The final episode of Glee was a fast forward to 2020. Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) was VP, on the ticket as Jeb was winning re-election.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Ted Cruz officially threw the hat into the ring

remember when Pat Buchannan was considered the crazy right?

Is Buchanan no longer considered the crazy right?

Listening to Cruz's campaign announcement speech. Reinforcing that he is a pathologically self-absorbed asshole.

wish christine was still around

"Good! And we'll call this part 'Texas' cuz that's my 'home state,' OK?"

jerseyhoya wrote:The Education of Jeb Bush - Fairly interesting Jeb profile in The Weekly Standard. Written for a conservative audience obviously.

Really wish his last name was Smith.

Seems kinda catty, full of backhanded 'compliments', and weird editing - page 3 is about twice as long as 1 & 2 together. Ferguson knows Standard readers aren't inclined to like a Bush, yet want to have a candidate they can cast a serious vote for (see: not Ted Cruz).

Really, I really want Ted Cruz out of my country

I was reading some comment on the online and slipped in the middle of the list of reasons this guy was going to vote for Cruz was the fact that he had two alive parents. Didn't know people factored that in.

JFLNYC wrote:

"Good! And we'll call this part 'Texas' cuz that's my 'home state,' OK?"

Imagine Ted Cruz barnstorming across the country in a van full of candy. A candy van, if you will.....

His parents also bronzed the egg he was hatched from.

is cruz's lack of elected political a positive or a negative? was he ever a community organizer?

CalvinBall wrote:is cruz's lack of elected political a positive or a negative? was he ever a community organizer?

Calvin, everything about the man is a negative. He's the negation of all that is or should or can be

just trying to point out he has about as much, if not less experience than obama when he ran. obama got pounded for it.

CalvinBall wrote:just trying to point out he has about as much, if not less experience than obama when he ran. obama got pounded for it.

Which makes it a surprise that Dr. Ben Carson is a conservative wet dream to some without a peep of his experience.

jerseyhoya wrote:I imagine you are supporting the SNP?

With some reservations. The candidate in my local constituency is someone I'm not best pleased to be voting for, since she had a hand in fucking over Leith on a community buyout of a local swimming facility, so I don't see her as much better than the typical labour politician. In fact, the current labour rep has voted against the whip just enough times that I would consider him if he ran as an independent, but there's no way I'm voting Labour. I've previously voted LibDem because of their commitment to PR, but they had their chance last time round and comprehensively fucked it out to see to sink without a trace. They also have gone back on their commitment on civil liberties (something neither Labour nor SNP are particularly strong on, unfortunately), so they have no real reason to be voted for now. In terms of delivering significant change to the UK political system, SNP is the best bet for what I'd want to achieve, so they'll get my vote. Begrudgingly.

jerseyhoya wrote:Do you think they would agree to a deal with Labour? Would you want them to strike a deal with them? The article seems to look at it from Labour's side but not too much from the SNP perspective. With how poorly being the junior partner in a coalition has gone for the Lib Dems, I would think they'd want to stay out of government. But maybe if they back Labour they could make the government in their image in a way the Lib Dems haven't been able to. There's ideological overlap, but I think so much of the SNP's success has come from being Not David Cameron (could be totally wrong on that) and if they were to get in bed with Milliband and be seen as having real power at Westminster, that might hurt their ability to succeed in the local Scottish elections/hinder future independence referendum success/etc. I guess it will come down to what kind of deal they can get and what they envision as their most important goals for the next five years.

If it happens, it'll be on a confidence and supply basis i.e. Labour will govern in minority, and get approval from SNP on every vote. This allows SNP wiggle room on Trident renewal. There's precedent with the Liberal Labour pact supporting Callaghan's government in the 70s. Sturgeon has been clear from the start that she doesn't want a formal alliance, and has ruled out any support of the Tories. The goal would be increased powers for Scotland, ideally the classic version of Home Rule with all taxation and spending with the exception of defense within Scotland. Odds of that happening are slim to none.

(Incidentally, I've pointed this out before, I think, but you should review the Scotland Act to see how little power Scotland has. For comparison, look at it versus the average American State. The big problem is the powers reserved to the British State. Case in point would be Energy - consider how states have gone ahead with fracking in the US vs how Energy is a reserved matter under the UK Goverment. The only reason the Scottish Govt was able to announce a moratorium on fracking recently is because they have some control over planning decisions and were able to oppose on that basis.)

jerseyhoya wrote:In a first past the post system, it's quite strange to see this proliferation of parties. I wonder how that happens and whether it could ever happen here. Canada has 4 big parties, but one is only in Quebec, and the NDP only really surged last time because the Liberals totally imploded. Australia just has two big parties (one is a weird coalition). Maybe the regionalization (SNP, Plaid Cymru) allows the smaller parties (Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens) breathing space in the system because it's not all about Labour and Conservative? Or the EU elections allow some parties to have relevance (UKIP, Greens) and that's creeping into the Westminster elections? Seems like a trend that is increasing though.

I think direct comparison between US and UK is hard, as ye have a presidential system, and also because of how your state assemblies work, which may allow regional quirks (such as Vermont, I guess) but makes it hard to contest for power at a national level.

Bear in mind too, that Northern Ireland has always run on different rules (Tories and Labour have rarely if ever figured there), and before that when the Republic was part of the UK, we had the Irish Parliamentary Party, who held the balance of power in the 1880s and were a significant force in the early 20th century.

Principle cause of fragmentation in England has been Blair's New Labour project, with increasing number of voters on the left finding it harder to reconcile with the approach of Labour under Miliband, as he still has a prominent hangover from the Blair/Brown years in Ed Balls.

In Scotland, it's slightly different. Labour votes were famously weighed rather than counted in Scotland in the 60s through to till 2010, but in that time Scottish Labour has become increasingly complacent at local government and national level. For shits and giggles, google the average life expectency in Glasgow and then consider how long Glasgow Council has been run by Labour. As voters got more savy in Holyrood, and the SNP gained local confidence after governing for a term in a minority government, Scottish Labour just convinced themselves that power would return to them. And whilst the Scottish Branch failed to notice the rot, the UK Labour party in turn failed to appreciate how national decisions were being perceived in Scotland. Everyone overlooked the signficance of Holyrood, and how it gave the SNP a way to attack Labour from the left. New Labour isn't the only one to blame here - part of the problem is the increasing sense that, nationalist or not, as a voter in scotland you had little impact on government. As Alan Bissett, Scottish playwright and poet memorably noted:

[url=http://alanbissett.com/2012/01/13/my-contribution-to-the-debate-on-scottish-independence]

Vote Labour. New Labour. Old Labour. Scottish Labour.
(Get back in line, Scottish Labour, HQ in Solihull will issue their commands shortly,
Just keep the vote coming in from up there thanks goodbye,
Subsidy junkie).

[/url]

jerseyhoya wrote:I do kind of wonder if as things get closer if the Conservatives don't eat up undecided voters in England who a) don't see Ed as a plausible prime minister and b) don't want the SNP having such a say in government. Honestly hadn't even considered a grand coalition between Labour and the Conservatives before reading that article. That'd be effing bizarre.

That's clearly the Tory tactic. Scare the bejasus out of centrist voters that the Jocks are going to wreck the country with Labour. But the comprehensive Guardian Poll projection has them almost neck and neck, with Conservatives at 276. (I've a fair bit of time for the Datablog people at the Guardian, so I think their model is worth considering.). Any government will need 322 seats, and I'm not sure that the Conservatives can grab the 20 or 30 needed to govern with a mix of UKIP and DUP support. The marginal seats are under crazy pressure (and they just lost their candidate in one today, because he was meant to be working with the nazi scum that are the English Defence League).

Labour have also decided to actively campaign against the SNP (link), which is a dangerous tactic I feel - not least because it will be the second time in 6 months they reach for Project Fear (which is what the Better Together Campaign called itself internally during the referendum). Votes it gains down south may be lost up here. If they've already resigned themselves to losing Scotland, then it becomes problematic if they tell voters down south that the SNP are the enemy, then come to a governing agreement with them.

jerseyhoya wrote:In the old days they'd just muddle along with a minority government until they lost a big vote, then call new elections, but Cameron instituted fixed terms, right? Seems like that might lead to five years of chaotic rule no matter who ends up as PM.

Yup we have fixed terms now. I doubt it will be chaotic. If the SNP do go into supply and confidence (something they had to do when they were governing in minority), they will approach it pragmatically. It's not in their interests to be seen as disruptive, otherwise they don't look as convincing in Holyrood or as part of another referendum campaign.

Anything cynical which comes out of the Republican Party can hardly be termed a surprise.

drsmooth wrote:Really, I really want Ted Cruz out of my country

Can we sign him up for Mars One?

I would be concerned about sullying our diplomatic relationship with Mars