Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

     We could have a kind of matter/anti-matter explosion with Francis and Donaldo.

     If we made Trump Ambassador to the Sea of Holes as a kind of consolation prize......ohhh my lack of god what fun that would be!!

   

Two men who claim to be infallible? Both spout nonsense?  More alike than different.

[(poco) Sforzando]

"You know there's this clown Marco Rubio, I've been so nice to him," Trump said at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.

The jab was immediately met with sustained booing from many of those in attendance.

Trump tried to talk over the boos, which lasted several seconds: "I've been so nice to him. No. But I've been so nice."

[Ken B]

"You know there's this clown Marco Rubio, I've been so nice to him," Trump said at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.

The jab was immediately met with sustained booing from many of those in attendance.

Trump tried to talk over the boos, which lasted several seconds: "I've been so nice to him. No. But I've been so nice."

Maybe the bubble is bursting.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Maybe the bubble is bursting.

Asked about the boos after his speech, Mr. Trump said they "were cheers," NBC News reported.

[Ken B]

Asked about the boos after his speech, Mr. Trump said they "were cheers," NBC News reported.

John Lovitz 2016

[drogulus]

     Trump is a big story, I suppose. A bigger story is how he came to twirl a formerly major political party around his finger for as long as he did.

     

[Karl Henning]

Well, they say "debate" though what they mean is, feeling good about ourselves for venting our rancor.

[Brian]

Well, they say "debate" though what they mean is, feeling good about ourselves for venting our rancor.

Not only that, but as I recall, more illegal Mexicans/Latin Americans are now leaving the USA than entering it.

EDIT: proof https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html

[Ken B]

Well, they say "debate" though what they mean is, feeling good about ourselves for venting our rancor.

Sorry but any argument that talks about how wrong someone is based on predictions about 2055 is prima facie just tendentious.  I am sure it makes the writer feel good about venting his rancor at Trump. 

[Karl Henning]

Transparent, rapid-fire pandering is usually bad news, but it's still better than being reduced to legalistic dissembling in front of a gaggle of reporters. Yet there Clinton was, watching the second reset of her second campaign fall apart like cheap shoes in a rainstorm.

But her bad day wasn't over yet. Not by a long shot.

[Karl Henning]

Sorry but any argument that talks about how wrong someone is based on predictions about 2055 is prima facie just tendentious.  I am sure it makes the writer feel good about venting his rancor at Trump. 

Rancor is entirely misdirected at Trump!  We're glad he's here to stay  0:)

[Ken B]

Rancor is entirely misdirected at Trump!  We're glad he's here to stay  0:)

I finally realized who Trump reminds me of.

Liberace. Doing Mussolini.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I finally realized who Trump reminds me of.

Liberace. Doing Mussolini.

Without the piano.

[Daverz]

I finally realized who Trump reminds me of.

Liberace. Doing Mussolini.

Mussolini with a lobotomy.  But I think John Oliver has the right attitude here.

https://youtu.be/4jP5AAA1XgQ

[drogulus]

     I don't look forward to voting for Hillary. It's not that I think she's particularly dishonest or incompetent. In ways that matter she isn't, in fact can't be because she's so heavily scrutinized. Nor is it concern about Bush/Clinton duopoly, which macht nichts compared to real threats to democratic government by granting citizenship rights to dollars. If I had to put it down to one factor it would be WhiteBenghaziwater. It's not the perpetually accused, it's the license granted to perpetual accusers. Here we have the next Speaker (?) discussing a fine point of accusational ethics with noted philosophe Sean Hannity:

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."

     No, I don't like Hillary and it isn't all the remarkably successful campaign against her, but I must admit I'm not entirely sure how much of the hate fest has conditioned even me. Crude, annoying advertising, you see, works, even on those who see it coming.

[Ken B]

I have been telling friends all along Hillary is not a lock for the nomination.  Biden seems to agree.  I think Biden would be a stronger candidate.  He seems dim but decent. I can think of several dems who would be stronger than she.  Webb most likely. 

[drogulus]

     Look again at the polls. There is not a single Republican that could win against her. You have to get past all the artillery aimed in her direction. In the end it will not stop her because Dems know her, know she can't be beaten, and that every alternative is weaker. Only a real scandal could stop her, not Benghazi, not emails, nothing that's out there now.

[Todd]

There is not a single Republican that could win against her.

That's today.  Next October's polls, when there are only two candidates, will be more accurate and predictive.

[drogulus]

    This is her low point. Later it will get get worse for Repubs when voters contemplate seriously, seriously voting for the candidate of a party that has abandoned any effort to govern. Repubs have both houses, which makes them as important partners in governing as a party can be, but they brought their scorched earth oppositionism into government itself, injecting pure poison into its veins. There will be consequences, there are consequences, and the invincibility of Hillary Clinton is one.

[Todd]

Later it will get get worse for Repubs when voters contemplate seriously, seriously voting for the candidate of a party that has abandoned any effort to govern. Repubs have both houses, which makes them as important partners in governing as a party can be, but they brought their scorched earth oppositionism into government itself, injecting pure poison into its veins.

Perhaps there will be consequences, but perhaps not.  First of all, the candidate matters.  A Kasich or Rubio or even Bush candidacy would offer a candidate who would at least talk about governing. 

It is worth noting that in the post-war era, only Bush Sr was able to make it three in a row for the party in the White House.  Maybe Clinton can pull it off.  You'd have a much stronger case if Hillary wasn't such a well known and polarizing quantity already. 

It's also worth remembering Hillary's past performance.  Remember this October 2007 CBS poll: Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 16%, John Edwards 7%?  She was well known and pretty much invincible then, the prohibitive front-runner, etc.

Incidentally, the government doesn't have veins.  It's like a corporation in that it's not a person.