A 4 way election would probably elect the Republican candidate for President, in the House of Representatives. This assuming that the states in which the GOP has the majority but it's a Tea Party majority chose to back the GOP candidate and not Trump. It could be a never-ending electoral process if the Tea Party stayed true to their character, similar to our 8 person Supreme Court. The Tea Party has gotten really good about just saying no to everything and damn the consequences.
Pledged vote count alone says Bernie is down by 100+. That should end the discussion. Last time Dems held primary, that was back in 2008. Back then, Hillary was down by about 100 votes. She could not overcome that. My memory is fading, but I do think she had huge superdelegates on her back early on the campaign trail; later they switched because Obama was winning. Bernie is losing pretty badly all across the board. [His support is lower near entire demographics, by the difference of 20% or higher.] I don't know what he has to gain by continuing this campaign.
The Democrats are fairly screwed up at the moment. They have the same problems the GOP does in terms of not serving their base particularly well. Poor people aren't the Democratic base, the lower middle class is and like the GOP the Dems have done very little for that Demographic in the last 40 years. Sanders is in the race for the same reason Trump has staying power: the middle class does not like the alternatives and he speaks enough about their issues and in ways that suggest that he'd be one of them that they vote for him. Of course the people who think Trump is one of them are out of their gourds, but they have no alternatives at this point. Sanders at least is a genuine rep for the middle class.
While that may be so Brad, the truth is that "champ of the middle class" Bernie Sanders is still in the race in spite of the Democratic party elites who've barely 'tolerated' him from day one not to mention the scores of TGG Hillary supporters here who've been whining for him to get lost, the same folk whose posts supported Ms. Inevitable from the get go, defending the superdelegates, so as (in one case) to protect "us" from the rank-and-file voter rabble least we have (citing a half century+ example) a potential repeat of the threat of 1960's lynching by Southern Democrats--one of the more amusing historical stretches used to make a point--but I digress: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been about as subtle as a runaway piano from the very beginning, beginning with: "Six debates period, now put a sock in it and get back in line or you'll never set foot behind a party-sponsored debate podium again.....that goes for you too O'Malley." Now while the GOP debates (with a gazillion baffoons all trying to talk over each other) turned into a total ship of fools shit show, at the same time, the party of "inclusively enfranchising voters" intentionally put on a hypocritical shit show of their own. I don't know what the hell to make of this but whatever - from salon.com: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/26/mys..._hillary_clinton_super_pacs_role_in_deletion/
He's selling that ticket pretty well though. P.S. That said, Hillary is de facto Democratic candidate now after last night's crushing defeat.
Bernie is going to hammer on the middle class with those taxes and reduced paychecks. The lower class will benefit most. At the end of the day out of all them he is the best leader to me, Hillary has a more sound plan but I just don't like her decision making ability. It's literally best of the worst competition
The middle class that has kids entering their college years and/or out of control medical benifits will prosper under Bernie. The middle class that doesn't have kids college age and has moderate medical expenses will benefit. Why does everyone think it's ok to generalize? (See what I did there?)
There was only one right-side track in the Democratic Primaries and Hillary was wedged into it good and tight. Webb knew he had no chance early on and he dropped out. The thing that's really fascinating right now is the tug-of-war in the Democratic Party between RINO's, the Clinton base and the Left. The GOP has given the Democrats an enormous electoral playground to play in and the party has not done a good job of settling in a couple of lanes to exploit that fact. Democratic growth at this point is mainly coming from groups too offended by the GOP to possibly settle there and so they slowly gravitate to a very confused alternative. The thing that many people do not understand is how conservative the Clinton base really is. The southern black voters who comprise about half of it are much more conservative than the coastal liberal voters on the Left. The RINO's, like Webb and Lincoln Chafee really share very few commonalities with either the Clinton base or the Left. It's a humongous share of the political spectrum that the Democrats occupy at the moment and it's getting larger all the time. When the GOP finally collapses it is likely to be followed by a Democratic collapse just from the sheer inertia that such a varied electorate produces over time. The Democrats can't agree on anything either, they're just not opposed to everything that currently exists the way the GOP is.
In other Democratic party news, no national political figures with a "D" following their name was accused, indicted or convicted of any sexual perversions today.
Sanders laying off hundreds of staff today...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/u...&gwh=E09C71E5D373E3D6ECD93BEB00F89235&gwt=pay Hillary has got this pretty much locked up.
The rubuplican party's two main factions are butting heads and realizing that they don't have as much in common with one another. Social conservatives aka "evangelicals" and fiscal conservatives that don't give two shits about the the issues that drive the evangelicals. I'm not familiar with the vast divides within the Democratic Party. Please enlighten me.
Absolutely. No one is accusing Hassert of molesting anyone. The only thing he's been convicted of is bribing people NOT to accuse him of molesting anyone. It's just like the liberal media. Where were they when John Edwards knocked up his mistress or Bill Clinton got a bj in the White House? No where!! We never found out about those things bc the liberal media doesn't report on them!!
Could that be because the "liberal" media isn't looking for sex news on politicians? Sexual indiscretions are big news and once it got out that someone other than Hillary was sucking Bill's dick, it was on 24/7. Hell, the GOP even went so far as to impeach the President. Same with Edwards who was running a populist campaign before Sanders made it popular. This country has YUGE hangups about sex and will devour all the sordid details about any sexually explicit dalliance by a politician, a preacher or an entire church. The only reason why they didn't ask Monica if she swallowed was because they found the stain on the dress. Fox News made millions off both indiscretions and so did CNN so lets not pretend that the so called "liberal" media plays favorites. They're just slower reporting on the slime than "conservative" media. This may be the only country on earth where even Sex is political.
I lost respect for Bill when I found out he didn't make Monika swallow.... unless it was a "facial" and it dribbled into the dress. I guess id be ok with that.
The Republican Party has at least five different constituencies at this point. Wall Street Supply Siders, Social Conservatives, Neocons, Libertarians and the Trump Rabble. The Tea Party has constituents in 4 of the 5 groups, with only Social Conservatives not well represented. Wall Street and the Trump Rabble are natural enemies. Social Conservatives and Libertarians are natural enemies. The Neocons have positions that are problematic for everybody but Wall Street. The Democrats have four main constituencies at this point. Clintonites are northeastern/mid-western economic moderates who are socially liberal and southern blacks who are economically liberal and socially conservative. Wall Street is included as a northeastern/mid-western economically conservative and socially liberal group, they're integrated into the Clinton wing of the party. Coastal Liberals are the Pelosi/O'Malley wing of the party and they're also strong in Illinois and a significant part of the Democratic electorate elsewhere. Blue Dogs are the remnant of the Howard Dean effort to create a 50 state strategy. They tend to be from the interior and Jim Webb is their standard bearer. This is the group that has taken the biggest beating over the last 6 years as the Affordable Care Act blindsided them in 2010 and led directly to them being replaced by conservative Republicans in the areas they were strongest in. States they were very strong in that have shifted to the right over the last 6 years include Michigan, Ohio, Arkansas, West Virginia, Indiana, Iowa and arguably Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The final constituency is a big one, that being urban women - who largely reject the positions of the GOP and have gravitated towards the Democrats for two generations now. Outside of the party you have the remnants of the Greens who are socially and economically liberal and a large youth segment who have not yet formed binding alliances to the Democrats but who are being herded that direction by the GOP with each passing year. You have the Hispanic vote, which has voted Democrat recently but which was really up for grabs until the GOP stormed to the Right and made their choice easy. You have the aging, largely white Medicare/Social Security boomer generation who voted for Ronald Reagan during the 80's and Clinton during the 90's and would normally be moving to the Right as they aged, only the GOP sprinted out ahead of them and has pushed hard against their issues. Trump is capturing a lot of this vote because he isn't threatening their entitlements as he campaigns and he also isn't promising handouts to anybody else.
