Marcopalypse Now!

Mickey Kaus explores the no-longer Phantom Menace., with polls showing Rubio in second and coming on hard in New Hampshire.

All very interesting but not if it ends with a candidate that can be defeated by Hillary. Of course, the height of that bar is hard to predict since she is melting down over Goldman Sachs and the email minefield awaits.

So just thinking out loud - every four years the table-pounding conservatives are told they need to get behind some electable RINO. And every four years table-pounding lefties are told they need to get behind some sensible moderate (do remember, Bill Clinton was part of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose goal was to lead the Dems out of the fever swamps of the left and back to the political midlands).

But this may be the year when both parties can practice Mutually Assured Insanity! Let's root for the final brawl between Cruz and Sanders. Both wings get they (we?!?) want and either put the country on Cruz Control or we Feel the Bern. Or we elect Mike Bloomberg. Because at heart the country still trusts multi-billionaires who made their money on Wall Street. Uh huh.

STRAY THOUGHT: James Carville famously opined that the 1992 election was "Change versus more of the same". That was paired with "It's the economy, stupid" and "Don't forget health care".

So is the 2016 election something different? Or, if this is change versus more of the same, what does Hillary represent to Democrats, and what about Sanders?

And on the Republican side, Jeb Bush? Really? But the other candidates can symbolize change from the current Obama morass, at least. But who represents change from Washington's "business as usual"?

 

Comments

[Tom Maguire]

Re Goldberge and:

J. Goldberg makes a good point:

My problem with Sanders is that he’s ultimately a coward. He talks a great game about being dedicated to a “political revolution,” but he is utterly unwilling to employ the means required to achieve the ends desired.

For instance, Sanders is happy to denounce the political system as corrupt, but refuses -- save by innuendo -- to connect the corruption of the political system to the corruption of House Clinton.

I liked it and then flip-flopped. My objection - Goldberg is almost proposing a "Bernie has to destroy the party in order to capture it" strategy.

If Sanders drops the gloves and trashes Hillary personally, does he win the nomination but leave the Dem party so bitter and divided that he has no shot at all in November?

Or can he beat Hillary with a mostly high road campaign after which the party might actually unite behind him and give him a snowballs chance in November come, well, November?

I wouldn't pound the table and insist Sanders is going about this the wrong way. All the cool kids in the media are ready to switch sides any day now, and they will trash Hillary with or without him.

[middyfeek]

The Democratic front runner is a human being so vile that only people who are blinded by her gender can actually support her. She is such an unattractive candidate that apparently she is now running neck and neck with a 75 year old socialist who doesn't have the brains God gave to a duck.

So how can the Republicans once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory(in the tradition of Dole, McCain & Romney)?

The answer to that question is Marco Rubio. Yet another opportunistic, career politician wannabe of which the American People are sick and tired.

He can't win people, period.

[Mahon]

The Sanders/Trump/Bloomberg poll you link should have a "Kill Myself" option after "Don't Know."