Do you have a cite for that? I’ve seen different claims about when he said it, but no actual sources.
Like the others I’ve seen, there’s no date, no specified location, and no context. How do we know he wasn’t deadpanning?
You could read Persico’s book if you want to.
Its hard to interpret these results when no candidate even makes it above the crazification factor. It appears that Trump is the leading favorite of the crazy faction but there is so much crazy to choose from that they are forced to split their vote.
I wouldn’t make that assumption.
Debate over the funding of the Interior Department came to a screeching halt today when the Subcommittee Chairman introduced an amendmentto make sure that the federal government keeps Confederate flags flying over federal cemeteries.
This could be the break the Sanders campaign has been looking for. Really.
Y’see, one of the flaws in the liberal mindset is the belief in the perfectibility of all Mankind. We give everybody credit for an ability to see ones flaws and overcome them. This wouldn’t be the first time that burned us.
“Perfectibility” belongs to political philosophy. But we can do a hell of a lot better.
Makes sense. I’ve seen a lot of Democrats say that they’d vote for Sanders over Clinton if they thought he could win the general. If it appears that Trump will run as a spoiler they may decide that Sanders can win the general.
Mary Fallin, Republican Governor of Oklahoma, earlier this week:
That makes the opposite of sense. If Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate he is no longer a serious candidate. The GOP then can still put forth a guy with better chances AND get most of the Trump vote in the general. Hillary is the only viable candidate for the Dems then.
If Sanders has a shot at all for the Dems nomination it is if The Donald wins the GOP nomination. Then we’re in some alternate universe.
If Trump gets even 2% of the Republican vote, the GOP is sunk.
It makes sense. If Trump runs as a 3rd party loon, of course he won’t get any big votes. But what votes he does get will be votes that would otherwise have gone to the Republican candidate. If the vote count between Republican and Democrat is close (as is likely), then a smallish vote for Trump can swing the election to the Democrat candidate.
This is well-established political theory. Remember whatshisname (Ralph Nader) in 2000? He got some piddling number of votes, but those were siphoned away from the Democrats (mostly), enough to throw the election into doubt in Florida. IIRC, Gore lost way more votes to Nader than he did to the butterfly ballot clusterfuck (which delivered Democratic votes to Robertson). If Nader hadn’t been in the race, Gore would have won Florida (butterfly ballot notwithstanding, IIRC).
If Trump runs as an independent, and puts on an award-winning over-the-top performance of xenophobia and demagoguery, he might attract enough of the die-hard Tea Party vote to push the election to the Democrats.
When he says he may run as a third party, I take it to mean in the general. That means that he would be a spoiler and take votes away from the GOP candidate, which could make things easier for whoever the Democratic candidate is. He could be like Ross Perot in '92 who may have taken enough votes from George H. W. Bush to give the election to Clinton.
ETA: I should read the rest of the thread before responding!
One would think so but The Donald seems to be anything but subtle. I heard a rumor Obvious was actually his middle name. 
I’m 100% in agreement actually. Trump is far too lacking a sense of humor to successfully pull off a prank of this magnitude. Plus, his enormous ego would never allow it. It was just an amusing idea that had occurred to me over the last several days as he made more and more buffoonish statements. And I found it amusing Will was talking about it as if it just might, possibly, maaaybe, be a possibility.
While that’s a valid point, the benefit won’t of necessity accrue to whomever the Democratic Party runs in the general. Like it or not, the word “socialist” is still radioactive enough to influence sufficient non-party-affiliated voters away from the Democratic ticket to negate any spoiler effect an independent Trump candidacy might have. And Sanders is not going to repudiate his affiliation with the word.
Not successfully, anyway.
I like how the article patiently explains what the three branches really are without directly pointing out that the governor is an idiot for forgetting her own branch of government.
Nitpick: Buchanan, not Robertson. Wrong Pat.
So, you’re saying there’s a chance that yet another significant third-party candidate will arise who could actually win the election?
(Er, strike the question mark and replace it with a period. The above isn’t an inquiry; it’s a logically inescapable corollary of your assertion.)