« Nail, coffin, Nicaragua Canal | Main | Misleading headline award: American business do not face a “culture gap” with Cuba »

March 11, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

post-Chicago: https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708657520374452224

The man has a core. He looks haggard.

Where was this guy?! I see it now, but barring a miracle, it's much too late for him, and possibly for his entire career in politics.

I agree. Instead of this guy, we got penis jokes.

The annoying thing is, I've seen that guy in person. He wanted to be president way too badly, triangulating on the moneymen and what he thought was the base.

I guess he could try for governor in 2018. My gut feeling is that he'll have to break with Trump to have a chance ... regardless of the winner in November. Does that sound right?

If this is a realignment election -- and if it's not, I don't know what one is; the only thing missing is the geographical shift -- then he could form the nucleus of a successor party to come. But it has to be *this* guy.

In political positioning alone, the GOP candidate that first said NO to Trump's bullshit... but this is clearly conviction, so it's beyond that. He might be years in the wilderness. It might never happen. I think he's realizing that.

I feel oddly hopeful about him now.

I don't think Rubio has a future in politics. He has no natural supporters and I think he burned his bridges in Florida.

I think however this year turns out that 2020 is potentially dangerous. Anger is going to be rather extreme by then and I have trouble imagining anything plausible to reduce fear, anger and pessimism among the electorate.

Those annoying Salon/HuffPo articles insisting that progressives should throw the general election if Bernie Sanders is not nominated sometimes make an argument about 2020. The idea is that 2020 is a census year that will trigger a wave of redistricting, so winning that year is the only way Democrats can have any chance in the House or state legislatures for the decade after that.

But, they say, the only way for Democrats to win in 2020 barring Bernie's miraculous total political revolution is to lose in 2016, so that the reaction against the horrors of President Trump propel us to victory. Since Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to be a failed one-termer, electing her means something worse than a Trump Presidency down the line, and electing Trump is actually preferable.

I think the Supreme Court alone is a powerful counterargument to that, and that this whole genre of reasoning requires too much certainty about future events. I keep thinking about how George W. Bush got a free five-year hiatus on any kind of serious critical analysis from the political mainstream because of 9/11, which destroyed any predictions one might have made about how his first term was going to go.

Tactical withdrawals of candidates in the UK for Parliamentary elections are incredibly rare. They are pretty rare for local elections also.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)