ronald reagan's not walking thru that door.

if trump is the nominee (and it is looking more and more like he will be) the republicans are basically blowing it up and starting all over again. i listened to some of the debate last night and i find trump's angry, hateful rhetoric to be most troubling.

you mentioned 'old men'. bernie will be 75 in september(!!). if hillary's campaign continues it's downward spiral, it's going to come down to trump and sanders. trump is radical, extreme and dangerous and sanders is as far to the left as you can get. two totally unelectable candidates. what the hell happens then?

Don't think hillary's campaign is necessarily in a downward spiral. They've won Iowa, yes by the smallest of margins, lost new hampshire, which was always going to be a loss considering its proximity to vermont, have won Nevada, and will most likely have a 20+ point win in South carolina on saturday. That's 3/4 contests that will have gone to clinton, never mind margin.

Super tuesday is also heavily in southern states, place much like south Carolina where hillary's lead has been a solid 25+ point lead. That lead's not going anywhere.

Long of the short of it, Sanders' chances of winning the nomination will be mostly obliterated after super tuesday, and wiped out by March 15th.

While hillary hasnt won by much, she has won, while Sanders hasn't. Which I think has been lost in all this. I've never seen a primary candidate lose 3/4 the contests and still looking to being considered a viable candidate, funnily enough, other than Rubio (though Rubio is in a 5 candidate field, and Bernie is facing Clinton straight up and still can't scratch a win). Chances are that will change very soon.

Republicans chances are fucked aren't they? Your best electable hope Rubio has stalled, and now it's between (god forbid) Trump and Cruz.

Chris Christie has come out to endorse Trump. Sounds weird but it's a strategic call from Christie - he'd rather endorse the nutjob who is certified to lose (Trump) as opposed to backing a nutjob who might win in Cruz (who, unbelievably yes, is more electable according to the electorate than Trump).

The reason Christie does this is opportunistic - he backs the loser so he can have a shot in four years. Just like how he praised Obama in 2012 in dealing with the hurricane, he basically endorsed the President to ruin Romney's chances. His plan is to give the Democrats another 4 years by which he hopes people will have tired of them in the administration, and which he can plan four years in advance for his 2020 campaign.

In fact, most Republicans are willing to lose this election by backing a certified loser instead of backing Cruz whose presidency would fuck the country and destroy the Republicans, if you want to be strategic and plan for the future, you will want Bernie or Hillary to win, as strange as it sounds!

www.c-span.org/video/?c4558279/obama-ribs-republicans-candidates

Hope this hasn't been posted yet!

This actually had me roarin'.


By the way, your election is bonkers. I thought we lacked the finer points of policy in our election campaigns but the Republican one is frankly hilarious its great entertainment but I'd be concerned if I lived there.

Obviously the source of this makes the information dubious, but the Romney rumors STILL won't die... #Romney16

www.infowars.com/breaking-insider-leaks-koch-bros-rubio-plan-to-stop-trump/

I think he'll be remembered as an above average president. Don't think he'll break the Top 7 of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Truman. But I think somewhere between 8-15 is where he'll end up.

His social domestic policy is akin to LBJ's support of black rights, with the growth of gay rights and and Affordable Health Care plan. He doesn't carry the weight of Vietnam like LBJ does. However, gun control will be a black eye for him.

He'll be viewed as hit-or-miss on foreign policy. His two big victories would be the death of Osama Bin Laden, and depending on future relations, Cuba. Cuba could very much be his Nixon to China moment. The moderation of Iran could also be a key boom for him. Obviously, Iran and Cuba are two scenarios where we won't know for probably another 10-15 years, whether they will ultimately positively affect his legacy. However, I believe ISIS is his Rwanda moment. I think ISIS will affect his foreign policy legacy more than drone attacks, which could be akin to submarine attacks in the 1920's, dirty but will probably seen as obvious tactic in future wars. In the end, I don't think he'll be viewed any worse on foreign policy than say Bill Clinton. Certainly won't be seen as bad as Jimmy Carter or W. Bush.

Obama's largest boon will be the Economy. No president has faced a harsher and more immediately devastating economic situation than Obama since FDR (Clinton and Reagan faced stagnant economies, but neither was as serious as a near collapse of the entire economic system of the U.S.). Even with wages not increasing as quickly as some would like, Obama will mostly likely leave his successor with a far stronger economy than he inherited, which would have seemed unthinkable 7 years ago.

He'll also be known for, just as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were, the expansion of presidential powers. His use of executive orders to push through policy will be seen as revolutionary in due time. The office and powers of the presidency will never be the same.

I think Obama will be seen as the best and most transformation president since Reagan. While Reagan is seen as the beginning of modern conservationism, I think Obama will be seen as the peak of modern progressivenism. He'll most likely rank above H.W. Bush, W. Bush, and especially Clinton whose policies have not aged well, especially NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and who will always have the "He was almost impeached" line leading his bio. Not to mention, much of his popularity come from his charisma and having a decent economy, which I more credit H.W. Bush for by raising taxes, rather than his actual policies. He'll also rank above Carter, Ford, Nixon, and LBJ. Of the post Kennedy era, it's essentially Reagan and Obama as the two clear leaders.

Yea, but with extended media coverage people could choose just as much to vote against him.

I don't think that argument really holds water.

Good point.

Though the media attention definitely paints a negative picture in some people's minds, it may also help him reach others who share his beliefs that he normally wouldn't. Most people don't follow elections very closely, so if you were a Republican with Tea Party ideology without a lot of knowledge of the candidates, you might hear Trump's stances endlessly repeated by reporters and decide to support him. You probably wouldn't bother to find out about the positions of Cruz or Rubio; you've already decided who you're gonna vote for, and because one stands out from the rest.

Too young to have done that, but clearly something is wrong with this man.

Anyone catch John Oliver's history of Trump? #makeDonaldDrumpfagain