ChrisWeigant.com

What To Call The Key 2016 Demographic?

[ Posted Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 – 17:18 UTC ]

The political media is falling down on the job. Where (oh where) are the cutesy names for the key demographic group in this election cycle? You can trace this phenomenon back to (at least) the vaunted Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, but more recently we've had Soccer Moms, NASCAR Dads, and Security Moms -- groups who were supposedly the most crucial for how the vote turned out in presidential years. Now, the construct seems a bit limiting (just moms and dads?), but I'm kind of surprised we haven't had such a snappy label for the group that most pundits have already identified as being the key to victory this November. I keep hearing "college-educated white women," but that's a real mouthful. Which is why I say the media is falling down on its job. Now, the job I speak of is admittedly a rather inane one, and might be properly defined as: "oversimplifying complex demographic trends and then obsessing over one particular slice of the electorate at the expense of all others." But as they say, it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it.

So what should the college-educated white female voter be called? These are (mostly) suburbanites, and most pundits even narrow it down to only married college-educated white women. At first glance, it might seem we've made it back to the beginning of the cycle, and that "Soccer Moms" might be worth dusting off and reusing. But I've never really liked the term, personally, because it seems to be rather sexist in nature. Perhaps I am being oversensitive (not being female, it's hard to gauge these things), but reducing women to their familial status ("Mom") and their supposed-occupation of shuttling the kids to and from soccer practice seems a bit retro, at the very least (and not in a good way). Plus, it's already been used once.

I've never seen the demographic breakdown, but I would assume that many college-educated white women actually have jobs outside the home. So perhaps this should be reflected in their label? Professional Moms? Even that doesn't really have much of a ring to it, but it seems a step up from Soccer Moms. Commuter Moms? 'Burb Moms? None of these seems snappy enough to go viral, I have to admit. And Corporate Moms seems a tad negative, even if it might be more descriptive.

We could concentrate on the education part of the description, which would give us options such as Educated Moms, Diploma Moms, or Graduate Moms, but the last two would be slightly misplaced since most of the descriptions specify "married white women with some college education" -- meaning not all are actual graduates. Reaching back to the 60s and 70s might give us Co-Ed Moms, but there's the same retro (bad, not good) connotation there, so probably not. The best in this category might be Collegiate Moms, which has a certain dignity and ivory-tower quality to it, at least.

The whole "Moms" thing seems a little annoying, especially after typing it out in all those previous suggestions. It does conjure up the "married with kids" image, but again seems to reduce women with a college education to just their family situation. The only thing really going for it as a descriptive label is it definitely describes the group as women. But what could it be replaced with that would be better? I have no real answer for that, but still kind of cringe at all the "Moms" labels, personally.

Perhaps it could be achieved by using the label "Republicans" instead, and choosing a prominent example (real or fictional) as a lead-in. The most obvious of these would be Hillary Republicans (shades of Reagan Democrats), but this doesn't really narrow the demographic down enough. It might actually wind up being the preferred label after the election, as the data is sifted through by the number-crunchers, but that's just speculation on my part. If Hillary truly does have appeal to moderate Republicans (of either gender), then Hillary Republicans might be the best way to explain her victory. Clinton Republicans probably wouldn't work as well, since we'd have two Clintons who became president -- so it'd be slightly confusing.

Perhaps a fictional character might be the way to go. The biggest fictional character in recent American politics (well, not all that recent, now) was Murphy Brown, due to Dan Quayle saying some derogatory things about the character's choice to have a baby even though she was not married. But that's reaching pretty far back. Since then, no other sitcom character springs to mind when thinking of political (or social) issues, at least not to me.

This is going to prove I'm not exactly a millennial, but the first thing that did spring to mind was Mary Tyler Moore (Mary Tyler Moore Republicans, to be exact). However, I quickly realized this didn't really work, except as a mashup of her two most famous characters. In The Mary Tyler Moore Show Mary was an educated, professional woman -- in fact, she became the role model for educated, professional women everywhere, for a long time to come. But her character was not married and lived in an urban apartment, not in the suburbs. This is where the mashup part comes in, because as Laura Petrie on The Dick Van Dyke Show, she was an even-earlier role model -- for suburban housewives. Unfortunately, Laura never went to college (she was an ex-dancer, in fact). So neither one really works all that well, and both characters are extremely dated to begin with (again, showing my age here).

The only recent example I could think of isn't all that well-known by her character's actual name: Temperance Brennan (or Temperance Booth, after she got married). You might know her better as "Bones," from the show of the same name. But Bones Moms or even Bones Republicans isn't going to work, for obvious reasons (too easy to read it as a verb). And Temperance Republicans probably already has a historic definition ("those in the GOP who were for Prohibition"). It's a shame neither of her character's names works, since Dr. Bones is smart as a whip, highly-educated, married, and lives in what appears to be a nice house in the Virginia suburbs. She's an excellent representative of the demographic in question, in other words. But "Bones Republicans For Hillary" obviously just does not work.

I must admit my knowledge of television drama and sitcoms is rather limited, so I'd certainly be open to suggestions for any other fictional character who might fit the bill (feel free to chime in, down in the comments). My lack of creativity in this department stems from lack of knowledge, I fully admit (I just don't watch all that much non-political television). The only other recent character I could come up with was one of the characters from the show Parenthood, who was indeed married and highly-educated (she was a powerful lawyer), but I confess I can't even remember the character's name -- meaning few other people are likely to, either (it was an ensemble cast, not a show about her, after all).

I think the best example I came up with while brainstorming does not use a fictional character but rather a real-life professional woman. Because of this, it is not her character's demographics which matter (I have no idea if she's married or lives in the suburbs, in other words), but rather her audience appeal. Ignore the whole "college educated white women" thing, to put this another way, and focus instead on how these women have historically voted. Since they normally vote Republican, and since they are intelligent women, they probably keep up on political news. But where might they get their political news from? Which shows might they watch on a regular basis? Add in the fact that they're breaking heavily away from Donald Trump due to his piggish attitudes towards women, and I think I've got a perfect candidate: Megyn Kelly.

Megyn Kelly was the first target of Trump's boorish anti-woman behavior (or, to be strictly accurate, the first target of Trump-as-presidential-candidate), because she asked him in a primary debate about his previous boorish comments towards women. Trump clearly didn't like getting asked such a thing, and name-dropped Rosie O'Donnell for the first (but not only) time during a presidential debate. This only served to further alienate women, and then Trump later attacked Kelly herself with his infamous "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever" comment. This was, in fact, the actual starting point for Trump's massive problem among the demographic group we're talking about here -- college-educated white married women in the suburbs. As a group, they recoiled in horror over Trump's feud with Kelly -- even those who had never previously heard of Megyn Kelly.

So my suggestion for the "reduce the electorate to one key group and call them by a snappy name" contest this time around would be either Megyn Kelly Moms or Megyn Kelly Republicans. The connotations are clear -- women who might watch Kelly's show on Fox News, who have regularly voted Republican, but who are absolutely disgusted with Donald Trump's continuing misogyny and demeaning comments towards women. If it actually caught on, it could even be shortened to Megyn Moms (which does have a nice alliterative ring to it) or Megyn Republicans.

Since the rest of the media is falling down on the job of providing a snappy name for the key demographic in the election, I am offering up these suggestions to fill the void. Megyn Moms or Megyn Kelly Republicans immediately bring to mind the debate fight Trump picked with her -- which is one of the reasons why this demographic has been identified as the key one this year. It's not a perfect label (for one, I would think Kelly herself might push back on being identified as the reason Republicans lost a presidential election), but it was the best I could come up with. If you've got a better idea, I would love to hear it in the comments.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

102 Comments on “What To Call The Key 2016 Demographic?”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    New demographic? Or sub-group of your new demo: Assault Survivors.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/in-donald-trump-i-see-my-own-attacker.html

    As noted in the last thread, 2 women have come out to the NY Times about Sniffles accosting them. One was 35 years ago. One was in 2005. I just saw references to a woman talking about Sniffles pawing her in 2013.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    And then there's the Peeping Trump victims -- the women (and girls) he would barge into while they were undressing/dressing.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/sexism-the-only-thing-donald-trump-hasn-t-lied-about.html

    Sniffles today got all excited when he heard that he would win if women couldn't vote. It will be glorious when he not only goes down, he goes down at the feet of a woman. Sometimes justice is served.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Gladiators :)

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Millenial Mavens? Which could abbrevate MMs pronounced Em And Ems, but lose the & to avoid trademark infringement. Bonus: Red and Blue MMs. Green MMs.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:
  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Inane, yes.
    On so many levels.

    College educated white women voting Republican.
    College educated white women not voting for Trump because of his misogyny... rather than say his policies, racism, xenophobia...
    College educated white women being compared to a TV presenter hired by FOX misogynists for her professionalism?
    College educated white women switching to Hillary.
    College educated white women who normally vote Republican being considered a key demographic for a Democrat.

    Clearly, a college education isn't what it should be.
    But, truly, the ironies abounding in this political analysis... I would say something along the lines of too subtle by half, but I get the impression it's unintentional this time.
    Please, please, please correct me if I'm wrong.

    A

  9. [9] 
    Steedo wrote:

    To look at the larger picture it seems more like the first political era of Empowered Women (not catchy, I know) rather than limiting it to crossover Repubs or any particular Moms. I recall the liberal Texas journalist Molly Ivins admitting that she had voted for Repub Kay Baily Hutchinson for US Senator just to "shake up the old-boy system". I don't get too watery-eyed about the first female President but it is certainly historic and I do have a daughter. I have predicted from the start that a certain percentage of GOP women would vote for HRC just for the history, DT is just pushing them in droves with his buffoonery.

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    How about "PBS Moms"?

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-attacked-people-writer/?xid=socialflow_twitter_peoplemag

    Why here's another one! People Magazine writer whom Sniffy accosted and invited to have an affair with him, while Melania was pregnant and in the next room. The old grab and kiss gambit when the wife is out of the way and the grabbee is not expecting it.

    Anderson Cooper got him to say he never touched anyone -- a whole lot of ladies beg to differ. I predict this trickle is going to turn into a torrent, fast.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    So what should the college-educated white female voter be called?

    Snowflakes.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    New demographic? Or sub-group of your new demo: Assault Survivors.

    That demographic is already covered by Bill Clinton's victims...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    As noted in the last thread, 2 women have come out to the NY Times about Sniffles accosting them. One was 35 years ago. One was in 2005. I just saw references to a woman talking about Sniffles pawing her in 2013.

    Until such time as you condemn Bill Clinton for his rapes and sexual assaults, you have absolutely no moral foundation to condemn Trump for anything...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Snowflakes

    Does it surprise anyone at all that snowflake wants them named after him? :)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I understand why you are so desperate to throw ANYTHING against the wall..

    The WikiLeaks expose has been DEVASTATING to Hillary's campaign..

    She is losing hispanics and Bernie supporters by the tens of millions... Black Americans were never keen on Hillary to begin with and they are also staying home by the millions in disgust..

    Angry women who vote SOLELY with their vagina is the ONLY group Hillary has left....

    So, I get it.. I really do.. I understand completely where you are coming from...

    Desperation.. It's not a pretty sight...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does it surprise anyone at all that snowflake wants them named after him? :)

    Once again, you are wrong.. I know, I know.. It's impossible for you to accept but the facts clearly show that you are wrong...

    generation snowflake
    The group of young people today that have the INSANE belief they have the right to NOT be offended by any of the beliefs/viewpoints of the other 7.1 billion people of this planet. When these fragile/infantile people are offended, most likely they will react in someway like a toddler (cry, scream, act hysterical, etc).

    Ohhh look, we have some members of generation snowflake that are complaining they don't have any Safe Spaces at the University of XYZ.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=generation%20snowflake

    How does it feel to be PROVEN wrong with the facts once again?? :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    How does it feel to be PROVEN wrong with the facts once again?? :D

    This is the point where you whine hysterically what a horrible person I am and how you could ignore me if you wanted to.... :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I think we've seen this movie before. Donald is starting to look a lot like Cosby. The stories that the women are telling sound just like what he was bragging about. Melanomia is probably feeling a lot like Hillary right now - publicly humiliated and guilty of groping by association.

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump's goon squad does have a tough job ahead. His whole scampaign strategy for the stretch run is to bring up old stories about Bill Clinton while his flying monkeys call Donald's accusers liars. What could go wrong?

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neilm -10

    I like it.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we've seen this movie before. Donald is starting to look a lot like Cosby. The stories that the women are telling sound just like what he was bragging about. Melanomia is probably feeling a lot like Hillary right now - publicly humiliated and guilty of groping by association.

    Now we see personal attacks and name-calling on Trump's family...

    And the condemnation from the WPG??

    {{cchhhirrrrpppppp}} {{chhhirrrrrrrrppppp}}

    Which simply proves what I have said all along.. Ya'all don't mind violence, assaults, attacks and name-calling...

    As long is it comes from the Left Wingery directed at the Right....

    Textbook hypocrisy....

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Q? What do you call a red Trump ballcap?
    A.. Ass hat.

    Works on at least 2 levels.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would say that 'snowflake' is an apt name for people who can't address inconvenient facts and who run away when confronted with the facts...

    So, congrats WPG... The majority of ya'all have just earned the moniker, 'snowflake'.... :D

    "So say we all"
    -Commander Adama, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

    :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    DEMOCRAT GOV SAYS OBAMACARE IS NO LONGER AFFORDABLE
    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/gov-dayton-affordable-care-act/

    Who would have EVER thought that TrainWreckCare would have EVER become such a ... well... train wreck...

    Oh wait.. I think it was ME!!! :D

    "Who said 'those who can't think, fight'. Oh wait. I think it was me!"
    -Judy Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    Face it, my fellow Weigantians..

    Ya'all were WRONG about TrainWreckCare AKA CrapCare...

    I was, once again, dead on ballz right...

    "These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross

    :D

    I sense an all-day victory lap coming on... :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'm off to vote. ID. Check. Meter quarters. Check. Coffee and Mug. Check.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.

    The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a dick” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.

    The sheer number of insults in the email trove has left the Clinton campaign, along with outside organizations such as the Center for American Progress that were routinely involved in the brutal bad-mouthing, unable or unwilling to respond. Instead, they have blamed the hack on Russia and have refused to even confirm that the emails are genuine, though they also haven’t denied their authenticity.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinton-campaigns-wikileaks-emails-reveal-/

    Grab the popcorn!!! This is gonna be a great show!!!! :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm off to vote. ID. Check. Meter quarters. Check. Coffee and Mug. Check.

    What self-respecting Left Winger has an ID to vote!!??? :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House Watch
    White House Watch: Trump Takes the Lead

    The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13

    Whaaa??? How can this be!!???

    Ya'all have claimed that "TRUMP IS TOAST"!!! Over 500 times!!!!

    :D

    Ya'all can't see me, but I am laughing my ass off!! :D

    "Kahn... I am laughing at the superior intellect.."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D heh

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    I again offer to write a guest column for the next time you have nothing to write about.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Q? What do you call a red Trump ballcap?
    A.. Ass hat.

    So....

    http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/53/45/41/11425861/3/920x920.jpg

    Cops are "ass hats"...

    And the anti-cop hate-cop mentality that permeates Weigantia is confirmed.... :^/

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Pennsylvania...

    HARRISBURG (KDKA) – Nearly 100,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have switched to Republican since the beginning of the year.

    What’s more: The Pennsylvania Republican party says more than 240-thousand new voters have joined the party since last November.

    The state Republican party says that the surge in Republican registrations is nearly twice the number of newly registered Republicans compared to both the 2008 and 2012 numbers combined.

    The party says the new numbers come from the Pennsylvania Department of State which shows that 97,607 Democrats have actually switched to Republican.

    Numbers also show that 38,020 Republicans actually switched to Democrats.

    “Enthusiasm is clearly on the side of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania this year,” Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason said. “Republicans are making historic gains in voter registration in the Keystone State. As the last-minute registrations are processed, we’re confident we will see our Party grow even larger.
    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/nearly-100000-pennsylvania-voters-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/

    Hillary can kiss Pennsylvania good bye.... :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    My vote is cast. The early voting system works very smoothly in my county - in and out in 15 minutes. This was not always the case.

    Bob Dylan gets a Nobel Prize for Lit. Well earned IMHO.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    And ANOTHER Podesta Email Dump is in progress...

    Considering how bad the last few dumps has hurt Camp Clinton one really has to wonder how much more can they take...

    And it's also worth noting that the information being exposed is progressively worser and worser for Camp Clinton...

    I am betting Hillary is kicking herself for not Drone'ing Assange when she had the chance... :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    My vote is cast. The early voting system works very smoothly in my county - in and out in 15 minutes.

    Who'de ya vote for?? :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    ooooooo... Odumbo just issued another "red line"..

    White House: We will respond to Russia hacks

    When will this administration get it thru their collective moronic heads??

    Odumbo has absolutely *ZERO* credibility on the world stage...

    ZERO... ZIP.... NADA.... NONE.....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Michael #14

    An action or policy is meritorious or not regardless of who the perpetrator is. To constantly insist, as you do, that an action is OK simply because someone else does it is absurd, and tedious. I love arguing politics but to simply yell "he did it too" is boring. I want to issue a challenge to you: Explain and advocate for one of DT's policies without once mentioning another person or political party. You could do me a great service by helping me to understand any of his policy's. I do not actually know anyone who supports him and my limited command of the language renders his speeches incomprehensible to me.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    To constantly insist, as you do, that an action is OK simply because someone else does it is absurd, and tedious.

    To constantly miss my point intentionally is just as absurd and just as tedious.. My point is that no one here has any moral authority to condemn or attack Trump for his words or his alleged actions due to the fact that they give a pass to a person who has done much worse, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because said person has a '-D' after their name..

    Explain and advocate for one of DT's policies without once mentioning another person or political party.

    I would be happy to...

    Trump supports actually ENFORCING our immigration laws instead of the Open Borders concepts that are currently in effect...

    There is ample facts to prove that the open borders concept has caused the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans..

    Trump supports the idea that being in this country illegally *IS* illegal and not just a victim-less infraction...

    Is that the kind of answer you were looking for??

    I would appreciated a response, but I don't really expect one... :D

    Now, it's my turn..

    I would like to see ANYONE here comment on Hillary Clinton's activities as exposed by WikiLeaks without bashing or even mentioning Trump once..

    I proved I can do it..

    I don't think anyone else here can... :D

    Balls in your court, SF.. :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    To constantly miss my point intentionally is just as absurd and just as tedious.. My point is that no one here has any moral authority to condemn or attack Trump for his words or his alleged actions due to the fact that they give a pass to a person who has done much worse, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because said person has a '-D' after their name..

    In other words, my point is NOT that "an action is OK simply because someone else does it"....

    The action is NOT OK... Period....

    My point is that no one here has any moral foundation to pass judgement on said action because of their complete and utter inability to pass judgement fairly without ANY bigotry or prejudice......

    Does that clear it up for you??

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    If not, I can give you many other examples... :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neilm [10]: Another like from me. NPR moms was my first thought, as that brings in the whole 'commuter' vibe.

    The great Trump meltdown has begun. Finally. Trump took the bait, and now the hook's been set deep. He can't say anything about Bill's history without simultaneously bringing up his own. Best hypocrisy of the week goes to the Trump spokesperson who said that it's unfair to bring up things that are 30 years old.

    The emails aren't an issue; the Russians took care of that by leaving big boot prints as they clumsily hacked their targets, and then someone inserted obvious forgeries, putting the credibility of the whole dump into question.

    So we have the spectacle of a catholic Hillary advisor being accused of insulting Catholics in an email. Ridiculous.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The great Trump meltdown has begun.

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #589

    Accurate Predictions: Still ZERO...

    :D

    The emails aren't an issue; the Russians took care of that by leaving big boot prints as they clumsily hacked their targets, and then someone inserted obvious forgeries, putting the credibility of the whole dump into question.

    Of course, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that the Russians are involved..

    Just wishful thinking from Camp Clinton and their MSM minions.. :D

    Ya'all are like Lucy Lawless in The Simpsons..

    "Every time there is something we don't like, we'll blame it on the Russians.."

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Rush Limbaugh finally gets it:

    “You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element,” the conservative talk show host said in comments posted online by Media Matters. “Do you know what it is? Consent.”

    He continued:

    “If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”

    But Limbaugh still doesn't really get it:

    “If you could get the dog to consent with you, if you can get the horse to consent, we got no problem with it,” Rush said. “And they don’t! So morality has been boiled down to consent, is my point, and it’s true.”

    Ah, well..

  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:

    Lou Dobbs re-tweeted the home address and phone number of one of Trump's accusers, claiming, erroneously, that she was somehow connected to the Clinton Foundation. The tweet has been deleted.

    Trumpers. They will use their positions of power to unleash venom on unprotected citizens. Dobbs did this. Fucking Dobbs did this. To a 74 year old woman so that she can be harassed, and who knows what else.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that the Russians are involved..

    Sure. We should ignore US Intelligence agencies on this one, because, y'know, Trump says it's not true.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The great Trump meltdown has begun.

    TRUMP IS TOAST prediction #589

    Accurate Predictions: Still ZERO...

    :D

    A "meltdown" that has pushed Trump into the lead...

    DO ya'all REALLY believe the drivel ya'all post??

    REALLY???

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure. We should ignore US Intelligence agencies on this one, because, y'know, Trump says it's not true.

    No intelligence agencies have stated that it's the Russians..

    Only the "intelligence specialist" from MSNBC...

    Everyone else, including the Odumbo Administration is playing off of that "official" assessment..

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [44]: Lou Dobbs started the whole anti-immigrant thing back when he was still at CNN. I'm not surprised that he's deeply in the tank for Trump. Kinda figures: he's deplorable.

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    [48] Balthasar: Yes, he's been a scumrat for a long time. Of course he's a Trumper.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lou Dobbs re-tweeted the home address and phone number of one of Trump's accusers, claiming, erroneously, that she was somehow connected to the Clinton Foundation. The tweet has been deleted.

    And once again (Pay attention SFBear) ya'all have absolutely NO MORAL AUTHORITY to condemn Dobbs for what he allegedly did...

    NONE.... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kinda figures: he's deplorable.

    The problem is, ya'all define "deplorable" as ANYONE who doesn't agree with your political ideology and Party slavery...

    Kinda makes ya'all.. well... Deplorable.. As normal people define it..

    And bigoted.... Definitely bigoted.. :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No intelligence agencies have stated that it's the Russians..

    Wrong. Very wrong. Here's the joint statement from the DNI and Homeland Security on their website:

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The problem is, ya'all define "deplorable" as ANYONE who doesn't agree with your political ideology and Party slavery...

    Wrong again. I can name plenty of GOP folks that I don't agree with, but who are not deplorable:

    George Will
    Hugh Hewitt
    Paul Ryan (hapless, but not deplorable)
    Mitt Romney
    John McCain (confused, but not deplorable)
    Susan Collins
    John Kaschich

    Shall I continue?

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump is in for a surprise if he overrules his lawyers and tries to sue the NYT:

    "McCraw wrote that if Trump disagrees with women being allowed to speak out and believes “the law of this country forces us and those who would dare criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”"

    Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/327479319/Nyt-Letter#from_embed?content=10079&ad_group=Online+Tracking+Link&campaign=Skimbit%2C+Ltd.&keyword=ft500noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong again. I can name plenty of GOP folks that I don't agree with, but who are not deplorable:

    You DO agree with them on Trump....

    So, that's why they are not deplorable.. Because they agree with you...

    Thank you for proving my point. :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong. Very wrong. Here's the joint statement from the DNI and Homeland Security on their website:

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-

    "is confident"...

    Which is simply spook-speak for saying, "The President wants us to blame the Russians so we're blaming the Russians"...

    There is no factual confirmed evidence to convict the Russians over the hack..

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    I was at an FSI conference in NY a few years ago and Lou Dobbs was one of the "celebrity" panelists on the evening round table. He started cracking anti-Obama jokes but he totally misread the audience. This was an audience of top Wall St. IT and trading strategy professionals who can detect the whiff of intellectual weakness at 100 yards. The silence as he trotted out his tried and tested BS on the live audience quickly became embarrassing. You could almost see him deflating - being humble very obviously isn't one of his skills.

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You DO agree with them on Trump.. that's why they are not deplorable.. Because they agree with you.

    You're moving the bar again. Before, it was "ANYONE who doesn't agree with your political ideology and Party slavery".

    But, y'know, if the basket fits..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're moving the bar again. Before, it was "ANYONE who doesn't agree with your political ideology and Party slavery".

    And your splitting hairs and getting semantical because you don't like to be proven wrong..

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    [23] TheStig,

    *LOL* Good one. :)

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're moving the bar again. Before, it was "ANYONE who doesn't agree with your political ideology and Party slavery".

    But hay, I'll play yer Semantic Game..

    Everyone who disagrees with you on Trump is a "deplorable" and is "irredeemable"...

    It's funny..

    The Left Wingery loved Sarah Palin.. Right up to the point that she was the GOP VP candidate...

    The Left Wingery LOVED Donald Trump... Right up to the point that he was the GOP POTUS candidate..

    Are you seeing the pattern I am seeing???

    For ya'all, it's ALL about Party slavery... NOTHING else matters...

    There is absolutely NO independent thought with ya'all....

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    chardonnay ladies?

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is in for a surprise if he overrules his lawyers and tries to sue the NYT:

    "McCraw wrote that if Trump disagrees with women being allowed to speak out and believes “the law of this country forces us and those who would dare criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”"

    Yea?? Tell that to Rolling Stone magazine... :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama and his top foreign policy advisers are expected to meet on Friday to consider their military and other options in Syria as Syrian and Russian aircraft continue to pummel Aleppo and other targets, U.S. officials said.

    Some top officials argue the United States must act more forcefully in Syria or risk losing what influence it still has over moderate rebels and its Arab, Kurdish and Turkish allies in the fight against Islamic State, the officials told Reuters.

    As I said.. Odumbo is flailing around trying to have SOME relevance in Syria..

    But he has scroo'ed the pooch so many times in his foreign policy debacles, he has give the US absolutely ZERO credibility in the region....

    Odumbo's actions in the region are a joke... Pure and simple...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Are you seeing the pattern I am seeing?

    No, I'm not. No one even knew who Sarah Palin was until she was chosen VP. Except for Bill Kristol, who recommended her (he's always wrong, but he's not deplorable). We found out how utterly clueless she was shortly afterward.

    As for Trump, I guess you missed the part where Obama completely reduced him in size (until he matched his hands) at the WH Correspondent's Dinner on the same night that he and Hillary were coordinating the killing of Bin Laden. Or is that a bit of selective amnesia on your part? I'm not sure Trump had even joined the Grand Ol' Party yet at that point, and he'd already become deplorable.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    [18] Michale,

    This is the point where you whine hysterically what a horrible person I am and how you could ignore me if you wanted to.... :D

    *LOL* Oh, come on with the projection already! Is that how you see yourself, as horrible? I sure don't, although I will say it's awfully fulfilling to imagine you reading my posts and thinking I'm whining while I'm laughing my ass off. :)

    It is true I can ignore you whenever I want thanks to Charlie Brown's totally functional Tamper Monkey device, but I do so like reading you making a fool of yourself and watching the desperation grow by the post; you are so nicely mirroring Trump.

    Seriously, snowflake... no amount of spin will change the fact that I call you "snowflake" and the fact that you've now suggested the name "snowflakes" to CW, and I most certainly will not be ignoring Trump or you anytime soon while either of you two flakes are in full meltdown. :)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I'm not.

    Of course you're not. Your Party slavery prevents you...

    No one even knew who Sarah Palin was until she was chosen VP.

    Bull.. She was VERY well known in the PNW and was VERY popular amongst Democrats. She was the TOP rated governor in the country...

    As for Trump, I guess you missed the part where Obama completely reduced him in size

    And I guess YOU missed the part where Bubba, Hillary and Trump were besties...

    Of course you didn't MISS it. Your Party slavery doesn't allow you to think for yourself...

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is true I can ignore you whenever I want thanks to Charlie Brown's totally functional Tamper Monkey device,

    No, you can't.. As evidenced by the fact that you continue to read my comments religiously..

    The only one who is hurt by ya'all's crutch/filter is CW.COM... But, of course, ya'all don't give a rat's ass about that...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    apophis wrote:

    [62]
    nypoet22;

    Chardonnay ladies.

    I like that. Most of the professional women I know drink Chardonnay and vote...

  70. [70] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "is confident"...Which is simply spook-speak for saying, "The President wants us to blame the Russians so we're blaming the Russians"...

    No, it's not. When the DNI and DHS use the word 'confident', they mean CONFIDENT. As in: hard data.

    As much as Trump denies having ties to the Russians, evidence keeps popping up. The latest example was when he apparently quoted Russian propaganda in a speech last week.

    "Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?" said Kurt Eichenwald, whose article in Newsweek was misquoted by Trump/Russia.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, it's not. When the DNI and DHS use the word 'confident', they mean CONFIDENT. As in: hard data.

    Yea, says the guy who is ignorant of the field...

    You can scream hysterically about the Russians all you want..

    It won't change the fact that Hillary's secrets are being laid bare for all the world to see...

    And she is frantic.. :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can scream hysterically about the Russians all you want..

    It won't change the fact that Hillary's secrets are being laid bare for all the world to see...

    You will note that Camp Clinton has not DENIED the validity of any specific email released.. In fact, Hillary has CONFIRMED the validity of the emails....

    Fear monger about the Russians all you want, my friend..

    But that is all it is.. Hysterical fear mongering...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And I guess YOU missed the part where Bubba, Hillary and Trump were besties.

    Attending a wedding doesn't make you 'besties', but that happened before the birther stuff, I think.

    But there is the little matter of the long phone call that Trump had with Bill the night before he announced..

    Hey, you don't suppose that Bill sent Trump in to assure a Hillary win, and destroy the GOP in the process? 'Cause if that was the plan, it's working perfectly.

    I remember that when asked about it, Clinton said, "I wish I was that smart!" He didn't say, 'No'. :)

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    But there is the little matter of the long phone call that Trump had with Bill the night before he announced..

    Exactly.. Like I said...

    Trump was the Left Wingery's bestest buddy.. Right up to the point he became the GOP candidate for POTUS..

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    i'd wager hillary's about as frantic in real life as her SNL doppelganger:

    https://youtu.be/R4HfwBXNvgM

    as to whether that will lead to complacency and a lost election, i maintain (as i have since july) that it's still much more in the air than in the bag.

    JL

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @phil,

    thanks for the kudos. i figured white women, white wine, and chardonnay is the most common - though a round merlot or a delicate pinot noir may be just as common in those circles.

    what say you, CW, do i win the cork?

    JL

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'd wager hillary's about as frantic in real life as her SNL doppelganger:

    Time will tell.. :D

    Ya'all have been known to be wrong a time or two.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Fear monger about the Russians all you want, my friend..But that is all it is.. Hysterical fear mongering.

    It appears that Mike Pence missed that memo.

  79. [79] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Let's call them "future divorcées".

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Suburban College Republican Educated Women.

    No, an acronym doesn't immediately jump to mind. heh.

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    No, you can't.. As evidenced by the fact that you continue to read my comments religiously..

    Of course I'm reading right now! As long as you're in full meltdown like Trump and performing to a level that entertains me, I will naturally be reading your posts.

    The only one who is hurt by ya'all's crutch/filter is CW.COM... But, of course, ya'all don't give a rat's ass about that...

    Oh, I see it very differently. If your posts are monotonous and keep repeating the same cut-and-paste bullshit over and over, some people are going to naturally filter you out... like making a choice whether you want to watch television reruns or a movie you've seen countless times... complete with the same regurgitated cut-and-paste dialogue.

    Should you really be blaming others if they perceive you as the rat? Why blame people for skipping the monotonous cut-and-paste content when it's you who keeps posting it? You think maybe you could pull your head out and "give a rat's ass about that"? :D

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    I like "Chardonnay Ladies". More generic would be "White Wine Moms".

  83. [83] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I like all the suggestions so far. PBS Moms (and NPR Moms) is short and snappy. Chardonnay Ladies certainly wins the prize for most amusing!

    Michale -

    Seen the LA Times poll yet? Even they're now admitting Trump's not in the lead. Oh where oh where is the skewed polls site to comfort Republicans who don't want to see the oncoming landslide?

    Heh.

    -CW

  84. [84] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    As for the frivolity of this column, well, I plead guilty as charged. This election has been so downright crazy that every once in a while I have to try to lighten things up. Since Craig Ferguson's not on late night anymore, it's writing columns like this that keep me sane.

    :-)

    -CW

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Suburban College Republican Educated Women.

    No, an acronym doesn't immediately jump to mind. heh.

    Credit where credit is due.

    THAT was funny.. :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Seen the LA Times poll yet? Even they're now admitting Trump's not in the lead. Oh where oh where is the skewed polls site to comfort Republicans who don't want to see the oncoming landslide?

    Apparently, you missed the latest Rasmussen Poll..

    And the WikiLeaks revelations are starting to have an effect, both on Hillary personally and her numbers..

    PLUS Hillary is getting hysterical over the BILL IS A RAPIST protesters.. :D

    It's gonna be fun to see her fall...

    I can see the headline now..

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I see it very differently. If your posts are monotonous and keep repeating the same cut-and-paste bullshit over and over, some people are going to naturally filter you out... like making a choice whether you want to watch television reruns or a movie you've seen countless times... complete with the same regurgitated cut-and-paste dialogue.

    Of course you see it differently... You are new around here and don't know nor care what the CW.COM Fundraiser is all about...

    Michale...

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Of course you see it differently... You are new around here and don't know nor care what the CW.COM Fundraiser is all about...

    I can read... like you pointed out... "religiously." :p It's all archived, snowflake!

    Do you EVER, EVER, EVER get tired of making yourself look thoroughly and utterly [credit to TS] ass-hat ignorant? *LOL*

    So many people are blocking your monotonous bullshit and paying CW in honor of Charlie Brown's most excellent and fully functional Tamper Monkey device, and that's on YOU and your boring same old lame old repetitive crap. :D

    While I am new and enjoying watching your desperate meltdown and some of the propaganda you are being spoon fed from the right-wing alternate reality that I refer to as the "bubble," it's quite simply apparently not enough to keep the regulars interested... I suggest you troll harder because winter is coming. $$$$$

  89. [89] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kick [88],

    It is excellent to look at all the interesting comments w/o shuffling through all the boring spam and, if the house troll cares so much about CM.com, you'd think he'd take personal responsibility for his philanthropy. It is hilarious that the chatbot thinks that we other donors should feel guilty for not reading monotonous bullshit. Enjoy the meltdown. It'll become mind-numbingly predictable soon enough, if it hasn't already. Predicable as Trump calling his accusers ugly.

  90. [90] 
    apophis wrote:

    [88]
    Kick
    [89]
    John From Censornati

    Slow Clap......

  91. [91] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    I keep thinking that "Chardonnay Ladies" is the title of some song by Joni Mitchell...

  92. [92] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [33] TheStig

    Congrats on voting! I still like voting in person on "the day"; feels so festive some how.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    So many people are blocking your monotonous bullshit and paying CW in honor of Charlie Brown's most excellent and fully functional Tamper Monkey device, and that's on YOU and your boring same old lame old repetitive crap. :D

    Once again, you spout complete and utter bullshit without ANY facts to back it up...

    But hay.... I'll play your game, put you on the spot and shame you with your BS and your lies..

    My average yearly donation to CW.COM during the fund raiser is around $800...

    If you can get 8 people to promise FOR THE RECORD, that they will donate $100 each to CW.COM in the upcoming fund raiser...

    I will cease commenting and let CW.COM become the useless echo chamber ya'all seem to want it to be...

    Balls in your court, sweet cheeks.. I expect you to completely bail and ignore this, proving once and for all who is the fraud and full of shit (you) and who isn't (me)...

    :D

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, that's what I thought..

    ALL BS... ALL the time... :D

    Yer dismissed, honey bunch.. :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    41

    "The emails aren't an issue; the Russians took care of that by leaving big boot prints as they clumsily hacked their targets, and then someone inserted obvious forgeries"

    Please share the evidence that the Russian government was responsible for the hack, AND please share the evidence of "forgeries".

    The government and Hillary supporters keep making these claims, but so far they are just unsubstantiated assertions.

    The actual record of Wikileaks to date is spotless. 100% of the documents they've released have been authentic.

    Are you just believing what others are saying despite the lack of evidence or are you privy to information that hasn't been shared publicly?

    I noticed the troll pointed out one of the two qualifiers in the intelligence report (the other was "we believe" in the part where they want to blame the government as opposed to just a random Russian hacker)... but they aren't sharing the evidence for some reason, and there has been a little historical problem with factual accuracy from these quarters (ask Hillary).

    But don't forget the evidence for the supposed forgeries.

    BTW, since you obviously missed it, three days ago Glen Greenwald tore Kurt Eichenwald a new one for his nonsense... it's the first article that comes up if you Google their names together. But the rest of the article is worth reading too... it's about you!

    GG also had a nice column yesterday explaining why the source of leaked material is irrelevant to journalists and the newsworthiness of the material, and Micah had a nice column about how easy it is to hack the email accounts of people who don't take basic precautions.

    A

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    apophis,

    Slow Clap......

    If you really feel that way, step up... :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    {sssiiiggghhhhhh}

    Everyone wants to leech but no one wants to step up...

    Typical Left Wingers.. :^/

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you just believing what others are saying despite the lack of evidence or are you privy to information that hasn't been shared publicly?

    Of course he is..

    There is absolutely ZERO confirmed factual evidence that proves ANY sort of Russian involvement..

    EACH and EVERY claim from both the media and the Odumbo Administration all originates with the same source..

    An "intelligence specialist" from MSNBC...

    BTW, since you obviously missed it, three days ago Glen Greenwald tore Kurt Eichenwald a new one for his nonsense... it's the first article that comes up if you Google their names together. But the rest of the article is worth reading too... it's about you!

    Yea, but the fanatical slaves don't care about FACTS.....

    GG also had a nice column yesterday explaining why the source of leaked material is irrelevant to journalists and the newsworthiness of the material,

    The *ONLY* reason the WPG sheep are questioning the validity of the emails is because it's against their queen rhymes-with-witch...

    If the emails went against Trump, they would swallow them all, hook line and sinker...

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    [93] Michale,

    So many people are blocking your monotonous bullshit and paying CW in honor of Charlie Brown's most excellent and fully functional Tamper Monkey device, and that's on YOU and your boring same old lame old repetitive crap. :D

    Once again, you spout complete and utter bullshit without ANY facts to back it up...

    Oh, really? Maybe it's your reading comprehension problem kicking in again. Read carefully and try to comprehend:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/21/donald-ducking-the-press/#comment-84972

    [73] neilm
    [88] TheStig
    and Kick

    But hay.... I'll play your game, put you on the spot and shame you with your BS and your lies..

    I was not aware that the TRUTH was a "game." Oh, wait... Trump's kind of "truth" actually is a game. Trump says "I will never lie to you" (which is a lie right there), and then he lies almost every time he opens his orange blowhole. So...

    Anyhoo, if you read the link and actually let it sink in, several of us are paying CW in honor of Charlie Brown's Tamper Monkey device which is fully functional and easy to use. Apparently I am not the only one who appreciates choices. :)

    My average yearly donation to CW.COM during the fund raiser is around $800...

    Good for you; that is very nice of you. Thanks to your link, we all are aware of your pay-to-play arrangement. You should realize, however, that posting links and comments about it a lot only makes you seem small, insecure, and lacking in self esteem.

    If you can get 8 people to promise FOR THE RECORD, that they will donate $100 each to CW.COM in the upcoming fund raiser...

    It's not really your place to take over CW's fundraising... is it? I don't really think it's anyone's place to take over CW's fundraising... or CW's blog for that matter. I certainly would never presume to make it my place. :)

    I will cease commenting and let CW.COM become the useless echo chamber ya'all seem to want it to be...

    Oh, hell no! Don't stop commenting now. Thanks to Charles Brown, Esq. and his most excellent Monkey device, WE here will choose when to block your posts (NOT the other way around). I totally meant what I said when I said prattle on and on. I am so enjoying your meltdown... you and Big Orange's meltdowns are so nicely mirroring each other, snowflake. :)

    Balls in your court, sweet cheeks.. I expect you to completely bail and ignore this, proving once and for all who is the fraud and full of shit (you) and who isn't (me)...

    Oh, come on now... give yourself a little more credit, snowflake! If you weren't "full of shit," why would so many people be choosing to block your posts? I think a guy who tries to take over another man's blog and another man's fundraising for that blog is exponentially "full of shit." I suspect you know you are "full of shit," and you are paying CW by the pound of it. :D

  100. [100] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick

    You crack me up.
    Thanks.

    A

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    [100] altohone

    You crack me up.
    Thanks.

    Wait... what? You have a funny bone in there somewhere, A? {said in a surprised but very nice tone} :)

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    I came back to add another suggestion for the 2016 key demographic:

    Nasty Women

    I heard it on TV somewhere. :)

Comments for this article are closed.