This is a fascinating analysis, and one I'm hoping is closer to correct than my own, which is that Fred Thompson will get the Republican nomination and beat Hillary's ass in November '08. My only hope is that Obama will jolt Democrats to their senses long enough to nominate a candidate who can win (him).

Congress has a low approval right now only because so many Dems are pissed at their party's apparently limp-wristed approach to censuring or stopping Bush's insane war policies. And a third party candidate that Reed describes would of course just guarantee another 4 to 8 years of Nazi rule in Washington. I can't imagine ANY Democrats would have patience with a challenge from the left. After what Nader "accomplished", it would be insane. A Hagel candidacy is more likely.

Why won't Thompson get the Repub nomination? He's easily their best bet at winning, he's an actor (shades of Ronnie!), a corporate shill, and he's good at pretending to be a grit and spouting nonsensical homespun. A perfect Republican fraud, in other words. Why would he NOT get it?

Hillary of course is a budding political disaster. She has no credentials for this run and doesn't deserve the nomination any more than Feinstein or Pelosi, in fact much less. She should get the nomination because her husband was president? To hell with that! The best she can possibly expect is to eke out a squeaker of a win, and the odds of that are at least 5 to 1 against. Far more likely is a 10 point loss in a presidential race that should be unloseable for the Dems.

Obama, in contrast, could get 60% of the vote if he has a good campaign, and could win even with a mediocre one. He's smart, charismatic, and NEW! And above all voters want to move on and put the past behind us. If it's Fred v. Hillary, who represents the past and who the future? It ain't Clinton.

There's no conceivable rationale for picking Edwards for the nomination. He's a whiner and a scold, and doesn't fight back. And for the Gore-ites, let's see, what can we say about the political skills of the man who chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate? That alone disqualifies him from another run.

Funny. Hillary's not able to win is what they said about her race for Senate in New York.

She is far more qualified than any of the other candidates.

Obama is new now but he won't be by the time of the primaries -- so some of his numbers are simply generic Democrat.

Same thing goes for Thompson with respect to Republicans. How many people realize that he has lymphoma of an undisclosed nature but stated to be indolent. He is betting the welfare of the country that he can make it through his first term. Hope he chooses a good vice president. Oops, he'll have to choose a 'Publican party member.

More seriously with Rove having turned the 'Publican party and the DOJ into a mechanism for stealing elections the only thing I am concerned about in a Republican candidate is whether they can be trusted to hold fair elections. I would like to know whether TPM readers believe any of them can be trusted to do so. We have little influence on this choice but to the extent that we do so who should we push the 'publicans to choose. Thompson is attracting all the usual suspects from the crew who brought us Bush so he's out. Giulliani has fascist tendencies but a commitment to law -- so far he is a may be for me. Brownback comes from two centuries back but I don't know if he is principled or not -- any body know his take on Gonzales? McCain is somewhat crazy but I do believe him to be principled so he is my current hope for the 'publican nominee.

Best outcome is a Democrat -- any Democrat but you don't always get what you want and I don't want the 'publican party nominee to be someone like Bush who is turning the country into something out of Orwell.

I think Reed's right here that we're in a ripe time for a well funded third party contender.

So, what's the lesson for the Dems?

Don't give the base a reason to defect. Third party types, from Perot to Nader always claim that they're taking from the middle but that's bull. They take from the bases of either party -- they even galavanize thoe voters.

The Democratic responsee must not be to repudiate its own base as "fringe." Thet must instead court the base and win its confidence.

Third parties really flourish when the major two parties rush to the muddled middle and become hard to distinguish from one another.

Dems... don't fear Bloomberg. Keep the base instead.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hillary won a Senate seat in one of the most Democratic states in the country, against a low-profile right wing Republican congressman. Wow, what an achievement. And how do her 6 years in the Senate (8 by 2008) make her "the best qualified candidate?" In fact, she's the least qualified. Every single Dem candidate has far more experience in public office; and I'd say Obama's many years experience as a community issues worker, that alone makes him more qualified than Hillary.

I don't dislike Hillary. It's just obvious that the only reason she's even being considered is because she is married to Bill. That would be fine, except she starts this race with AT LEAST 45% of the voters absolutely committed to voting against her because they can't stand her. It's not fair, but life's not fair, and it's too big a horse collar to wear going into a presidential campaign.

I'm not saying she can't win. I'm saying the best she can hope for is a squeaker, and that's if she runs a near-perfect campaign.

And listen to what you said. Thompson's being pushed by the same people who pushed Bush on us. Well, why won't they be successful in pushing Thompson? You're talking about the big-money right wing corporatists who form the power elite of the Repub party. They'll nominate who they want. Thompson's cancer will be far less a hindrance than Bush's draft-dodging and drug use. There are people at my workplace who've had cancer. Did they get laid off or passed over for promotion? Of course not. And there's your p.r. campaign right there.

As for trusting any Republicans, this is laughable, but the very idea that you can seriously ask this shows that the Dems are in serious trouble. Bush didn't spring out from under a rock (really not!). He was the consensus choice of a party that is utterly corrupt, intellectually and morally bankrupt, devoid of any stirrings of patriotism, and a haven for sexual deviants, child molesters, criminals, cowards, thieves, prostitutes, pornographers, and corporate lackeys.

The ONE thing you can be sure of is that there is no such thing as a good Republican. Their nominee will be a corrupt stooge for big oil, big Pharma, arms manufacturers, and the newly formed murderers-for-hire industry (i.e., "security contractors"). That;s why it's important for the Dems to win, and that's why Nader is such a piece of shit.

I like what you say, but I disagree with your prescription for schools. It is true that many teachers are sleepwalking and waiting for retirement. About the same as in other professions. And we aren't attracting new teachers. But performance evaluations are purely political. I was selected Outstanding Teacher of America and fired the same year for no cause. Just because. Probably because my French students were so good, they were passing notes in other classes in French and the administration thought it was my fault for teaching them French. Most people think they have simple cures for education without having lived through public education.
First of all, "performance based" promotions have huge problems in any setting; just read W. Edwards Demming. Second of all, we are hemorrhaging teachers and putting more pressure on them won't help that situation. And third, there are cheap ways to make schools better.
Okay, my plan: Get more teachers, and good, idealistic ones. How? Help them survive. The first year is the worst. Education students should apprentice while they're in the university, teaching one hour a day with a mentor. Then two hours. Just pay their tuition, books, room and board until they are ready to stand on their own.
Second, children learn best when they are secure, confident, not afraid of bullies or humiliation. For this you need small schools, preferably near home so they don't spend hours a day in a bus. Studies show that there is almost no bullying in small schools. Grades are not helpful motivation for learning. Believe it or not they destroy intrinsic motivation. Yes progress should be monitored, but in a small school, kids don't fall through the cracks.
I know that you are a thoughtful writer, but in most other spheres, health care, transportation, law and order, people get input from scholars who spend their life studying the subject, but with education, people throw out the opinion they formed in junior high.

Yo, none of this random Nazi crap. It tends to degrade the conversation.

Actually, my preferred GOP candidate is none. Since the collapse of the progressive Republican wing of the party in the 1960s and 1970s, the GOP has become the biggest single threat to the continuation of American democracy. My deepest hope is that the Republican Party implodes in the next few years and goes the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.
Until then, though, I don't think an independent has a real chance of winning in 2008. The way our constitution is set up, it (unintentionally) encourages political groups to merge into two parties. For a third party candidate to be really viable, there would have to be an actual third party, not just a presidential candidate, that has a national structure and is running candidates all the way down to the county commissioner level, in at least most states. I don't see that happening by next year, even with a LOT of money.
Still, 2008 is going to be a very strange year, so who knows?

It's my opinion a female or a Black, (sad but probably true) let alone any sort of triangulating Republican lite can beat either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson...

And...

...I figure that is what the duopolists funding both parties and ruing the country RIGHT NOW think as well.

Edwards can and will beat either Republican candidate, but I'm guessing he will not get the chance as the establishment is so afraid of a man with lower middle class roots and not on their payroll.

The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.

Gen. Omar Bradley

I am into merit pay myself

So the best politicians make the most money and the best teachers make the least? You really think that is a great idea?

One can have vastly different ideas and still be on the same side but I don't see how those all feeding at the same trough and proposing much the same policies can be so different as you suggest.

When you find some microscopic difference between the Clintons and other Republicans do let us know what you have spied so we can all celebrate. I will then know you to be a teacher of great merit instead of just a friendly presence though there will be no pay at all.

Best, Terry

On the subject of teacher evaluations, I'd like to add my 2 cents. I used to be a public high school science teacher and we had a good evaluation system with virtually no consequences.

Three times a year, a senior educator (I think it was usually the vice principle in charge of instruction) would come into your classroom and evaluate you based on a fixed set of criteria. These were meaningful criteria, and you were aware of them beforehand. The criteria were designed to not punish you for being assigned a difficult class - which is something lacking from many evaluation systems.

The problem was that there were virtually no consequences. If you passed these three evaluations (which wasn't that hard), everything was fine. If you failed an evaluation, they gave you another evaluation - up to five total. I.e., you had to pass at least three out of five evaluations. OK, not so bad, as we all have bad days. Now, if you passed two or less of the five evaluations, then you were on some sort of "probation". If you were on probation for 3 years in a row (3 years!), you would no longer get automatic pay raises. However, if after failing for 5 years (for example), you finally managed to pass for one year, your pay would automatically jump back up to where it would be if you had never failed at all. IMO, that was madness.

Anyways, that aside, I can imagine how such a reasonable evaluation system can get corrupted by a bad administration. It doesn't exactly take much imagination, but it's still the best evaluation system I've heard of (except for the consequences, or lack thereof).

reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income,

Who, outside of some right-wing whackos, has seriously proposed this?

We, the people, own the airwaves (for now). Cut a lot of the cost of running for office with free air time for political commercials.

This is a fascinating analysis, and one I'm hoping is closer to correct than my own, which is that Fred Thompson will get the Republican nomination and beat Hillary's ass in November '08.

This is close to the scenario I currently expect, and I also hope I'm wrong. Right now its hard to see Hillary not getting the nomination. But I think she'll just barely lose in the general, by 1 to 5 points.

If Obama can get the nomination, I think the general election goes to the Dems.

Hillary's negatives, with 40-ish% of poll respondents saying they definately won't vote for her, simply leave her with nowhere to go. Republicans are trained from birth to hate her, and many on left find her too conservative or think she sways with the prevailing wind. Her vote for the Iraq war taints her anti-war credentials.

Obama doesn't carry the same baggage and his anti-war stance is consistent from 2002 through the present. He'll strike a more genuine contrast in the general election having not voted in favor of giving the President the authority to invade Iraq.

Hillary is also maxing out donors a year and a half before the election. Obama's support is more broadly based with his 100,000 donors in the first quarter. Obama has that rare ability to inspire the masses. Hillary inspires the establishment - the PAC's, the rich, the powerful, the well connected.

With respect to an anti-war third party candidate, I'd think they would take more Dem votes than Republican votes, and more Hillary votes than Obama votes.

What?

Why do you assume that a third party candidate will necessarily help the Republicans? If that third party candidate is Green, then sure it will help the Republicans. However, if that third party candidate is Libertarian (of which I hear a lot more recently), then that will almost definitely hurt the Republicans.

"reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income,"

I read it and applauded. The only tax system overhaul proposals we've seen have been either too complicated for the average person to even understand or Republican proposals and they've been regressive. It would be great to see a Democratic progressive consumption tax system.

The current income tax system is horrible... it basically discourages earning and encourages spending because you are taxed for working but not for spending. It has turned us into a nation of debtors! Look at our savings rates compared to other countries, and the whole emphasis on "buy, buy, buy.." this is a tax system brought to you by the same political party that said the best sacrifice you can make after 9/11 is to go out and spend money!

If more people were taxed on consumption, then people would be paid more (because taxes would not be taken out) and they would spend less, because the price of everything would appear to go up. Of course, you'd have to carve out exceptions for things people really need - food - and redistribute money back to poor people so they were not disadvantaged. I'm sure many other details, as well, I'm not an expert, either...

I'm giving Reed the benefit of the doubt here that he was not advocating a regressive tax system, of course, maybe he was. But I think he's on the right track. Think of a broad class of luxury taxes being the mainstay of our tax system, and build from that...

Reed wrote, "reform the tax system by moving to tax consumption and not income,"

You wrote, "isn't moving to a regressive tax system the wingnut platform"

Reed didn't say anything about a regressive tax system... he just said consumption system.

I wrote above, and an copying here below, "I read it and applauded. The only tax system overhaul proposals we've seen have been either too complicated for the average person to even understand or Republican proposals and they've been regressive. It would be great to see a Democratic progressive consumption tax system.

The current income tax system is horrible... it basically discourages earning and encourages spending because you are taxed for working but not for spending. It has turned us into a nation of debtors! Look at our savings rates compared to other countries, and the whole emphasis on "buy, buy, buy.." this is a tax system brought to you by the same political party that said the best sacrifice you can make after 9/11 is to go out and spend money!

If more people were taxed on consumption, then people would be paid more (because taxes would not be taken out) and they would spend less, because the price of everything would appear to go up. Of course, you'd have to carve out exceptions for things people really need - food - and redistribute money back to poor people so they were not disadvantaged. I'm sure many other details, as well, I'm not an expert, either...

I'm giving Reed the benefit of the doubt here that he was not advocating a regressive tax system, of course, maybe he was. But I think he's on the right track. Think of a broad class of luxury taxes being the mainstay of our tax system, and build from that..."

Since I like Reed's ideas, I will take you on point by point...

"Tax[ing] consumption and not income," in which the majority of workers will pay taxes on all of their income but the super rich will pay on only a portion of their income, will be perceived (as it actually is) as a shift of the tax burden down.

Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income. Workers don't have any choice - they have to earn income. Workers do have a choice, they can not spend that income. So a progressive consumption system (with a tax refund to the truly poor and exemptions for things workers need like food and rent/housing) would benefit workers. It would not benefit the wealthy, who don't have income but LOVE to spend money. It would also hurt corporations, because it would make it appear things are more expensive, cutting down on spending, and that would lower our crazy spending and debt patterns and increase savings, to the benefit of average Americans and to the detriment of Corporations (who need us to keep spending) - and that is why we don't have a progressive consumption tax system.

"Turning illegals into citizens" will be perceived (as it actually is) as giving corporations a new pool of legal (as opposed to illegal) low wage workers, taking more jobs and further lowering wages for the majority of Americans.

Unless you are prepared to go out into the fields and pick fruit yourself while also holding down your regular job, there is going to be a huge immigration wave into this country that has already started and will continue. This country is producing 1.4 million jobs a year and only has 1 million workers. Whether these are low wage illegal jobs that your average American can't compete for and has created a permanent underclass, bitter and burning cars along the way like in France, or higher wage legal jobs filled by legal immigrants and regulated, such as my own grandparents had, well, that remains to be seen. However, only xenophobic wingnuts think you can build a wall high enough to keep out illegals, and only xenophobic wingnuts think that once illegals are here its better to treat them like slaves than like fellow humans. A true leader would explain that to the American people...

"Give all workers wage insurance to mitigate globalization's impacts" will be perceived (as it actually is) as a continuation of the Free Trade policies that are a major cause of American job losses to low wage overseas workers.

Yep'.. Corporations are moving jobs overseas, so let's punish American workers by not giving them the time and resources to retrain and find new jobs. After all, its really the American workers fault, after all... I don't think that will go over very well with the voters.

However, you might have a future as a corporate lobbyist....

I'm glad you brought that up. You've accurately identified the conditions necessary for a third party to overtake one of the current ones (at least according to top scholars such as John Aldrich).

Now here's the question:

What issue on that list is "overwhelmingly popular but not dealt with by [D and R]"? I really don't see one, but I'm open to argument. IMO, they range from obscure (consumption tax? give me a break), to not-ready-for-primetime (green issues), to dealt with adequately in the Democratic platforms (health care). But again, I'm open to suggestion.

Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income.

Last I checked, income is income, whether it comes by way of wages, interest, whatever.

Yes, it's true the wealthy get to avoid a lot of income tax with maneuvering, but to pretend that the wealthy don't have income is silly. And there is no question that a consumption tax is regressive because it taxes a greater portion of what you have if you have less.

Take, for example, a day in the life of Bill Gates and me. I drive to work, he drives to work. I buy $40 in gas, and so does he. That's 2% of my gross income for the week. It's something like .0000000002% of his gross. Lunch is ten bucks, that's .5% of my weekly gross, and .000000000005% of his.

Taxing our spending on these things is pretty regressive.

People should feel free to compare the tactics of the Bush administration in terms of PR, message, discipline, with those of the Nazis as they rose to power. It is a valid comparison, and not a comment on or downplaying of the Holocaust. Its rarely warranted, but at times it is. The tactics have at times been frighteningly similar.

Americans will not elect a third party candidate. Period.

What issue on that list is "overwhelmingly popular but not dealt with by [D and R]"? I really don't see one

You never heard of the Iraq occupation?

National health care to global warming are issues very important to me - and subject to all manner of dispute - but if Hillary Clinton and any imaginable Republican candidate you care to select are the choices, then a third party candidate should have a real shot.

Best, Terry

So let's see: how do we make a consumption tax progressive? Obviously it starts out regressive: the lower your income, the more of it you spend. Most Americans save very little. (The average savings toward retirement is under $30K.) The motivations for salvaging the tax in light of this, to encourage savings, seems to me hardly worth the cost: no matter how much we motivate them, most again can't afford to save, and consumer spending anyway is the biggest driver on the economy (yet another reason that trickle-down economics doesn't work). And as for its value as a political platform, it's beyond me whose vote it's supposed to win, other than that of Steve Forbes.

But, suppose we're for some cranky reason desperate to make consumption taxes our platform. How do we do it? We've only two tools at our disposal, exemptions of certain spending and a progressive tax rate, and we'd have to make heavy use of both of them. We can't be sure they'd work, and there are real problems with both of them.

The reason that people supposedly hate income taxes is that they're complicated, and the complexity doesn't arise from applying the tax tables. (Duh, look up your income.) It's from existing exemptions. So anything other than a sales tax already undercuts one argument for a consumption tax. But a progressive rate adds yet another complexity: it can't be implemented at the register. You have to have people track all their spending all year. If you think looking at your last paystub and comparing it to your 1099 (should you both) is hard, just wait until you tally all your receipts you've presumably saved, down to the 25 cents on the tabloid the other day. In turn, it means government tracking each person's spending habits, a civil liberties nightmare. And again, it's not easy to make progressive, since the progressive rate has to be incredibly steep to take into account who spends what portion of income.

Now look more at exemptions. Ok, we certainly get rid of medical care, education, food, clothing, and rent. So we've just exempted a private education? Or we've taxed the middle class on college that already has sent people into massive debt? Do we exempt mortages and maintenance on a coop or condo? If we don't we've again taxed the middle class to death and probably eliminated home ownership; if we don't, we've amplified the existing schedule A incentives for buying and let the rich pay no taxes as long as they spend it on mansions. Do we count mink coats as clothing? How do we distinguish them if not?

In the end, our only hope, it seems, is to assume that our whole tax system becomes a tax on a few odd luxury items like yachts. Can you fund the federal government on that? Health care? Transit? Education? You sure? Can you be sure it's still hitting much of a wealthy person's income or consumption?

What's the point, when a progressive income tax, with rates that used to reach 90 person, made the country prosperous and relatively more equal? Sounds like someone's libertarian fantasy to me, and I still can't think why Reed calls it anything but.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

You suppose that Libertarians will nominate a liberal?

Frankly you seem not to understand that Libertarians are Republicans who, I suppose you could say, want to do drugs or something.

Libertarians are anti-regulation, anti-progressive-tax, etc. It boils down to unlimited freedom for the very rich and screw you if you aren't a community destroying scoflaw or weren't born on third base.

Libertarians are the Koch family, as in we don't believe in any stinking environmental laws, we should be able to dump our waste any damn place we want. That's what they mean by Libertarian. More like libertine for the very rich. Libertarians are the Koch family as in George W's sister's in-laws.

You've figured out that Republicans support Greens to split the potential Dem vote.

Now, don't fall into the language trap.

Libertarians are NOT what you think they are.

You suppose that Libertarians will nominate a liberal?

No, I don't. That's exactly my point. I.e., they will be taking Republican votes more than they will be taking Democratic votes.

Libertarians are NOT what you think they are.

Actually, they are. However, they're not what you think I think they are.

What "Nazi rhetoric?" A lot of these Republicans are Nazis, pure and simple. They promote torture centers, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, suspension of civil rights, preemptive warfare, fixed elections, mass internment, and so on. How are they NOT Nazis?

How are they NOT Nazis?

Here's one off the top of my head: they haven't killed 6 million Jews.

I'm not demonizing them. They've demonized themselves. Come on, name one "good" Republican officeholder, and I'll explain why he or she is a gutless shill, a Bush enabler, and a liar. Powell? Hagel? Snowe? Specter? They all suck. They all have dishonestly enabled the most criminal administration we've ever had.

I'm taliking about Republican politicians, not the millions of deluded dullards who simply vote Republican. They're just sheep, or else rich people voting to put a few more dollars into their already bulging pockets.

I'm not demonizing them. They've demonized themselves. Come on, name one "good" Republican officeholder, and I'll explain why he or she is a gutless shill, a Bush enabler, and a liar.

Ron Paul.

Note I did not say "good" but as a Libetarian Paul is actually an ultra liberal. He is hardly a shill for Bush.

Best, Terry

Neither did George Lincoln Rockwell, and he was a Nazi. That was a very poor response. Is that all you got? If so, I'd say I win the argument hands down.

You apparently don't understand the difference between a Nazi and "Nazi rule". I'm only aware of one instance of the latter.

Anybody who has $300 million to burn on a presidential campaign can have a shot, but nobody is going to run as a serious independent in 08.

yet.

Currently the majority of the workers pay taxes on all of their income, through INCOME tax, but the super rich pay almost nothing, because they invest rather than have income.

Actually no.  Low income workers do not pay income tax, and in some cases qualify for an "earned income tax credit".  The government, having obligated itself to provide this income supplement for the working poor, has not similarly obligated itself to make sure that eligible families collect it.  Estimates are that 25% of those who are eligible don't file for it.  Private organizations seek to educate such citizens and assist them in getting the support public policy allots them.  You might want to support such organizations with your some of your time or dollars.

aMike

Yet the Democratic Party in Congress is too new to power to be able to accomplish as much as the country wants, and is exposed to the real possibility of disappointing the electorate by not being able to get anything done over the President's objections.

I think this is more an excuse than a reason.  Certainly there are a lot of "newbies" (welcome, newbies) and thank goodness for them:  they're the reason Democrats control the Congress.  But the "Oldbies" control the committee structure through the seniority system.  Many of them were Chairs before the Republicans took things over: others certainly had a chance to watch how the Republicans did things when they were in the majority.

The big problem for Democrats is divided government.  Bush could get what he wanted through 50% plus 1.  Bush could get away with threatening to eliminate the super-majority required in the Senate through threatening to change Senate rules and having Cheney in the Chair and enough Republicans to enforce that threat. 

Lacking the ability to forge majorities large enough to override Presidential vetoes, Democrats have to work strategically, and on this point I do fault the Democrats...not so much for what they're doing now, but for what they didn't do a year or more ago. 

The time for Congress to indulge in strategic thinking on how to combat this President after seizing the majority was while it was still in the minority.  I fault the Democrats for lacking faith that they could turn the Congress in 2006 and not preparing for that event.  The time to decide how to work under conditions now (a majority subject to veto overrides, a willful and bullying President) was 2005. 

Were I in charge back then, (thank your lucky stars I wasn't), I would have held the political equivalent of paintball games  in preparation for the day I returned to power.  I would have practiced designing all sorts of popular, passable bills with poison pills embedded in them, lobbing them at the President from day one of returning to the majority.  

Make the President exercise his veto, and make his Party support him in that, and hold both accountable in the court of public opinion.  (I'd like to hold him accountable in the court of impeachment, but that's an argument for another day).  [edited a bit to get my tenses cleaned up].

aMike

OK Terry it's Republican lurker you are.

"tweedledum and tweedledee "

another right-wing schtick.

But you should at least try to get the history straight.

The Whigs had split over slavery and the northern Whigs were losing members over their failure to support the Wilmot Proviso.

The Republican party of that era consisted of northern Whigs, Free Soilers, Know-Nothings and some northern Democrats among others.

Each of these major groups had elected candidates to state and federal office. In 1856 the Whigs (with the Know-Nothings)offered their last candidate for president. The Republicans finished 2nd not 3rd.

Hardly the situation we have today.

And what issue may I ask is not being dealt with?

Consumption taxes?

Absolute madness.

How do you propose to administer such a tax in a way to make it progressive?

Simplify, my foot.

Where did TPM dig up this guy?

Actually, I would probably vote for the Republican over Hillary Clinton. The Democrats would still control the House, for sure, so thats a solid check on the president. I would worry about Hillary Clinton pushing a Democratic Congress to go along with whatever she wants in foreign policy. She's already said Congress should "defer" to the President. And I think if she's the nominee, she'll cost the Democrats House seats and put us in position for a return to Republican control.

The family dynasty crap is something that should be killed like a snake. The Clintons wanting their dynasty on top of the Bush dynasty shows a terrible contempt for the nation, IMO.