ChrisWeigant.com

Thank You, Seth Meyers

[ Posted Tuesday, December 20th, 2016 – 17:22 PST ]

I have to say, I don't write about television all that often, and when I do it is normally to rip into a network or a host or some other form of complaint. As I did regularly, until NBC wised up and replaced David Gregory with Chuck Todd on Meet The Press (just to give one obvious example). But today, I write in praise of a late-night host.

Now, it's going to be pretty hard to keep two things separate here, because no matter how hard I try this is going to look like I'm just sucking up. But that cannot be helped, so let's get the personal part of it out of the way to begin with. And I know I'm going to sound like a giddy teenager with a blog, but again, that just can't be helped.

So, here goes: Didja see Late Night With Seth Meyers last night? Because it featured my "Friday Talking Points" column from last week! Woo hoo!

If you didn't happen to be watching television at 12:45 last night, here's what you missed. Seth does a rant (his regular "A Closer Look" segment) on the political situation down in North Carolina. YouTube has it, if anyone wants to check it out. At about 2:15 into the segment, he talks about the elections board being in charge of Democrats in odd years (when there are no elections) and Republicans in even years (when elections happen), and he throws up a still of FTP [419] at the Huffington Post with the title bar clearly visible (although, alas, the author's name is not).

So, not to sound repetitious, but, once again: Woo hoo!

I believe this is the first time I've been quoted on national broadcast television. I remember an MSNBC host quoting me (oddly enough, right around New Year's) a few years back, but that was on cable.

I'd publicly like to thank Seth Meyers (and his research team) for the citation, but (moving out of teenager-with-blog territory) I'd also like to thank him for the show he regularly puts on. I saw this citation because I was already watching his show, in other words. And I watch regularly because he's the best thing on late-night television these days.

Now, regular readers might wonder whether Seth Meyers has taken the place in my heart previously occupied by Craig Ferguson. Ferguson was the only other late-night host I've ever devoted a full column towards (on more than one occasion), and I was extremely sorry to see him go (to... shudder... game show hosting). But what Ferguson provided was so unique that I don't think anyone will ever really replace him -- Ferguson's show was the closest thing to "surreal television" since The Prisoner, in my opinion.

Meyers isn't like Craig, but he is just as smart, funny, and quick-witted as Jon Stewart in his prime. Seth is the best political commentary currently on late-night, because he isn't afraid to be offensive to roughly half the county. Jimmy Fallon, by comparison, is pretty tame stuff (because he's on at an earlier time slot, one assumes, where networks are more sensitive to not offending large demographics).

Meyers started off with a pretty standard format, but he got tired of doing the standup part at the beginning so now what you get is, essentially, Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" for the first 10-15 minutes of his show: Seth, behind a desk, riffing on the news of the day, with photos and videos as props. On most nights, this ends with his "A Closer Look" segment, where he rips into one subject in an extended (and fast-talking) manner.

So even if he hadn't used one of my columns, I still might have eventually written about Meyers. We're headed into four golden years for political comedy, that much is an iron-clad guarantee at this point. Because it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel, it'll be hard for any one comic to stand above the rest -- the material is just so easy it writes itself.

But Meyers has already proven, over the past year or so, that he can do a better job at it than the others, so I do expect him to gain viewers over the next four years. If you're a night owl (like me) and have nothing better to do at 12:35 in the morning, I urge you to tune into at least the first 15 minutes of Late Night With Seth Meyers.

See? I told you it was going to be hard to separate the "sucking up" part of this column with the "praise where praise is deserved" part. I mean, I could swear I was going to write a nice column about Seth eventually until I was blue in the face, but not everyone would believe it. I will admit that Meyers did make it a whole lot easier for me to fit such a column into my blogging schedule by featuring my work -- to not admit this simply wouldn't be honest (or believable). But whatever the reason, I would truly recommend checking his show out to those who have never seen it. If you miss Jon Stewart (or if you miss Craig Ferguson, on another level), check out Seth's show. You won't be sorry you did.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

48 Comments on “Thank You, Seth Meyers”

  1. [1] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey CW-

    Seth is getting good. It seems like the show runners have realized his strong suit is the news desk and there is a void to fill without Jon Stewart...

    I was shocked you did not mention the wonky and uncomfortable, for Craig, format "Join or Die" that is his current project...It has glimmers, if he can get the show runners to let him run loose.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    If I were you, I'd threaten a copyright suit, or something. At least until he promised not to give your column such short shrift the next time. Heh.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Does John Oliver's show not qualify as "late-night"? He's the king.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    goode trickle -

    All I've seen is that celebrity faceoff show he's got (forget the name of it), where average shmoes and a celeb face off against another shmoes/celeb team. I mean, it's kinda funny and all, but it's thin gruel compared to what his latenight show was like...

    LizM -

    Hey, I sent Seth a tweet, but he hasn't gotten back to me yet. Heh.

    John From Censornati -

    I put all cable shows in a different category than broadcast latenight.

    OK, to everyone else --

    The tree is trimmed, the lights are up outside, and most of the shopping is done. So I finally have some time to answer comments, about which I've been rather lax for the past week or so.

    I'll post back here for each day I manage to get through.

    Oh, and thanks to all the recent donors for the pledge drive! I'll try to get the last thank-you emails out tonight, too... we're just shy of 3/4 of our goal to keep the lights on here at CW.com, so I'm feeling pretty good about how the 2016 drive's been going so far...

    :-)

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Full cuts of Meyers' "A Closer Look" are available the very next morning on YouTube, and so is now a regular part of my morning coffee (be sure not to laugh too hard while drinking hot coffee, because if it comes out of your nose...), when I haven't caught it at its regular time.

    A lot of folks forget that Obama's masterful take-down of Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner a few years back was followed by an equally funny set by Seth that essentially put the cherry on the cake.

    Seth is a great deliverer of this sort of humor. What he isn't is the same sort of comedian as his buddy Fred Armisen. It took him awhile to realize this, but he's rockin' it now.

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, first things first. Comments trapped in the spam filter have been freed. Sorry for how long it took for some of them... mea culpa. Especially to Balthasar, who posted a big list of suggestions for the awards, and neilm who somehow had a number of comments flagged. They've all been restored, with my apologies.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, first comment thread answered -

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/12/15/nominations-are-now-open/#comment-90658

    More in a moment.

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar [5] -

    Yeah, even though I wasn't drinking anything, I kind of did a "spit-take" when I saw the headline. I mean, I was sitting there enjoying "A Closer Look," and was kind of thinking: "Oh, that's nice, they used a HuffPost article..." and then I actually read the headline and thought: "Hey, that's MY freakin' article!"

    If I had been drinking anything (cold or hot) at that moment, it would indeed have been a spit-take for the ages!

    :-)

    Yeah, while I love a limited amount of Fred Armisen, I think the recurring bit when he's playing in the band for Seth's show and they do the whole "what's on television" thing is probably the weakest thing on Seth's show.

    I have to say, I do love the "Ya Burnt" segments, too -- not nearly enough of them...

    :-)

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, here's Monday's comments answered (rather amusing, in some parts):

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/12/19/redefining-reality/#comment-90661

    I'm kind of doing these out of order, but I'll try to get to as many of them as possible...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, went back to last Monday, here's the link:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/12/12/bully-for-trump/#comment-90663

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    So even if he hadn't used one of my columns, I still might have eventually written about Meyers. We're headed into four golden years for political comedy, that much is an iron-clad guarantee at this point. Because it'll be like shooting fish in a barrel, it'll be hard for any one comic to stand above the rest -- the material is just so easy it writes itself.

    Ahhhhh???

    Two words.. Al Franken

    :D

    397

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    A lot of folks forget that Obama's masterful take-down of Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner a few years back

    You mean the "masterful takedown" where Obama said that Trump would never be President??

    Seems to me Trump had the last laugh, eh?? :D

    I'm just sayin' :D

    399

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Few people in the galaxy aren’t in need of a nice, long holiday after the deaths, the elections, and the deaths by election that have characterized 2016. These past 12 months have been taxing. The group that really needs to be put on mandatory vacation—starting now, and through New Year’s weekend, with no obligations other than daily meditation—is what remains of the Democratic Party. Democrats need to close the books on 2016 without somehow losing a thumb in the process. Monday’s Electoral College oopsie-daisy was the last straw, and mandatory restraint from further calendar-year Democratic beclownment is duly ordered.

    Everything Democrats put their confidence in this year didn’t just peter out. It turned around and kicked its masters in the ass.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_democrats_electoral_college_dream_gets_crushed.html

    A highly entertaining read from SLATE of all places.. :D

    400

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    On the PUTIN WANTS TRUMP issue...

    If Putin actually wanted Trump to win, then Putin grossly and spectacularly mis-calculated..

    Trump put in General 'Mad Dog' Mattis as SecDef.. General Mattis is NO ONE's stooge or lackey and will definitely hold Putin's feet to the fire...

    Putin wouldn't have risen to where he is today by being so spectacularly wrong on issues of such import...

    There is no logical or rational reason that even HINTS that Putin would want Trump as POTUS...

    401

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    So, I am visiting my daughter in the hospital...

    I ask her if I could borrow her newspaper...

    She said, "Dad! This is the 21st century!! Use my Ipad.."

    I tell you this. That fly never knew what hit him...

    Ba Dum Ching..

    :D

    402

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    There is no logical or rational reason that even HINTS that Putin would want Trump as POTUS...

    And once the theory that Putin wanted Trump as POTUS is totally decimated, the entire RUSSIANS HACKED THE ELECTION meme totally falls apart...

    Did the Russians frak with our election? Probably... Russia will do anything it can get away with to frak with the United States... Under Obama, the Russians could get away with quite a bit..

    But did Russia want Trump to win??

    The facts clearly indicate not only NO... But HELL NO....

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Now, Democrats must decide whether they want to join occasional forces with this army or not. The dominant line, at least in the nation’s op-ed pages and opinion journals, is that only resistance can work. Collaboration makes Trump look successful, and therefore the formula for returning to power must be the one outlined by New York’s Jonathan Chait: “Senate Democrats don’t work with Trump ? Voters conclude Trump is doing a bad job ? Senate Democrats win reelection.” Even when the ends are good, goes the argument, Trump must be denied any accomplishments lest they strengthen him or legitimize authoritarianism..
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trumps-gravest-political-threat-yet

    Sounds like Democrats are gearing up to insure that Trump is a one-term President...

    Hmmmmmm That sounds familiar...

    Where have I heard that before?? :D

    404

  19. [19] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Thanks for the responses, and congrats on the late night mention... I don't watch tv so you definitely need to point these things out... and tooting your own horn is certainly justified.

    I don't do links... but cut and paste into Google and it should be the first article-

    Here's the public evidence Russia hacked the DNC- It's not enough
    By Sam Biddle
    The Intercept
    Dec. 14

    It's not a "slam dunk" as you said you think it is... and, geez man, what is wrong with you using that phrase?
    Bad juju if you want to be convincing.

    I would also recommend the blog post on HuffPo today-

    Progressives should stop fueling the anti-Russia frenzy
    by Norman Solomon
    Dec. 21

    He raises one very good point I didn't make about the Hillary wing of the party and restates my other points more clearly... though he mentions those with financial interests who may benefit without pointing out their motivation.

    -
    -

    Moving on...
    You are sadly correct about the ideological decline of HuffPo.
    They started with a diverse mix but heavily slanted to the left, but are now more like the other corporate media outlets.
    They still provide a voice to the occasional leftist, but it's not as it used to be and the journalism has veered corporatist too.

    A

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Altohone:

    An apology from me in order. I assumed that the left wing loonies of Britain would have analogues over here. I live in the fantasy left wing world of rich California suburbs, which also exists in Britain, but since I left Britain and my University days I've been isolated from what I call the looney left. For example Derek Hatton, Arthur Scargill, Militant, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Workers Revolutionlary Party

    America seems to be suspiciously free of these groups.

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    An opposing view to my take on the rise of AI making more and more people redundant. This boils down to the "Every other transformative technology has created more jobs, so the next time it will be the same". He presents a good case (better than I've otherwise heard at least) for why AI won't be as disruptive from a labor participation perspective.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/david_autor_why_are_there_still_so_many_jobs

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    One point to note is towards the end of the talk when he talks about the polarization of jobs into the rich, and the poorly paid whose job is to make the rich more comfortable.

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    If you have 6 minutes and 3 seconds, you might want to watch the following video:

    It is titled "Wealth Inequality in America". It shows how people thing wealth is divided, how 92% of us think it should be divided, and how wealth is actually divided.

    It is a bit of an eye opener if you haven't seen it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I'll get to that video when I am at work...

    But I wanted to touch on another topic of a previous commentary because new information has come to light..

    For those that blame Comey for Hillary's loss....

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/21/bill-clinton-who-may-have-cost-hillary-the-election-passes-the-buck-to-james-comey.html

    It's not James Comey who is at fault for Hillary's loss..

    It's none other than Bill Clinton who is responsible for Hillary's loss...

    Bill forced Comey to go directly to the American people with his bone-headed and totally stoopid move of cozing up to AG Lynch at a Phoenix airport..

    If Bill hadn't done that, his wife might be enjoying the title of President Elect...

    405

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    I also want to bring another discussion forward.. Since it will likely result in a lot more comments from me, I am sure our host won't mind.. :D

    And, speaking of our host.... I will follow our host's admonishment and endeavor to "play nice".... :D

    A,

    The Germans haven't caught the driver of the truck... so we don't know if he was a refugee.

    While it's factual that the Germans haven't CAUGHT the terrorist that was driving the truck, they HAVE identified the driver..

    And he IS a refugee from Tunisia that had been arrested several times and was under surveillance by the German intelligence service, the BND... The BND lost the suspect when the terrorist attack took place...

    The refugee/terrorist had requested asylum but his bid was rejected. His deportation was delayed, most likely due to bleeding heart Left Wingers in the German government...

    These FACTS are all well documented.. Well, except for the part about the bleeding heart Left Wingers in the German government. That's a supposition.. :D

    So, you were wrong.. AGAIN.... :D

    406

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bill forced Comey to go directly to the American people with his bone-headed and totally stoopid move of cozing up to AG Lynch at a Phoenix airport..

    Pretty desperate attempt to excuse Comey and the argument falls apart when you look at the flimsy subpoena ginned up for the last minute surprise. An analysis showed a lot of late swings to Trump after Comey took the law into his own hands.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    If Democrats continue to excuse and make excuses for Hillary's wholly reckless handling of sensitive and classified State Department emails, not to mention the hardware that housed them - which are still lost and never to be found again!!! - and ignore the unsurprising stupidity that is her husband's SOP, then they might just as well get ready for eight years of Trump or some other hapless Republican.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Pretty desperate attempt to excuse Comey and the argument falls apart when you look at the flimsy subpoena ginned up for the last minute surprise. An analysis showed a lot of late swings to Trump after Comey took the law into his own hands.

    Comey *HAD* to take the law into his own hands because his boss had utterly, unequivocally and COMPLETELY compromised herself by meeting in private with the husband of the target of a major FBI investigation...

    What would you have had Comey do???

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    If Democrats continue to excuse and make excuses for Hillary's wholly reckless handling of sensitive and classified State Department emails, not to mention the hardware that housed them - which are still lost and never to be found again!!

    Exactly...

    Comey wouldn't have had anything to investigate if Hillary hadn't broken the law, broken the rules and acted like following either was beneath her..

    Blaming Comey is like blaming the cop that pulls you over for speeding and made you late for work....

    It's not the cop's fault you were speeding...

    "Mr. Reede... Jojo's been arrested again. He wants to know what he should do..."
    "QUIT BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!"

    -Liar Liar

    :D

    409

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Blaming Comey is like blaming the cop that pulls you over for speeding and made you late for work....

    It's not the cop's fault you were speeding...

    Actually, it's more realistic to think of Comey as a cop pulling over a NASCAR driver for speeding....in the middle of a race!

    There was no crime committed. The FBI somehow got a warrant without PC, and Comey chose not to discuss Russia's interference on Trump's behalf but did want to discuss Clinton's emails. Comey's interference was wrong. You blaming Bill's meeting with Lynch on the runway for Comey's screw up is asinine.

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As for Clinton's email server, while I was taking my break from online I contacted my ex- who used to work for the State Dept. and I asked him his thoughts. He just laughed and said that the Republicans had done a great job making Clinton's actions out to be a big deal...all the while ignoring that the previous administration had done the same thing! And not just the Sec.of State was guilty, the entire executive branch had used private servers for their emails. (He's one of those strange creatures, a " Log Cabin Republican", btw.). He said the GOP had mastered the art of making Clinton's every action out to be a scandal, and this was just par for the course for them. He thought it was strange that Clinton still hasn't figured out how to defend herself after 30 years of the same thing over and over. I have to agree with him that Hillary should have figured out how to counteract their propaganda attacks by now.

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    25

    At the time of my comment, the true suspect had not yet been identified bozo.

    The early reports blaming the wrong guy was what was being discussed.

    But I'm fine with you claiming prescience in order to be right in one out of three of the claims... if you agree to share the upcoming winning lottery numbers.

    As for the actual suspect, the conservative German government was waiting for confirmation from Tunisia on the guys citizenship in order to deport him to the right country... he had claimed three different home countries at various times... they said confirmation came the day after the attack.

    I don't doubt he was an Islamic extremist, but a pending deportation muddies the waters a bit.
    It does seem like somebody messed up by not holding him after the arrest for false identity papers.

    I hope people rally to help the family of the Polish truck driver who tried to fight him off.

    A

  33. [33] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    20

    No, no.
    There are definitely left wing loonies here... even groups of them... they're just powerless with no ability to advance or impede legislation.

    That's why I asked.
    It's hard to be concerned about left wing extremists when the worst I've seen them do is snarl traffic or disrupt a committee meeting briefly in protest.

    Thus it comes across as a false equivalency when leftist radicals are blamed along policy related lines.

    Personally, I think overzealous gun control advocates on the left who can't seem to grasp their lack of support despite all the mass shootings pose the biggest political threat to Dems.
    It may be bias, but when a group on the left can't convince me...

    A

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Did the last administration lose a lap top AND and thumb drive?

    Because, the Clinton campaign did.

    Clinton has only herself to blame for losing her second and LAST bid to be POTUS.

    Deal with it.

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    The point I was trying to make was that everyone has made the email server into a major deal when it is not considered one by those in the field. While losing laptops and thumb drives isn't encouraged, of course, the truth is that it happens. It's not the end of the world, despite what the GOP says.

    As for Hillary having no one to blame but herself for losing, I disagree. She received 3 million more votes than Trump did, so how do we quantify that as her campaign somehow being a "failure"? Could she have done some things better? Of course, no campaign is ever perfect, but it doesn't change the fact that she out performed Trump by over 3 million votes!

    After the election, I made a point to talk to a lot of my friends and family back in Georgia to try to understand how they could vote for Trump - a man who represents just about everything that they find obscene in this world. I came to realize that the GOP's thirty year propaganda campaign against Hillary had been successful. When I would ask people why they chose Trump over Hillary, almost every person gave me the same response: "Trump maybe horrible, but Hillary is pure evil!" "She's a criminal!", but no one could tell me what crime she had committed. My dad told me point blank, "I won't vote for Hillary even if she is the better candidate." There was nothing that could have undone what thirty years of being told "Hillary is evil" had done!

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Her campaign was a failure because she lost an election she should have won.

    What about that do you not get?

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Too bad you don't choose your presidents based on the popular vote.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hillary didn't lose because she is evil.

    She lost because she did not even try to appeal to voters whose support she needed to win. She lost because her own sense of entitlement and inevitability. She lost because of her own special brand of arrogance.

    And, she didn't just lose. She lost to Donald Trump!!!

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, she'll probably be waiting in the wings to lose once again.

    Because she is Hillary.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, one last point, Russ ...

    Hillary got close to 3 million more votes than Donald Trump because of her landslide win in California.

    So, try to get over her popular vote "win", okay?

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Actually, it's more realistic to think of Comey as a cop pulling over a NASCAR driver for speeding....in the middle of a race!

    If having an insecure private hackable email server for the SecState was the norm, then you would have a proper analogy..

    But it's not so you don't.. :D

    There was no crime committed. The FBI somehow got a warrant without PC

    Yes, there was a crime committed... The FBI had plenty of probable cause and the judge who issued the warrant agreed..

    and Comey chose not to discuss Russia's interference on Trump's behalf but did want to discuss Clinton's emails.

    If Comey really was working on Trump's behalf, Clinton would have been indicted...

    ..all the while ignoring that the previous administration had done the same thing! And not just the Sec.of State was guilty, the entire executive branch had used private servers for their emails.

    I call BS on that.. There is NEVER an instance where ANYONE in the executive branch used a private email server that was totally and completely controlled by them and them only...

    No offense to your ex, but I have to say he is full of kaa-kaa...

    As for Hillary having no one to blame but herself for losing, I disagree. She received 3 million more votes than Trump did, so how do we quantify that as her campaign somehow being a "failure"?

    Because the vanity vote is meaningless.. And if you take away a single state (California) then Trump wins the vanity vote by almost 2 million votes....

    But that too is meaningless because the vanity vote is meaningless...

    "Trump maybe horrible, but Hillary is pure evil!" "She's a criminal!", but no one could tell me what crime she had committed

    That's because you define "crime" as different when it comes to anyone with a '-D' after their name... In short, anything that a Democrat does CAN'T be a crime..

    410

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Since Obama’s win in 2008, Democrats have taken a pounding at the polls, losing 68 seats in the House, 12 seats in the Senate and 10 governorships. And those are not even the most disturbing data points. Former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Steve Israel told me on “Morning Joe” Thursday that local Democratic officeholders lost more than 1,000 elected positions between 2008 and 2012. And since 2010, more than 900 state legislators have surrendered their seats to the party of Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump.

    The impact of those setbacks becomes painfully apparent when you look at the aging politicians in their 70s fighting to lead their party into the future. Nancy Pelosi is 76. Bernie Sanders is 75. Joe Biden is 74. The vice president is eyeing a run for the top spot when he is 78. He would likely have to run against Elizabeth Warren, who would be 71 in 2020. Looking to the states for younger leadership will prove frustrating when Democrats control only 18 of 50 governors’ mansions.

    So the political landscape looks grim for the party of Obama and Roosevelt. Its path back to the majority can’t be drawn up by a former Republican congressman. But I do know this: The Democratic Party’s demise will continue until it stops blaming others for its collapse, and instead looks inward at a party that not so long ago defined hope and change.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/12/22/democrats-long-road-back-to-hope-and-change/?postshare=4931482439491463&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.dd4fa74b7546

    The very first step in arresting a downward slide, the most critical step is to admit that there is a problem.

    Until the Democratic Party can do this, can concede that the problem is within, they will lose more ground in 2018 and 2020...

    This, of course, pre-supposes that Trump clears the very ridiculously low bar that the Left has established for him..

    412

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-attorney-general-could-have-ordered-fbi-director-james-comey-not-to-send-his-bombshell-letter-on-clinton-emails-heres-why-she-didnt/2016/12/21/7824d00a-c5fd-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.b6f163db82cc

    There is more information on what was going on behind the scenes...

    Lynch could have ordered Comey not to send the letter to Congress..

    But she didn't.. Using the EXACT same reasoning that Comey was using..

    Lynch could have prevented ALL of Comey's alleged "malfeasance"...

    But she didn't.. Again, using the exact same reasoning that prompted Comey's actions...

    Yet, you castigate Comey and give Lynch a pass..

    Why?? Because Lynch is protected by the all powerful '-D' after her name...

    413

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Having said that, here is the one pertinent fact and it is undeniable..

    Clinton brought all of this on herself.. Completely and utterly..

    If Clinton had followed the law and followed the rules, NONE of this would have happened and she would be President Elect Clinton...

    If Clinton had come clean when her use of a private bathroom-closet email server came out, NONE of this would have happened and she would be President Elect Clinton...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    414

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Until the Democratic Party can do this, can concede that the problem is within, they will lose more ground in 2018 and 2020...

    I know, I know..

    But!! But!!! But!!! What about the vanity vote!!!

    The results of the vanity vote actually ILLUSTRATES the Democratic Party's problem perfectly...

    The results of the vanity vote was totally and completely concentrated in dense hi-population city centers and has no real meaning for 90% of the country...

    This is clearly shown in this map:

    http://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/election-2016-county-map.png

    This is the country that Clinton "won" by Popular Vote...

    Now, be honest here...

    Would YOU want a President who represented that small portion of the country???

    Change the Red to Blue and the Blue to Red and THEN answer that question....

    Take away ONE SINGLE STATE (California) and Clinton loses the vanity vote by a wide margin...

    415

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Take away ONE SINGLE STATE (California) and Clinton loses the vanity vote by a wide margin...

    And, do you know what happens when California decides elections??

    We get President Kim Kardashian... Or President Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner... Or President Gray Davis....

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    And, do you know what happens when California decides elections??

    We get President Kim Kardashian... Or President Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner... Or President Gray Davis....

    NOW try and tell me that the Popular Vote is a good idea... :D

    heh

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    PATH TO JIHAD Berlin terror trucker Anis Amri pictured with other migrants on Italian island of Lampedusa in 2011 after escaping Arab Spring by boat from his native Tunisia
    He was jailed for four years soon after for his role in burning down a migrant centre on the island

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2469333/berlin-terror-trucker-anis-amri-pictured-with-other-migrants-on-italian-island-of-lampedusa-in-2011-after-escaping-arab-spring-in-his-native-tunisia/

    Like I said... The scumbag terrorist was a refugee that escaped vetting...

    Until such time as we can have reasonable expectations of safety, all refugee programs from terrorist countries should be suspended...

    423

Comments for this article are closed.