Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm pretty sure its going to be unpleasant for everyone too. I think it will be more unpleasant on the left than the right and I wouldn't want to be stuck in an urban area at the time that it begins to happen.

Things will get really nasty should the Right fully consolidate power. Economic inequality will intensify. People will live in fear of their employers. People will be fired for having the 'wrong' political attitudes. Academic freedom will vanish. We will all be expected to show our 'patriotism' by supporting wars for profit.

People will have to pay to get jobs even to the extent of getting their parents to sign over their houses. They will be expected to participate in political events to the extent of appearing at political rallies and making donations to prescribed candidates. "Buy ten $100 cashiers checks. Sign them. Leave the payee blank. We will fill that in. It's all for making America better. You don't understand what they are to be used for -- ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies".

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You see I believe in getting rid of the legislative and Judicial Branches altogether, and replace them with an executive and ruling council. The council which would consist of about 20 to 30 people will advise the executive.

I would retain the Judicial and figure out how to have an elected Legislative but one that had to swear allegiance to the Monarch. The Monarch would be elected by the Legistlature, as was the case with the later Carolingians. The Monarch would host the Executive Branch. The Monarch could dissolve the Legislative but dissolution would not mean immediate dispersal. It would mean a new election of Legislators.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I would retain the Judicial and figure out how to have an elected Legislative but one that had to swear allegiance to the Monarch. The Monarch would be elected by the Legistlature, as was the case with the later Carolingians. The Monarch would host the Executive Branch. The Monarch could dissolve the Legislative but dissolution would not mean immediate dispersal. It would mean a new election of Legislators.

Ah, Finland. Sort of.

In case anyone wants to know whom the Koch brothers want as President:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...t-walker/?_r=0

Charles G. and David H. Koch, the influential and big-spending conservative donors, have a favorite in the race for the Republican nomination: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

On Monday, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, David Koch told donors that he and his brother, who oversee one of the biggest private political organizations in the country, believed that Mr. Walker was the Republican Party’s best hope for recapturing the White House.

“We will support whoever the candidate is,” said Mr. Koch, according to two people who attended the event. “But it should be Scott Walker.”

Enough said.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

... I wouldn't want to be stuck in an urban area at the time that it begins to happen.

I love to speculate on this!! Of course I'm drawn to post-apocalyptic stuff ... Cormac McCarthy's The Road, The Book of Eli, Mad Max, Stephen King's The Stand!

I'm not so sure about "Bugout Theory". What would be better? Being more or less by oneself out in the boonies where there is nothing BUT outlaws? Or holed up in, perhaps, a neighborhood with a sizeable group, well-armed, of course near a reliable water source? Food of course will be a big problem in either case, but I can stockpile a lot more in a neighborhood given a bit of warning, than I can haul with me in a Bugout scenario. AND, anything I haul in Bugout of value becomes attractive to the outlaws.

Out in the boonies, it would quickly become a matter of who has the largest bunch of "militia." In a parallel way, marauding outlaws would also be plentiful in the city, but careful selection of a defensible group of houses in a neighborhood could make it very costly for urban outlaws to attack.

Wonderful line of thought for those of us with diseased minds!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Things will get really nasty should the Right fully consolidate power. Economic inequality will intensify. People will live in fear of their employers. People will be fired for having the 'wrong' political attitudes. Academic freedom will vanish. We will all be expected to show our 'patriotism' by supporting wars for profit.

People will have to pay to get jobs even to the extent of getting their parents to sign over their houses. They will be expected to participate in political events to the extent of appearing at political rallies and making donations to prescribed candidates. "Buy ten $100 cashiers checks. Sign them. Leave the payee blank. We will fill that in. It's all for making America better. You don't understand what they are to be used for -- ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies".

I was struck by how young people were shaped by the administration in office as they became "politically socialized" between the ages of 14 and 24, which we discussed on the (misspelled) age of potential candidates thread. What made millennials turn liberal was growing up under the "very unpopular" George W. Bush, as well as the successful Bill Clinton. Those who were most impressionable in those years should teach us all, especially Classic Xer, JPT, Weave, Wallace etc., an important lesson. If we allow the right-wing to consolidate power even more/again, we will all lose even more. And presuming that people will be allowed to vote and have or speak their own opinions after this consolidation, yet another young generation of liberals will be reared.

Bush/Republican rule is bad for everyone. Democratic rule works better for everyone. That is the fact. Sheer prejudice or ignorance causes people not to understand this.

Originally Posted by TnT

I love to speculate on this!! Of course I'm drawn to post-apocalyptic stuff ... Cormac McCarthy's The Road, The Book of Eli, Mad Max, Stephen King's The Stand!

I'm not so sure about "Bugout Theory". What would be better? Being more or less by oneself out in the boonies where there is nothing BUT outlaws? Or holed up in, perhaps, a neighborhood with a sizeable group, well-armed, of course near a reliable water source? Food of course will be a big problem in either case, but I can stockpile a lot more in a neighborhood given a bit of warning, than I can haul with me in a Bugout scenario. AND, anything I haul in Bugout of value becomes attractive to the outlaws.

Out in the boonies, it would quickly become a matter of who has the largest bunch of "militia." In a parallel way, marauding outlaws would also be plentiful in the city, but careful selection of a defensible group of houses in a neighborhood could make it very costly for urban outlaws to attack.

Wonderful line of thought for those of us with diseased minds!

I wonder which is worse: utopian, or apocalyptic?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In case anyone wants to know whom the Koch brothers want as President:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...t-walker/?_r=0

Enough said.

Walker will be shown up and seen for who he is. It is Marco Rubio who is likely to emerge as the strongest challenge to yet another Bush.

Originally Posted by TnT

I love to speculate on this!! Of course I'm drawn to post-apocalyptic stuff ... Cormac McCarthy's The Road, The Book of Eli, Mad Max, Stephen King's The Stand!

I'm not so sure about "Bugout Theory". What would be better? Being more or less by oneself out in the boonies where there is nothing BUT outlaws? Or holed up in, perhaps, a neighborhood with a sizeable group, well-armed, of course near a reliable water source? Food of course will be a big problem in either case, but I can stockpile a lot more in a neighborhood given a bit of warning, than I can haul with me in a Bugout scenario. AND, anything I haul in Bugout of value becomes attractive to the outlaws.

Out in the boonies, it would quickly become a matter of who has the largest bunch of "militia." In a parallel way, marauding outlaws would also be plentiful in the city, but careful selection of a defensible group of houses in a neighborhood could make it very costly for urban outlaws to attack.

Wonderful line of thought for those of us with diseased minds!

I don't think it's going to be that horrible for most folks. We'll just have to adjust our lifestyles a bit and avoid the trouble spots. I figure the government money boom, like all money booms is going to end abruptly with little notice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was struck by how young people were shaped by the administration in office as they became "politically socialized" between the ages of 14 and 24, which we discussed on the (misspelled) age of potential candidates thread. What made millennials turn liberal was growing up under the "very unpopular" George W. Bush, as well as the successful Bill Clinton. Those who were most impressionable in those years should teach us all, especially Classic Xer, JPT, Weave, Wallace etc., an important lesson. If we allow the right-wing to consolidate power even more/again, we will all lose even more. And presuming that people will be allowed to vote and have or speak their own opinions after this consolidation, yet another young generation of liberals will be reared.

Also significant -- the conservatism that I knew as a child put its emphasis on self-restraint, rationality, investment, and a long view. It may have been culturally stale (that was the 1960s, and that was left over from the 1950s) but it was good for improving the lives of people who didn't own income-generating assets other than insurance policies, savings accounts, savings bonds, and certificates of deposit. Savings depended upon the middle class and most workers getting adequate income. The little man just did not invest in corporate securities which were for experts. Inflation was low enough that 3% allowed one to have some growth in the passbook.

People born after about 1975 cannot know that. The great growth of low-skilled jobs since then has been low-paying jobs in retail and food service. Workers are no longer savers. Just to survive many have become thralls to loan sharks in all but name. The middle class is scared... now the economy depends upon the Federal Reserve as the investor. One effect is that Big Business gets nearly-free money from the Fed, so guess what that does to the returns that savers get. We are in a new and different world, and not to the good. Sure, we have some glorious technologies, but those mean little if people live hand-to-mouth. We have the nightmarish world that the fictional George Bailey discovers would exist if he had never been born -- a glitzy-but-inequitable world with neither economic security nor social justice, but with powerful technologies.

OK, the cars are much better for gas mileage and far safer; the roads are better. We have 20 channels of basic cable to 500 or so for those willing to buy every cable service. We have the Internet, tablets, blue-ray players and disks, and cell phones. I'm not going to fault the engineers for those things; it's just that those do not feed, house, clothe, warm, or cool us. We need real pay for real work.

In many ways those were good times. Sure, the technology is now primitive by current standards, and housing of the time was spartan in its appointments -- but if one had a good work ethic and were in good health one could get a well-paying job on an assembly line. That is over. Well-paid industrial workers are a thing of the past. What was wrong? Jim Crow (clearly unnecessary) and male chauvinism (likewise).

We now have the sort of economic inequality that we associate with fascist dictatorships and plantation societies; such ensures mass poverty no matter how sophisticated the technology is. We have politicians, lobbyists, and PR experts dedicated to maximizing economic inequality and trying to snooker us into believing that such is good for us because such is good for such people as the Koch family. The worst exploiters -- even slave-masters -- almost never see themselves as evil exploiters but instead as benefactors.

In many ways those were good times. Sure, the technology is now primitive by current standards, and housing of the time was spartan in its appointments -- but if one had a good work ethic and were in good health one could get a well-paying job on an assembly line. That is over. Well-paid industrial workers are a thing of the past.

Such will remain so until We the People turn on them, ideally at the ballot box. If the ballot box should become a farce, then God help us. A 240-year heritage of democracy (nearly 400 if you go back to the Massachusetts General Court) can die in a Crisis Era. America would become an Evil Empire dreadful to its citizens and an object of fear worldwide. An American dictatorship seems like an oxymoron for now, but it seems possible now. Its end in revolution, military defeat, or economic collapse? The vile Roman Empire endured about 500 years of rot before it died of irrelevance. Very few people reading these posts will be around for the 74 years that the Soviet Union lasted.

In many ways those were good times. Sure, the technology is now primitive by current standards, and housing of the time was spartan in its appointments -- but if one had a good work ethic and were in good health one could get a well-paying job on an assembly line. That is over. Well-paid industrial workers are a thing of the past.

Bush/Republican rule is bad for everyone. Democratic rule works better for everyone. That is the fact. Sheer prejudice or ignorance causes people not to understand this.

No question. But do enough people know that and care enough to vote?

Democracy is far safer than tyranny -- from hunger and famines, torture and mass murder, political violence, and war.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're a fool NOT to.

I think you are wrong here. CXr is self-employed or perhaps a small businessman (I believe he has had employees at times in the past). In any case he is not an employee, he is management. The Republican party has always been the party of management. For example, they reliably take the side of management over workers in labor disputes. Policies designed to benefit people who work for a living (employees) typically affect management adversely. For example many of the safety regulations implemented by OSHA over the years have made the workplace safer, but have added burdens to management who have to implement them. CXr's experience with government regulations likely has been mostly negative.

Based on what CXR has written it seems reasonable to assume that CXr is male, does not have advanced degree and lives outside of a city. Given this, if he were white, he should vote Republican in national elections* more often than not purely out of identity politics. If you add to that the assumption that he is self-employed, then the Republican affiliation should become overwhelming.

For a Democrat to win over a guy like him is analogous to a Republican trying to win black votes. People still try on both sides, e.g. Rand Paul, and they should, because identities change over time. But there shouldn't be any amazement when they fail. There is nothing "the matter" with Kansas. That populists who would benefit from leftist economics are allied with the "corporation party " is not any stranger than Catholic (immigrant)-hating Klansmen allied with Catholic immigrants. But they were for half a century or more. American politics is like that, and always has been.

*Voting in local elections is often impacted by local issues and personalities; voting tendencies in national elections are a better gauge of identity politics

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder which is worse: utopian, or apocalyptic?

Well, we've actually SEEN utopian at work, several times, and it is NOT pretty. I guess, by definition, apocalyptic is bad news.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think it's going to be that horrible for most folks. We'll just have to adjust our lifestyles a bit and avoid the trouble spots. I figure the government money boom, like all money booms is going to end abruptly with little notice.

The only difficulty with your optimism is our over-population. The systems in place right now depend on the massive overuse of resources which could simply switch off given some catastophe - a New Orleans on steroids. Even for a short period of time that could bring more than simply re-adjusting.

For example, locally grown foods - you can't just start that up in a few weeks, it takes at least one growing cycle (over a year) and very likely several cycles to stabilize. That would cause big problems. And that's just one problem. There are lots of others in the wings.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I've always worked in the private sector. I do business with privately owned companies and corporations. I bank with a privately owned bank. I do work for wealthier people who work in the private sector. I'm on the wealthier side of the fence as far as wealth. I'd be a fool to support the party of big government and support redistributing private sector wealth to support the growth of the lefts welfare programs.

Then you exist to the extent that the rich-and-powerful consider you useful. They can ruin you at any time if they find a way to avoid having to deal with you by doing things 'in-house'... Big banks have become private fronts for the Fed which seems to keep the whole rotten order from collapsing.

You need customers, and you would be better off if more people could afford your services.

Senator Bernie Sanders went back in time to 1980, when David Koch ran as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket. He found their platform for that year, and published it again. It is a manifesto of what David and Charles Koch expect to receive in return for their large investment in American politics.

• We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
• “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
• “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
• “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
• “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
• “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
• “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
• “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
• “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
• “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
• “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
• “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
• “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
• “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
• “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
• “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
• “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
• “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
• “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
• “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
• “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
• “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
• “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
• “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
• “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

Welcome to a new Gilded Age. Maybe Big Business would even get the 'right' to form militias to enforce its will.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Walker will be shown up and seen for who he is. It is Marco Rubio who is likely to emerge as the strongest challenge to yet another Bush.

I don't see Rubio this cycle, and it's due to lack of funding. Jeb has the same donor list, and it higher up the chain for those donors.

Originally Posted by TnT

I love to speculate on this!! Of course I'm drawn to post-apocalyptic stuff ... Cormac McCarthy's The Road, The Book of Eli, Mad Max, Stephen King's The Stand!

I'm not so sure about "Bugout Theory". What would be better? Being more or less by oneself out in the boonies where there is nothing BUT outlaws? Or holed up in, perhaps, a neighborhood with a sizeable group, well-armed, of course near a reliable water source? Food of course will be a big problem in either case, but I can stockpile a lot more in a neighborhood given a bit of warning, than I can haul with me in a Bugout scenario. AND, anything I haul in Bugout of value becomes attractive to the outlaws.

Out in the boonies, it would quickly become a matter of who has the largest bunch of "militia." In a parallel way, marauding outlaws would also be plentiful in the city, but careful selection of a defensible group of houses in a neighborhood could make it very costly for urban outlaws to attack.

Wonderful line of thought for those of us with diseased minds!

Except for those too "bugged out" already, I suggest taking a couple hours drive on a nearby Interstate, preferable one with a lot of semi's traffic. Count the trucks, count the major crossroads, the railroads, the planes flying overhead, the electric grid, the communications grid - and then multiply by a million, a billion - get a sense of the enormity of what you think might go to hell in a handbasket.

It is difficult for the human mind to feel the enormity of the human collective. The numbers can give one a somewhat sterile sense of the size but it is really difficult to get the full account of the enormity that the "bug outs" think is somehow going to just check out from some sort of disease, civil unrest or even nuclear winter. Look at the typical apocalyptic movie and how quickly it has to personalize it down to some relatively tiny group to not only make an interesting story but to avoid the myriad of reasons why the whole thing is, quite simply, a joke. Certainly a source of entertainment, but anyone planning their lives around this are typically just ammosexuals looking for an excuse for their perversions.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm pretty sure its going to be unpleasant for everyone too. I think it will be more unpleasant on the left than the right and I wouldn't want to be stuck in an urban area at the time that it begins to happen.

This apocalyptic thinking is a big part of why you all will be further and further left behind as a spent political force. Enjoy, the rest of us who actually have work to do.

It looks like the ACA, aka Obamacare, just went positive on public favorability 43/42 -

http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-fin...ll-april-2015/

Obama's favorables also go positive 48/47 as those feeling good about economy goes to highest level (52%) since before 2008 financial meltdown -

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/politi...nomy-congress/



So who are the sad sacks in the room? Easy -

Overall, only 28% approve of what the Republican leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have done so far this year; 67% disapprove. That includes a 63% approval rating among Republicans, but just 21% of independents and 15% of Democrats agree.

Compare that to the same point in time when the Dems held both Houses of Congress -

More approved of the Democrats in 2007 after they recaptured both the House and the Senate in the 2006 elections, largely on account of higher approval ratings among independents. By March of 2007, 47% of U.S. adults said they approved of the Democratic leadership's performance, with independents evenly split, 41% approve to 40% disapprove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBYCZCGSVmQ

- would kill for -

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politi...oll/index.html

Democrats overwhelmingly see Clinton as holding several presidential characteristics. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats see Clinton as a strong and decisive leader (88% say that description applies to her) and as having a vision for the country's future (88%). About 8 in 10 say she represents the future of the Democratic Party (82%) and cares about people like them (82%). Democrats are slightly less apt to say Clinton is honest and trustworthy, though three-quarters do view her as honest (75%, about the same as in March).

Contrast that with the number of "hold their noses" support that will likely come out of a fractious and bruising GOP primaries.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think it's going to be that horrible for most folks. We'll just have to adjust our lifestyles a bit and avoid the trouble spots.

Translated into Bigotspeak: black people.

The solution for anyone would be to have assets as little connected to cash as possible. Utilities and heavy industry great -- banks horrible.

I figure the government money boom, like all money booms is going to end abruptly with little notice.

The 'money boom' must make a transition to honest pay for honest work that allows the common man to have savings that get invested in plant and equipment that create well-paying jobs.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see Rubio this cycle, and it's due to lack of funding. Jeb has the same donor list, and it higher up the chain for those donors.

You heard it here, though! Bush has the fundraising advantage, and is the most-likely nominee. However, if Bush-fatique sets in and Republicans choose an alternative, it will be Rubio; not Walker, not Carson, and not Cruz for sure; not Jindal, Graham, Fiorina or Kasich or any of the others, and probably not Christie, Ryan or Paul, although I expect Christie could make a comeback before he falls, and Paul might be #3.

If Rob Portman gets into it, he could be formidable. He is just emerging from his Saturn Return though, and that could delay a run until it is too late.

Flat58's favorite Democrat Joe Manchin actually has some good chart numbers, but he's probably too moderate for real Democrats from outside his region, and he's as old as Hillary. Webb has good numbers too, but really is no alternative to Hillary for similar reasons. There are many Democrats with horoscope numbers as good or better than Hillary, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But the other factors seem to favor Hillary over the others. She may not cruise to victory as easily as it now appears, though.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I think you are wrong here. CXr is self-employed or perhaps a small businessman (I believe he has had employees at times in the past). In any case he is not an employee, he is management. The Republican party has always been the party of management. For example, they reliably take the side of management over workers in labor disputes. Policies designed to benefit people who work for a living (employees) typically affect management adversely. For example many of the safety regulations implemented by OSHA over the years have made the workplace safer, but have added burdens to management who have to implement them. CXr's experience with government regulations likely has been mostly negative.

Based on what CXR has written it seems reasonable to assume that CXr is male, does not have advanced degree and lives outside of a city. Given this, if he were white, he should vote Republican in national elections* more often than not purely out of identity politics. If you add to that the assumption that he is self-employed, then the Republican affiliation should become overwhelming.

For a Democrat to win over a guy like him is analogous to a Republican trying to win black votes. People still try on both sides, e.g. Rand Paul, and they should, because identities change over time. But there shouldn't be any amazement when they fail. There is nothing "the matter" with Kansas. That populists who would benefit from leftist economics are allied with the "corporation party " is not any stranger than Catholic (immigrant)-hating Klansmen allied with Catholic immigrants. But they were for half a century or more. American politics is like that, and always has been.

*Voting in local elections is often impacted by local issues and personalities; voting tendencies in national elections are a better gauge of identity politics

I agree Classic Xer is likely to continue to perceive his interests are served by Republicans. However, that does not mean that people of his type and class are really served by Republican policies. They are not. One could speculate that a banana republic is good for a few wealthy landlords. But are they REALLY better off living in such backward countries? Yes, if they enjoy living in gated estates, supporting militias and death squads to keep the rabble out.

But most businessmen will not fare well in banana republics. A strong middle class is good for business. Republican policies favor only a few people, and spell certain decline for the nation and its economy. That will not favor the interests of most businessmen; perhaps only a few of the richest ones like the Koch Brothers would do well. Koch policies (as spelled out in Koch's Libertarian Platform posted by Brower, and now fully embraced by the Tea Party which controls our government today) will hurt non-businessmen the most, but that will mean that most businessmen will have no business.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You heard it here, though! Bush has the fundraising advantage, and is the most-likely nominee. However, if Bush-fatique sets in and Republicans choose an alternative, it will be Rubio; not Walker, not Carson, and not Cruz for sure; not Jindal, Graham, Fiorina or Kasich or any of the others, and probably not Christie, Ryan or Paul, although I expect Christie could make a comeback before he falls, and Paul might be #3.

If Rob Portman gets into it, he could be formidable. He is just emerging from his Saturn Return though, and that could delay a run until it is too late...

I have a different list. First, I think Jeb has the same problems as Hillary: he stinks as a campaigner and people aren't interested in a rehash of the past. Rubio has a GOP problem: he favors things the base hates. Of the others, I'll pick Walker and Kasich - perhaps as a ticket. If not, then one or the other.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

Flat58's favorite Democrat Joe Manchin actually has some good chart numbers, but he's probably too moderate for real Democrats from outside his region, and he's as old as Hillary. Webb has good numbers too, but really is no alternative to Hillary for similar reasons. There are many Democrats with horoscope numbers as good or better than Hillary, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But the other factors seem to favor Hillary over the others. She may not cruise to victory as easily as it now appears, though.

Of the also-rans in the Democratic Party, Mike O'Malley is the most interesting. Whether that translates into votes or not, we'll have to see.