defunding Planned Parenthood is, in part, to ensure that government funding does not benefit an organization that acts contrary to law or public policy. To the extent Planned Parenthood would double down in violating federal law following defunding, then other measures that are more clearly punitive (i.e., not merely removing that to which Planned Parenthood has no claim absent congressional enactment in the first place) can be pursued. Threatening to commit more crimes if the government cuts off funding is an idiot's blackmail.

And again, punishment is typically directed at the wrongdoer, not merely the wrong done. If Company A does "this" and "that," and in doing "that" violates the law or public policy, but violates neither when doing "this," the government doesn't distinguish "this" from "that" when taking action against Company A. You keep pretending Planned Parenthood isn't Planned Parenthood when it isn't aborting children, but it still is Planned Parenthood. That really shouldn't even need to be said.

 

[Oblivion]

who knows Oblivion. Fiorina was after a soundbite and she most certainly delivered. She can't escape her failure of a record however.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-ceo-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-2016-213163

And I have to point out the obvious: If the board was wrong, the employees wrong, and the shareholders wrong—as Fiorina maintains—why in 10 years has she never been offered another public company to run?

Wow, this I did not know. Fiorina hasn't been able to get a CEO job since she left HP? LOL. Guess there's some justice in the world.

 

[User 406]

Wow, this I did not know. Fiorina hasn't been able to get a CEO job since she left HP? LOL. Guess there's some justice in the world.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that boiled down to sexism. There have been plenty of CEOs who just ruined their companies, pulled that gilded ripcord, and landed safely right into the next company to fuck up thanks to so many boards of directors full of other rotating CEOs. But since Fiorina's a woman, she didn't automatically get that second, third, fourth, lim x->infinity chance. There's a reason its called an old boy network.

 

[Sianos]

You should have stopped while you were ahead.

I don't think the lack of funding has anything to do with whether the analogy is valid. The analogy doesn't relate Planned Parenthood's reasons for selling baby parts (which sales are undeniable--the only question is whether they're profiting from the sales) with BJU's reasons for rejecting students in interracial marriages. It relates the removal of funding for Planned Parenthood on account of its conduct in violation of public policy (or the law) with removal of tax-exempt status for BJU on account of its conduct in violation of public policy (as embodied in Treasury Regulations). So even accepting your theory about a lack of funding prompting Planned Parenthood to seek additional revenue--a proposition for which you've yet to provide any evidence--the analogy holds.

What's more, the purpose of defunding Planned Parenthood is, in part, to ensure that government funding does not benefit an organization that acts contrary to law or public policy. To the extent Planned Parenthood would double down in violating federal law following defunding, then other measures that are more clearly punitive (i.e., not merely removing that to which Planned Parenthood has no claim absent congressional enactment in the first place) can be pursued. Threatening to commit more crimes if the government cuts off funding is an idiot's blackmail.

And again, punishment is typically directed at the wrongdoer, not merely the wrong done. If Company A does "this" and "that," and in doing "that" violates the law or public policy, but violates neither when doing "this," the government doesn't distinguish "this" from "that" when taking action against Company A. You keep pretending Planned Parenthood isn't Planned Parenthood when it isn't aborting children, but it still is Planned Parenthood. That really shouldn't even need to be said.

Ooh, spicy.

First off, you're a pretty smart guy - if not to make more money, why else is Planned Parenthood altering procedures to maximize tissue yields? What other reason would they have for altering the procedure? You can't prove that their motive for illegally maximizing tissue yields is to have more illegal tissue yields to sell, but that is a very small inferential leap to make. Why else are they altering the procedures?

I don't care if you personally "punish" every single executive at Planned Parenthood involved with alterations of procedure - I would be all for that. That would be an actually effective way to discourage future wrongdoing and stop it from happening. Cutting funding to general womens' health services would be an irrelevant "punishment" that wouldn't dissuade those committing the wrongdoing. You yourself admit that if the defunding wouldn't work, then further action against the individuals involved would be taken - so then why defund the other branches providing a valuable public service if it won't actually be an effective punishment and you are willing to pursue punishment that actually works against those responsible without harming the general public in the process? If you want punishment, you can get punishment - and a punishment far more punishing towards the wrongdoers as opposed to punishment that only punishes the general public. I still see no logical reason why defunding Planned Parenthood will accomplish your pupported goals.

My personal ideal solution would be to purge and punish those illegally involved with the alteration of protocol and restructure Planned Parenthood into a collective of smaller reproductive health organizations. This would be done so that reproductive health can not be held hostage as a bartering chip for the ban of abortion, so that "Planned Parenthood" will be "punished" in the public eye. Then, make federal funding of abortion legal so that there is no future motivation for this wonderful new abortion service to go against protocol to maximize tissue yields - a preventative solution - and they won't even have to "sell" the tissue to make back the expensive costs of shipping and preservation.

And to clarify, I am discerning between Planned Parenthood the organization itself and the functions (in this case reproductive health services) Planned Parenthood is to serve for the good of the general public. Since Planned Parenthood IS the sector of the government concerned with reproductive health, shutting down Planned Parenthood shuts down reproductive health services, which are important for the good of the general public. Your proposal of cutting funding is ineffective and does nothing but cut off a valuable service from the public. My solution preserves this valuable function whilst actually dealing out a punishment to wrongdoers.

And also, do you really think the outrage over Planned Parenthood "selling baby parts" is because they are being reimbursed for costs? People are upset because they think Planned Parenthood is selling (for profit), not selling (in the sense of a transfer of monetary funds to break even and cover the cost of preservation and shipping). You've still undermining one of the main talking points used to stoke the outrage.

 

[AntoneM]

Do you understand that the clip cited by Fiorina includes two distinct aspects--(1) footage of an intact fetus in a metal bowl kicking its legs and moving its arms and (2) a narrative description by Holly O'Donnell about removing the brain of an intact fetus moments after seeing its heart beating--and that only the relationship of the footage (not the narration) to Planned Parenthood is unknown? This is like you arguing that videotaped witness testimony about a crime would tell us nothing about the criminal described if it were played over a reenactment of the crime or footage of a similar crime.

Because Planned-Parenthood-when-performing-abortions is not a different organization than Planned-Parenthood-at-all-other-times. It's just Planned Parenthood. To continue the analogy I suggested in my last post, this is like you arguing that the IRS should have only revoked the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University's admissions department, but not the rest of the University.

It's a fetus. There are no legal ramifications. the only fall out is political. A fetus is not a person that is protected under the constitution until it reaches viability.

What Fiorina said, true or not, is only an emotional appeal.

PS: I live a semi-comfortable life and would not suggest abortion to my wife. It would be her choice. But, lets not conflate an in-viable fetus with a person as it seems the term is being used to convey that a baby was murdered.

To address the bolded: that is a slippery argument. You seem to be saying that it should be ok for every hospital and clinic in the US which perform abortions to be refused any and all federal funding. Note that I'm not putting words into your mouth and saying that is your stance, just, if all federal funding for planned parenthood can be banned than all federal funding for any clinic or hospital that performs abortions can be cut.

 

[Metaphoreus]

First off, you're a pretty smart guy - if not to make more money, why else is Planned Parenthood altering procedures to maximize tissue yields? What other reason would they have for altering the procedure? You can't prove that their motive for illegally maximizing tissue yields is to have more illegal tissue yields to sell, but that is a very small inferential leap to make. Why else are they altering the procedures?

This seems like a question better suited to you, since you don't think PP is making money (beyond their costs) in selling the body parts. But their motivations are irrelevant. Regardless of their motives in procuring and selling the body parts, if they're profiting from those sales, they're breaking the law.

You yourself admit that if the defunding wouldn't work, then further action against the individuals involved would be taken - so then why defund the other branches providing a valuable public service if it won't actually be an effective punishment and you are willing to pursue punishment that actually works against those responsible without harming the general public in the process?

This is a confused response. My "admission" was clearly conditioned on PP behaving in a particular way, but PP is not compelled by necessity to behave in that way. You can't use the statement, "If A, then B" as an admission that "A" is true. Even so, and assuming PP would not be dissuaded by losing federal funding (which assumes PP could function without federal funding, further calling into question why they're receiving any in the first place, btw), Fiorina's stated goal is to stop the government from funding an organization that violates the law or public policy. That goal would be satisfied by cutting off PP's funding in any event.

Then, make federal funding of abortion legal so that there is no future motivation for this wonderful new abortion service to go against protocol to maximize tissue yields - a preventative solution - and they won't even have to "sell" the tissue to make back the expensive costs of shipping and preservation.

You've still offered no evidence that Planned Parenthood's behavior is in response to any incentive like the one you've described.

Since Planned Parenthood IS the sector of the government concerned with reproductive health, shutting down Planned Parenthood shuts down reproductive health services, which are important for the good of the general public.

Planned Parenthood isn't a government sector, and it's not the only actor in the reproductive health field. In any event, this is nothing more than a too-big-to-fail argument: Planned Parenthood can't be punished for wrongdoing because it's just too darned important. If that's the case, then perhaps the government should forcibly split Planned Parenthood into two entities with no overlap--one which provides women's health services in general but not abortions, and one which provides abortion. Then your proposal that only the abortion-performing part of Planned Parenthood be punished for abortion-related wrongdoing would make some sense.

It's a fetus. There are no legal ramifications. the only fall out is political. A fetus is not a person that is protected under the constitution until it reaches viability.

There are legal ramifications. If Planned Parenthood is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, it's breaking the law. If Planned Parenthood is altering its procedures for procurement purposes, it's breaking the law. If Planned Parenthood is selling the tissues without patient consent, it's breaking the law. This is not a Constitutional issue.

To address the bolded: that is a slippery argument. You seem to be saying that it should be ok for every hospital and clinic in the US which perform abortions to be refused any and all federal funding. Note that I'm not putting words into your mouth and saying that is your stance, just, if all federal funding for planned parenthood can be banned than all federal funding for any clinic or hospital that performs abortions can be cut.

I didn't say that, but I will now. There is no requirement that the government provide any funding for any hospital or clinic. The federal government could refuse all federal funding to every clinic and hospital. So what you're saying is neither surprising nor material to the present discussion.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

How is PP profiting at all?

What shareholders are enjoying the dividends or increase in values of their shares?

The whole sting is built on a childish interpretation of reality in the first place.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Had to put Metamucil on ignore. Got tired of seeing his essays.

 

[Coriolanus]

Had to put Metamucil on ignore. Got tired of seeing his essays.

Always felt that there's never a point in announcing such things.

 

[AntoneM]

There are legal ramifications. If Planned Parenthood is profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, it's breaking the law. If Planned Parenthood is altering its procedures for procurement purposes, it's breaking the law. If Planned Parenthood is selling the tissues without patient consent, it's breaking the law. This is not a Constitutional issue.

If, if, if ,if. No proof.

 

[Diablos]

Every time I see Meta's posts I think of King v. Burwell.

Last night I finally listened to oral argument. While I read it before, just listening to the audio made it all the more obvious that the way the court ruled should have come as no surprise.

Justice Breyer really set the tone for the way the ruling went imo. After that it just gets entirely way too nuanced for Carvin to make any significant impact. Sotomayor raised the next important question which seemed to have a big impact on Kennedy's line of thinking.


Verrilli came off as sounding a bit too all over the place, not sure if he was nervous or what.

-----

Ginsberg and Breyer are really getting up there. I wish at least one of them would step down before Obama leaves. One of them plus Kennedy would be amazing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The thing that annoys me about Planned Parenthood talking points is the idea of federal funds not going to abortion. A basic understanding of fungibility would tell you that's not the case. I don't mean to single PP out, it's not like they're the only organization in this position.Restricted net assets are a nonprofit accounting sleight of hand.

 

[NeoXChaos]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-rates-unfavorably-in-new-york-state-poll/

Soul-Searching Continues for Possible Joe Biden Run

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said that he is continuing to search his soul about running for president, and he acknowledged a decision might come after it is logistically too late to make a successful bid.

In an interview with America Magazine that was conducted last week and published on Monday, Mr. Biden said that his thinking about a run had not changed since his last public statements on the question. The vice president has expressed interest in making another run for the White House but has said that he is not sure if he is emotionally ready for the rigors of a campaign after the recent death of his son.

“It comes or it doesn’t,” Mr. Biden said of entering the fray for the Democratic Party’s nomination. “I’ve just got to be certain that if I do this, I’m able to look you in the eye and everyone else and say I’ve given all my passion and all my energy and I will not be distracted.”

The vice president went on to explain that he is considering the impact that running for president would have on his family. The decision would not be based on what polling numbers say about the possibility of him winning, he said, but is more based on personal considerations.

“I just have to be comfortable that this would be good for the family,” Mr. Biden said, noting that his previous political efforts have all strengthened his family.

Still, Mr. Biden remains realistic that the political calendar is moving forward and that he might run out of time.

“It’s just not quite there yet and it might not get there in time to make it feasible to run and succeed because there are certain windows that will close,” Mr. Biden said. “If that’s it, that’s it. It’s not like I can rush it.”

Four national polls released this month (ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, YouGov and CNN/ORC) asked Democratic voters who they’d vote for with Biden in the race and without him. Clinton led Bernie Sanders by an average of 44 percent to 26 percent with Biden in the race. Clinton’s 19-percentage-point edge in those polls equals her lead in the Huffington Post/Pollster aggregate. Without Biden, Clinton’s lead on Sanders jumps to 28 percentage points, 57 percent to 29 percent.

In other words, almost all of Biden’s support is coming from people who, without Biden in the race, would support Clinton. So if Biden decides not to run, Clinton’s standing could snap back to where it was earlier this year.

In fact, if you look only at polls that don’t include Biden, Clinton’s margin over Sanders hasn’t changed all that much in the past couple of months. Clinton averaged a 30-percentage-point lead in such polls in August; she’s averaged a 28-point edge in them so far in September.

Still, there are a few rays of hope for the Sanders camp in these numbers, even if Biden doesn’t enter the race.

In the ABC News/Washington Post survey, Clinton’s lead among non-white voters — a group Sanders has so far failed to make any inroads with — goes from 44 percentage points over Sanders with Biden in the race to 59 percentage points over Sanders without Biden. With whites, she goes from being down 2 percentage points to Sanders to being up 2 points — a minimal difference.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/all-this-biden-talk-is-exposing-soft-spots-in-clintons-support/?ex_cid=538twitter

PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls 3h3 hours ago
PublicPolicyPolling retweeted Ed O'Keefe
We found Hillary doing a lot better in Iowa over the weekend than other recent polling had suggested as well

 

[Diablos]

Biden's not dumb. He won't give a definite answer until he knows 100%

 

[BertramCooper]

He's not running.

 

[PhoenixDark]

What if the pope tells him to run.

 

[Diablos]

He's not running.

Really? When did he say this?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

He's not running.

If HRC continues to see the rebound in the polls that CNN is reporting today I think that will be the sign. Bidens just been keeping the door open while this email scandal was unfolding.

 

[Diablos]

As stated in the non-PoliGAF thread recently, I think Rubio might end up being the nominee if Trump does in fact start to finally slow down.

Purely speaking optics, he will look young and refreshing up against anyone in the Democratic field save maybe O'Malley, but we all know he's not getting shit.

 

[BertramCooper]

Really? When did he say this?

Apologies; I was just making a prediction.

 

[Farmboy]

As stated in the non-PoliGAF thread recently, I think Rubio might end up being the nominee if Trump does in fact start to finally slow down.

Purely speaking optics, he will look young and refreshing up against anyone in the Democratic field save maybe O'Malley, but we all know he's not getting shit.

Yeah, I'm pretty 'happy' about being on the record as predicting Rubio a while back. He's certainly looking much better than Walker and Jeb, and I can't see him losing to Carson or Fiorina. The remaining question is: can he beat Trump? I still find it hard to believe The Donald can win the nomination, but with every month that passes with him on top I'm less sure of it.

I put 'happy' in quotes because I'd still be happier to be proven wrong about Rubio though. I actually think he's is a pretty dangerous opponent, second only to Kasich. What do you guys think -- is Water Boy electable or no?

 

[And_Gignac]

kiii that CNN poll. I knew it was coming, the hype is deflating.

I will pretend the numbers are skewed tho.

 

[RustyNails]

That Dawkins thread IS. A. MESS.

 

[BertramCooper]

kiii that CNN poll. I knew it was coming, the hype is deflating.

I will pretend the numbers are skewed tho.

If only I knew of a GIF that could properly illustrate how Bernie must be responding to this poll...

 

[KingGondo]

That Dawkins thread IS. A. MESS.

Trutherism about a 14 year-old science nerd.

A new low?

 

[RustyNails]

It never ceases to amaze me how low people are willing to stoop when a national story about a black kid being victimized comes out. First it was Trayvon acting all blacky with his hoodie. Then it was Michael Brown who had it coming for being a thug. Although Eric Garner wasn't a kid but if only he listened to the nice cops instead of peacefully talking to them, he'd not have gotten a death chokehold. Now its Ahmed's fault for acting like a terrorist. He should have known better. Interesting thing about Ahmed is that liberals are just as worse as people who were shitting on Trayvon and Brown.

Fucked up chickens roosting these days.

 

[User1608]

Super happy about Hillary, knew she couldn't be kept down!

That Dawkins thread IS. A. MESS.

I didn't know what to expect. I am flabbergasted. How petty to you have to be over a kid, seriously.*edit* Maybe I'm not thinking clearly since it involves a child. Whatever.

 

[HylianTom]

If only I knew of a GIF that could properly illustrate how Bernie must be responding to this poll...

?

(probably not. Can't fall upwards. And I like Bernie, so there's a twinge of guilt for posting it.)

 

[Jarmel]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-rates-unfavorably-in-new-york-state-poll/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/all-this-biden-talk-is-exposing-soft-spots-in-clintons-support/?ex_cid=538twitter

Biden's window on this is coming quickly to a close. If he's not in by October then he's not going to be in at all.

 

[And_Gignac]

If only I knew of a GIF that could properly illustrate how Bernie must be responding to this poll...

Hillaryrunningfrom.gif will return once the debates happen, you´ll see.

?

(probably not. Can't fall upwards. And I like Bernie, so there's a twinge of guilt for posting it.)

Thats actually Bernie tripping because he didnt expect to go up in the polls.

 

[Coriolanus]

Hillaryrunningfrom.gif will return once the debates happen, you´ll see.

I don't even know what one could expect from the demobates. Neither is stupid enough to really have a go at each other.

 

[RastaMentality]

I don't even know what one could expect from the demobates. Neither is stupid enough to really have a go at each other.

I don't think they'll attack each other on a personal basis (besides maybe O'Malley) but Bernie might try to go in on Hillary on an issue that he's really passionate about (like campaign funding).

 

[And_Gignac]

I don't even know what one could expect from the demobates. Neither is stupid enough to really have a go at each other.

They are going be really boring. Low ratings and all. A shame.

Hillary being all like "lol nvrmind, bye bernie"

 

[RustyNails]

Ladies and gentlemen, Leader of the Free World.

Spoiler

jk, I like bernie too

 

[Ecotic]

I put 'happy' in quotes because I'd still be happier to be proven wrong about Rubio though. I actually think he's is a pretty dangerous opponent, second only to Kasich. What do you guys think -- is Water Boy electable or no?

I could see Rubio being dangerous because I can see Rubio exceeding expectations more easily than most other candidates. He could unite the wings of the party quickly, wouldn't depress turnout like a squishy moderate would, and can be pretty sharp on the stump or debate stage. His youth would draw an easy contrast to the older Clinton who will be portrayed as a third term. He probably comes with a two point native son bonus in Florida.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

As stated in the non-PoliGAF thread recently, I think Rubio might end up being the nominee if Trump does in fact start to finally slow down.

Right now if I were to rank the Republican candidates by their Fear Factor it would go:

Concerned:
Rubio - He's charasmatic, good looking, Hispanic and is running a disciplined campaign. The only Repub I think has a real shot at beating HRC.

Kasich would go here but lol at him ever getting the nomination. Or not having to deal with a 3rd party candidate if he did.

Somewhat concerned:
Carson - Yes he seems like a gaffe machine but people clearly like his sincerity and his story is amazing. Its at least possible America would go crazy and elect someone who has never been in office as President.

Jeb! - His campaign has been so uninspired to this point but still has a gajillion dollars, the Bush name, and the media's willingness to ignore his crazy policies.

Not at all concerned:

All others

 

[Plinko]

New Zogby poll:

Trump -- 33%
Carson -- 13%
Jeb! -- 9%
Fiorina -- 7%

 

[teiresias]

They are going be really boring. Low ratings and all. A shame.

Hillary being all like "lol nvrmind, bye bernie"

Hillary can run up a staircase backwards and Bernie can't even go forward on a damn escalator. I know who I want leading the USA into the future.

 

[RustyNails]

New Zogby poll:

Trump -- 33%
Carson -- 13%
Jeb! -- 9%
Fiorina -- 7%

Where's the Trump Ali dodge.gif from the first debate?

 

[HylianTom]

New Zogby poll:

Trump -- 33%
Carson -- 13%
Jeb! -- 9%
Fiorina -- 7%

So Rubio is below 7%?
(Edit: Rubio is bunched-up with a crowd at 4%. Sweet!)

If so, nice to see.

I still remain convinced that this is a race to be the antiTrump, and that Jeb! has a distinct edge for that position. He's already loaded to go well into this primary season - these are bets/funding that can't be undone - and the powers that be in the party know that they can't risk dividing the antiTrump vote.

edit: next time, they might be more hesitant to crown an establishment candidate so early. This could be a painful lesson for them. And no matter who would win such a battle - Trump or Jeb! - there's going to be a nice little slice of the party that's going to be severely disappointed with the nominee.