Honestly, I think Rubio is out before Florida at this point. He really is the new Jeb. When the question is not whether he will get the most delegates but whether he will get any delegates, the campaign's basically over.
I would bet $1,000,000 that Rubio is not dropping out. I think you have an itchy trigger finger on the dropout button, pigeon!
I think people are dramatically overstating how damaging being a total, complete, scumbag failure actually is to a politician. Don't you guys remember Mark Sanford? There are no depths too deep in this country. Rubio could disappear for 2 years and still run successfully in 2018 or 2020 for some Florida position.
I had a few random thoughts after last night...namely about what the establishment can really do at a contested convention. I think nominating someone who isn't one of the four candidates remaining is going to be too much. What if they attempt to pick someone from the earlier batch of candidates? Seems like Scott Walker could be a really good compromise candidate. And not having to go through the primary season would leave him pretty strong. Walker appeals to the establishment as well as the clown car GOP.
Second thought was on Clinton fundraising and expenses. She's not, as far as I can tell, burning money on ads in non-battleground states for her (which are most). So is she banking money for the general at this point? Is she spending it on setting up infrastructure?
I would be curious to see how much Sanders is continuing to raise. At some point the 2,700 limit has to tap out his small, dedicated donors, right? Or is that just a big number I have no context for because I am fabulous?
BTW, banks can't even give to campaigns. The banks have individual superPACs to represent their interests. "Interests."
But there's also probably plenty of Goldman Sachs employees who may be slightly to the right on financial laws, but socially liberal and even economically liberal on everything aside from Wall Street.
definitely none of these
nope
none
So here's my contrarian viewpoint of the day.
Let's say you are a regulator or even a legislator. You work primarily on, say, financial regulation. It's been the focus of your life for many years. You know a ton of stuff about financial regulation. You are an expert.
One day you decide to change professions. Possibly because you're unelectable, who knows. So you leave the public sector, polish up the old resume, and start looking for a position.
Guess what? Most of the positions that will be easily available and appealing to you will be in the financial sector. That is what you know about! All of your relevant experience is in financial topics. There isn't another regulatory agency or another legislative branch for you to submit an application to. It's basically either start over with a job you have no relevant experience for, become a lobbyist (which obviously everybody will complain about also), or go to work for an investment bank.
There really aren't any other options!
So how does it make sense to consider it somehow prima facie proof of corruption that, when people leave their jobs in government, they often transition to jobs in fields related to the work they used to do? What, exactly, do you want them to do instead?
I mean, it's not just financial
regulators. I thought most people in the DEMOCRAT PARTY had a positive opinion of Peter Orszag and his royal wonkiness, but when he was done he went to work at a bank. And after he was done with that bank he went to work at another bank. There are only so many places where intense, intricate knowledge of managed care and finance is going to be relevant! I don't think he was corrupt. I don't think his hiring indicates corruption. If the only way not to be corrupt after or before working in government is to work in the private sector somewhere completely unrelated to your specialty, then no one is ever going to want to work in government.
Paulson got a lot of shit but does anyone think he did anything outwardly corrupt? Why didn't he save Lehman?
