Re: 2016 Election
 

Crazy Crap must be from one of those remote English counties, such as Dallas or Phoenix.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Sanders had always had the support of the Democrats when he's been running for reelection in VT, but now he's running against the chosen one it's all gone away. Funny that.

Re: 2016 Election
 

If he had a Democratic rival in Vermont, then that obviously wouldn't be the case. He's popular locally and there's no need to groom a competitor there.

It's different on a national level. The president is effectively the leader of the party. Why would a political party or, for that matter, just about any other organization on the planet want someone who isn't a member to lead them?

Re: 2016 Election
 

In 1996 the party supported Sanders over Democrat Jack Long. In 2006 when Sanders ran for Senate the party worked for prevent any Democrats running against him.

If the party thought he was more popular and more electable than Clinton, then I think the party would get behind him.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Anything for power.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Sanders is well down in overall popular vote too. Not that it matters.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I would expect that only sheer desperation would drive party loyalists into the arms of an independent for a presidential race.

To that extent, this mirrors the problem that the GOP establishment has with Trump. There are some policy differences, but much of it comes down to the lack of loyalty and the inability to trust him.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The problem for the GOP has nothing to do with loyalty, rather it's because Trump being the nominee will mean the party is destroyed in the general election and not just for President, but down ticket as well.

Ron Paul has been in the GOP for decades, but I don't think the leadership would want him nominated for President, similarly the DNC wouldn't want Dennis Kucinich as the nominee. Electabiity is far more important than affiliation.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The GOP doesn't have any particularly electable candidates, but of the bunch, Trump is its best choice for winning back some states that they haven't been able to win, i.e. the Rust Belt.

Trump creates broader institutional problems for the party. His anti-trade and aggressive nativism are turn-offs to corporate donors who want the free flow of capital and labor, as is his lack of commitment to low taxes for the affluent and corporations.

But again, much of it is about the fact that they cannot trust him to be loyal to the party. Ted Cruz is largely in the same boat, but at least he's a member of the party.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Lovely, impressive website! Showcases some pretty impressive presentation graphics and interactive tools.

Re: 2016 Election
 

538 and Nate Silver have gotten a little more op-ed ish recently but I still trust their analytics.

What is interesting is the comments sections on the articles are almost intelligent with some coherent arguments.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The good news for Sanders is that he's "overachieved" in the last five primaries, but I think most of those were caucuses (?). We'll see by New York whether that translates into "momentum".

Yes, the comments on that website are often well worth a read.

Re: 2016 Election
 

"I approve this message" :thumb: .......

...oh, it's clearly both

:sarcasm:

woo hoo

http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content...lbert-flag.gif

Re: 2016 Election
 

Glutton for punishment?

The CNN election year money machine - (like a nymphomaniac - can't ever get enough) will treat us to yet ANOTHER episode of the Republican 3 Musketeers:

Tonight - 8:00PM est

Who's gonna hurl insults at whose what?:popcorn:

Re: 2016 Election
 

Latest Hillary rumours sound amusing.