(03-05-2019 11:24 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 10:08 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 07:15 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Dems are doing the same as the Reps and all their best (sic) will cancel each other out leaving the absolute worst of the field standing.

But the republicans were left with the best of the field, the very best.

The one who could beat Hillary--maybe the only one who could.

dunno that that's true. the gop primaries in 2016 were pure, constant chaos. then the general was more pure chaos.

first of all, history does not reveal the destinies of paths not chosen, but there is certainly no way you could make a statement like, "without the daily cataclysms in the media that took place for a year, hillary would have beaten [insert the candidate of your choice] in november.

all we know is that with a nuclear blast going off in the MSM on a daily basis, DJT flipped PA, MI, and WI, and that was enough to claim a substantial electoral victory. The plan was certainly genius, but a toxic and incendiary news cycle seemed to be an integral part of that brilliant plan.

he played 'em to a 'T'....

how are they looking now....(rhetorical)

name one candidate that could've pulled that one off and followed through for the working class....

it's the beauty of being a non-politician....

that's also the glory of tossing it back into the 3rd party feces....

(03-04-2019 11:50 AM)Kronke Wrote:  If the dems had any sense whatsoever, he would immediately be seen as a top-tier candidate, if not their frontrunner.

he is too moderate for the Dems these days..

(03-04-2019 11:51 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Do people make money off these presidential runs? Or tax breaks?

Honest question because I don't see why some of these people throw their hat into the ring with no chance of winning the nomination.

They're doing it because they know that the new Demoncraptic Party will be taking most of their money away and they just want to build up a nice nest egg and finally move to another country that taxes less.

Kidding, okay.

(03-04-2019 12:11 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 11:51 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Do people make money of these presidential runs? Or tax breaks?

Honest question because I don't see why some of these people throw there hat into the ring with no chance of winning the nomination.

for every HRC (inevitable, at least in 2016), there is an obama (somewhat of a surprise) or a clenis (very unexpected), or even a carter (utterly astonishing).

huge fields make unexpected results possible, of not actually probable. see: the guy in the white house right now. 20% in iowa and NH gets you "front runner" status. another win, and then you're "inevitable". on super tuesday, you're "anointed".

it's actually scary what kind of trouble a small scale riot (aka a "caucus") in iowa can start.

That's true to an extent, but when you rely on primary results for 'unpredictability' it ends up in far less uncertainty than the United States historically at least. 2020 won't yield an open convention where a random dark horse wins the Democratic nomination, as funny as it'd be if their nominee were sitting at home and had to be told days later they were the compromise candidate (IIRC that's what happened with Polk).

My sister lives in Denver and is relatively conservative, she wasn't in love with Hickenlooper but said over the holidays she'd vote as a Democrat in Colorado primaries to try pushing him in over a crazy like Sanders or Harris. Imo he'd do well against Trump as a 'return to normalcy' candidate, though he has zero chance of winning the nomination. Isn't a socialist so the Bernie bros are out, he's an old white dude so the intersectional coalition is against him, and that leaves him with the establishment wing that would prefer someone like Biden given how he's a complete Washington outsider.

(03-05-2019 07:42 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Trump was the one who almost gave us Hillary.

And Hillary! was the one who actually did give us Trump.

Life’s funny sometimes.