2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Malthus]

Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572

Sure, an ugly billionaire was right that he can get laid a lot. Not sure that really counts as speaking truth to power. 

[alfred russel]

A lot of time is spent talking about the trainwreck of the republican nomination--and it is really awful.

But the democratic nomination looks riskier than normal too.

Hillary is 69, and unlike the other "scandals", the email one looks like it could blow up. Aside from being the former first lady to a successful president, I'm not sure the case for her presidency. She was a senator, but without great accomplishments there (not that those are so easy to accumulate). She was a Secretary of State, but I'm not sure that went so well, and it seems the proud moments of the Obama's foreign policy happened after she left (Iran, climate change agreement).

Bernie is 74, and has a lot of links to radical politics.

I really thought O'Malley would take off, as he seems like the standard and safe alternative to Hillary, but for whatever reason it never happened.

[celedhring]

I'm becoming more convinced that Rubio will win the primary. It's just the more rational decision out of the current field, and while the Republican base doesn't seem to be fond of sanity these past few years, I still think they are fond of winning.

[Valmy]

I'm becoming more convinced that Rubio will win the primary. It's just the more rational decision out of the current field, and while the Republican base doesn't seem to be fond of sanity these past few years, I still think they are fond of winning.

The sad thing is Rubio is not a particularly good candidate at all. Oh well.

And I don't think they are willing to vote for an establishment guy to win. But we will see.

[Valmy]

A lot of time is spent talking about the trainwreck of the republican nomination--and it is really awful.

But the democratic nomination looks riskier than normal too.

Hillary is 69, and unlike the other "scandals", the email one looks like it could blow up. Aside from being the former first lady to a successful president, I'm not sure the case for her presidency. She was a senator, but without great accomplishments there (not that those are so easy to accumulate). She was a Secretary of State, but I'm not sure that went so well, and it seems the proud moments of the Obama's foreign policy happened after she left (Iran, climate change agreement).

Bernie is 74, and has a lot of links to radical politics.

I really thought O'Malley would take off, as he seems like the standard and safe alternative to Hillary, but for whatever reason it never happened.

Yep it is really bad. And I thought the 2004 election looked bad.

[frunk]

He's gonna fix everything but can't articulate how that'll happen.

I think Bernie does a pretty good job of articulating how he thinks it will happen, except it just won't work.

[DGuller]

One difference is that Bernie has actually run something.  It was a fairly small city, but he did it for 8 years, and by all accounts was very good at his job.

[alfred russel]

Yep it is really bad. And I thought the 2004 election looked bad.

Easily the worst in our lifetimes. If Hillary wins and the email stuff blows over, she is a decent candidate. Rubio is the best the Republicans can hope for, and as you say he is weak as well (weaker resume than Hillary, but then not so old). if that is the election, it isn't too bad. But if it deviates at all from that...

[Syt]

Courtesy Peter Serafinowicz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0

I gave Mr Trump a tough guy cockney accent. No words were changed.

And similar, but with a posh British accent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGT30gGtiI

[alfred russel]

One difference is that Bernie has actually run something.  It was a fairly small city, but he did it for 8 years, and by all accounts was very good at his job.

+1 for being able to run a small city, -2 for supporting the sandinistas?

[Razgovory]

He's gonna fix everything but can't articulate how that'll happen.

I think Bernie does a pretty good job of articulating how he thinks it will happen, except it just won't work.

It's like Occupy Wallstreet all over again.  Complete waste of time.

[mongers]

He's gonna fix everything but can't articulate how that'll happen.

I think Bernie does a pretty good job of articulating how he thinks it will happen, except it just won't work.

It's like Occupy Wallstreet all over again.  Complete waste of time.

I can see where your coming from with that, but at least this time they've chosen or have gotten behind a leader; previously the OWS groups refused the notion of  leadership as being anti-democratic and against the tenets of their movement. 

[Barrister]

I'm becoming more convinced that Rubio will win the primary. It's just the more rational decision out of the current field, and while the Republican base doesn't seem to be fond of sanity these past few years, I still think they are fond of winning.

The sad thing is Rubio is not a particularly good candidate at all. Oh well.

And I don't think they are willing to vote for an establishment guy to win. But we will see.

What's wrong with Rubio?  He's a little weak on experience, but about on par with what Obama had.

[Valmy]

previously the OWS groups refused the notion of  leadership as being anti-democratic and against the tenets of their movement. 

Yep. So worthless. Militancy combined with no specific demands or goals.

[Valmy]

What's wrong with Rubio?  He's a little weak on experience, but about on par with what Obama had.

Well he also has pretty extreme views for the 'rational' choice. And Obama was the outside insurgent guy, being selected almost because he had no experience. And now you have the establishment guy being of equal experience to what would have previously been an outsider longshot lightweight guy. Pretty messed up state of affairs.