So until "virtually impossible" becomes "absolutely impossible" he's going to keep riding the tiger? I can't believe he's making a lot of friends in the party doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Printable View
So until "virtually impossible" becomes "absolutely impossible" he's going to keep riding the tiger? I can't believe he's making a lot of friends in the party doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I think he's praying for an indictment. If that happens while he's in the race, he has a much stronger case against the DNC who would probably award all her delegates to their next-in-line favorite, Joe Biden, in the absence of an active contender.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
At this point, I think he'd be foolish to suspend his campaign.
She is above the law.
Definitely not, especially Hill's pal Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But frankly, I don't think he cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
There's the nomination - but there's also the DNC. The nominee does not decree the party platform, maybe he feels he might have some sway?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Also I can see folks running for other offices running as "Clinton style democrats" or "Sanders style democrats". In some states, I think "Sanders style democrat" might play better.
He's in it for the groupies.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Sounds like as good of a reason as any. Look at Dennis Kucinich. He managed to woo his wife after he explained to her his idea for a Department of Peace. She's a total hottie so maybe going after the groupies is a good idea. And really, who can resist a dude that can get a little birdie to come sit on his podium!Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
So the NYT answers your question--saying they're in it no matter what to change the way political campaigns are waged. In addition, looks like Alan is right: he's hoping for a stumble.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
In addition--there's the argument that really, Sanders v Trump has a MUCH better chance of keeping Dems in the White House than Clinton v Trump.
"Advisers to Mr. Sanders said on Wednesday that he was newly resolved to remain in the race, seeing an aggressive campaign as his only chance to pressure Democrats into making fundamental changes to how presidential primaries and debates are held in the future. They said he also held out hope of capitalizing on any late stumbles by Mrs. Clinton or any damage to her candidacy, whether by scandal or by the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Sanders, his advisers said, has been buoyed by a stream of polls showing him beating Mr. Trump by larger margins than Mrs. Clinton in some battleground states, and by his belief that an upset victory in California could have a psychological impact on convention delegates who already have doubts about Mrs. Clinton."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us...s=AUDDEVREMARK
I suppose that if you've got the money and are enjoying yourself, there's no reason not to defy the odds. Especially if your affiliation to the party isn't particularly strong and you're not worried about the unity issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Sure. This is as it always has been. The close also-rans serve a valuable purpose in helping to define the platform and clue in the party on the mood of the base. He has already pulled Hill a little more to the left on some issues. That's a good purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Unfortunately for the right, Donald doesn't know the rules or want to play by them. He doesn't give a rip about the base except how to play them, and after all, he IS appealing to the base. That's who he is. But I suspect that if he wasn't, he wouldn't move for anyone. Oh he would for a bit to play them, but sooner or later he shows his true colors. Lucky for him, the republican base believes exactly as he does. His real challenge now is to appeal to the rest of the party who doesn't. He'll try, but again, changing spots and all... Again, lucky for him, republicans would fall behind Stalin if he had an R behind his name.:|(