pacino wrote:Jesse Watters poor-shamed some homeless people on FOX News. It's really a vile segment.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think his chances are closer to zero percent than two. He's spent his life outside the Democratic Party, and while he does seem to have achieved a decent, committed following, he's got basically no chance of ever being the nominee.

well, if we're gonna apply smarty-pants reality criteria to candidates, allow me to inform you that there's another political party in the United States for whose POTUS nomination close to a dozen already declared candidates have real odds comparable to those you're assigning Comrade Sanders.

Lawrence O'Donnell is often insufferable, especially when he's right, but he gleefully strafed the Republican clown bus last night, along with several stuffed talking tv heads on his own network attempting to give credence to so many faux campaigns

pacino wrote:no voter i know is even thinking about o'malley. he's a nothing.

TenuredVulture wrote:Kinda think Bernie's function is to either shift the conversation ever so slightly leftward, or make Hillary seem moderate to general election voters.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:no voter i know is even thinking about o'malley. he's a nothing.

He's a Democrat, and he's someone who has a decent chance at holding the White House in the general election. Bernie Sanders is neither of those things.

If something were to happen to Hillary politically or health wise that forced her from the race and Biden wasn't running, O'Malley would be the recipient of a tidal wave of official party support from elected officials and major donors and regular Democratic voters.

Hillary is overwhelmingly likely to be the nominee, but if she isn't it's a lot easier for me to envision O'Malley winning than Sanders.

You all are Democratic primary voters, and I'm not, so I could be off on this. I'd be willing to bet money on O'Malley over Sanders though.

Werthless wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I think Bernie has more than a 1% chance at getting the democratic nomination.

He is the Ron Paul equivalent. Even if he gets a lot of voters excited and expressing support, there is no way he can get the kind of institutional support to actually win.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:no voter i know is even thinking about o'malley. he's a nothing.

He's a Democrat, and he's someone who has a decent chance at holding the White House in the general election. Bernie Sanders is neither of those things.

If something were to happen to Hillary politically or health wise that forced her from the race and Biden wasn't running, O'Malley would be the recipient of a tidal wave of official party support from elected officials and major donors and regular Democratic voters.

Hillary is overwhelmingly likely to be the nominee, but if she isn't it's a lot easier for me to envision O'Malley winning than Sanders.

You all are Democratic primary voters, and I'm not, so I could be off on this. I'd be willing to bet money on O'Malley over Sanders though.

I won't get the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote for Bernie. That's too bad. He says a lot of things a lot of people need to pay a lot of attention to - a lot more than they routinely do right now.

Yeah, I'm looking at you, but I'm looking at a lot of people. The horse race fetish merely abets the Kochsuckers

Soren wrote:jh, I'm voting for Sanders in the primary even knowing he has close to 0% likelihood of getting the nomination and is even less likely to be POTUS.

jerseyhoya wrote:Personally I find the horse race pretty fascinating on both sides this cycle. You have one party where there's a historically strong non-incumbent, who I as an outsider cannot for all the world understand why more plausible nominees are not challenging her. Then on the other side you have a wide open race in spite of the legacy candidate running/raising gobs of money. I don't think speculating about it on a Phillies message board is abetting anyone.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Personally I find the horse race pretty fascinating on both sides this cycle. You have one party where there's a historically strong non-incumbent, who I as an outsider cannot for all the world understand why more plausible nominees are not challenging her. Then on the other side you have a wide open race in spite of the legacy candidate running/raising gobs of money. I don't think speculating about it on a Phillies message board is abetting anyone.

sigh

I didn't say never indulge fetishes - heaven forfend

and I didn't say you're the only one on the planet who does such things

In fact I believe I left the door wide open for you, and maybe TV, to remind me why it's a better, smarter, sweeter-smelling bicameral democracy when parties are strong and the cigars are smoked in back rooms, etc.

Instead, I get defensive whining?

what is it with the thin skin on reactionaries

SK790 wrote:O'Malley has no fucking chance, btw. Nobody knows who the fuck he is and he's like a watered down Bernie.

SK790 wrote:O'Malley has no #$!&@ chance, btw. Nobody knows who the #$!&@ he is and he's like a watered down Bernie.