I saw this absolutely hilarious article on Bloomberg earlier, and boy was I entertained - had to hold back laughter at a meeting. If that title wasn't enough, the article gets even more absurd with minimal reasoning.
http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20150413no&_t=Dont+Count+Out+Kasich+or+Huckabee+or+Jindal+Jonathan+Bernstein#.VSyDyvnF_E0A. Mike Huckabee's chance of winning the nomination is <2%. He doesn't have money. He doesn't have the support of any establishment. He's become incredibly wacky intentionally. Can't discount him winning states but not the nomination. That's not what the article says.
B. As a major Bobby Jindal fan by this site's standard, LOL No. Sure, perhaps he could pull a Santorum. I still doubt it. He seems like he fits in well with the 2nd tier Dems from '08 who never had a chance. There is no reason to be discussing him at the moment. Even if he could, he doesn't warrant the attention.
I've been saying for awhile, be cautious in turning this into a 3-way race (BTW, how is Rubio solidly a top 3 over Cruz/Paul who get tossed aside) like the media did in 2012 - Bachmann and Perry really proved they warranted those top 3 positions over Santorum and Gingrich. I agree with the premise, but at the same time, it's a pretty horrible article.
The article is so bland it leaves almost nothing for you to respond to, but I chose to share for entertainment so if you want to keep the thread going, I'll ask: Is Rubio really solidly top 3 despite the poll performance? Do Cruz and Paul have ZERO chance? There's so little modern history to go by - how often have we had competitive primaries? When have we had so many candidates? How often have people like them even run - and no the elder Paul doesn't really count. And finally, do you have the guts to make a call on which candidate actually pulls through?
