Trump Part 9

[Seanm]

Sean,

So it boils down to the Dems preferring to be out of the Oval Office than in it with Bernie at the helm?

Seems to be, you know, a far-fetched scenario.

Joe

I can't tell if this is sarcasm! TBH I'm stretching as I don't know much about the Dems but again based on recent UK experience I certainly wouldn't call it far-fetched.

 

[maxflinn]

Max,


She did beat him by several million votes, but the oddness that is the Electoral College decided the election otherwise.

Joe

Yeah but she lost Joe. She was almost as hated as him, and for obvious reasons..

 

[Still]

There are an awful lot of h8ters?

 

[Joe P]

Sean,

It's not sarcasm. It's extremely unlikely that the Dems wouldn't back a shoe-in candidate because a shoe-in would be the ticket to continued power. Arguments to the contrary seem far-fetched. Simply put, why would any party field a candidate they think would lose or, conversely, why would any party not support a candidate who's likely to win?

Joe

 

[Seanm]

Haters gonna hate. Isn't she still less popular than Trump?

What's it going to take?

 

[maxflinn]

I think crooked Hillary and Trump have similar unfavourable ratings at the moment Sean.

 

[Still]

Is 'crooked Hillary' a Hillary Clinton tribute act?

 

[Seanm]

Sean,

It's not sarcasm. It's extremely unlikely that the Dems wouldn't back a shoe-in candidate because that would be the ticket to continued power. Arguments to the contrary seem far-fetched. Simply put, why would any party field a candidate they think would lose?

Joe

I don't know how it works institutionally there Joe but there are plenty of Labour MPs here in safe seats who would be happier to enjoy the next few years of their career in opposition than serve in gvt under Corbyn: Corbyn represents the end of their career.

But the main thing is not to underestimate their stupidity! As I say, if Bernie was on to a winner they'd be the last to know.

 

[Joe P]

Sean,

Ask the Americans here what they think is likely. It's their country and political system after all.

I'm just a pesky neighbour who's peeking over the fence, offering friendly but unsolicited advice.

Joe

 

[maxflinn]

Sean,

It's not sarcasm. It's extremely unlikely that the Dems wouldn't back a shoe-in candidate because a shoe-in would be the ticket to continued power. Arguments to the contrary seem far-fetched. Simply put, why would any party field a candidate they think would lose or, conversely, why would any party not support a candidate who's likely to win?

Joe

Joe Sanders isn't just any old candidate. If he won on his anti-establishment ticket it "could" mean that the process of removing money from politics would begin.

The people that control the various parties and governments most certainly do not want that, and so would likely instruct the DNC to make sure Sanders does not get to become the Democratic candidate. Which of course they already did, and no doubt are now doing again.

 

[Joe P]

I'd vote for Joe Sanders.

(In case you think I'm taking the piss let me say I'm merely pointing out the dangers of missing commas.)

Joe