Republicans, regarding Bernie Sanders - What would Machiavelli do?

Niccolo Machiavelli was the much maligned Renaissance writer who wrote The Prince, an objective, how-to manual for seeking and holding power in 16th Century Italy. His advice when an enemy appears to be divided: Do not attack the enemy, this will unite the bickering factions and unite them against the external enemy (you), instead, give covert support to the weaker faction and reap the rewards after your enemy has exhausted itself with a civil war.

The announced candidacy of Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for the 2016 election of POTUS appears to have a great deal of support from the progressive side of the Democratic Party. This insurgency from the Left may or may not disturb the inevitability of Hillary Clinton. Aside from the upset of 2008, the nomination of a far left candidate is a recipe for defeat for Democrats in the national election; consider the landslide 1972 Nixon vs. McGovern.

I would offer this advice to the G.O.P.: Lavishly and secretly fund a Bernie Sanders campaign with the hopeful result of a bitter division into a centrist party (Clinton) and a progressive third party (Sanders). This could render the same result that put Bubba in power in ’92; the conservative vote was split between Bush the First and the third-party candidate, Perot.

This strategy has considerable risk, and exposure could cause a disastrous backlash. The other ingredient of this strategy would be nominating a candidate that could actually win a national election.

If the donald runs third party, things could get very interesting.

How about if Bernie decides to launch a 3d party run?

The liberal left must know that Hillary is a money grubbing lying sack of shift. Any Democrat with a smidgen of honor shoul do anything possible to keep her out of the White House.

A real electoral nightmare would be Trump mounting a 3d party run on the right, and Bernie a 3d party try on the left, resulting in a 25/25/25/25 split in the popular vote, with the winner becoming President with only 1/4 of the Country behind him, or her.

I think Hillay will become a moot point. VP Joe Biden is warming up in the bullpen, waiting for President Obama to pull the rug out from under the whole Clinton machine, and throwing his support behind him.

I would even bet on a brokered convention. Remember, all of this Primary crisp is out the window if a Candidate can't garner the nomination on the first ballot.

If the donald runs third party, things could get very interesting. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Bernie might be The Donald's chance!! Trump should give the motherfucking socialist the money to keep going.

Bernie might be The Donald's chance!! Trump should give the motherfucking socialist the money to keep going. Originally Posted by DSK

And for no other reason than the debates between those two would make for GREAT TV and once Bernie gets shown the door, we can watch woomby go into melt down mode. Wonder which mod he'll pester over Bernie's loss ?

Niccolo Machiavelli was the much maligned Renaissance writer who wrote The Prince, an objective, how-to manual for seeking and holding power in 16th Century Italy. His advice when an enemy appears to be divided: Do not attack the enemy, this will unite the bickering factions and unite them against the external enemy (you), instead, give covert support to the weaker faction and reap the rewards after your enemy has exhausted itself with a civil war.

The announced candidacy of Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for the 2016 election of POTUS appears to have a great deal of support from the progressive side of the Democratic Party. This insurgency from the Left may or may not disturb the inevitability of Hillary Clinton. Aside from the upset of 2008, the nomination of a far left candidate is a recipe for defeat for Democrats in the national election; consider the landslide 1972 Nixon vs. McGovern.

I would offer this advice to the G.O.P.: Lavishly and secretly fund a Bernie Sanders campaign with the hopeful result of a bitter division into a centrist party (Clinton) and a progressive third party (Sanders). This could render the same result that put Bubba in power in ’92; the conservative vote was split between Bush the First and the third-party candidate, Perot.

This strategy has considerable risk, and exposure could cause a disastrous backlash. The other ingredient of this strategy would be nominating a candidate that could actually win a national election. Originally Posted by Rogue_Gent

A lot of Republicans did that in 2008 when a weaker faction (Obama) went up against a stronger faction (Hillary Clinton). Rush Limbaugh actively campaigned to keep Obama alive as long as possible.

Look how that worked out.

A lot of Republicans did that in 2008 when a weaker faction (Obama) went up against a stronger faction (Hillary Clinton). Rush Limbaugh actively campaigned to keep Obama alive as long as possible.

Look how that worked out. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, indeed. The strategy is not without risk. I would point out the second part of the plan: nominate a candidate that can win a national election.

I do have great respect for McCain but, I think, the country was reacting against the threatened right-wing agenda of the Bush years.

What do you think happened? How could a one-term, do-nothing senator from the Mid-West have taken the Prize? Was it just his rhetoric and charisma?

How about if Bernie decides to launch a 3d party run?

The liberal left must know that Hillary is a money grubbing lying sack of shift. Any Democrat with a smidgen of honor shoul do anything possible to keep her out of the White House.

A real electoral nightmare would be Trump mounting a 3d party run on the right, and Bernie a 3d party try on the left, resulting in a 25/25/25/25 split in the popular vote, with the winner becoming President with only 1/4 of the Country behind him, or her.

I think Hillay will become a moot point. VP Joe Biden is warming up in the bullpen, waiting for President Obama to pull the rug out from under the whole Clinton machine, and throwing his support behind him.


I
I would even bet on a brokered convention. Remember, all of this Primary crisp is out the window if a Candidate can't garner the nomination on the first ballot. Originally Posted by Jackie S

If no one gets 271 electoral votes then the election goes to the House.

A lot of Republicans did that in 2008 when a weaker faction (Obama) went up against a stronger faction (Hillary Clinton). Rush Limbaugh actively campaigned to keep Obama alive as long as possible.

Look how that worked out. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You have it backwards. Operation Choas was about keeping Hillary alive to challenge Obama.

A lot of Republicans did that in 2008 when a weaker faction (Obama) went up against a stronger faction (Hillary Clinton). Rush Limbaugh actively campaigned to keep Obama alive as long as possible.

Look how that worked out. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I remember that. Rush wanted Obama because he thought that it would be 4 years of such monumental fuckups that the republicans would march into the WH in 2012. That didn't quite work out.

Yes, indeed. The strategy is not without risk. I would point out the second part of the plan: nominate a candidate that can win a national election.

I do have great respect for McCain but, I think, the country was reacting against the threatened right-wing agenda of the Bush years.

What do you think happened? How could a one-term, do-nothing senator from the Mid-West have taken the Prize? Was it just his rhetoric and charisma? Originally Posted by Rogue_Gent

No offense, but McCain is a RINO. And herein lies the republican problem, IMO. If the repubs run a RINO, it could be Romney 2012 all over again. If they run an actual conservative, it could alienate the independents, who then go democrat. We've still got 14 months and change to go. Plenty of time for any of them to say something stupid or be caught with a hooker, etc.

You have it backwards. Operation Choas was about keeping Hillary alive to challenge Obama. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You've got it backwards. Operation Chaos was the primary. We're talking about the general election. Here's an article talking about Rush urging people to vote for Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

You've got it backwards. Operation Chaos was the primary. We're talking about the general election. Here's an article talking about Rush urging people to vote for Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

Read what you linked to. This is still the primary Rush is talking about. It also confirms that Operation Chaos was about keeping Hillary in the primaries.

operation chaos was about voting for hillary in the primaries to try to fend off the disaster of obama

Yes, indeed. The strategy is not without risk. I would point out the second part of the plan: nominate a candidate that can win a national election.

I do have great respect for McCain but, I think, the country was reacting against the threatened right-wing agenda of the Bush years.

What do you think happened? How could a one-term, do-nothing senator from the Mid-West have taken the Prize? Was it just his rhetoric and charisma? Originally Posted by Rogue_Gent

To me it was a combination of factors.

1. McCain was a retread without very much charisma. Then he picks Sarah Palin as
the VP candidate. Major mistake. Usually you pick someone who will help you
win states you would not normally win.

2. The country was heading into a major recession and Bush was held accountable.

3. Whether or not you like Obama, he had crowd-appeal. He could relate to the
average voter. He spun a nice story.

So you had a rather boring Republican presidential candidate who was being held in part responsible for the downturn in the U.S. economy combined with a less-than-appealing VP candidate as a running mate vs. a relative unknown who was very charismatic and gave a promise of good times ahead.