Who owns Hillary: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ys-wall-street-strategist-attack-bernie-sande
I would not bet on that outcome under any circumstances. In fact, don't be surprised if neither one of them is their party's nominee.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being O'Malley v Bush. Basically, who's left when the corrupt, or racists, or dreamer are cut out.
I just don't think there is any way Trump actually gets the nomination. He's an absolute joke of a candidate no matter what your political ideology is.
But that's what the polls are showing. Sorry. I dont normally follow the election. It seems like on every site, these two are leading by a large margin.
Yeah, I know what the polls say, I just don't think that people who actually show up to vote will cast their ballot for Trump.....at least I hope not. I prefer to think more highly about the human race than that.
Did he actually do that or did you just catch him supporting public education and the Civil Rights Act?
He actually claims to be a Libertarian....which is hilarious because it is VERY obvious that he is not only NOT a Libertarian, but he's a fairly far left leaning Democrat. I normally wouldn't tie him to a party like that, but he regurgitates Democratic talking points and is an Obama fanboy (despite the fact that he claims to have not voted for Obama). I think that's enough evidence to tie him to a party.
It sounds like he has spoken out against Republicans and so you assume he must be a Democrat. I don't think he gains anything by claiming to be a Libertarian, a Democrat, etc. There is no reason for him to claim he's Libertarian when he isn't. There's less reason to argue about it after he's stated it. He talks about the issues, and if anyone disagrees with his stance on the issues he offers plenty to discuss in almost all of his texts. He is far more patient in breaking down the posts - point by point of those he disagrees with than I am or most of the other posters on either side of issues are on these boards.
If you had actually been here for the last several years and followed his views on various issues, you'd know that he pretty solidly falls into the libertarian camp on a large number of issues. Of course, as per your usual, you take a snippet of information and decide you know more than you actually do and then end up saying stupid and incorrect things.
On the original topic, I've been solidly in the camp that Sanders has no functional way to the nomination barring something extreme (indictment, new scandal, health issue, etc), but I'm beginning to reassess. If he can win Iowa and NH, he has a chance in Nevada due to the caucus format. He likely still loses SC, and Super Tuesday doesn't favor him at all, so I still don't see much of a path, but it does seem like there's at least a small opening there. If he can drive the narrative after Iowa/NH and get Hillary to panic a little and do something stupid, maybe a path opens up.
SMH, he really really doesn't...but that's okay, I don't expect much from people in the D&D just like this other potato I am about to respond to And you think that based on what exactly? The numerous times that I said that I'd support anyone who ran against him if he won the Republican nomination?
Paths change after you start getting results. It's why I don't think we really know where Trump stands until after Iowa. If the pundits are right and he isn't organizing in Iowa at all he could conceivably get trounced there. That could suddenly change the way people see him and that changes everything. If Sanders beats Clinton in Iowa, suddenly people who are clinging to Clinton because they think she is the only one who can win might reassess. If he goes on to win New Hampshire it's a whole new evaluation of him. I still think Clinton wins in the end, but if Sanders can actually win New Hampshire and Iowa, who knows? What's amazing to me is that Clinton is basically clinging to overwhelming support from blacks to beat Sanders. It makes me question whether she can really hold together the "Obama Coalition."
