You are selling this idea very short.

Right. And I’m guessing your state has considerably more than 3 EC votes too. So in terms of raw power, you guys still rail the citizens of Wyoming literally by every metric except senators ... where they just achieve parity.

When a candidate officially declares they will run, a raft of campaign finance/disclosure laws kick in that are a royal PITA. Nobody serious about running for president is going to trigger that until Q1/Q2 of 2019 at the earliest (depending on their operation).

Wyoming only has one congressperson. How many does your state get again?

Biden certainly decimates in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (three you lost to Trump). He’s really the most plausible candidate right now (I like Bernie, but I don’t think he’ll repeat the excitement from 2016).

Kamala Harris is the one I *really* don’t understand. Up until last year, the woman had built her career on defending a brutal system cranking poor people through jails like a factory ... and, probably more troubling, failing to investigate or prosecute some of the most notoriously deadly and abusive police forces in…

How long does he get to wander around before serving his sentence?

Good times!

Why is she sitting in front of what looks like some kind of fighter jet?

What Chait doesn’t understand, here, is power. He doesn’t understand that there is no reason for management to grant raises to staffers who currently have very little power.

That’s only true if a person has another job lined up and enough savings to feed their family through the transition.

Technically, whole milk is only 3% .... not that that’s important.

Wait a minute. Contributions absolutely DO arrive with a warning that the donations are associated with oil & gas. That is literally a law.

I understand your argument. My point is if he chooses to spin it the way you suggest, doing so would largely disqualify him as a candidate ... because that would be objectively stupid on top of being a load of crap.

No way Sanders would give up his spot on the budget committee for one on energy. That’s a huge demotion in influence.

If it came down to impeachment, with Dems in charge of the House, the Senate can really sit back and react - essentially washing their hands of responsibility. If the House makes an irrefutable case, they can claim they have no choice but to act. It will be almost entirely Pelosi’s call (assuming she becomes speaker).

Rank and file Republicans aren’t going to turn on Trump ... that is almost a litmus test for the party now. And the leaders aren’t going to risk challenging him in the environment.

No way the GOP flips the house in 2020. I guess Democrats *could* hypothetically lose to Trump in 2020 if they do something really stupid. (Which, if comment boards are any indicator, they *do* seem pretty dead-set on trying to do).

Are you really suggesting that expecting a politician to fulfill reasonably straight-forward (and easy to verify) campaign pledges is some form of unreasonable ideological purity test?

Yeah. I can’t imagine he won’t have a pretty straight-forward response here.