That "answer", as I had speculated it might be in previous comments, was just a rehash of the same arguments that had been made by the Big Money Democrat Deniers that comment here and that I had debunked in response to those commenters.

Oh, I see the problem now; you are under the mistaken impression that you "debunked" a commenter on this board when you have done nothing of the sort... quite the contrary too since multiple commenters on this board including the author, have actually pointed out the multiple flaws in your solicitation.

For example, your statement that the small contribution candidate has to exist first before an organization to create small contribution candidates is worth considering. Try reading and re-reading comment 37 before you make that debunked claim again.

I didn't exactly say that, Don, but nevertheless we continue to make progress with your seeming admission that the "Small Money Democrats" you claim to represent do not... in fact... exist.

It could have been the beginning of a discussion, but if the discussion does not continue then it does not qualify as a beginning.

And therein lies the fate of your "One Demand." You began a discussion that you can't sell to people who agree with a lot of your premise. You're preaching to the choir, but your sermon is severely lacking in so many ways that have been pointed out to you by several commenters as well as the author. The so-called "Small Money Democrats" you claim to represent don't exist, and until such time as they do, that makes you just a guy trolling another man's blog trying to force him to shill for your "organization to create small contribution candidates."

The continued trolling of this blog to force a conversation to shill for your organization is beyond the pale, in my opinion. Sell it yourself, Don, and if you can't sell it to the choir, don't expect another man to shill for you.

You can do better. It won't be easy, but at least it will be the right thing to do. ~ Don Harris

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/03/07/checking-in-with-trumps-polling/#comment-117167

I've got nothing further to add to this discussion so over and out. :)

Most politicians poll their constituents, Trump prefers to "poll" prostitutes.

https://out.reddit.com/t3_26b9ve?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWs7P9Tm.png&token=AQAAp56iWlbzeZuOgMemIyuGZz65tD-cas8YXsBvpTkWo0GR7tSu&app_name=reddit.com

If someone were to ask or demand that I to preach the gospel on a blog I would ask them to provide evidence of the existence of God because it would be a reality-based blog as CW's is supposed to be.

Okay, then. Now we are getting somewhere. Until you can provide the existence of a "Small Money Democrat" as defined in your "One Demand" purity gospel, there's nothing to support because none exist. To date, you have offered Buddy Roemer as an example, which a 5-minute search revealed Buddy to be a fraud. Until a "Small Money Democrat" exists, Don, there's no one to support. Got that?

And that is all I am asking of CW, to back up his statements on supporting the Big Money Democrats and address the arguments I have made on why he shouldn't support the Big Money Democrats and should inform citizens about One Demand.

Pretty much one of the purposes of a comments section.

Wrong, Don. Free speech regarding political topics is one thing, but insisting on trolling an author until your political venture is addressed in a manner satisfactory to you is quite another. JL is absolutely correct that you should be thankful you don't get banned for solicitation, and the trolling insults toward the author are beyond the pale, in my opinion.

I have considered many possibilities on why CW has not responded in a manner consistent to someone claiming a reality-based blog, just as many of you have. This would not be necessary if CW would weigh in.

He gave you an answer, Don. Perhaps you should read and reread it until it sinks in.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/20/gops-swamp-creature-of-a-tax-bill/#comment-112608

JL

@ts-i already own the Brooklyn Bridge. [I told them we already got one]. What i mean is a large percentage of Trump voters don't particularly like him or approve of the job he's doing, but would still vote for him.

You also seem to believe that the interests of large donors are always going to be in opposition to the interests of small donors — a position that you could not possibly know to be true with any level of certainty.

Amen. :)

Thank you for agreeing that CW has not answered my questions or addressed One Demand.

Actually, I said CW has answered you on multiple occasions when he chose other topics despite your trolling.

Manning up when you don't get an answer does not consist of giving up, it consists of remaining persistent.

Your 2+ years of trolling has produced multiple answers in the form of other blog topics.

I choose to spend some of my 24 hours trying to convince CW of the error of his ways and comment on his articles in the way I choose about an issue that effects every other issue so it is relevant to just about everything he writes about.

A lot of people feel that way about Jesus, Don, but you have referred to Him as a "big con." How would you feel if someone was trolling you on a near daily basis insisting you needed to "man up" and preach the gospel on your website?

No, Don, I am not comparing your repetitive BS to the Word of God; however, with all that proselytizing on your part that has borne little response, perhaps you should consider the possibility that CW feels about "One Demand" the way you feel about Jesus and no amount of trolling will convert him. :)

And why, exactly, would CW choose to do this? How does it benefit him in any way?

Many of you have tried to explain why you think it is unrealistic or a pipedream, just as I have explained that expecting the Big Money candidates…

It’s also telling that you say that we attempt to explain why we think that your plan is faulty, but you EXPLAIN with unquestionable certainty that Big Money candidates will never work on behalf of anyone who doesn’t make a large donation to their campaign.

You also seem to believe that the interests of large donors are always going to be in opposition to the interests of small donors — a position that you could not possibly know to be true with any level of certainty.

pair of Trump supporters were caught on camera this past weekend issuing unhinged threats to a left-wing bookstore in Berkeley, California.

The video, which was posted on YouTube by Berkeley’s Revolution Books, shows the Trump supporters coming into the store and confronting people working there.

The video begins with a woman Trump supporter asking a store staff member if she really thinks “I’m racist because I support our president?”

“Yes, basically, yes,” the staff member replies.

A male Trump supporter, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, called the staffer “commie scum” and told her that “we’re going to burn down your bookstore.”

The staffer informed them that she had video of them threatening to burn down the store and told them to “please leave” the premises.

“This is America, f*ck you!” the man shouted at her.

Later in the video, the man can be seen telling people outside the store that “Trump is going to get rid of all you pieces of sh*t.”

He also called the woman who worked at the book store an “anti-white racist piece of sh*t” and said that the only people who shopped at the store were “Antifa pieces of sh*t.”

At some point, ya gotta face the fact that probably CW (along with me and most others) thinks your crusade is unrealistic, as in 'pipedream'!

But you never found the time to write about that or even man up and answer my questions on One Demand.

FACT: We each have 24 hours every single day to use as we choose.

FACT: For 2+ years, you have trolled the author of this blog whilst he simultaneously has chosen to write about other topics.

OPINION: You should "man up" and clue in to the possibility that the author has answered you multiple times by choosing not to answer you. :)

Holy tinfoil!

What does your term "silent donjority" mean? That a majority of people actually prefer Trump? He did lose the popular vote by roughly 3 million.

Or do mean that a substantial block of Trump supporters deliberately and consistently under report to pollsters? If so, why does the data signal burble so much from day to day? Does the donjority rise and fall like the tides?

So, "bit," "seems," "I don't know how big," somehow adds up to a good wager? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn.

Absolutely 100% correct. In fact, I looked high and low for a recent poll where Trump's numbers actually do beat Obama's. The good news is, I did find one; the bad news is that it's a poll that asks for opinions regarding "worst president" of the 13 presidents since World War II.

Poll: Trump picked as worst president since World War II

A plurality of American voters believe President Trump is the worst commander in chief since the end of World War II, a poll released Wednesday found.

The Quinnipiac University survey showed 41 percent of American voters think Trump is the worst of the 13 presidents who have held the office since 1945. The same poll also shows Trump with a 38 percent approval rating.

https://tinyurl.com/y729dfbu

The exact question polled was: Which of these thirteen presidents we have had since World War II would you consider the worst president: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump?

When queried similarly regarding "best president" since World War II, Donald Trump garnered a dismal 7%, while Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are at the top of the list with 28% and 24%, respectively.

Can somebody please point me to any generic ballot where the GOP is up over Democrats? <--- Not snark.

https://tinyurl.com/yddcgkgt

That's old news..

In generic ballots, GOP'ers are up over Democrats...

You are correct to be concerned...

Democrats are losing their edge because it has become clear that they have nothing to offer except RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!!..

Exactly as you said in comment #3... :D

My bust.. :D

Maybe I should read the comments in order.. :D

But, at least, I explained WHY poll'ees won't admit their Trump support to a pollster..

And there are a lot of Americans who won't say their true feelings about President Trump because then they are physically assaulted and attacked as "deplorables" and "racists"..

Once you take that FACT into account, you understand why President Trump polls so low...

President Trump polled lower in the election and, guess what??

He still won..

JL

You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
~?Col. Nathan R. Jessup

i'm a bit suspicious of the sampling of most polls. based on my read of campaign opinion polls versus the actual results of the election, there seems to be a sizable percentage of people who support donald but won't admit it to a pollster. i don't know how big that percentage is or whether its size has changed since he's been president, but its a good wager that the 'silent donjority' exists.

JL

CW: None of which, you should add, should give the Democrats any hope of easy wins in November, save that it diminishes the ability of any individual Republicant to run on Trump's coattails.

You didn't mention, for instance, what happens when you only count Republicans. Then the number flips to something like 80%-20%, but as has been pointed out before, those numbers are as soft as cheese in the sun. Still, tribalism runs deep this year, and I suspect that despite national generic ballots that seem to favor Democrats by large numbers, the midterms will be fought hand-to-hand in many more districts than these numbers would suggest.