Do the Dems Need More Candidates?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

With Webb and Chafee out, and with O'Malley struggling, does the Democratic Party need another candidate or 2 to liven things up? Or to provide an alternative to Hillary who isn't a sartorially-challenged Socialist?

Is it too late for anyone else?

How will they make the race or the debates interesting? Do you think they might - gasp - talk about serious issues in some depth? Will Bernie or Hillary take the gloves off?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

No. Biden would have been interesting, but no one else will be able to add substance/change the narrative.

It's unfortunate. Rubio is my guy, but I could have been easily convinced to support Biden.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

No. I think the dynamics of this 2 person race at this time are varied enough that a vigorous discussion of the issues will happen and the winner will deserve the nomination. I would not have said that 2 months ago but I do believe so now.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

biden was a shoe-in for sure, something was up with that- dunno why he didn't run, Hillary is horrible and sanders stands zero chance just on his looks alone

 

[22*43*51]

Either they don't have them, or have conceded Hillary to be their best leader.

 

[strummingram]

I'd say Goldman-Sachs, and all of the TBTF banks, are safe with Hillary. No need to distract people further.

 

[HawkeyeHitman]

What will the Democrats do in four years if Clinton doesn't win in 2016?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

What will the Democrats do in four years if Clinton doesn't win in 2016?

there is no win, there is only install and un-install

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Another guy with a funny name...Julian Castro. He'll be running with Clinton this time around, I'd wager.

 

[MitchL]

What will the Democrats do in four years if Clinton doesn't win in 2016?

Pretty sure they won't spend the entire time trying to sabotage the country just for the sake of politics as we've seen from the GOP since 2009.

 

[MitchL]

Another guy with a funny name...Julian Castro. He'll be running with Clinton this time around, I'd wager.

I agree and have thought the same since I assume Rubio OR Bush will likely be on the GOP ticket, in some capacity.

 

[The Tradition]

Pretty sure they won't spend the entire time trying to sabotage the country just for the sake of politics as we've seen from the GOP since 2009.

I guess you weren't around in the late 80s/early 90s.

 

[MitchL]

I guess you weren't around in the late 80s/early 90s.

Go on...

 

[naturalmwa]

No. Biden would have been interesting, but no one else will be able to add substance/change the narrative.

It's unfortunate. Rubio is my guy, but I could have been easily convinced to support Biden.

Those seem like odd bed fellows. Do they share a single position in common? What issues are you voting on?

 

[naturalmwa]

there is no win, there is only install and un-install

You still thinking Bush/Perry for the install?

 

[The Tradition]

Go on...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/09/u...-crisis-reaching-a-1991-budget-agreement.html

Same shart, different decade.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'd say Goldman-Sachs, and all of the TBTF banks, are safe with Hillary. No need to distract people further.

Definitely one of the reasons I would rather have a better candidate or 2 in the race.

Obviously Bernie is a whole lot better. And he has done surprisingly well. But I still don't really believe the big money will let him win, even if the voters can overcome their programming enough to vote for him.

Even if there are any better GOP candidates on this measure - which I'm inclined to doubt - there certainly aren't any among the top tier candidates.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Another guy with a funny name...Julian Castro. He'll be running with Clinton this time around, I'd wager.

he is a horrible, horrible person, an extreme leftist, and the name castro really fits him, he can probably trace his commie roots to fidel

 

[ottumwan in tx]

You still thinking Bush/Perry for the install?

yes, or Hillary and hopefully not castro

 

[strummingram]

Definitely one of the reasons I would rather have a better candidate or 2 in the race.

Obviously Bernie is a whole lot better. And he has done surprisingly well. But I still don't really believe the big money will let him win, even if the voters can overcome their programming enough to vote for him.

Even if there are any better GOP candidates on this measure - which I'm inclined to doubt - there certainly aren't any among the top tier candidates.

The super-wealthy have owned and run the world since... well, a very long time. Our country has a system that could change that (or it had one). Anytime anyone challenges their foothold, they get squashed. They get marginalized, they get called kooks, they get ridiculed, the media says "they can't win", and they don't win. People, like many right here, will gladly support and vote for the chosen, "safe" candidates that have proven they will do exactly as told. You'll never see any President get elected that hasn't been basically approved.

Things like the CFR are basically calling the shots. We, as citizens, have no real control over it. That's not conspiracy theory, it's just a sad fact.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The super-wealthy have owned and run the world since... well, a very long time. Our country has a system that could change that (or it had one). Anytime anyone challenges their foothold, they get squashed. They get marginalized, they get called kooks, they get ridiculed, the media says "they can't win", and they don't win. People, like many right here, will gladly support and vote for the chosen, "safe" candidates that have proven they will do exactly as told. You'll never see any President get elected that hasn't been basically approved.

yes, and whom do they control with puppet strings? the Clintons and the bushes, amongst others....

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The super-wealthy have owned and run the world since... well, a very long time. Our country has a system that could change that (or it had one). Anytime anyone challenges their foothold, they get squashed. They get marginalized, they get called kooks, they get ridiculed, the media says "they can't win", and they don't win. People, like many right here, will gladly support and vote for the chosen, "safe" candidates that have proven they will do exactly as told. You'll never see any President get elected that hasn't been basically approved.

Things like the CFR are basically calling the shots. We, as citizens, have no real control over it. That's not conspiracy theory, it's just a sad fact.

Unfortunately, the past tense in your 2nd sentence seems correct. It's never been perfect, but has it ever been this broken?

 

[IMCC965]

If it's only two Dem candidates then so be it. What I don't like is the idea that's it's "her turn" to be president. It's not anybody's time to be president. Thank God Bush is dying a quick death. I can't stand the thought that it's between Jeb and Hillary. No one is "entitled" to be president. May the best person win.

 

[Pepperman]

Pretty sure they won't spend the entire time trying to sabotage the country just for the sake of politics as we've seen from the GOP since 2009.

I know. It is amazing how the GOP sabotaged this country. I mean, there was a time when the democrats could write legislation and have enough votes to pass it without even reading it!

But somehow, you choose to blame the GOP???

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I know. It is amazing how the GOP sabotaged this country. I mean, there was a time when the democrats could write legislation and have enough votes to pass it without even reading it!

But somehow, you choose to blame the GOP???

You really ought to try interspersing your comments with something intelligent - or at least conversational - once in a while.

I know you can, but you don't seem to much any more.

 

[TexMichFan]

They picked Clinton 8 years ago to follow Obama so I don't see why.

 

[The Tradition]

Unfortunately, the past tense in your 2nd sentence seems correct. It's never been perfect, but has it ever been this broken?

I'd say it was a LOT more broken in 1860...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'd say it was a LOT more broken in 1860...

Ha. Slightly before my time.

 

[Pepperman]

You really ought to try interspersing your comments with something intelligent - or at least conversational - once in a while.

I know you can, but you don't seem to much any more.

Sorry, I'm so busy refuting your constant atheist threads.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

They picked Clinton 8 years ago to follow Obama so I don't see why.

You really ought to try interspersing your comments with.....

 

[sijoint]

biden was a shoe-in for sure, something was up with that- dunno why he didn't run, Hillary is horrible and sanders stands zero chance just on his looks alone

This goes for "Colon" Sanders too............(see below)

 

[strummingram]

Unfortunately, the past tense in your 2nd sentence seems correct. It's never been perfect, but has it ever been this broken?

I dunno. It's owned. The whole thing is a show. Look at Hillary Clinton... she may as well be in prison. She's spent her entire life catering to banking criminals. Defending them, selling-out to them, you name it. And, yet, legions of people will line-up and vote for her and feel good about it.

Politicians are usually untrustworthy... most are former lawyers.

 

[sijoint]

I dunno. It's owned. The whole thing is a show. Look at Hillary Clinton... she may as well be in prison. She's spent her entire life catering to banking criminals. Defending them, selling-out to them, you name it. And, yet, legions of people will line-up and vote for her and feel good about it.

Politicians are usually untrustworthy... most are former lawyers.

But we can trust Native Americans!

 

[MitchL]

As has been stated from time to time in many of the political threads... it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils or the better of two bad options. By reading the opinions, guess you just vote for the Party that you agree with the most, not the individual candidate.

 

[strummingram]

But we can trust Native Americans!

And, most voters are like this genius above, who just vote republican or democrat... no matter who they are.

 

[strummingram]

As has been stated from time to time in many of the political threads... it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils or the better of two bad options. By reading the opinions, guess you just vote for the Party that you agree with the most, not the individual candidate.

Yeah... that's exactly why it's broken. Thanks for helping it along.

 

[MitchL]

Yeah... that's exactly why it's broken. Thanks for helping it along.

I help where I can. You're welcome!

 

[MitchL]

And, most voters are like this genius above, who just vote republican or democrat... no matter who they are.

Since you're one of the most vocal here criticizing the individual candidates, doesn't look to me like you have any direction either. I can't wait to hear your solution to the quandary you seem to think we are in.

 

[strummingram]

Since you're one of the most vocal here criticizing the individual candidates, doesn't look to me like you have any direction either. I can't wait to hear your solution to the quandary you seem to think we are in.

Then you haven't been paying attention. i will criticize them individually, but every damned one of them is a member of one of the two owned parties. The occasional rogue is marginalized and never allowed to govern.

The solution is beyond our ability to solve. We, as citizens, don't have the numbers or the resolve. Just keep telling yourself you're fixing it by "voting for the lesser of two evils."

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I have stated before they might as well get a street walker crackhead ghetto chick rather than Hillary, same difference, probably the same with some of the repubbers