[Magdalen] Bro Donald.

[Jay Weigel]

A couple of years ago, in protest to our perennial congressional
representative, who I simply cannot stand, I voted for a candidate whose
stated party was the Modern Whig party. Now I am a yellow dog Democrat and
I'm the first to admit it, but there was no Democrat running, and further,
this guy's platform sounded totally reasonable to me. It was pretty much
the old regular Republican platform, such as my grandparents would have
been comfortable with. Besides, he was an Episcopalian <g>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Roger Stokes <roger.stokes65 at btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 01/12/2015 17:50, M J _Mike_ Logsdon wrote:
>
>> You and me both, Grace.  No matter how this fiasco ends, it is just
>>>>>
>>>> frightening that a supposedly serious political party in one of the
>> major
>> countries in the world can be so far gone that it cannot present a single
>> credible candidate at all. And what's more, it seems a lot of people are
>> okay with this.<<<
>>
>> Actually, it has put forward at least one credible candidate (no, I'm not
>> naming names).  But as is being reported particularly recently, the GOP
>> primary electorate (please keep the primary/general dichotomy in mind) is
>> outspokenly unconcerned about credibility.  So, is it the supposedly
>> serious party's fault?  Hardly.  (At least right now.)
>>
>
> I wonder if the states with a caucus method of selection will put the
> candidates in a different order from the ones where it is a primary
> election.  The important question is whether or not X is a credible
> candidate for the general election.  Unless they are then they will spend a
> shedload of money to no real effect.  Any democracy needs credible
> alternatives and I am not convinced that the present Republican field will
> offer that in 11 months' time.
>
> Roger
>