I think Paul Ryan is the best shot to be the next Republican president, but I also don't think he's going to run in contested convention where the majority of the delegates are loyal to Cruz and mostly come from local parties.
If he thought a spanking from Biden was bad, Clinton will tear him limb from limb. Imagine the GOP thinking that the Trump base would go and vote for a known "loser".
I honestly think Hillary would be the least of his worries.
The GOP would revolt. Even with the Supreme Court on the line, GOP voters in this climate aren't going to care. They'd probably rather nine immortal androids with RBG's consciousness uploaded into each one on the court than vote for Ryan under these circumstances.
I think Paul Ryan is the best shot to be the next Republican president, but I also don't think he's going to run in contested convention where the majority of the delegates are loyal to Cruz and mostly come from local parties.
I can't see him being viable after a term or two as Speaker. It is the second most visible job in DC without any of the benefits of the Presidency. If the GOP loses and Ryan sits it out, he'll be managing a GOP caucus that is utterly fractured and volatile. If the GOP continues to obstruct everything and there is gridlock, it will drive up his unfavorables. If he pushes the GOP to compromise with the president, the president will see their favorables rise. It is a lose lose scenario for him.
Which reminds me, I feel obligated to remind everyone how Clinton is basically Carcetti. And yes, I know all about O'Malley. Like how Carcetti was all about the power and willing to put his own interests and those of the elite before the people who actually needed it, Clinton does the same.
Still, I can't help but feel bad for the lower classes in the future, especially those in the lower classes. See, the rhetoric here is that people need to vote Clinton to keep Trump out because that's made for minorities, but really the there exists a link between class and race. Literally 98% of the dealers on The Wire were black, and from my visit to Baltimore, I can say the same. The get wrapped up in that environment, it passes on the kids and other downtrodden folk... and the cycle perpetuates.
When the establishment eventually guts Bernie, he should go down fighting. He should say
get on with it motherfucker
like Bunny Colvin and Stringer, for he too is someone trying to change the game.
I don't post here often but seriously that least tasty word salad I had to displeasure of stumbling upon since I moved to the US.
And I was assaulted by the stuffs they sell at Mc Donald!
Sanders accomplished nothing in his stated "revolution".
He has inspired nothing but voting for himself and himself only.
He's a worse politician that has accomplished less in his whole career than the dysfunctional idiot that serve as the current French President Mellow the 1rst (he gave us gay marriage...and that's it).
Do not insult our intelligence by trying to shoehorn him into some grandiose comparison with the best minds of the XXth century.
He's not a very good candidate for the US, a similar candidate would be downright disastrous for a European country to begin with.
How can 1 follow this campaign and delude himself with falling for the oldest tricks in the book this candidate represent I will never understand.
</rant>
Dear god, that "Sanders is the greatest politician alive" drivel piss me off.
I can't see him being viable after a term or two as Speaker. It is the second most visible job in DC without any of the benefits of the Presidency. If the GOP loses and Ryan sits it out, he'll be managing a GOP caucus that is utterly fractured and volatile. If the GOP continues to obstruct everything and there is gridlock, it will drive up his unfavorables. If he pushes the GOP to compromise with the president, the president will see their favorables rise. It is a lose lose scenario for him.
I agree on those points. I just think that barring an indictment for Clinton and a complete upheaval of the current election cycle, he is not likely to be President any time soon. He shouldn't have taken the Speaker job because is effectively kills off any chance of being President. There is only one Speaker who has ever gone on to be the President (James Polk) and that was two centuries before the modern realm of mass media and hyper polarized information.
I don't think he'd have a chance to win at the convention, but I think his chances are even worse if he is banking on a later run post speakership.
I don't post here often but seriously that least tasty word salad I had to displeasure of stumbling upon since I moved to the US.
And I was assaulted by the stuffs they sell at Mc Donald!
Sanders accomplished nothing in his stated "revolution".
He has inspired nothing but voting for himself and himself only.
He's a worse politician that has accomplished less in his whole career than the dysfunctional idiot that serve as the current French President Mellow the 1rst (he gave us gay marriage...and that's it).
Do not insult our intelligence by trying to shoehorn him into some grandiose comparison with the best minds of the XXth century.
He's not a very good candidate for the US, a similar candidate would be downright disastrous for a European country to begin with.
How can 1 follow this campaign and delude himself with falling for the oldest tricks in the book this candidate represent I will never understand.
</rant>
Dear god, that "Sanders is the greatest politician alive" drivel piss me off.
People make it out to be Sanders literally just waltzed into this campaign with no prior experience. Its funny you mention Europe, because Sanders would be a moderate in Nordic countries and even here in Canada. He would be somewhere between Liberal and NDP, while I would put Clinton somewhere between Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney. - But alas, even that comparison is too generous because Mulroney upheld free healthcare, so he's a bit too liberal for Clinton. Same with Harper, really. I guess Clinton would be like a progressive conservative from the fifties.
People make it out to be Sanders literally just waltzed into this campaign with no prior experience. Its funny you mention Europe, because Sanders would be a moderate in Nordic countries and even here in Canada. He would be somewhere between Liberal and NDP, while I would put Clinton somewhere between Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney. - But alas, even that comparison is too generous because Mulroney upheld free healthcare, so he's a bit too liberal for Clinton. Same with Harper, really. I guess Clinton would be like a progressive conservative from the fifties.
People make it out to be Sanders literally just waltzed into this campaign with no prior experience. Its funny you mention Europe, because Sanders would be a moderate in Nordic countries and even here in Canada. He would be somewhere between Liberal and NDP, while I would put Clinton somewhere between Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney. - But alas, even that comparison is too generous because Mulroney upheld free healthcare, so he's a bit too liberal for Clinton. Same with Harper, really. I guess Clinton would be like a progressive conservative from the fifties.
I won't feign knowledge I do not have (nor care to have) on Canadian politics.
1 thing I know for sure is that his campaign style and lack of specifics is fairly common in France and he would be laughed out of any office he had.
He accomplished jackshit so far and his movement is a laughable caricature of a revolution.
Mark that one : after this is done no one will ever consider the shit he's pulled a revolution.
And Clinton wouldn't be on the Right in Europe, stop with that bullshit.
People make it out to be Sanders literally just waltzed into this campaign with no prior experience. Its funny you mention Europe, because Sanders would be a moderate in Nordic countries and even here in Canada. He would be somewhere between Liberal and NDP, while I would put Clinton somewhere between Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney. - But alas, even that comparison is too generous because Mulroney upheld free healthcare, so he's a bit too liberal for Clinton. Same with Harper, really. I guess Clinton would be like a progressive conservative from the fifties.
Stephen Harper didn't try to end UHC in Canada for the same reason sane Republican's don call for the end of Social Security - because they know, whatever their personal feelings about it, if they tried to end that, it'd be the end of their party.
It's not that some people in some countries are better people than others - it's about the Overton Window. Simple as that. As we're finding out in Europe right now, that unfortunately, the support for the welfare state tends to diminish when it's The Other using it.
If by some miracle, Bill had passed UHC in 1993, Republican's right now would be running on protecting and improving it. You know why I know this? Because Ronald Reagan went from talking about the evils of Medicare as socialized medicine to passing several reforms to Medicare that helped keep it solvent.
"Chrrrrr. Chrrrrr. Oh no guys, we're getting interference with the mic. It looks like the winner is ... meeeee?!?!? NO WAY!! Gee, if you guys insist!"
I never think about the racial composition of crowds, but Paul says, "I hate this idea of identity politics" and the camera pans through the white crowd. haha
Whenever I hear white people (usually straight males at that) complain about "identitiy politics" all I hear is "stop talking about racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/religious intolerance/etc. it makes our privileged butts feel uncomfortable"
I won't feign knowledge I do not have (nor care to have) on Canadian politics.
1 thing I know for sure is that his campaign style and lack of specifics is fairly common in France and he would be laughed out of any office he had.
He accomplished jackshit so far and his movement is a laughable caricature of a revolution.
Mark that one : after this is done no one will ever consider the shit he's pulled a revolution.
And Clinton wouldn't be on the Right in Europe, stop with that bullshit.
Yeah she wouldn't be on the right, she would be on the FAR right along with La Pen.
Ba-dem-tss
Joking aside, that's kind of sad Bernie's revolution would never happen again as you say. Never knew anyone wanted America to remain a hyper capitalistic military complex in which the country is built on the back of workers while the 1% continues to exploit and demean the working class, but hey what do I know.
What if trump doesn't get the nominee, goes third party, and manages to split the vote juuust enough so that no candidate in November gets a majority of electoral college votes (but hillary probably would be very close, like 45% or something) and then it's decided in the house. And the house decides to go nuts and choose Cruz.
lol that's probably the only possible scenario for Cruz to be president
It's an interesting notion that Clinton would be on the right in other countries when she is also called a chameleon that will shift into supporting whatever is popular.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said there's "potential" for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be drafted as a presidential nominee at a Republican convention because he is the one person who could unify the party.
What if trump doesn't get the nominee, goes third party, and manages to split the vote juuust enough so that no candidate in November gets a majority of electoral college votes (but hillary probably would be very close, like 45% or something) and then it's decided in the house. And the house decides to go nuts and choose Cruz.
lol that's probably the only possible scenario for Cruz to be president
It's been tossed around on Politico before. I just can't see the GOP nominee and Trump peeling off enough of the Obama coalition to prevent Clinton from just sweeping it. Trump's base, despite the early hype, is just the hardcore base of the GOP.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said there's "potential" for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be drafted as a presidential nominee at a Republican convention because he is the one person who could unify the party.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said there's "potential" for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be drafted as a presidential nominee at a Republican convention because he is the one person who could unify the party.
It just goes to show how out of touch the establishment are with the base of their party. They said the exact same thing about Jeb before he decided to run, then Christie before he decided to run, then Rubio before he ran, and each one was RESOUNDINGLY rejected by the base. Ryan is not as loved by the base as the establishment believes. He would not unify the party in the slightest. Instead, he'd blow open any fissures that exist in the GOP.
It's like that one washpo article about Rubio where they said he was what old people thought young people liked. The establishment uses these metrics to arbitrarily determine who could "save and unify the party" and it turns out they point to people who they think the base would like. Meanwhile, in reality, the base has already made their choice and his name is Donald Trump.
as an aside to the current topic of discussion, at the rate that the "bombed intro to comparative politics" line of posting is going on OT and in this thread, i'm pretty sure someone's unironically going to post that hitler would've been considered center-left in the US by september
It just goes to show how out of touch the establishment are with the base of their party. They said the exact same thing about Jeb before he decided to run, then Christie before he decided to run, then Rubio before he ran, and each one was RESOUNDINGLY rejected by the base. Ryan is not as loved by the base as the establishment believes. He would not unify the party in the slightest. Instead, he'd blow open any fissures that exist in the GOP.
I mean, jesus, the left might be sort of fractured, but at least the establishment candidate is actually winning the popular vote and isn't going to steal a nomination at the convention!
I mean, jesus, the left might be sort of fractured, but at least the establishment candidate is actually winning the popular vote and isn't going to steal a nomination at the convention!
That's one thing I like about the Republicans, basically holding their party hostage whereas Democrats have become complacent and sedate, a state thanks to years of indoctrination and low standards. Its appalling really, YOU need to take control of the party- not the other way around. But alas, it seems like many have already fell for the trap and the establishment of the Democrats has exercised (mostly) full control of its voting population.
It's been tossed around on Politico before. I just can't see the GOP nominee and Trump peeling off enough of the Obama coalition to prevent Clinton from just sweeping it. Trump's base, despite the early hype, is just the hardcore base of the GOP.
I think Sanders would have to run 3rd party as well for that scenario to occur. Gosh, what a movie that all would make. Imagine 4 candidates going on at once like that.
How can they STILL be that fucking clueless. It might take another general election drubbing in 2024 before they come to their senses.
They must be thinking that if they elect Ryan they can somehow convience disaffected Cruz and Trump supporters to get out and vote anyway. I don't see any way that works, so what happens in 2020? If they have sufficiently pissed off enough people, they could form a 3rd party making it impossible for them to win for a couple of general elections. They could then take that opportunity to moderate their positions and perhaps have a shot at 2024?
That's going to take some serious dedication, and I don't see the party being able to pull it off.
How can they STILL be that fucking clueless. It might take another general election drubbing in 2024 before they come to their senses.
They must be thinking that if they elect Ryan they can somehow convience disaffected Cruz and Trump supporters to get out and vote anyway. I don't see any way that works, so what happens in 2020? If they have sufficiently pissed off enough people, they could form a 3rd party making it impossible for them to win for a couple of general elections. They could then take that opportunity to moderate their positions and perhaps have a shot at 2024?
That's going to take some serious dedication, and I don't see the party being able to pull it off.
I think Sanders would have to run 3rd party as well for that scenario to occur. Gosh, what a movie that all would make. Imagine 4 candidates going on at once like that.
That's one thing I like about the Republicans, basically holding their party hostage whereas Democrats have become complacent and sedate, a state thanks to years of indoctrination and low standards. Its appalling really, YOU need to take control of the party- not the other way around. But alas, it seems like many have already fell for the trap and the establishment of the Democrats has exercised (mostly) full control of its voting population.
It's an interesting notion that Clinton would be on the right in other countries when she is also called a chameleon that will shift into supporting whatever is popular.
There's a point there, though. Think about it, the people cans scare the shit out of the establishment by voting Trump/Cruz, they people have exercised great control over their party. But with the left, its always about compromise, but at a certain point your "compromises" become maintaining the status quo.
Basically they have no easy path forward, if there was one they would have started down it. The question now: is Paul Ryan an attempt to bring forth a candidate that will compromise while simultaneously ostracising the base they created. In other words, an attempt to right the ship?
This shit should have started the year they pushed Mitt Romney who was badly defeated. Instead they had him move to the ultra right, no compromise, repeal everything that was done the last 4 years mantra. Then they blamed it on not being conservative enough, so if you repeat the same tactic by having Paul Ryan in the same spot...
They seem to have no cohesive long term strategy yet, which is baffling for a party that lost the last two elections after having one of the the most disliked presidents since Nixon.
What if trump doesn't get the nominee, goes third party, and manages to split the vote juuust enough so that no candidate in November gets a majority of electoral college votes (but hillary probably would be very close, like 45% or something) and then it's decided in the house. And the house decides to go nuts and choose Cruz.
lol that's probably the only possible scenario for Cruz to be president
Now Sanders is being likened to a Republican. Of course. What an evil and vile man, he must be stopped!
If his election was for nothing else, I know I have gained a personal hero. I put him along side the ranks of Martin Luther King Jr. and Tommy Douglas and other great revolutionaries, even if his failed. He tried, and that's more that can be said for the rest of us.
That's one thing I like about the Republicans, basically holding their party hostage whereas Democrats have become complacent and sedate, a state thanks to years of indoctrination and low standards. Its appalling really, YOU need to take control of the party- not the other way around. But alas, it seems like many have already fell for the trap and the establishment of the Democrats has exercised (mostly) full control of its voting population.
This is what political parties have always been. It's always been a coalition of groups with different goals and viewpoints to work together. None of the parties has never been a pure united ideological front, and that goes for the Democrats today too. As if it isn't apparent from the votes and polls, the Democratic party ranges greatly from middle-left to far-left. The primary process is to be a selection process (by the party, aka the Democratic voters) for a candidate can wrangle together all the different interests and viewpoints into one and lead them. It's insulting to the Democrats that have voted their choice by insinuating that they're sedated or indoctrinated because they chose one candidate or another.
Now Sanders is being likened to a Republican. Of course. What an evil and vile man, he must be stopped!
If his election was for nothing else, I know I have gained a personal hero. I put him along side the ranks of Martin Luther King Jr. and Tommy Douglas and other great revolutionaries, even if his failed. He tried, and that's more that can be said for the rest of us.
Very few is going is going to think of him like that and he will be forgotten like every movement that is hyped by college kids( or they will move on).
I am surprised you didn't take more offence to the other guy, but I guess he wouldn't be as known to Americans. Bernie actually marched with King, and even got arrested fighting for the same type of things as he did.
What if trump doesn't get the nominee, goes third party, and manages to split the vote juuust enough so that no candidate in November gets a majority of electoral college votes (but hillary probably would be very close, like 45% or something) and then it's decided in the house. And the house decides to go nuts and choose Cruz.
lol that's probably the only possible scenario for Cruz to be president
I don't think Trump would win a single battleground state in that scenario, and only really take votes away from the GOP candidate.
Going by the Obama map in 2012 the democratic candidate can even afford to lose a few battleground states, republicans have no margin of error as it is right now.
