2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Neil]

The people are the law?

God, why did we ever see fit to give women the vote?

You didn't have a say.

And that's probably why it worked out so badly.

[Sheilbh]

It is too early

I like Rubio and Christie a lot. I thought Christie was maybe a bit too New Jersey for a Presidential race, but I'm not so sure after seeing him during Sandy.

I have a lot of time for Jindal but I don't think he has the charisma to be a Presidential candidate. The problem for Jeb Bush is that he lost the Florida election in the 90s, he's by far the best Bush (of that generation). He would've made a good President.

Paul is an endearing mentalist. We mustn't let the endearing make us forget all of the mental. Speaking of which, I think Cruz will run and could do quite well.

The Democrats would be mad to choose Clinton and hopefully she won't run.

[CountDeMoney]

Speaking of which, I think Cruz will run and could do quite well.

You're sick in the head.  If he ran, it would look like a negative print of the '84 electoral college.

[Sheilbh]

I meant in the primary.

[CountDeMoney]

So let's see...Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz...
Oh yeah, I'm thoroughly going to enjoy the primary season.

[Neil]

Speaking of which, I think Cruz will run and could do quite well.

You're sick in the head.  If he ran, it would look like a negative print of the '84 electoral college.

Sheilbh's political instincts are uniquely Westminster.  Because of that, he tends to think that interesting politicians have far more of a chance than they do.  In the 21st century, the only people who have run for US President in a general election were obviously broken robots.

[Admiral Yi]

Good insight Neil.

Is Todd Cruz all that interesting though?

[CountDeMoney]

Is Todd Cruz all that interesting though?

He is if you dig attack dog politics, bucking the system, pissing off the old timers, etc.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh's political instincts are uniquely Westminster.  Because of that, he tends to think that interesting politicians have far more of a chance than they do.  In the 21st century, the only people who have run for US President in a general election were obviously broken robots.

As I say I meant in the primary. There's no point discussing the Presidential election at this point when we don't even know who the definite primary candidates are, far less the final candidates.

Good insight Neil.

But it's nonsense. The opposite is true. Westminster elections are about parties which are led by people chosen internally. With the odd exception, normally in unique circumstances, that doesn't produce interesting politicians.

As an aside I don't think Cruz is that interesting - all the others mentioned are more interesting than him. But I think he'll run and I think he could do pretty well.

[derspiess]

Is Todd Cruz all that interesting though?

He is if you dig attack dog politics, bucking the system, pissing off the old timers, etc.

Hmm.  That does sound pretty nice.  Go on.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

[garbon]

It is too early

I like Rubio and Christie a lot. I thought Christie was maybe a bit too New Jersey for a Presidential race, but I'm not so sure after seeing him during Sandy.

I have a lot of time for Jindal but I don't think he has the charisma to be a Presidential candidate. The problem for Jeb Bush is that he lost the Florida election in the 90s, he's by far the best Bush (of that generation). He would've made a good President.

Paul is an endearing mentalist. We mustn't let the endearing make us forget all of the mental. Speaking of which, I think Cruz will run and could do quite well.

The Democrats would be mad to choose Clinton and hopefully she won't run.

What do you think typifies New Jersey?

[derspiess]

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

When you disagree with the agenda being pushed, isn't it your moral obligation to obstruct?

[merithyn]

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

When you disagree with the agenda being pushed, isn't it your moral obligation to obstruct?

No? It's your moral obligation to work together toward a compromise that works for the majority of the people. That's how it's worked for two centuries, anyway.

[derspiess]

Yes, because there simply isn't enough obstructionist douchebaggery in Washington as it is.  MOR PLZ

When you disagree with the agenda being pushed, isn't it your moral obligation to obstruct?

No? It's your moral obligation to work together toward a compromise that works for the majority of the people. That's how it's worked for two centuries, anyway.

For everything?  You should compromise on everything?