ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

California's Jungle Primary Could Be Problematic For Democrats In 2018

[ Posted Tuesday, August 1st, 2017 – 16:22 PDT ]

If the Democrats are to have a good chance of retaking control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year, the path to victory will almost certainly have to run through California. There are seven House districts in California that Hillary Clinton won that are still represented by Republicans in the House. To successfully retake the House, Democrats will likely have to win most (if not all) of these races. Currently, Darrell Issa seems the most vulnerable of these Republicans, but there are others in some surprising places (like Orange County, once a Republican stronghold). But Democrats might become hamstrung by a change made to California's primary process a few years back -- the "jungle primary" or "top two primary."

I've supported some reforms to the voting process over the years, but I never supported this idea, just to admit my own bias up front. How it works is simple to describe. Instead of primary election day being essentially a number of intraparty contests (a Republican primary, a Democratic primary, a Libertarian primary, etc.; each with a separate party ballot), instead voters enter the "jungle." All candidates for a particular position -- from all parties -- appear on the same ballot. So you usually get a number of Democrats and a number of Republicans running for the same office. But only the top two in the voting move on to the general election -- even if they're from the same party. Minor ("third") parties are thus almost inevitably blocked from the general election, and at times only one major party appears at all (either two Democrats or two Republicans). Whichever candidate then goes on to win on (general) Election Day wins the race.

The reason for creating such a system is disturbing, and the outcome so far has been patently unfair. The logic in crafting the jungle primary was supposedly to make it easier for "moderate" candidates to win elections. The thinking goes: if it's already a safe GOP or Democratic district, then in the general election there'll be a hard-right (or hard-left) candidate and a more moderate candidate from the same party. Since the minority party (for that district) is never going to win the general election anyway, their voters can thus be able to vote for a moderate from the other party who might actually have a chance at winning -- which is all somehow supposed to give us better representation in Washington.

But should elections be run to further social engineering (or partisan) goals? Should the state -- supposedly neutral -- be placing a rather large thumb on the scale of political moderates in such a fashion? Why is it fair for a Democrat to only be given the choice of two Republicans on the general election ballot (or, more commonly here, vice-versa)?

So far, the jungle primary has mostly worked as intended, but that doesn't mean it always will. And the difference might just be crucial next year, for Democrats. There have been several House races which wound up with two members of the same party in the general election -- in both Democratic and Republican districts -- but that has gone largely unnoticed by most voters in the state. However, the last U.S. Senate race we had (the first open Senate seat in a long time, when Barbara Boxer retired), what we wound up with was two Democrats on the general election ballot for a statewide race. That is patently unfair to Republican voters, to say nothing of Greens and Libertarians and all the rest. Instead of having a choice on the general election ballot, non-Democrats were faced with the choice of two Democrats, period.

Part of the problem is how many more people vote in the general election than in the primaries. For casual voters, they may make the effort in November, but forget to vote earlier in the year. Previously, every party was represented on the general election ballot, so everyone still had a choice from their own party to vote for in November. That is not true anymore, and it is especially not true for all the "third" parties.

This problem could be at least partially solved by changing the rules to the way Louisiana holds their jungle election. In the Pelican State, the jungle ballot is the general election ballot. All candidates from all parties appear on this ballot, and if none of them reaches 50-percent-plus-one-vote, then the top two have a runoff election a few weeks later. This way at least everyone gets to vote for a candidate from their own party on Election Day, in November. People who really care about the outcome also show up for the runoff, which can indeed be between two members of the same party.

But just because it is designed to give the majority party a big boost (sometimes a virtual monopoly on the general election ballot) doesn't mean it will always work out that way. Consider a hypothetical case of a House district in California that has a whole passel of folks running. By the time the primary rolls around, no one candidate really stands out. Let's say it's a traditionally Democratic district, with a majority of Democratic voters. Three Democrats run, with roughly equal support. But only two Republican candidates run, also with roughly equal support. The primary results are announced:

  • Democratic candidate Jones wins 17 percent of the vote
  • Democratic candidate Perez wins 18 percent
  • Democratic candidate Nguyen wins 19 percent
  • Republican candidate Smith wins 20 percent
  • Republican candidate Griswold wins 21 percent
  • Minor candidates win 5 percent

The two Republicans then move on to the general election ballot, which will have no Democrats at all. Even though Democrats just won 54 percent of the total vote, to the Republicans' 41 percent.

This may seem far-fetched, but it only has to happen a handful of times next year to possibly put the House out of reach for Democrats. I'm guessing that Democrats within this hypothetical district probably wouldn't be too happy with the reassurance that the "moderate" Republican will probably win the race, when they will have no opportunity to vote for a Democrat in November. While the system is designed to boost the chances of the majority party in the district, by such a statistical fluke it could wind up doing exactly the opposite. I don't believe it has happened yet, but we've only had a few jungle elections so far. At some point, it seems almost inevitable that this will occur somewhere in the state at some point. Election flukes do happen (see: Trump, Donald).

The obvious answer is to scrap the jungle primary altogether. But this likely won't happen until such a wildly unpopular general election ballot actually becomes a reality. Even without considering House districts, the statewide elections here may soon become completely dominated (one might even say "rigged") by Democrats. If the only choices statewide in November for governor, lieutenant governor, California attorney general, and U.S. senator are two Democrats, eventually Republicans are going to protest the unfairness of the situation. The last open election for a senator (which is supposed to be much easier for the "out" party to win than running against an incumbent) wound up with two Democrats on the ballot. Whenever Dianne Feinstein decides to retire, we will most likely have a second such election. I'm not a Republican, but if I were that would make me hopping mad. Especially if all the statewide races for state government also turned out to be Democrat-versus-Democrat races, with absolutely no chance to vote Republican for the highest offices available. Democrats might just experience this disenfranchisement in one or more of the House races next year, as evidenced above. If this turns out to be the margin of taking back the House, Democrats will be hopping mad, too.

California instituted the jungle primary at the same time it ushered in a much better election reform. The entire redistricting process -- for state assembly seats, state senators, and the U.S. House -- was (mostly) taken away from the politicians. This fights the urge of the majority party to indulge in rampant gerrymandering. It has worked. In fact, it is a model piece of legislation that other states should consider. Barack Obama just announced his effort to fight gerrymandering just raised over $10 million, so this should be a worthy goal for other Democrats to support -- even if (as it did in California) it turns some previously-solid Democratic districts into truly competitive ones. It should be a question of fairness, not partisan advantage.

However, the jungle primary heads away from fairness, and towards partisan advantage. But things don't always work as designed. As shown above, if the balance of how many candidates are running from each party is off-kilter, then surprising results can happen. It would be ironic if such an occurrence -- supposedly designed to support "moderates" -- resulted in the continued Republican majority in the House.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

72 Comments on “California's Jungle Primary Could Be Problematic For Democrats In 2018”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Finally an article about real news. Thank you.
    One way to bring about an end to the Jungle Primary would be to continue writing articles about real news starting with an article about One Demand.
    The top two primary idea most likely was created to thwart One Demand which partially relies on a write in protest vote. With enough citizens participating in One Demand we will be able to have the top two primary system overturned with a court challenge as it limits free speech by not allowing a citizen to register a vote against the two choices in the general election.
    It reminds of several years ago in New Jersey when I attempted to get people to use the write in vote to write in the current major party candidates in the general election so that those votes would not count toward establishing their party so the CMPs would not qualify for a primary in the next election cycle and the CMPs would have to petition to get on the general election ballot like the third parties and independents.
    I called the county election office to ask if that is how the votes would be counted and was told that is how it would happen. I even got a letter to the editor published suggesting citizens use this approach.
    About two years later new instructions were added to the ballot for write in votes stating that if a citizen wrote in a candidate that was on the ballot that the vote would not count.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You also left out the most important point about the Top Two Primary- THERE IS NO PRIMARY!
    If a candidate gets 50% of the vote in what they call the primary then that candidate is elected to office and there is no general election. They call it a primary to discourage participation, as you mentioned, but it really is a general election that they call a primary and a run-off election that they call a general election.

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [2] -

    Not in CA. We always have the general, even if the top 2 candidates got 75% and 22%. Getting over 50 in the primary doesn't count here in regular primary elections. Not sure about special elections, but we just had one, so I could look it up (Kamala Harris won the Senate seat while still in the state government... um, state AG?... and the gov appointed a House member to take her place. So we had a special election that wound up Dem-v-Dem, as I recall).

    In Louisiana, though, you're right about not needing the second round if one gets an absolute majority of the vote.

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, just got all of Monday's comments answered. My comments start at:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/07/31/kelly-in-mooch-out/#comment-106881

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    Harking back to yesterday's comments:

    Re: Clinton's Ability to Fire Starr - I tried to point out to Michale that the President (Clinton) did not have the power to fire the Independent Council (Starr), but we know how Michale likes to ignore reality when it interferes with his narrative ;)

    Re: Scottish Joke - good one - oddly enough I was hiking in the CA hills with an old Scottish friend a few weeks ago and that joke came up. Small world.

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the Republicans are smart they will change the rules to only allow two candidates (or maybe one) to stand in the CA primaries. Sort of an internal primary before the regular primary. I'm not sure if that is possible, but it is what I'd do.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    But should elections be run to further social engineering (or partisan) goals?

    Why not??

    That's how you Lefties want to run our US Military.. :D

    I'm not a Republican, but if I were that would make me hopping mad.

    That's what I like about you, CW....

    Yer the ONLY one here, besides me of course, who can actually look at things from the other side and recognize the logic and value of that other side opinion...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: Clinton's Ability to Fire Starr - I tried to point out to Michale that the President (Clinton) did not have the power to fire the Independent Council (Starr), but we know how Michale likes to ignore reality when it interferes with his narrative ;)

    I stand corrected.. I wasn't aware of Starr being an Independent Counsel, not a Special Counsel..

    If you had mentioned that, I would have conceded the point..

    On another note, isn't it funny that no one here can concede when they are wrong??

    I just whipped Russ' ass on two major points... Did he concede that I was right??

    Of course not..

    Oh well.... As I pointed out to Liz... We have the blog we have, not the blog we wish we had... :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh well.... As I pointed out to Liz... We have the blog we have, not the blog we wish we had... :D

    Not that I am complaining, CW.. The blog is great... :D

    "Thanks! Well, I could have stuck the landing a little better. It's just, new suit... wait, it's nothing, Mr. Stark. It's... it's perfect, thank you."
    -Spiderman, CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR

    :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    but we know how Michale likes to ignore reality when it interferes with his narrative ;)

    Not at all..

    I just ask that people PROVE that their reality is factual before I accept it..

    Yunno... Like ya'all demand of me?? :D

    The only difference between me and ya'all is that I *DO* accept the reality as factual when ya'all prove it..

    Like now..

    Ya'all cannot make the same claim...

    "And so it goes... And so it goes...."
    -Billy Joel

    :D

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (4)-
    Was that the 34th congressional district with the special election?
    As I pointed out in previous comments, that special election had less than 10% of voters participating. The top two combined got about half of the primary votes, so less than 5% of eligible voters elected the top two for the run-off. If the 50% threshold applied to the special election then it is possible that as little as 5% of eligible voters could have elected the congressman.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, now you're back to losing again. LizM's right. Comey called up Kelly and talked him out of it.

    Ahhhh.. I found the source for this "story"..

    It was reported by CNN.. That's the first strike against it..

    It's source was anonymous... STRIKE TWO

    None of the principles involved would confirm the story.

    STRIKE THREE, IT'S OUTTA THERE!!!!

    "If you can't back up a claim with facts, the claim is invalid"

    Like I said.. I don't make the rules.. I just decimate ya'all's arguments by them.. :D

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Good points CW. I'm conflicted on the jungle. Some good properties some bad. I think a deeper problem is the parties themselves. Too subject to hijacking by special interests and big money.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump

    Apple, tech stocks soar, set to lead the Dow to a 22,000 record
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/01/apple-tech-stocks-soar-after-hours-set-to-lead-dow-to-22000-record-wednesday.html

    Making America Great Again...

    :D

    All that fear-mongering felgercarb ya'all predicted... :D

    It's what happens when ya'all let Party zealotry take precedence over logic and facts...

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I think something important happened today.

    There are no Trump Tweets this AM!

    Did Kelly take Trump's T-Bird away? If so, it's the smartest White House move to date.

    If the Tweets return, I'm guessing they will be ghost written by English majors working from talking points assembled by professional political staff.

    I for one will miss my morning helping of word salad.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are no Trump Tweets this AM!

    *NOW* what are ya'all going to bitch and moan about!!??? :D

    hehehehehehehe

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Apple, tech stocks soar, set to lead the Dow to a 22,000 record

    Thank goodness for California companies - Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, etc.

    45 is claiming them as his creations at the moment - I predict Michale and 45 will be condemning them as "failing companies from socialist California" if/when they tank - their valuations are really high at the moment.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    45 is claiming them as his creations at the moment - I predict Michale and 45 will be condemning them as "failing companies from socialist California" if/when they tank - their valuations are really high at the moment.

    How is that (if it actually occurs) any different than ya'all whine and bitch about digital privacy yet celebrate these California companies??

    You see, it works both ways, Neil.. :D

    Irregardless of those facts, the point is that there is no economic collapse that ya'all said would occur if President Trump won the election...

    :D

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    There are no Trump Tweets this AM!

    Maybe CoS Kelly has taken 45's toy away - and maybe he had a little adult/child chat with him along the following lines:

    1. "You can't fire Mueller without getting somebody or something worse - Mueller as an IC, for example."

    2. "If you have done anything wrong vis-a-vis Russian mobster money you REALLY need to keep your mouth shut and your thumbs redundant."

    3. "If anybody wants to talk to you about anything other than pics of your grand kids they need to talk to me about it first. And if they come crying to you that I'm not being nice you tell them 'This is the Presidency of the most powerful nation on the planet, get over yourself Eric/Don Jr./Ivanka/Jared/etc.'"

    4. "You don't accept offers to talk to Boy Scouts, etc. without clearing it with me first, and I'll have your speeches written and you'll read them verbatim then walk off the stage."

    5. "What are the three most important things you want to achieve in 2017? List them and that is all we will focus on until they are achieved, then we will move on to the next three."

    Frankly I'm wishing CoS Kelly the best of luck - we need an adult in the White House.

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    How is that (if it actually occurs) any different than ya'all whine and bitch about digital privacy yet celebrate these California companies??

    You see, it works both ways, Neil.. :D

    Putting words in my mouth again Michale. I don't appreciate it.

    You said that the American military was weak and inconsequential and could be beaten up by Belgium, and you hoped that the stock market would crash when Obama was in power. Now you are all gung-ho? Is it because the President has an "R" after his name now?

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE tweets:

    There is a fresh batch today, but the earliest one of just two is stamped 8:38 am, about 2 hrs later than the norm. About the time staff might have time for a preview, some editing, or just make something up.

    Both tweets were unusually innocuous, grammatical AND below the 140 character limit, all very atypical. I think we may now be reading @fake.Donald J. Trump.

    Calling All Geeks! A forensic language statistician (NOT ME) needs to do a statistical structure analysis to see if posts after Aug 2 match "fingerprints" Aug 1 and earlier.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Putting words in my mouth again Michale. I don't appreciate it.

    "Ya'all" = The Left Wingery in general..

    I'll be more specific next time..

    Now you are all gung-ho?

    I have always been gung-ho about the military.. This is well-documented..

    But I see your point.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Frankly I'm wishing CoS Kelly the best of luck - we need an adult in the White House.|

    So, you are saying you will be perfectly happy if President Trump is a success??? :D

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE - 21

    I was wrong on the word count - both perfect 140s! Twitter uses an unconventional character count to give users a bit more room.

    use:

    http://www.twitter-character-counter.com/

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you are saying you will be perfectly happy if President Trump is a success??? :D

    Of course. If he is it is good for America.

    I'd like him to be the country's most successful President in history until his replacement eclipses him and 47 beats them all.

    Isn't that the point?

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course. If he is it is good for America.

    I'd like him to be the country's most successful President in history until his replacement eclipses him and 47 beats them all.

    Isn't that the point?

    Yes, that IS the point..

    But I have a feeling you and I are in the minority on wanting President Trump to succeed..

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    But I have a feeling you and I are in the minority on wanting President Trump to succeed..

    Maybe my definition if success is different.

    If he is wildly popular it means he has pulled the country together. He was got people to realize that we are all Americans trying to do the best we can. He has tamed the extremists on both sides and given everybody mostly what they want without hurting anybody. We will have everybody covered with the World's best healthcare, we will have solved the N. Korea crisis and they will be on their way to a rich and democratic future. We will have brokered win-win trade agreements, shown the Russian people that there is a better way than their gangster oligocracy, invested with drug companies to eliminate dangerous diseases, and be basking in a peace bounty where our military can stand down and we can fund medicare, social security and have a surplus to pay down the debt.

    It will be all puppies and rainbows. And I strongly believe that the right person can do it, and since we have 45, he is our only hope in the White House until 46 comes along.

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (14)-
    Why do you keep posting that record highs on the stock market somehow means America is great again?
    There were record highs under Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama and none of those did much to make America great for the majority of Americans.
    Celebrating the success of one of America's biggest enemies is not how to make America great for Americans.
    Tied for first on America's enemy list: Wall Street, Banking and Insurance industries.
    4.Republican Party
    5.Democratic Party

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe my definition if success is different.

    No, I think it is the same as mine.. :D

    It will be all puppies and rainbows. And I strongly believe that the right person can do it, and since we have 45, he is our only hope in the White House until 46 comes along.

    I agree.. :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you keep posting that record highs on the stock market somehow means America is great again?

    Because of all the hysterical fear-mongering claims that the stock market would collapse if Trump were elected.. :D

    I call it Speaking Fact To Hysteria... :D

    Tied for first on America's enemy list: Wall Street, Banking and Insurance industries.
    4.Republican Party
    5.Democratic Party

    Personally, I would love to get rid of all political Partys...

    But we have the country we have, not the country we wish to have... :D

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why do you keep posting that record highs on the stock market somehow means America is great again?

    The stock market indexes are a proxy for the economy, however the real measure of the strength of the economy, in my opinion, should be that most Americans are getting more economically secure and wealthier in 2017 than they were in 2016.

    I don't believe this is happening. If you read the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report you will see that the wealth in America per person is $345,000 (yes, you read that correctly, see the link below).

    So the Stock Market is going gang busters, but there are few of us who, when that add up the total number of people in their household and multiple by $345K are above average.

    This is where the median and the average - while the average wealth is $345K, the median is only $45K (see p45 in the link below). I would presume some households of our regulars are ahead of the median.

    So for people who are wealthy (like 45), and in particular those whose wealth is invested in capital markets, things are great and the future is sunny.

    https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    I strongly recommend this video if you want to see how wealth is distributes in the U.S. (I've posted it before, but it is a classic).

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

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Then why do Democrats use the Stock Market as a litmus test to measure the success of a Democrat POTUS??

    That's always been my issue...

    Indicators (stock market, gas prices, etc etc) mean one thing under a DEM POTUS, but the exact opposite under a GOP POTUS...

    It's soooo confusing... :D

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats have offered to join the GOP in a tax reform bill if:

    1. none of the tax cuts go to the top 1%,

    2. none of the money for the cuts is taken from Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

    3. that the tax cut not add to the deficit. It should be at least revenue neutral.

    McConnell said 'nope' to all of it. So his plan is to take money from the sick and suffering, and give it to the elite rich, while adding more debt to the deficit? wow.

    The mid-term ads are just writing themselves, these days.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:
  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The mid-term ads are just writing themselves, these days.

    Yep..

    DEMOCRATS: BETTER DEAL, BETTER PIZZA... HAVE YOU SEEN THE OTHER GUYS!??

    :D

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It looks like President Trump may be starting to lose some of his base with the Real Clear Politics job approval sliding significantly below 40% ...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell said 'nope' to all of it. So his plan is to take money from the sick and suffering, and give it to the elite rich, while adding more debt to the deficit? wow.

    No.. McConnell's plan is to NOT let Dumbocrats dictate terms and plans that the American people have resoundingly rejected for the last 6+ years...

    "Elections have consequences."
    -Barack Odumbo

    DUMBOCRATS LOST...

    What part of that do you NOT understand???

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It looks like President Trump may be starting to lose some of his base with the Real Clear Politics job approval sliding significantly below 40% ...

    If you have any facts that indicate that's part of his "base", I am all ears..

    But I have posted facts after facts after facts that show President Trump's base is no going anywhere...

    You are quoting polls that have been WRONG, WRONG, IMPRESSIVELY WRONG for the last year plus....

    Why would you believe all of the sudden they are correct???

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    It looks like President Trump may be starting to lose some of his base with the Real Clear Politics job approval sliding significantly below 40% ...

    In other words, is there ANY evidence, aside from polls, that President Trump is losing his base..

    No there is not..

    Is there ANY evidence that President Trump's base/voters are holding strong??

    PLENTY....

    So, on the one hand... NO FACTS, NO EVIDENCE..

    On the other hand... PLENTY OF FACTS and PLENTY OF EVIDENCE....

    So, which is one to believe???

    The choice is clear....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    In still other words..

    The people who told ya'all that there was a 98.8% chance that Trump would LOSE the election...

    Those SAME people are now telling you that President Trump is losing his base..

    And YA'ALL believe them because ya'all WANT to believe them..

    Ya don't find that the LEAST bit.... oh... I dunno... Delusional???

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Michale, you got up on the wrong side of the bed today or what?

    Nobody told me that Trump is losing his base. I didn't even say that he was losing his base.

    I said it looks like he might be losing his base and all I was wondering if you sensed the same thing.

    Jeez louise ...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, OK.. My apologies...

    I have been hearing for MONTHS that "Trump is losing his base"...

    And even though I post fact after fact after fact that this is *NOT* happening, people still seem to say it...

    So, I over-reacted and my apologies..

    I said it looks like he might be losing his base and all I was wondering if you sensed the same thing.

    No... there is no reliable indication that President Trump is losing his base...

    The people who voted for President Trump are still standing behind him and are grateful for the things that he has accomplished...

    Consumer confidence is up and illegal immigration is WAY down...

    And now that President Trump has unveiled his new Immigration overhaul plan, things are going to get even better..

    Apologies for biting your head off... :D

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No.. McConnell's plan is to NOT let Dumbocrats dictate terms and plans

    But all they're asking for is that the plan not steal from the sick and give it to the rich, or burden us with the cost. That's too much to ask? Really?

    What sort of plan are they hatching, then?

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apologies for biting your head off... :D

    By way of explanation, I had 4 of the 5 grandbabies here today.... A special needs of 4, a toddler of 2 and my gorgeous grand-daughter of six months..

    So nerves were kinda frazzled... :D

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Apologies for biting your head off... :D

    Just try not to let it happen again ... I hate it when you channel your inner Mooch. Heh.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sounds to me like you are having way too much fun, Michale!

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    But all they're asking for is that the plan not steal from the sick and give it to the rich, or burden us with the cost. That's too much to ask? Really?

    They had 8 years to come up with a plan...

    They couldn't do it..

    WHY??

    **BECAUSE THEY AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT!!**

    What part of *NO* do the Dumbocrats not understand??

    It's like the moron legislature in Oregon kept pushing a state sales tax and the people kept voting *NO* nine times in a row!!!

    "NINE TIMES!!"
    -Principle Rooney, FERRIS BEUHLER'S DAY OFF

    THAT was the headline the day after the ninth vote of now..

    WHAT PART OF *NO* DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!!??

    What sort of plan are they hatching, then?

    Who knows!?? I am sure the GOP don't...

    But it doesn't change the fact that patriotic Americans have resoundingly, definitively and LOUDLY said NO!!

    Elections have consequences..

    YOU LOST....

    Get over it...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just try not to let it happen again ... I hate it when you channel your inner Mooch. Heh.

    Without the crude-ness....

    Well, not MUCH of the crude-ness :D

    Sounds to me like you are having way too much fun, Michale!

    Yes, but now I get to go pick up my beautiful trophy wife and all will be good and right with the world.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Enjoy!

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Before you go, what do you think about this political slogan for the Democrats:

    "Protect the Earth, serve the people, explore the universe."

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's not mine, by the way - do you know who used that?

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not mine, by the way - do you know who used that?

    Jerry Brown....

    I realize that it's an attempt to have an uplifting message...

    But it's arrogant in the extreme...

    Protect the earth.... Humans have the technological capability nor the "work together" spirit that would allow them to have ANY hope of "protecting" the earth...

    serve the people.... But ONLY the people who believe as we do.. The rest can go pound sound...

    explore the universe.... Would that we could... But there is too much politics.. Do you know that we would be more than halfway to MARS right now if Democrats didn't modify NASAs mission to that bogus load of felgercarb Human Caused Global Warming???

    Like I said.. It's a nice notion.. A UNITED EARTH could do it...

    But in the here and now when we can't even unite a COUNTRY, let alone a planet!???

    It's a pipe dream..

    Sorry to be such a downer, but I gots to call 'em as I sees 'em...

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done with this thread.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm done with this thread.

    Sorry, but I am sure you would want me to give you my honest assessment and not blow smoke up yer arse...

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [48]: Me: What sort of plan are they hatching, then?
    Michale: Who knows!?? I am sure the GOP don't...

    That's honest, anyway. But it could include taking money from the sick and giving it to the rich. Just sayin'...

    They had 8 years to come up with a plan..

    Oh, apparently you missed all that "saving the economy" stuff that Obama got passed during his first six months. Y'see, Obama inherited an economy in free fall, while Trump inherited a low unemployment, low inflation, economy with a built-in growth rate of somewhere around 1.5%.

    But it doesn't change the fact that patriotic Americans have resoundingly, definitively and LOUDLY said NO!

    And have no idea or any care about what they've rejected, so long as it is attached to the synecdoche "democrat".

    This is the line of thinking that McCain, Murkowski, and Collins were rejecting; why McCain walked onto the floor of the Senate last week, looked McConnell in the eye, and said, 'no'.

    These were the first defections, there will be more, and then we'll get to see who's better at 'the art of the deal'.

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Do you know that we would be more than halfway to MARS right now if Democrats didn't modify NASAs mission to that bogus load of felgercarb Human Caused Global Warming?

    Did you know that someone's blown a load of smoke up your ass? That's asinine, PLUS another asin-eight-and-a-half.

    Truth is, Republicans, ever worried about 'vigilance' in security matters, would rather see us stick our collective heads in the sand and sing syllables than collect scientific data about the planet we inhabit, because what that data might reveal would be annoying to their patrons in the petroleum and coal industry. So they want to axe the part of NASA's budget that's being used to collect planetary environmental data. No news like no news, as they say.

  58. [58] 
    Paula wrote:

    General Babysitter has kept Blotus off Twitter for hours!

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's honest, anyway. But it could include taking money from the sick and giving it to the rich. Just sayin'...

    As opposed to TrainWreckCare which took money from MILLIONS of Americans, INCLUDING the sick, and gave it to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies???

    Check yer stones in yer OWN house, bub...

    Oh, apparently you missed all that "saving the economy" stuff that Obama got passed during his first six months.

    OK, then Odumbo had 7.5 years to come up with something...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    These were the first defections, there will be more, and then we'll get to see who's better at 'the art of the deal'.

    Yes we will..

    Ya'all's predictions have been ABYSMAL as of late..

    I think it's cute that ya'all think ya STILL have credibility in that regard.. :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    General Babysitter has kept Blotus off Twitter for hours!

    Way to insult a Marine Corp General who has devoted his life to keeping you safe so you can insult him...

    Yea.. Ya'all have respect for the military... Suuure..... :^/

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    would rather see us stick our collective heads in the sand and sing syllables than collect scientific data about the planet we inhabit,

    You mean MANIPULATE the scientific data about the planet we inhabit..

    World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
    dailymail.co.uk/.../World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

    Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide ...
    washingtontimes.com/.../climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

    former noaa scientist confirms colleagues manipulated climate records
    science.house.gov/.../former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-cl

    Australia Tampers With Climate Data | The Daily Caller
    dailycaller.com/.../australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

    Once again, I think it's cute how you put all your FAITH in this con-artists you call "scientists"....

    You have been conned..

    "You are being conned at a level unprecedented in the annals of human history!!"
    -General 'ICARUS' Renning, BY DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    EXCLUSIVE: Al Gore’s Home Devours 34 Times More Electricity Than Average U.S. Household
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/exclusive-al-gores-home-devours-34-times-more-electricity-than-average-u-s-household/

    Like I said...

    DumboCrats.. Check yer stones in your OWN Glass Houses before you start chucking them...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those who preach and fear-monger the loudest are the biggest polluters on the planet...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all simply have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue whatsoever...

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [62] These are your cites?

    World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
    dailymail.co.uk

    Unreliable tabloid. Same scandal sheet that claimed that Melania Trump used to be a hooker. She won the lawsuit.

    Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide washingtontimes.com

    Moonie Rightie Rag. errrrrr! Try again.

    former noaa scientist confirms colleagues manipulated climate records
    science.house.gov

    The link was dead, but the website is the Committee on Science, Space & Technology, currently headed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), an ardent climate change denier, who, according to Wikipedia, had received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry as of 2015. The SST website has many headlines that reflect the views of the Chairman and the GOP 'majority'.

    Australia Tampers With Climate Data | The Daily Caller
    dailycaller.com

    That's Tucker Carlson's (a.k.a. NotOReilley) website. Again, can't really trust it. It's Tucker's fault. He's such a dick.

    Once again, I think it's cute how you put all your FAITH in this con-artists you call "scientists"

    They're called "scientists" for the same reason that engineers are called "engineers" - because they've got graduate and post-graduate degrees, often involving years of intern lab work, papers, dissertations, and the like, and generally earned the title. The most highly credentialed climate scientists in the world today unanimously subscribe to the conclusion that current acceleration of Climate Change is both a man-made phenomena and (for the moment) reversible.

    I think it's cute that you think I should get my science instead from Tucker Carlson, Scott Pruitt and Lamar Smith.

  67. [67] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    From reading these, you're just going to LOVE today's article.

    Heh.

    And please remember, when responding to it, how happy you were to brag about the Rasmussen 50% approval poll just a few weeks ago...

    :-)

    -CW

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unreliable tabloid. Same scandal sheet that claimed that Melania Trump used to be a hooker. She won the lawsuit.

    Argumento Fallacy... :D Or whatever JL calls it...

    So, you can't address the FACTS that any of those articles raised..

    Why??

    Because they totally devastate your position...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's Tucker Carlson's (a.k.a. NotOReilley) website. Again, can't really trust it. It's Tucker's fault. He's such a dick.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data/news-story/c3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=TheAustralian&utm_medium=Twitter

    OK, there's the EXACT same information directly from the horse's mouth... :D

    Face the facts, Balthy..

    Ya'all have been CONNED...

    Yer so called "scientists" manipulate and tweak the data to produce the desired outcome..

    This is WELL-DOCUMENTED...

    Virtually *ALL* of the tweaks and manipulations that your so called "scientists" have done has resulted in warming...

    Virtually *ALL* of the warming that you Global Warming fanatics point to COMES from the tweaks and manipulations..

    This is all well-documented as fact...

    It's a con... Nothing more..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fido And Fluffy Are Ruining The Environment, UCLA Study Says
    America's beloved dogs and cats play a significant role in causing global warming, according to a new study by UCLA.

    https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says

    OK Dogs and cats GOTS to do!!!

    If you are a global warming fanatic and you drive a car or have a pet or even breath...

    You are a hypocrite....

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Have to do what?

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have to do what?

    Ya caught that, eh?? :D

    do = go

Comments for this article are closed.