Vice President Joe Biden has announced he’s not running for President in 2016.
So it’s Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, the crook or the socialist, as your 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee.
God help us all.
Vice President Joe Biden has announced he’s not running for President in 2016.
So it’s Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, the crook or the socialist, as your 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee.
God help us all.
Or so read the tea leaves. Of course, that suggests that he was ever truly in the Presidential race, when all appearances suggests otherwise.
Will he run as a Independent? Given that the three most recent posts on his campaign news page are “Jim Webb, Independent,” “Jim Webb Considering Independent Run for Presidency, Campaign Says” and “Jim Webb to consider independent presidential bid,” I’d say it’s a strong possibility. (Or perhaps a disgruntled soon-to-be-unemployed campaign staffer is just trolling us all.) Then again, given his previous lack of campaign activity, maybe an independent run would be just as invisible…
Saturday Night Live did a skit on the Democratic Presidential debate:
On the surface it’s a skit that ostensibly takes a shot at everyone equally (and even touches on Hillary’s email scandal). However, take a look at one central visual fact:
So Sanders is played by someone Hillary Clinton’s age (old), and Hillary Clinton is played by someone half her age (young). The skit is constructed to reinforce the false Sanders old, Clinton young impression, which suggests the reason why SNL choose non-cast-member Larry David to play Sanders. David did write for the show during the 1984—1985 season (where he worked with Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who he would later cast in Seinfeld); to put it another way, David worked on SNL the same year McKinnon was born.
How about a short LinkSwarm to get the Friday LinkSwarm back on Friday?
So NBC/WSJ/Telemundo Polls Latinos did a POLL on Presidential candidates, and just happened to leave off Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Funny how that could happen.
It’s less a case of the mask slipping than of NBC not even trying to hide the fact it’s an extension of the Democratic Party…
Another LinkSwarm. And if you’re live in Austin, don’t forget the meetup/blogshoot on October 10th.
One theory:
I increasingly think the Democrat/Muslim union has to do with old-fashioned relativism. Democrats don’t actually believe that women’s rights and gay rights apply to everyone; white people: sure. Arabs? Well, who am I to judge? And Muslims know this.
When Robby George is just dumbfounded as to why all these Muslims support the party of abortion on demand and gay marriage, the answer seems pretty clear to me: They’re supporting the party of abortion on demand and gay marriage for infidels
Another:
I think the issue is more that they see Muslims as a new potential mascot group that they can champion and therefore obtain that cheap sense of moral superiority that comes with riding in like a white knight. I think a lot of liberal attitudes towards minorities aren’t actually based on the good of the minorities, but how good it makes the liberals feel to champion them. Muslims are (as of now) a tiny, insignificant minority. They’re mostly kinda swarthy, so the “it’s racism” meme is easily transferable, and a significant chunk of liberals loathe Christianity.
The opaque, dishonest nature by which ObamaCare was passed ensured that the full brunt of many provisions wouldn’t be felt before Obama’s 2012 reelection bid. While that stratagem worked for Obama, it also ensured that ObamaCare would turn into an unending supply of timebomb policies with unpleasant consequences which would continue to plague Democrats (and America) long after the bill’s passage.
And those bombs continue continue to explode:
Despite all that, Hillary Clinton is vigorously defending ObamaCare. In fact, what Hillary is actually doing is propising ObamaCare 2.0:
The solution is obvious: Reduce federal coverage mandates to reduce premiums and deductibles. Instead, Mrs. Clinton wants even more mandates that are guaranteed to make premiums and deductibles rise even higher.
First, on Tuesday in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton released her plan to make prescription drugs more “affordable.” (Sound familiar?) She proposes capping patients’ monthly out-of-pocket prescription costs at $250. Making insurers pay more toward retail drug costs ensures those costs will be passed on to employers and policy holders through premium increases, forcing the young and healthy to further subsidize the old and the sick. And Mrs. Clinton wants to stick it to drug makers by prohibiting them from deducting the cost of advertising on their taxes (as other kinds of businesses can) and shortening their patents, which will give them shorter horizons to recover their sizable investments. Making it more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to do business will either increase the costs of drugs or prevent their development in the first place.
Then, on Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton said she wants to expand the “free” services mandated under Obamacare to include three doctor visits per year, on top of preventive care such as vaccines and screenings. When Democrats were selling Obamacare to taxpayers, they said fully covered preventive care would help reduce overall health care spending by giving Americans an incentive to take better care of themselves and not avoid seeking care because of cost concerns. But the law of supply and demand can’t be suspended by Congress; increasing demand for health care increases costs. Now Mrs. Clinton wants sick care to be fully covered as well, which will — wait for it — increase demand for a limited supply of doctors and providers, and increase costs through higher premiums and deductibles. She also wants to deny insurers the ability to charge higher out-of-network costs for hospital care when those very networks help insurers keep costs down.
And there’s plenty more time for more ObamaCare-fueled rate and deductible explosions between now and the 2016 election…
Just more proof that, when it comes to 2016 presidential race, Nobody Knows Nothing: Scott Walker dropped out of the Presidential race tonight.
If you had asked me six months ago who would get the nomination, I’d have guessed Scott Walker had the best chance as a candidate acceptable to both movement conservatives and the GOP Establishment. I couldn’t imagine the possibility that Walker would be polling less than John Kasich. Such is the wild, woolly nature of the 2016 race, partially due to Donald Trump widely surpassing expectations of early popularity, and partially due to signs that voters on both sides are Tired Of The Same Old Bullshit.
Who benefits most from Walker dropping out? Maybe Ted Cruz. With Walker out, Cruz has a bigger claim on being the race’s true conservative candidate, one who (unlike Marco Rubio) hasn’t stumbled on the hot button illegal alien amnesty issue. It also looks like Cruz’s decision to jump in early was much sounder than Walker’s decision to jump in late.
But a crazy race just got even crazier…
Edited to Add: Well, that was quick. The Cruz campaign is already poaching some of Scott Walker’s people.
Battleground Texas announced a new advisory board:
The Advisory Board will be made up of Naomi Aberly, Jeremy Bird, former Dallas Mayor and Ambassador Ron Kirk, Congressman Joaquin Castro, Eric Johnson, Austin Ligon, Jennifer Longoria, Brownsville Mayor Tony Martinez, Eddy Morales, Amber Mostyn, Carrin F. Patman, Carrin Mauritz Patman, Marvin Ragsdale, Kirk Rudy, and Lynda Tran. Jenn Brown, who started as executive director for Battleground Texas, is now chairwoman of the advisory board.
Sure, that’s Battleground Texas’ big problem: Not enough advisers.
The real news here, I think, is the demotion-by-promotion of Jenn Brown.
As for the board itself:
I think the advisory board may be a move to cement Battleground Texas more firmly in Hillary’s orbit, thus foreclosing the possibility that Bernie Sanders might start picking up activist support in Texas. After all, she still needs to win the primary before getting to the general…
Early polls, plenty of time, yadda yadda. But there’s no way that a presumptive frontrunner should be down 10 points in Iowa to an elderly socialist.
Now is probably the time for Clinton to panic. pic.twitter.com/fRONuHa6kH
— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) September 13, 2015
Also, in New Hampshire, Sanders leads Hillary “by a whopping 52 percent to 30 percent.”