SUPER FUCKING TUESDAY!!!1!

Trump won't get shit done, the real politicians won't pass utter bullshit just because Trump makes stupid promises.

Cruz, otoh, can martial the influence of the Dominionist Pharisees (and appoint like minded judges) to push real policy changes in the direction his daddy approves of.

And that, by the way, is NOT "defending the Constitution" it's defending David Barton's parody of the Constitution.

Kind of like Obama did when he packed the courts?

Ftfy

@Dinner:

Just curious, but what is your disagreement here?

Mostly I think Sanders could have been much harder on Hillary to contrast his position vs Hillary's track record (and how she isn't really a liberal) without alienating many voters. Obama was able to do this in 2008 and I really do think Sanders could have done so too. Sure, you want to look presidential and not go full into crazy town but Sanders certainly could have done more without going over the top.

Ah, okay, so you don't think he helped himself by keeping a clean image?

He wouldn't have tarnished his image by pointing out the incredible list of scandals, sleaze, corruption, and hypocrisy that the Clintons are known for. Who slashed welfare benefits? The Clintons. Who put in Don't Ask Don't Tell? The Clintons. Who filled the prisons up with black men? The Clintons. Who ran the White House as a bed and breakfast for millionaires with bags of anonymous cash? The Clintons. Who made $2 billion dollars as public servants? The Clintons. Who targets women for sexual assault followed by personal destruction? The Clintons. Why was virtually ever other Democrat politician afraid to run for President in 2016? The Clintons. Why do all our enemies seem to run circles around us with inside information? The Clintons.

Bernie may be a wacko living in la la land, but he's clean as a whistle. It would be like running Gandhi against Al Capone. He could have rightly framed her as the cancerous rot at the heart of the system, and done so from a heart-felt and honest position that would have resonated with everybody who isn't voting with their vaginas. Even Saturday Night Live was openly mocking her as a power-mad witch with a horrible personality. He just needed to push the theme. Instead he couldn't take two breaths to attack her. "I don't want to hear about any more damn e-mails! Our problem is a rigged economy where millionaires and billionaires...." And off the hook she goes.

I think his clean image was more likely to make him a good Presidential candidate. But if he wasn't betting on that happening realistically, and was mostly in the race to push issues, he might well have been more aggressive about those in challenging Hillary.

My God, I agree with @Dinner on something!

I think such an approach would have hardened Clinton, making it harder to move her on the issues.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong about agreeing with Dinner. I often do, that doesn't mean he isn't a racist.

I agree. It's hard to dig your heels in when the other guy is saying "hey, you've got some good ideas, I'm just saying I think mine will work better."

Is it too late to scrap them all and try again from the beginning?

I am saying he could have kept his clean image and still hit Hillary harder to show how she is not a real liberal, does have a ton of negative baggage, and simply is not the strongest candidate. Obama figured out how to do it but Sanders really was not fighting that hard.

Sure, I like Sanders' message but you need to do two thing. Have the right message and show why you are a better option than your competitors. Sanders has not done that second part for 2/3rd of the primary voters so he will lose.

If we could go back and do it over again:

1) No Jeb! It's bad enough we had one immediate family member of a former President. A democracy of 320 million doesn't need dynasties.
2) No Hillary. See 1)
3) No Cruz. Foreign born persons need not apply.

That would've solved most of the dysfunction.

Without Jeb the major fundraisers wouldn't have thrown $150 million dollars in a ditch, and more viable candidates like Jindal, Fiorina, Walker, or Santorum, who never got any serious backing because Jeb! was sucking up all the money and blowing it on the most ineffective ad campaign in modern history.

Without Hillary the Democratic race would've been filled with candidates who were far more electable than indictable. Just as a quick example, governors Jerry Brown (CA), Jay Inslee (WA), Tom Wolf (PA), Jay Nixon (MO), Charlie Baker (MA). Senators Maria Cantwell (WA), Kirsten Gillabrand (NY), Bill Nelson (FL). Cabinet officials Tom Vilsack, Ken Salazar, Robert Gates, Leon Panetta. Outsiders from the tech sector and Hollywood. Instead the primaries were rigged for Hillary and everyone knew it.

And Cruz is ineligible but split the Republican base so Trump could win time and time again.

Why? It did the exact opposite in 2008,where she also tried to run centrist and play the inevitability card only to get challenged from the left after which she suddenly tried to pretend she was a liberal only to lose because no one believed her. She did the same thing this time around but unlike Obama Sanders never pulled his punches to knock her out. Sanders should have done exactly what Obama did and kicker on the guts so her campaign collapses.

That is what Trump is going to try to do and right now Hillary's record is at best 1-1 and that one win against Sanders wasn't against someone who was really trying to win.

Yes, & this time NO TRUMP!

Trumps in it because he best addresses the sense of anger, betrayal, and contempt so many Americans feel toward the political leaders of both parties. Maybe Ted Nugent, David Lee Roth, or Clint Eastwood could have filled that role, but Trump was in a much better position to do it.

But you assume those 2/3 can be convinced. I don't think they can. So it comes down to what he values most, and I think that's message. I doubt very much that he expected to do this well, nor that he wants to actually be President.

Hmmm.....David Lee Roth? I'm thinking he's riding the Bernie/old Jew train to be honest. Franky I'm not surprised he's his running mate!

David Lee Roth, that's the ice cream man's name.

Elections have consequences. I'm not speaking up against Cruz getting to make the nominations (which admittedly horrifies me) but rather against the foolish notion that he the "one guy who wants to follow the Constitution" - he wants them to follow HIS conception of the Constitution, just like everyone else.

tempting of course but I was having a discussion with a friend yesterday and trying to come up with a list of office holders who'd be the "next wave" for each party if the other party won and....it's DAMN thin.

Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Mike Lee were supposed to be a big part of the front-line for the GOP and if Hillary wins, 3 of the 4 will have already taken their swing (though I fully expect we won't have seen the last of any of them) but among GOP governors, who's the rising star? Other than Walker, who failed to catch fire, who? I'm just not seeing one. For the Democrats, Warren has some popularity, former Virginia Gov. Warner might still have some traction...Cumo used to be but he's gone south...Corey Booker? Also pretty thin.

Aren't some GOP legislatures talking about splitting off and forming a "Republican Party In Exile" if Trump gets the nomination?

Warren? Yeah, let the Democrats keep running 70-year old women and see how it works out for them.

Tulsi Gabbard was the future of the Democratic party but they're going to primary her and throw her out of office for disloyalty to the powers-that-be.

As long as they stay in exile I'm okay with it. I hear Morocco is nice.

Wait....she's... 66?!

Um...nevermind.

Well, that answers my first question, which would have been "why do judges hire the people who run road graders?"

I guess it's no weirder than New Jersey's Boards of Common Freeholders.

TMI!

I don't get the facepalm from you @Anna and TR. I was responding to gturner's astounding stupidity.

It is accurate that Obama would have still been eligible to be POTUS even if he had been born in Kenya because his mother was an American.

No, it's not, or the Constitution would just say that the President has to be an American citizen. That's not enough. If it was, an attorney wouldn't have tried to disqualify Chester Arthur by saying he was born in Canada. Arthur was early enough to remember the death of James Madison, and Madison was the father of the Constitution. Arthur didn't argue that he could be President just because his mother was an American citizen, he argued that he really was born in Vermont and the evidence backed him up. Had he been born in Canada, he wouldn't have been eligible to be President because he would be a foreign born citizen. To be President you have to be natural (native) born, which means on US soil (though embassy staff is probably exempt as they do not get birthright citizenship in foreign countries).

What worse is that we're not even sure Ted Cruz is a US citizen. We need to see his CRBA form. If citizenship was completely automatic then we wouldn't have all the foreigners coming here to have anchor babies, they'd just put down the name of one of their US citizen relatives on the birth certificate as the father. How would we tell if they were lying?