He must be the dumb billionaire then, cause Trump is making a killing on those hats by running in the Primaries.

For the most part that's true. But many of Sanders' supporters are young first time voters and those that had given up on politics. Now the demographic advantages Hillary and the Democrats have means that she'll still be President even if she loses those supporters. The problem comes further down the ticket, those extra Dem voters could flip House or Senate seats, or make changes at a state level.

If Hillary's goal is just to be President (and there are times when that's what it looks like) then fine, but if it is to actually affect real progressive change, then alienating Sanders's supporters is a bad move.

I agree that Sanders running is definitely a good thing. Even if he loses, his viewpoint is getting debated at a national level. Plus it gives the Clinton campaign a chance to get their shit together before the general, as the GOP aren't going to be as nice as Bernie.

I hope you're not entirely correct that the demographic advantages Hillary has means she'll be President.

If simple demographics means a deeply flawed Democrat will be president, no matter what, even if that candidate loses a significant minority of Democratic voters, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that demographics trumps everything else. If that is the case, then there is a danger of the country tearing itself apart because a significant minority (40-45%?) will not tolerate itself being ruled in perpetuity by the larger bloc of demographic groupings.

I suppose Sen. Ted Kennedy had your thoughts in mind when he euchred LBJ into agreeing to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It was for "the good of the Party."

I know it seems a strange thing to say after all the effort the GOP has put into appealing to minorities.

Also, let's not forget that a majority of Democrats AND Republicans voted for the INA. Bipartisanship eh, those were the days.

That's how democracies work.

The country survived eight years of a "deeply flawed" George Bush.

As Giantaxe has pointed out, "Simple demographics" is kind of the entire point of democracy. The clue is, possibly, in the root of the word (I know it's Greek, but one would have thought a Roman general would be conversant with the other great Classical language...).

If the GOP does, indeed, lose November's general election to a poor Democratic Party candidate, the inference has to be that they failed to appeal to a sufficiently broad electorate. Perhaps at that point the Republican party will, finally, have an examination of conscience and move away from the more extreme right-wing elements towards a more electable centre ground? Perhaps - shock, horror - there might be a movement within the core of the GOP to try and stop religious fundamentalism supporting so many policy decisions. Perhaps - but no, this would be too much - they might actually see that religion and politics are two different things, and that much as they might both be matters of conscience for some people, it's better that they are kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended.

While the current crop of those trying to outwit Trump are all frantically outdoing each other in an effort to capture the Evangelical vote, they're too busy to notice that this is painting them into a much tighter electoral corner even than that occupied by The Donald's ranting hooliganism.

As an outside observer, I look forward to a time when the US election offers two reasonable alternatives to pick from. On current reckoning, the number of reasonable alternatives in November will be much closer to zero.

It's funny you should say that. After they lost last time they did some self reflection and decided it was going to be different, and they would have to appeal more to minorities. As you can see it's working out well for them...

Republican Review of 2012 Losses Calls for Many Changes - Bloomberg Business

I honestly don't know what more the GOP can do. They've put forth some decent candidates this year --- Jeb, Christie, Kasich, and Paul, being my favorites. I'm glad to see Kasich having a nice surge in New Hampshire. HOWEVER, the constituency has overwhelmingly supported the lying carnival barker and the cheating tent show revivalist. The two very nastiest and divisive individuals in the entire race are also the two most popular at the moment.

A little background on my namesake. Aetius was born in Bulgaria, son of a Roman general. He spent his early years as a hostage, first to the Visigoths and afterwards was transferred as a hostage to the Huns. From those two tribes he learned how to be a first-class leader of men. When he returned to the Western Roman Empire, he was immediately made and was the West's most capable general - and its last. He may have spoken Goth and Hun, but unlikely he studied Greek.

To the first of your real points, I would suggest that both South Africa and Zimbabwe are democracies. So are China and North Korea. For all intents and purposes, all are also one-party states. The United States is not a democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to limit the power of a democratic majority, which can indeed be a tyranny. That is why we do not elect our presidents directly by majority vote, and why even the tiniest states, like NH, have the same number of Senators as California.

If I understand you, you are suggesting that if the Republican Party needs to abandon its bedrock principles of adhering to the constitution, supporting property rights, limited government and capitalism and ape the Democratic Party, in the hopes of appealing to the new blocs of voters - who are essentially not accessible to the Republicans anyway.

On display on Monday were Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright calling on women to support Hillary...because she is a woman. What would be the media response if at a Republican rally two prominent men called on men to support the Republican candidate...because he is a man?

Any Republican black who runs for Congress or the Senate is labeled an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his race because he is a Republican. Two of the top Republican candidates for President are Hispanic, but they don't count because they're not Mexican enough.

This country is continuously being divided on racial, ethnic, gender and class lines, and that should be of concern to everyone.

Bill Clinton looks like that old geezer on Family Guy.

For "deeply flawed" read "psychopathic killer of civilians".

Not looking good for Vermin Supreme tonight.

Haha. I think I know who you mean. If not I'll look like a dick.

Is it weasley ferret-faced snake lizard cheater preacher?

Its the guy who wears a wellie on his head. A joke/satirical candidate since 2004 I think. At 0.12%

Get ahold of yourself, you fool.