2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

I don't think the entire slate is crazy.

From what I recall 2012 had Santorum (end with something like 20%!), Perry, Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

[Berkut]

I think Malthus's point is not that crazy candidates haven't fought for nomination before, but rather that never before had the entire slate of candidates been so crazy.

Kasich.

[garbon]

Thank God we have Grab On here to keep us current with the cutting edge Stanford street slang.

Are never more than our undergraduate degrees?

[Berkut]

I don't think the entire slate is crazy.

From what I recall 2012 had Santorum (end with something like 20%!), Perry, Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

The problem is that the crazies are running the show, or at least they have been. The crazier, the better their polling numbers.

There are always a couple crazies, or outliers. The thing that is different is that Trump, Carson, Fiorina - they aren't the outliers. The outliers are the (relatively) sane ones.

[Admiral Yi]

I think Malthus's point is not that crazy candidates haven't fought for nomination before, but rather that never before had the entire slate of candidates been so crazy.

There are several candidates running who are not at all crazy, so i don't really know how that works.

If his point is that the there has never been a time when the three candidates who at some point led the polls prior to the Iowa caucus were as crazy as Trump, Carson, and Cruz, I would be inclined to agree.

[Malthus]

I don't think the entire slate is crazy.

From what I recall 2012 had Santorum (end with something like 20%!), Perry, Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

The problem is that the crazies are running the show, or at least they have been. The crazier, the better their polling numbers.

There are always a couple crazies, or outliers. The thing that is different is that Trump, Carson, Fiorina - they aren't the outliers. The outliers are the (relatively) sane ones.

This.

[garbon]

I don't think the entire slate is crazy.

From what I recall 2012 had Santorum (end with something like 20%!), Perry, Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

The problem is that the crazies are running the show, or at least they have been. The crazier, the better their polling numbers.

There are always a couple crazies, or outliers. The thing that is different is that Trump, Carson, Fiorina - they aren't the outliers. The outliers are the (relatively) sane ones.

I think we have fundamentally different views on the candidates.

[Jacob]

I don't think the entire slate is crazy.

From what I recall 2012 had Santorum (end with something like 20%!), Perry, Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul.

The problem is that the crazies are running the show, or at least they have been. The crazier, the better their polling numbers.

There are always a couple crazies, or outliers. The thing that is different is that Trump, Carson, Fiorina - they aren't the outliers. The outliers are the (relatively) sane ones.

I think we have fundamentally different views on the candidates.

What's your view of the candidates?

[alfred russel]

The real frontrunner right now--going by betting markets--is Rubio. (of course the true frontrunner is Clinton, but that may not be in the spirit of the discussion  )

[Admiral Yi]

I got an autocall from Martin O'Malley. 

[jimmy olsen]

Sanders looking like he has a bit of a chance again.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/10/clinton_sanders_essentially_tied_in_iowa_new_hampshire.html

With three weeks to go until voters will finally begin to have their say in the presidential nominating contest, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders look set for a photo finish in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton holds a tiny three-point lead—48 percent to 45 percent—over Sanders among likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll. Clinton's lead is well within the 4.8-point margin of error for the poll. The slim margin between the two Democratic hopefuls is surprising because it's much smaller than other polls have suggested. The RealClearPolitics average of surveys puts Clinton's lead in Iowa at 10.6 points. 


In New Hampshire, where the race has long been more competitive, Sanders is leading Clinton by four points—50 percent to 46 percent. But that is also within the poll's margin of error. The two state polls "underscore the challenge facing Mrs. Clinton in the first two nominating states, despite her commanding lead in most national polls," notes the Wall Street Journal.

[Jaron]

I'm not sure which would be better - if Trump fails to win the nomination and I can see some sweet right winger tears OR if Trump got elected and wasn't able to deliver on all his campaign promises. The catch with the second one is that I'd have to be hoping the sitting president fails and that just isn't in my nature.

A few months ago Trey Gowdy was one of the sweet hearts of the Tea Party movement. His failure to land Hillary Clinton in jail has earned him RINO status with some of the more conservative circles, especially after he endorsed Rubio.

[Eddie Teach]

A few months ago Trey Gowdy was one of the sweet hearts of the Tea Party movement. His failure to land Hillary Clinton in jail has earned him RINO status with some of the more conservative circles, especially after he endorsed Rubio.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Sanders looking like he has a bit of a chance again.

I saw that. I just gave him 10 bucks because it's a better waste of money than the lottery and also bought one of his shirts for the sake of future retro-ness.

[Phillip V]

Cruz momentum seems to be flagging.  Romney would have loved to have Trump's poll numbers this election cycle.  I am starting to believe that Trump might just indeed sweep Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html