Very, very clearly the first, since I'm arguably a bit to the left of the standard Democrat on the second.

The only problem I can think of is just one, which'll allow these private owners to ratchet up the price. There should be competition between different private bike-sharing companies.

Of course, the line of criticism described in the OP is rare idiocy.

Markey +12 sounds about right now (decisive but not quite landslide), but there's still a month. I highly doubt Gomez will win, but change will probably occur around the edges.

Russian is my native language; English is my basic day-to-day language. Both I speak fluently. Beyond that, I've studied Spanish for many years, and I can understand the vast majority of things (I've read Wikipedia articles/passages out of books without problems), but speaking and writing things that aren't very basic remains difficult. I hope to be there by the end of senior year (in addition to the school curriculum, I've been teaching myself to some extent), so summer of 2015, but it'll take lots of work.

He's very unpopular in Alaska itself nowadays, and all polls so far have shown Treadwell leading him and with most of the undecideds preferring Treadwell. Now, if the anti-Miller vote is split or if some sort of scandal intervenes, this could be problematic. But this certainly isn't a death knell for Treadwell.

Capitalist machinations.

I still haven't gotten over his defeat in 2008

Or Goldwater's in '64, but you know, with this one, the pain is more recent.

O'Malley wins. The Electoral College is a landslide, probably more than 400, even though in the popular vote he only gets 41-44%. The South I think would stay with Cruz, but in other parts of the country O'Malley would be able to get unlikely victories from vote-splitting.

Christie wins no electoral votes, though he has pockets of strength all over the country. O'Malley/Heitkamp defeats Cruz/Pawlenty (picked realistic running mates out of my head) 408-130.

O'Malley, I'm confident, will run literally no matter what.

Going of the Wikipedia list, who else wouldn't be dissuaded by a Clinton run? Hickenlooper comes to mind. Some other Governors with no connections to the Clinton or Obama administrations who are generally not thought of us as likely to run could do it in an attempt to boost their profiles; Jay Nixon and Jack Markell come to mind. (Come to think of it, in a Clinton-less field Nixon could be a viable Fred-Thompson-esque dark-horse).

I can think of lots of senior/sophomore relationships (and junior/freshman), but senior/freshman is very uncommon.

The "push genetically modified food at the expense of public health" line makes me skeptical of the article as a whole. GM is essentially the only realistic way food production is going to be able to keep up with world population, and FDA-approved GM is not any more or less safe than regular food.

Otherwise, interesting, and quite undercovered by the media.

It would be kind of heartening to see Stenberg run and finally win on his fifth attempt. That said, on the basis of having the most sources by his name on Wikipedia and vaguely recalling his name being mentioned here, it seems U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry is the frontrunner. Interestingly, the way he was elected to the House was very reminiscent of Senator Fischer's election last year (in 2004 in his district, there was a moderate candidate, Speaker of the Legislature Curt Bromm, and a "proto-Tea Party" candidate, businessman Greg Ruehle, who nuked each other and allowed Fortenberry to rise through the middle). He knows how to campaign against Democrats too, as he received name challengers in 2004 and 2006 and beat both by double-digits; of course, that's not so impressive in such a Republican district, but it's probably the district most representative of Nebraska as a whole, which shows what would happen if Democrats tried to make a play for this Senate seat against Fortenberry.

These are basically "what polls show now"; obviously, things will change and these will look hilarious in the actual 2017.

...president of the United States? Hillary Clinton (beats Rubio in Bill-Clintonesque landslide which doesn't translate downballot)
...chancellor of Germany? Angela Merkel (CDU-FDP reelected 2013, 2017 hasn't happened yet)
...president of France? Nicolas Sarkozy (runoff was Sarkozy v. lePen)
...prime minister of the UK? Ed Miliband (self-explanatory)
...prime minister of Canada? Stephen Harper (barely minority government; Libs under Trudeau are OO)
...prime minister of Australia? Tony Abbott (self-explanatory)

Is there anyone else who automatically thinks of the Naked Gun when they hear the last name 'Palazzo'?

I'd like to think that I would, but it's tough to say until put in that position.

[which is an insult to those that really had to live under those policies historically]

So let me get this straight. Your position is that critics of Israeli policy are conservatives, then?

No. My position is that those critics of Israel who also consider themselves to be progressives favor policies which are inconsistent with the broader ideas of the progressive movement, and are thus to a great degree are themselves hypocrites.

As a Republican, would you count yourself as one of them?

Obviously not.

Or is your position that critics of Israel have no place in debate, and fall outside of the political spectrum?

Criticism of Israel does to a degree fall outside of the political spectrum, in that generally speaking both leftist and rightist figures in the US repudiate it. Most who criticize Israel are themselves leftists, however.

Despite your apologies, it's pretty clear that the main anti-Israeli force in American politics comes from the left. You don't see many right wingers standing up against settlements, or in favor of recognizing Palestine.

True.

Nobody in the United States supports 'ethno-religious estrangement'

Sure they do, man. Every racist supports it. Now you're trying to say there are no racists in the United States?

I will say that there are very few open racists left in the US, and that such organizations are more fringe than equivalent Israeli organizations or Hamas (which is, scarily, not fringe at all and quite mainstream in Palestinian politics). In a country of 315 million people the word 'nobody' is always at least a slight exaggeration. But my basic point stands.

But it certainly isn't progressive to support religious extremism, or the not-exactly-democratic regime Fatah is seeking to set up in the West Bank, against a democratic society. Nor is it progressive to slander policies as 'apartheid' or 'colonization' (which is an insult to those that really had to live under those policies historically).

"I have been to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government."-Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winner

"As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state. In fact, I believe that some of the atrocities committed against the South Africans by the erstwhile apartheid regime in South Africa pale in comparison to those committed against the Palestinians."-Congress of South African Trade Unions President Willie Madisha

"worse than conditions were for Blacks under the Apartheid regime."-South Africa's Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe

It's easy to find quotes from both South Africans and Palestinians who disagree with the assertion:

"The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy"-Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi

"Whereas apartheid was established through a series of oppressive laws that governed which park benches we could sit on, where we could go to school, which areas we were allowed to live in, and even whom we could marry, Israel was founded upon a liberal and inclusive Declaration of Independence. South Africa had a job reservation policy for white people; Israel has adopted pro-Arab affirmative action measures in some sectors. Israeli schools, universities and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs. An Arab citizen who brings a case before an Israeli court will have that case decided on the basis of merit, not ethnicity. This was never the case for blacks under apartheid."-South African human rights activist Rhoda Kadalie

"The majority of these [campus anti-Israel] activists openly admit that they have never visited Israel or the Palestinian territories. They don't know – and don't want to know – that Jews and Arabs here are still doing business together and studying together and meeting with each other on a daily basis because they are destined to live together in this part of the world. They don't want to hear that despite all the problems life continues and that ordinary Arab and Jewish parents who wake up in the morning just want to send their children to school and go to work before returning home safely and happily. What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the “occupation” as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel."-Khaled Abu Toameh

"Is it "apartheid week?" Or is it really "apartheid weak"? Rather than hold celebrations that fuel a hatred of Israel around an exaggerated word like apartheid, Palestinians should instead organize rallies and conferences that call for compromise based on peace and the creation of two states."-Palestinian journalist Ray Hanania

So that's objectively false.

So, um, no.

I rather feel like the people who this legitimately offends wouldn't've voted Paul anyway, and actions like this, if repeated, could motivate some who might otherwise not have voted into supporting Paul.

Well, Biden just wanted to lubricate some honey around the faces of his potential Jewish primary voters. (someone please correct me if this is not the correct English translation for the German term "jemandem Honig um den Bart schmieren"). There are probably more Jewish voters among Democrats than Anti-Semites, so it was probably a good try.

We don't have an expression like that, unfortunately

Oppose it, and am fairly confident it will be struck down by the courts.

Libertineland, without a doubt. Certainly, the country has some rather significant problems with organized crime seeming to have influence over government policy, but government policy is generally rather reasonable and OK and it's clear that the problems could very well be ironed out from within eventually. Antifaland and Sceneland are both dictatorships, Antifaland being a pretty standard one where only one set of political views are seen as permissible, in favor of the ruling class, and Sceneland being more 'out there' radical.

Most of the Democratic leadership also supports Wall Street, that doesn't mean Occupy Wall Street was right wing. It's well known that the Democratic party is captured by powerful special interests such as the banks, the military industrial complex, and the Israel lobby.

It is? 'The banks' are a unified group?

You want me to explain 101. The 101 explanation is that it's not progressive to support colonization, apartheid, or ethno-religious estrangement, and it is progressive to support oppressed minorities, those seeking national self-determination (particularly from a disadvantaged position) and cross-national, cross-religious reconciliation.

But it certainly isn't progressive to support religious extremism, or the not-exactly-democratic regime Fatah is seeking to set up in the West Bank, against a democratic society. Nor is it progressive to slander policies as 'apartheid' or 'colonization' (which is an insult to those that really had to live under those policies historically).

Nobody in the United States supports 'ethno-religious estrangement' or opposes 'cross-national, cross-religious reconciliation' (of course, you do have groups such as Hamas and smaller groups in Israel such as Aryeh Eldad's party that failed to cross the threshold in 2013 which do), so you're trying to use a blatantly obvious strawman argument here.

Weiner is the worst kind of Democrat- a self aggrandizing egotist who hides behind progressive positions, but really cares more about promoting his own career than actually making a difference, who is "progressive" on everything except Israel (because he's Jewish, of course).

Really?

Yup, he epitomizes the shallowness and hypocrisy of the party, and its refusal to be progressive on the most long standing Middle Eastern issue.

So what would be the...ahem...progressive stance on the most long-standing Middle Eastern issue?

Are you serious? Go look it up. Anyway, aren't you a hawkish Republican? What do you care?

Yes, I'm a hawkish Republican, and it seems to me extremely strange that to many people the severing of the American-Israeli bond is considered the 'progressive' option, in spite of the harm that would cause to democracy and arguably more significantly to stability in the region. You brought it up, and I was interested in hearing your explanation on how that is the case.

But, in all seriousness, among American progressives there is real disagreement over foreign policy vis a vis Israel (though why anyone would dissent I still haven't the foggiest), with most elected progressive leadership actually being generally supportive of American policy towards Israel.

Weiner is the worst kind of Democrat- a self aggrandizing egotist who hides behind progressive positions, but really cares more about promoting his own career than actually making a difference, who is "progressive" on everything except Israel (because he's Jewish, of course).

Really?

Yup, he epitomizes the shallowness and hypocrisy of the party, and its refusal to be progressive on the most long standing Middle Eastern issue.

So what would be the...ahem...progressive stance on the most long-standing Middle Eastern issue?

Perry apparently wants to run for President in 2016; and after his disaster of a 2012 performance, if he wants to run again and be taken seriously he has to be redeemed in a non-presidential race first. So, it makes sense to me that Perry will run once again for one last term as Governor of Texas. He's beaten far more talented opponents than Greg Abbott and this will be familiar territory for Perry.

Now, I haven't read on any "hands-off" approach to fundraising or somesuch, which would seem to indicate that Perry isn't seeking reelection. He could be leaving politics, of course, but if he's not and intends to run for another office (President 2016 being the most likely) a victory in this race is absolutely necessary for him to be taken seriously.

Weiner is the worst kind of Democrat- a self aggrandizing egotist who hides behind progressive positions, but really cares more about promoting his own career than actually making a difference, who is "progressive" on everything except Israel (because he's Jewish, of course).

Really?