Soooooooooooo where the heck are the democrat candidates

[WHAMPOM]

Wow it seems like not much depth to the lineup.

You have sanders which has zero chance. Then the other guy and Clinton.


why is there so little interest? The republicans have 14. I wonder if they need to chop that down for the debates and stop wasting time?

It looks like Clinton has been handed the nomination and the other two are just there to make it look somewhat legit and not a coronation.

So what's the deal? Not many democrats with presidential capacity?

'cause crazy makes the front page.

 

[sportage]

This election on the Republicans side is like they are running against an incumbent.
Like Clinton vs Dole, Nixon vs McGovern, Bush vs Kerry.
When up against an incumbent, the losing side typically sends out their most flawed candidate(s).
A free for all. Everyone jump in. A real circle jerk, and emphasize the word jerk.
Welcome to election 2016.

And consider the facts...
Gas prices are so low, they are almost paying us to fill up.
More people are working today than in past years.
Social and civil rights marching forward, exactly as it should be in a free nation.
And like it or not, finally an attempt to reform our Healthcare system.

So, summing up, why in the hell would any country wish to jump ship, change corse, gamble on an unknown when we can be assured the country will continue to prosper by retaining a Democrat in the whitehouse?

Yes, it's time for Hillary.
Time for our first woman.
Time to continue the prosperity we enjoyed as a nation under a past Clinton presidency.
And fully realizing that who you vote for does matter very much.

No, no one wants to risk prosperity on another republican.
And God forbid, on another anal republican as was George W Bush.
If your a poker player, Hillary is the winning hand in this game of politics.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

This election on the Republicans side is like they are running against an incumbent.
Like Clinton vs Dole, Nixon vs McGovern, Bush vs Kerry.
When up against an incumbent, the losing side typically sends out their most flawed candidate(s).
A free for all. Everyone jump in. A real circle jerk, and emphasize the word jerk.
Welcome to election 2016.

And consider the facts...
Gas prices are so low, they are almost paying us to fill up.
More people are working today than in past years.
Social and civil rights marching forward, exactly as it should be in a free nation.
And like it or not, finally an attempt to reform our Healthcare system.

So, summing up, why in the hell would any country wish to jump ship, change corse, gamble on an unknown when we can be assured the country will continue to prosper by retaining a Democrat in the whitehouse?

Yes, it's time for Hillary.
Time for our first woman.
Time to continue the prosperity we enjoyed as a nation under a past Clinton presidency.
And fully realizing that who you vote for does matter very much.

No, no one wants to risk prosperity on another republican.
And God forbid, on another anal republican as was George W Bush.
If your a poker player, Hillary is the winning hand in this game of politics.

I don't disagree with your inference of the likely political outcome. I don't disagree with any of it, unless you are insinuating that Obama actually influenced all of those factors to a significant degree, except possibly for jobs -- but even that one is a bit iffy. Instead, the public can easily convince itself that these things are attributed to the presidency -- any presidency in which they occur. Certainly the ACA was a great milestone, as you say.

But there's no doubt as to who was to blame for what between 2000 and 2008. The "what" influenced prosperity at home. The attention was drawn away from the financial sector. I call that malfeasance. If it was so important to wage war on two fronts at once, as if to prove the "Eisenhower imperative" just for fun, then taxes should have been raised to pay for it.

 

[Moonbeam]

There it is, the hate and the competition that is the root of who you are! Please do explain why I am causing the country to die. I'd love to hear how I am personally responsible

You're a CBD. You can't reason and instead rationalize. You attack Sanders and have no idea what you are talking about, just spouting like a programmed machine. And you have no self awareness and see none of this. You are thus a danger to the human race. You are dangerously blind and ignorant. Everybody free from your terrible defect can see how you are but you and the rest of the defectives like you can't see anything. You believe in what is politically stupid and vote for idiots. You and those like you are destroying the country by holding any meaningful progress back. And when informed of these facts you attack any who would try to help you by calling them competitive and hateful.

But all hate is self hate so if I hate you I hate me you stupid piece of shit and if I wanted to compete with you to try and be even stupider than you are, you wouldn't have a chance.

And by the way, trying to say anything sensible to you would have a zero percent chance of penetrating.

Oh and by the way, you are generally 100 % wrong about everything. I suggest you print and cut out my posts and tape them to your forehead. Use good tape or they will ski down the slope and fall off.

If you have any more question I will gladly assist you since I know only too well how eager you are to learn.

 

[MongGrel]

()

 

[michal1980]

Awww... poor Democrats! They don't have a crowded clown car!

It's not as if you'd vote for a Democrat, is it? Of course not. But you'll tear them down if anybody will listen. When you've got nothing of substance to offer, it's your only shot.

Its not like you'd vote for someone other then a Democrat.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The lack of viable Democratic candidates is a real, long-term problem for the party. IMO it's largely a by-product of the party's lack of success in gubernatorial elections. Frankly I don't think Hillary and Sanders are particularly compelling candidates, but Hillary will still probably win because the GOP is such a chaotic shit show this year. Unless Rubio is able to somehow escape from that burning building unscathed (something Trump may simply refuse to allow), it's hard for me to see any Republican winning this election, despite the relatively soft target candidate on the other side.

 

[Hugo Drax]

The risk on the Democrats side is how excited are voters for Hillary. Will a large number of voters sit out this election because.

#1 They assume the other person will vote for Hillary and she is guaranteed a Win compared to the insanity at the GOP side.

#2 lack of excitement over Hillary so less people show up to vote compared to Obama.

#3 A much larger than expected base ends up voting for a Republican president because of Obama fatigue and assumption that a large number of voters will vote for Hillary.

If you have two groups making the wrong assumptions of each other(REP Assuming large Hillary turnout so they line up for whomever is nominated vs DEM assuming GOP Loss/guaranteed Hillary win + lack of excitement for her = less people vote) you can end up with a surprise GOP victory.

And you have the Assumption that Bush is out of the game, yet you have the Final Bush surprise VS clinton 2016 situation looming.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The risk on the Democrats side is how excited are voters for Hillary. Will a large number of voters sit out this election because.

#1 They assume the other person will vote for Hillary and she is guaranteed a Win compared to the insanity at the GOP side.

#2 lack of excitement over Hillary so less people show up to vote compared to Obama.

#3 A much larger than expected base ends up voting for a Republican president because of Obama fatigue and assumption that a large number of voters will vote for Hillary.

If you have two groups making the wrong assumptions of each other(REP Assuming large Hillary turnout so they line up for whomever is nominated vs DEM assuming GOP Loss/guaranteed Hillary win + lack of excitement for her = less people vote) you can end up with a surprise GOP victory.

And you have the Assumption that Bush is out of the game, yet you have the Final Bush surprise VS clinton 2016 situation looming.

. . . I also think there may be more "holes" in the sieve of possibilities, and that would only complicate an expected outcome and make it even more uncertain. But you're right -- it's sort of a game-theory problem with a statistical scatter of strategies and populations.

There's also another factor that could be totally uncertain. Getting people registered and getting them to vote uses a lot of "feet on the ground." Ads and campaign propaganda also are intended to have an effect. It's hard to say how many of that dormant electorate can be energized. Just from personal experience, I can say I never missed a general election, but there was a time I didn't vote in primaries. And that, too, is an aspect of personal strategies, even if it reflects something naïve, indifferent or lazy.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I forgot to add. Hillary is assuming nomination and winning the election. She is not going to try as hard, and she probably feels,it is beneath her to try and sell her presidency to regular joe and Jane six pack. She probably thinks that everyone is just going to line up with total excitement over her being president.

One thing I can guarantee is she is gonna get nominated that is for sure, the whole thing is a coronation and right now they dem party is just going through the motions. I am surprised they did not just have 1 debate.

I guess that would have been to obvious if it was 1 debate. I do suspect the next debates will be softball questions insuring Hillary does not need to put too much effort past reading the scripts provided by her handlers.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I forgot to add. Hillary is assuming nomination and winning the election. She is not going to try as hard, and she probably feels,it is beneath her to try and sell her presidency to regular joe and Jane six pack. She probably thinks that everyone is just going to line up with total excitement over her being president.

One thing I can guarantee is she is gonna get nominated that is for sure, the whole thing is a coronation and right now they dem party is just going through the motions. I am surprised they did not just have 1 debate.

I guess that would have been to obvious if it was 1 debate. I do suspect the next debates will be softball questions insuring Hillary does not need to put too much effort past reading the scripts provided by her handlers.

Maybe trying too hard can be self-defeating. And I've already seen somebody "trying too hard," and it's not Hillary. Given the baggage, and equally given the propaganda about it, she's "stood up" when she needed to so far.

The primary debates are no less about a smorgasbord of issues and a preference for simply recognizing national problems. And those two separate world-views will only collide after the primaries, even as we see cross-partisan exchanges between candidates such as those so far.

 

[Jhhnn]

I forgot to add. Hillary is assuming nomination and winning the election. She is not going to try as hard, and she probably feels,it is beneath her to try and sell her presidency to regular joe and Jane six pack. She probably thinks that everyone is just going to line up with total excitement over her being president.

So you just made up an imaginary mind-set & attributed it to Hillary, right?

One thing I can guarantee is she is gonna get nominated that is for sure, the whole thing is a coronation and right now they dem party is just going through the motions. I am surprised they did not just have 1 debate.

You're not surprised, just lying about not being surprised.

There were times in the 2008 primary campaign that Hillary probably thought she had it in the bag. She obviously did not. I'm sure she takes Sanders seriously.

I guess that would have been to obvious if it was 1 debate. I do suspect the next debates will be softball questions insuring Hillary does not need to put too much effort past reading the scripts provided by her handlers.

Obvious? Yes, casting aspersions as you've done here is obvious trolling.