Would be awesome and allow the Republican President to at least try to prevent the world from going to shit.
Sanders would have to fight off the socialism calumny, but if his campaign did so effectively he’d come into the open election with less baggage than Hillary. Trump’s negatives are so high that the RNC is shitting itself these days trying to figure out how to scuttle his campaign without having him go independent on them. Cruz is about as charming as Hillary, which is to say not in the slightest. Rubio would probably have the best chance among the current front runners.
Largely agree with that, although I suspect that Trump actually underpolls (kinda scary) because there are a lot of people who would vote for him but it’s not the PC thing to say. The celebrity effect is strong, as is the fact that he at least appears to talk tough and has the perception of being more honest. And I think Sanders would get utterly annihilated no matter who the republican nominee is.
I think Hillary will crush Cruz, who is so unlikable, and I think that’s the matchup we’re going to get. So much awfulness across both parties.
Alstein
4285
I think Trump winning the nomination might kill PC dead- which would be a good thing for America in the long run. We could finally have a mature discussion about the real problems.
That said, a Republican winning and a recession hitting (which is likely- we’re seeing warning signs now) would basically lock in everyone under 40 as Dems and could kill the Republicans off. That would be better in the long term. If Hillary’s the nominee I kinda would want the Dems to lose for that reason.
Do you guys even read the polls?
Bernie is crushing every Republican in the polls, and Hillary is not maintaining her lead against some Republicans in several swing states. Meanwhile, in Democratic primary land, Bernie has essentially pulled ahead of Hillary as of yesterday. By virtually every metric, Sanders is inevitable at this point. Which is a good thing, because he’s a much safer bet in the general election than Hillary at this point.
Canuck
4287
Wait, what? Sanders is inevitable? I must have missed that headline.
Oghier
4288
I agree to the extent that it would likely elect a Republican president, particularly if the nominee is Bush, Kasich, Christie or Rubio. I know the present polling numbers don’t show this, but I think any GOP ‘moderate’ would crush Bernie in the general. As much as I like Bernie, I just can’t imagine a socialist winning.
However, I’ve been wrong about pretty much everything related to this race so far, so the-F-do-I-know.
I had not thought of that. It is scary.
Oghier
4289
I had not thought of that. That makes a lot of sense, and it is indeed scary.
Oghier
4290
The last GOP president began multiple unwinnable wars and had at least some hand* in crashing the world economy. That may have turned the 2008 election. After that, however, everyone returned to their normal tribal identity of Progressive, Conservative or Apathetic-Non-Voter.
It’s Sandy Hook on a larger scale. If that didn’t move the gun control debate for more than a few months, nothing will.
*I’m aware this is highly debatable. At the very least, though, Presidents always get some share of credit or blame for momentous events that occur when they’re in office.
Djscman
4291
But while that’s true, also remember that every Supreme Court Justice is 55 years or older, and four of them are 75 years or older. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html
Maybe they’ll all stay on the Court until they’re 90, maybe they’ll die of natural causes January 2017.
Yeah, better would be for voters to see right now that any of the GOP candidates would be a disaster and skip the actual disaster.
Nesrie
4293
Sanders stance on Flint Michigan makes me happy. Has the other candidates even mentioned that horrific problem or are they too busy reading about birth certificates?
The GOP have begun citing the Benghazi film as hard evidence of Hillary’s negligence that directly led to the death of those four Americans. 'Tis a shame the Dems didn’t use Fahrenheit 9/11 last decade as rock-solid proof of Dubya’s incompetence if this is the standard we’ve now sunk to.
As I wrote on FB:
The only proper way for Michael Bay’s Benghazi movie to end is for it to have Hillary secretly parachute in while under gunfire and kill Ambassador Stevens herself. Preferably by wrapping a blue dress around his head and smothering him. She then looks at the camera and shouts, “Death to America! As-Salaam-Alaikum, motherf*ckers.” Roll credits.
The post-credits scene will then show her typing MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!! in an email, the only recipient of which is shown as The Hussein, on her private server while eating a plate of hummus.
That case will go nowhere, since the attorney doesn’t have standing. I have to assume he knows that, so it is really about publicity.
What he needs is to convince one of the other candidates to file suit.
I would think as a voting citizen he has standing.
From my reading about the Obama birther suits, I believe that federal courts have ruled that individual voters don’t have standing to sue candidates over eligibility. They tend to require an actual injury, not just a general grievance.
Another candidate, however, would likely receive a favorable ruling, standing-wise.
Was that after the fact (of his election) however?
As far as I know, both. All the suits brought by citizens that I’ve read about have been dismissed for lack of standing.
A major obstacle to most citizen suits has been lack of standing. In the initial wave of lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2008 presidential election, the only plaintiff who was a presidential candidate or presidential elector was Alan Keyes. The importance of the doctrine of standing was explained by Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in dismissing one suit. He noted that one of the principal aims of the doctrine is to prevent courts from deciding questions “where the harm is too vague.” This was especially true for a presidential election, where a disgruntled voter who suffered no individual harm “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.”[8]
I think they will all be thrown out for lack of standing. Generally, courts try to avoid inserting themselves in the political process. If voters don’t think Ted Cruz (or before him Ted Chester Arthur, George Romney, John McCain, Barrack Obama and others) aren’t constitutionally qualified they are free to vote for their opponent.
