No - but just watched it here. Thanks

"If at first ('08) you don't succeed, try..."

Steven Colbert for President - 2016
***********************************************

The 'new" Trump, heralded last night by the pundits and punditzies alike, for "acting Presidential" in his victory speech - is even more dangerous than the "old" one.
"Presidential" is as "Presidential" does.
Governing isn't a panto (well - shouldn't be)

How nimbly Sanders is able to handle the denouement of his Presidential run will be a telling factor in what I believe is ultimately, for him, even more important than winning the election (which he won't).

I don't think he ever entered the race in order to be President. I think he hoped to use the forum that a run for that office would provide - in order to build a movement across America for what he deems urgent and essential change. I'm sure his campaign manager would disagree...but that's why he's a campaign manager

Although it's reached a grander scale, Sanders' real campaign is an evolving continuation of what's been his life's work.
Along the way however, because he was so unexpectedly successful during the election campaign in building support for his movement - what I think must have seemed entirely far-fetched to him at the start (winning the nomination), morphed into what began to look increasingly, against-all-odds possible. And Bernie's election campaign got enmeshed in its own success.

Now that that possibility has receded and is practically extinguished - I'm sure that once again, as at the start - changing the agenda and affecting change has got to be his fundamental concern.

And that's why, as I said above, I think how he manages the denouement of his election campaign will be a crucial factor in the continuing support for his 'real' campaign.

Meanwhile, as has now become a compulsion, I'll be glued to the telly next week - fingers crossed for a "win" in Pennsylvania, happily settling for Rhode Island instead....all the while appreciating the total absurdity of it all

Even if Sander's became President he'd never get any of his agenda through either house which would make him as useless as the proverbial titties on a bull

And Hillary would?

Worst case, Hillary wouldn't be Trump. And that's a big plus right there.

Despite the open ended thread title here, I think the discussion has mostly been about the 2016 Presidential election. How about the U.S. House and Senate races? Let's say Trump goes to the convention, and the party bosses manage to get someone else nominated, Trump supporters riot, and stay home in significant numbers come Election Day. Clinton is elected president, and there's a significant swing to the democrats in congress too, as a result of republican voters feeling all demoralised and confused. Then Clinton might get her agenda through!

You have ruined my day.

I don't see any scenario where Trump doesn't run as an R or an Independent. The election is HRC's to lose.

Poor guy's going to be all out of money, come Election Day.

Doubtful. He's only lent his campaign his money up to now. Once he's the nominee he'll accept donations and pay himself back. He may be nuts, but he knows how to make money.

That said I am mulling voting for him just to see what happens. HRC doesn't exactly thrill me as a candidate.

Be interesting to see who he puts on the Supreme Court for the next two or three vacancies. I'll bet he has a few tame lawyers in his organisation who'll take the job if told to.

Better yet, just scrap the Court altogether - as already suggested by (ex) fellow candidate Bobby Jindal:

Jindal: 'If We Want To Save Some Money Let's Just Get Rid Of The Court'

awwww. hoo boo

Go best friend walkies (for next 8 years)

I remember him, one of the stupider candidates.

I was surprised looking at the county map of New York on how over whelming was Sanders victory county by county. Just nowhere in the counties that mattered.


He already does accept donations.