Look at this situation. We have two republican candidates who define themselves as outside their

[truthisfreedom]

party: they never mention the republican party, they call themselves mavericks, distance themselves from the incumbent republican president and campaign with a Democrat who had to call himself an independent to get voted in.

Completely undefined. People without a party. That's how they want to be seen.

On the other side, we have two people they define as being the MOST liberal members of their party, who absolutely, in their opinion, represent the core values of the Democratic Party. And for our candidates' part, they agree that they're proud members of the Democratic Party, and they stick up for any and all members of their party.

So how did McScrewy decide it would be a good idea to run as "undefined" and then reinforce the idea that our candidates actually have a supportive, non-confrontational relationship with their party?

Doesn't it seem normal to have a non-confrontational relationship with the party to which you belong?

[Lerkfish]

1. the problem with gimmicks is that they should be used sparingly, if at all.

The more you use them, the more transparent and ridiculous they appear.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Your question assumes that there was some deep thought and planning given to the

McSame/barracuda campaign. I think the ultimate choice for VP indicates that there was very little thought given to this entire venture. McSame was the last one left standing...somehow...and the rest is just a sequence of non-related events.

[FLyellowdog]

3. Why didn't they just run as Independents? Oh, no money there. Sorry.