So now we are going after Fiorina? Who else do liberals make fun of next?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The establishment is using her to undermine Trump.

There is no way that they would want Fiorina as the nominee.

Bingo. Fiorina is the political equivalent of a suicide bomber. She is simply supposed to take out Trump and make room for someone more acceptable to the establishment. The fact that the mainstream media so completely fell into line should demonstrate to everyone that the mainstream press is neither conservative nor liberal. It is simply a mouthpiece for the ruling class.

Her rise in the press also suggests that many in the MSM are not all that smart.

Anonymous wrote:The establishment is using her to undermine Trump.

There is no way that they would want Fiorina as the nominee.

Bingo. Fiorina is the political equivalent of a suicide bomber. She is simply supposed to take out Trump and make room for someone more acceptable to the establishment. The fact that the mainstream media so completely fell into line should demonstrate to everyone that the mainstream press is neither conservative nor liberal. It is simply a mouthpiece for the ruling class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer in terms of actual voters, but the Republicans are very invested in having her in the race. Today's New York Times had a lead story on her, kind of fawning, really, about how she helps them address their "woman problem." Of course there was a less fawning story about her, um, misstatements about the Planned Parenthood videos, but it was buried inside the paper.

Maybe the NYT has an interest in her continuing viability. You know, so they can mug her later with the real goods.

Well, of course they have an interest in clicks and revenue and they love a good horserace story.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the answer in terms of actual voters, but the Republicans are very invested in having her in the race. Today's New York Times had a lead story on her, kind of fawning, really, about how she helps them address their "woman problem." Of course there was a less fawning story about her, um, misstatements about the Planned Parenthood videos, but it was buried inside the paper.

Maybe the NYT has an interest in her continuing viability. You know, so they can mug her later with the real goods.

I don't know the answer in terms of actual voters, but the Republicans are very invested in having her in the race. Today's New York Times had a lead story on her, kind of fawning, really, about how she helps them address their "woman problem." Of course there was a less fawning story about her, um, misstatements about the Planned Parenthood videos, but it was buried inside the paper.

I honestly don't get the appeal. Well of course not, I'm a D - but I don't get how someone with her disastrous record is a viable candidate. Various pundits keep saying she is running for VP, so maybe she's just going to keep plugging away in a bid for legitimacy. But if she can't win a senate race, what does she bring to a VP slot, other than the ability for R's to say, look! We have a woman too!

But where is her support? Where is her fundraising coming from?

I don't get it on a basic level.

The establishment is using her to undermine Trump.

There is no way that they would want Fiorina as the nominee.

Anonymous wrote:In essence, a person with no chance of winning the nomination won the republican debate. Gotta love how rich that is for the GOP.

As Howard Dean would say, "YEEAAAAAAARGH!"

Anonymous wrote:Horse-faced super-rich California Republican women.

Yeah, there are millions of those. The GOP should go with that winning formula.

I don't think Meg Whitman will be voting for Carly. She is still undoing her clusterfuck.

Horse-faced super-rich California Republican women.

Yeah, there are millions of those. The GOP should go with that winning formula.

Former CEOs who have burned multiple Fortune 500 companies to the ground. She's got that vote locked up.

In essence, a person with no chance of winning the nomination won the republican debate. Gotta love how rich that is for the GOP.

I think her disastrous tenure at HP hurts her standing with people who actually know anything about business.

I think it is mean-looking, pro-business, dishonest (sorry for being redundant), criminal, conservative plutocrats.

Seems like she has a razor thin constituency in a crowded field vying for those same voters.

I don't see the broad appeal needed to win a national election. She couldn't even cut it in a state race in California.

I hope republicans continue to pile chips onto her candidacy. It will be a money black hole.