Apparently there is no need to address the substance when you can render a declaration of insignificance because the site in your opinion needs updating.

Ah, no. You need content. Why do you come here? Because CW has fresh content every week day and a lively comments section. What does a visitor get at your site? Agree or disagree, not much. Why should anyone support, monetarily or otherwise, not much?

This of course, has no bearing on the One Demand argument that is still the same as it was. It has no bearing on why the idea was ignored when the site was new or when it was updated to make it possible to sign up for 2018.

I tried addressing One Demand once. Your responses were stubborn, one dimensional and in packaged marketing speak. Whether your idea is good or not is immaterial to your lack of ability to execute on it. As I've said before, you have turned off a forum of people who should mostly support an idea like yours. Many here dump on you not because of your idea but because the way you pimp it is annoying. Annoying is not going to get CW to address your idea. Annoying is not working and is never going to work. Annoying is a problem that no amount of time will solve. You have to deal with it or continue to wallow in irrelevancy.

There is no reason to visit your website. What little content there is long past it's best by date. You are spending too much time pimping here while at the same time seriously neglecting your site. What if CW does an article on your idea and funnel people to your site? There is nothing of value there, it would be a wasted opportunity. Build first, then market, update continually. You are coming at this problem bass ackwards...

He is just following your lead...

And sometimes they die on the vine due to neglect...

Affordability is not the question. The question is what amount of money does it becomes corrupting. I find the idea that under $200 there would be no corrupting influence and over $200 suddenly becomes dangerously corrupting laughable at best.

I....I....I....just don't know what to say!

It's not a tough question Don. Got to your site. See the "10" participants. Subtract from that number the amount of participants you had when you started pimping your site here...

By the way Don, after a couple of years of pimping your site here could you remind us just how many people have signed up?

I do disagree with your definition of "Big Money," and that won't change unless your definition changes. In my opinion, those individuals contributing maximum contributions as currently defined by law are the least of our problem where campaign finance is concerned as the vast majority of individuals contribute $0 already.

This would make it more likely that many candidates that support your agenda could get elected and that those candidates really support your agenda because they cannot possibly be influenced by any Big Money contributors with nefarious purposes because they have no Big Money contributors.

"They cannot possibly be influenced"? Are you kidding?
You might want to factor into all this the possibility that:

** Past performance is no guarantee of future results
** Past results are no guarantee of future performance. :)

Thanks again for proving your lack of comprehension of context and concepts.

Oh, Don, I have no trouble whatsoever in the "comprehension" department. As far as "concepts," yours are about as basic as they come. :)

Here's a concept it would serve you well to grasp... if you grasp no other. Over the course of multiple decades, I have made donations to multiple candidates in various assorted amounts that far exceeded your "One Demand" yet didn't exceed the maximum amount of campaign contribution limits for an individual as mandated by law, and never have I ever received a single favor for those contributions. Full disclosure: I sometimes get a chicken or steak dinner at a fundraiser. That's it.

Without going into the boring details, I did have need of my local congressperson for an issue regarding obtaining a permit. I got no favors whatsoever even when I really needed them. So there's that.

Thinking about the congressperson and senator of your district, do you honestly believe that making an individual campaign contribution in the maximum amount as mandated by law could buy you a favor? If you decide that you believe it would, please pick one of them and try it, and then ring them up and see what it gets you.

Have a nice weekend, Don, sincerely. :)

You have taken clueless to a new level.

Thank you, Don. I worked for years to get you to admit that "One Demand" was indeed a purity test, and I've finally succeeded. Please let us all know how it feels to finally move up a level on the clueless scale.

I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism....

~ Bio of Don Harris

Now that you've had this big breakthrough, you really should update your website and claim a brain cell or two versus the utter cluelessness you've been advertising for years now. While I can't claim your level of "clueless" since I have all of those things you've listed you're lacking along with decades of service to my country, medals, and a chest to pin them on, I can tell you without hesitation that I would be working my ass off to attain those things versus trolling another man's website insisting that he shill for my failed political venture because I lacked the ability and the credibility to sell it myself.

Absolutely no comprehension not only of what I am saying but what you are saying.

Although I can't claim your level of clueless, I completely understand what I'm saying because I'm the one saying it.

No. You keep ignoring that you said purity and integrity were synonyms.

No. I have clearly taken clueless to a new level because I finally got you to admit that "One Demand" is a "purity test." How exactly does one ignore that which one has said multiple times? Clue in, Don; we wouldn't want you to lose your newfound level of clueless.

Don't worry.

Worry!? *LOL*

I am not trying to market to you. I don't need you, the other Big Money Democrat Deniers or many of the people that voted for Trump.

Let me reiterate what I've already said {third time's a charm}: You can label and dismiss me and whomever else with whatever fabricated names you choose, and I would add once again that the proof of your poor marketing skills are in ample supply, but by all means, continue to provide more.

Whether you like it or not, that includes CW who was a Bernie supporter and has even recently said that small contributions can work. I know that CW still exists as he surfaces now and then.

Oh, so now this is about Bernie!? /sarcasm off

So you're still just as "clueless" as ever, blissfully unaware of the fact that CW is here every weekday, while it's you who is obviously "missing."

It speaks volumes that you believe you are "marketing" to CW when the fact is you are trolling the man's website and insisting that he shill for your pathetic attempt at political activism because you totally epitomize the level of "clueless" that you admit on page 1 of your website. :)

That was really funny. It only shows how, at least here, that "Kick" is a synonym of clueless.

Let me reiterate what I've already said: You can label and dismiss me and whomever else with whatever names you choose, and I would add that the proof of your poor marketing skills are in ample supply but by all means, provide more.

The LOL that just because something can be a synonym doesn't mean it is always a synonym is a perfect example.

See above.

Since you have complained about the purity of One Demand and purity is a synonym for integrity, does this mean when you complained about the purity of One Demand that you were complaining that One Demand has too much integrity? (note that that was a question and not putting words in your mouth.)

I shared my opinion that "One Demand" was a purity test that no one could or should be expected to meet in order to avoid being labelled with a broad brush with your labels. You have finally conceded that it is indeed a "purity test." I don't believe a candidate who will accept a contribution higher than $200 is inherently evil or vice versa. The labeling and dismissing of any person or politician who disagrees with your definition of "Big Money" is asinine in my opinion. This is not complicated.

If you take nothing away from our conversations, please let it sink in that "one size does not fit all" and no amount of redundant and/or persistent trolling is going to magically change that fact.

As I have said before: Go ahead, keep digging. The way out of the hole has to be down there somewhere.

As I have said before: It's your hole and your shovel, and you who's demanding that others do the digging for you. Sod off. :)

The part where One Demand gets to set the standard seems to be not the only thing your are missing.

If "One Demand" sets the standard for us all, why are you here trolling CW to shill for your venture?

As a citizens I have a right to set my own standards for politicians and to encourage other people to join me.

Of course you do, but I think you're seriously deluded if you believe that trolling a man on his website to shill for your political venture is the equivalent of "encouraging." Who are you kidding, Don? No one here is that ignorant, Don, not a single one.

But I am not alone in setting the standard for small contributions at 200 dollars aggregate. I read many articles on campaign financing that used that as a standard for what constitutes small contributions.

I couldn't care less, Don.

So if purity is a synonym for integrity and you are against the purity of the One Demand campaign financing standard that must mean you are against integrity.

Like I said, Don. Who are you kidding? No one here is that ignorant. No one.

Just because something can be a synonym doesn't mean it is always a synonym.

*LOL*

And since you are against purity, I assume you are also against the MeToo movement.

You assume?

They are even more of a purity test than One Demand.

So once again, we seem to be making some progress here... albeit in an asinine fashion... but nevertheless progress. We've established that "One Demand" is a purity test. Glad we finally got that settled.

They want to punish people for stuff they did years ago while One Demand is only concerned with what candidates are doing now and in the future.

I am gobsmacked that you'd somehow try to prove the efficacy of your "movement" with such a comparison, but here you are.

For example, in the summer of 2016 I posted here that if Hillary were to commit to a small contribution campaign from that point on in 2016 that I would consider voting for her. (You can look it up if you want to. You seem to be able to go back and cherry pick something that you can misinterpret to fit your argument against One Demand so you can look it up yourself if you don't believe me.)

Superfluous and proves what? That if Hillary met your admitted purity test, that you would ignore her past? Who are you kidding? No one here is that ignorant... no one.

Funny. When you say you never said that it would be unicorns and rainbows you ignore the "of course not" that you then quote which clearly shows I did not claim that you said that.

How does one ignore that which one quotes? I said you put words in my mouth, and now you're admitting it. Thank you, Don.

You also ignore that you are the one that claimed that I said everything would be rainbows and unicorns, which I never did.

No, Don, I most definitely and certainly did not ascribe that term to you, and I would never; it was I that used that term to describe your movement. It's my opinion that I borrowed from CW because I agreed with it 100%:

My blog is dedicated to "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow. ~ CW

I admit only to inadvertently transposing the terms when I referred to your "movement" as a "farts unicorns and rainbows purity test," but at least we can claim progress from that day since we've now established it is indeed a purity test.

But thank you for the encouragement. Nothing encourages me more than seeing a Big Money Democrat Denier desperately attacking and trying to discredit One Demand which shows that you really fear the possibility of One Demand being successful and threatening your comfy fantasy world of Big Money Democrats that represent ordinary citizens.

Seriously, Don!? Believe me when I tell you that I'm not the least bit worried or fearful that your political venture will be successful. Additionally, you can label and dismiss me and whomever else with whatever names you choose. We've commented about this several times, and you've now been given multiple great ideas by several commenters on this blog and the author, and you've labelled and dismissed each one summarily and in no uncertain terms. You've simply changed the name of your solicitation and continue to peddle it otherwise.

If you won't listen to others who genuinely agree with your premise yet not so much in your presentation, why in Hell should they listen to you? No, I do not fear you in the least. Yes, I'm tired of your solicitation of your political venture and the fact that you genuinely seem to believe that shoving it down our throats on a near daily basis and trolling the author of the blog will cause us to one day magically be won over by your persistence. It won't. :)

Wow. Is that question to me? That is such a really good question... one for which I have a sad answer. Yes, I think they are missing it. Texas politicians generally have a tendency to play to the extremes on either side... always a bad strategy in my opinion.

I believe that the majority of Americans actually do agree on the majority of issues and that politicians on both sides of the aisle draw artificial lines for them based on facts as well as utter nonsensical fantasy and conspiracy theory nonsense. Disclaimer that these are just my opinions. Righties generally make appeals to the emotions of fear and ignorance, and a large number of partisans on the right are biased by misinformation, while lefties generally make appeals to the emotions of fairness and reason, and a large number of partisans on the left are biased yet, for the most part, informed. This is not to say that one side doesn't dabble in the other side's tactics because they do, just a general observation on my part.

Then along comes a win-at-all-costs con artist bait-and-switch modern day Benedict Arnold in the form of Donald Trump, a braggart and baldfaced liar who epitomizes all these tactics on steroids and couldn't care less about anyone not named Trump and would throw some of them under the bus too if it saved his own ass. Oh, I could write paragraph after boring paragraph about this, but I know you understand so I'll cut to the chase... the good news.

The politician who can cut through all this bullshit can actually win by appealing to people who can be reasoned with in the center... where the large majority of Americans are... and this is where politicians like Doug Jones and Conor Lamb come in. All politics is local; it always has been. So poo on today's political pundits who insist that "Democrats don't have a message that resonates." They don't need to have "one" just yet; they need to have hundreds across the country because politics is local. Find candidates that fit the districts for which they are running and are good "explainers" because women and young people care less and less about tribalism and labels and can be reasoned with (not to say that men can't be reasoned with).

As far as "Texas Democrats," a Texas Democrat is as elusive as el chupacabra. They are said to exist, but no one has actually been able to pin a live one down. Every time one is rumored to be caged, it is revealed to be an impostor, usually a bald raccoon. Seriously, though, Texas Democrats are slow, and I believe it'll take them a few cycles to catch up, but they are beginning. Beto O'Rourke is one to watch. Oh, he'll most likely lose in November, but slow and steady wins the race and we are nothing if not patient. :)

Oddly enough, this should worry them more than if Conor Lamb was like Bernie Sander's - it means that Democrats can run center-right candidates in Trump country and win.

Do you think Texas Democrats are missing this story?

I stand by that black box, but I don't think he can pull his scheme off. Motive, yes. Means, definitely not. Opportunity, probably not, I don't see a market for the service. I don't see marketing skills at all.

Maybe it's just a bizzare internet joke. I always come back to the Seinfeld episode about Kramerica. Or the one about softbdrink bottle deposits and US Mail Trucks. Or how about the rickshaw business which was inexplicably not branded "Homeless People Power." Too raw for prime time?

The simplest explanation is crank political theorist.

sometimes i feel i gotta get away

@michale,

although you tend to phrase it in partisan terms, one thing you're right about is that democrats have gotten away from what used to make them successful in congress, protecting the economic interests of their constituents. neo-libs like obama and hillary are all about seeming inclusive on social issues while only paying lip service to bread and butter issues like unions and progressive taxation. guns and gays, religion and racism, are all losing issues. that's why lamb won PA-18 and hillary got killed there.

JL

Fun I can see, but I'm dubious about any profits.;).

Dubious are you? But, TS, remember that time a poster made a really good point about that profit motive... and really big HINT... that poster was you:

From the V.V. site

"If Voucher Vendetta is growing or successful by then I will need to draw a survival sized salary ( a few hundred dollars per week ) or return to my old job. Please don’t make me return to my old job. I would much prefer working for you. While I don’t expect to ever approach this amount, I will never take more than 100 thousand dollars per year ( peanuts by political consultant compensation ) even if Voucher Vendetta were to receive hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in contributions because I want your money to be used for Voucher Vendetta."

Is fraud protection especially lax in Jersey?

D.H. - 1 You have Brass Balls! P.T. Barnum would be proud!

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/08/23/will-2016-be-a-nader-year-or-a-perot-year/#comment-82837

Before I forget, I appreciated the vote count updates you posted from your fly on the wall in PA-18.

Happy to be of service; I can't stand waiting myself so I just cut out the middle man, and now I owe that fly a steak dinner when he swings through Texas next month. Of course, I intend to kid him mercilessly about his 6-point "maybe double digit" prediction for Conor Lamb. They worked their asses off and did a great job even if Saccone manages to pull off a victory somehow when all the votes are counted. You win some; you lose some, and a 20-point swing in your favor is a win regardless, and we are nothing if not patient. :)

I got to bed at a reasonable hr and slept well. Ok, the dram of Scotch I sipped probably helped with the sleep, but it was mostly the numbers.

Drinks are mandatory. ;) OMG, TS... can you imagine what November is going to be like? How will we keep up with all that?

The margin of victory is narrow, but it will probably hold up.

It should. I'm thinking that the Trumpa Loompas wouldn't be spinning the utterly asinine BS that Conor Lamb is a Republican if it wasn't going to hold up.

By the way, I think my Republican congressman is getting nervous.

Heh. How about Miss Lindsey Graham? Nah, he's not up until 2020. :)

Fun I can see, but I'm dubious about any profits.;).

Before I forget, I appreciated the vote count updates you posted from your fly on the wall in PA-18. Well ahead of the NYT and other big players. I got to bed at a reasonable hr and slept well. Ok, the dram of Scotch I sipped probably helped with the sleep, but it was mostly the numbers. The margin of victory is narrow, but it will probably hold up.

By the way, I think my Republican congressman is getting nervous.

Your party got a sharp kick in the fork last night - a 20 point swing and you may also have lost the seat.

As a wise man said earlier in this article's comments:

"neener, neener" ;)

The kids are alright.

The Who are what? ;)

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again ~ Won't Get Fooled Again, The Who

OK, I can like this guy.. :D

Another PRO GUN candidate in Congress for a couple months..

"Yea... I can live with that.."
-Keanu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

:D

Oh, and Michale: "neener, neener" ;)

And yet..

It looks like it will be March 20th before the final votes are in. I've no idea how many more are out there - they are saying that most are military.

Go on...

"Laugh it up, Furball"
-Han Solo

He who laughs last laughs best.. :D

but why a Special Election then? If the current Mayor couldn't run again because of term limits why wouldn't the election the election have been scheduled normally?

Good question, and it's entirely possible I'm wrong since I'm totally going from memory and don't live in the Shithole State of Florida. ;)

There are 14 military absentee ballots requested in Washington County so I can't imagine there are remotely enough to swing the election to Saccone.

As we have repeatedly said, the pendulum swings back and forth, and it looks like it is swinging to the left.

The pendulum always swings back... just best get out of its way so as not to get hit in the face with it. I am guessing we'll see more retirements being calculated in the GOP's near future.

"neener, neener"

How childish of you, mate... you really are truly one of US. ;)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/03/14/trump-is-surrounded-by-marines-that-didnt-stop-him-from-mistakenly-tweeting-marine-core/?utm_term=.14b05183b0b8

Marine Core? This is the guy you think is a genius? Really?

Heh.

-CW

What are the odds!!??? :^/

Oh, Paula, I see Michale's problem here. He completely missed the part where the odds of this gentleman sending money to support a Democrat were previously and heretofore zero except now he did it for the first time ever. :)

The "it doesn't mean anything" bravado has already started, but there are over 100 Republican congresspeople who have to be doing a calculation.

As we have repeatedly said, the pendulum swings back and forth, and it looks like it is swinging to the left.

Oh, and Michale: "neener, neener" ;)

It doesn't say why Seilor was being replaced via special election. But it was another red to blue flip.

If I recall correctly, Seilor is a Democrat who was precluded from running for mayor again by term limits.

WOW...

A Hysterical NeverTrumper is STILL a Hysterical NeverTrumper..

What are the odds!!??? :^/

Email to me this morning from former Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH), quoted with permission: "The upset in Trumpland sends a message to Trump toadies in Congress...I sent the max. First time in about 50 years I’ve made a contribution to a Democrat. First time ever, actually."

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/ft-lauderdale-just-elected-first-openly-gay-mayor-landslide/

The election was called to replace the South Florida city’s longtime mayor Jack Seilor, who in 2014 opposed a symbolic resolution in favor of gay marriage and last year took part in a prayer breakfast with a notoriously homophobic group.

It doesn't say why Seilor was being replaced via special election. But it was another red to blue flip.

I think we all agree that CW should be able to choose what he writes about. I think that CW should also have the right to decide the content of the comments section.

He doesn't need your "blessing," Don; he totally already does. Note how he has basically ignored your trolling of him trying to force him to shill for your political venture for 2+ years by mentioning it zero times in his columns, and as JL and several others have rightly pointed out, you are lucky he allows you to continue your solicitation in his comments section.

But you admit that he doesn't meet the One Demand standard so by definition he is not a small contribution candidate.

I admitted he didn't meet your ridiculous "farts unicorns and rainbows purity test" like no candidate in the United States as of the writing of this comment has ever or will ever meet, but I missed the part where your "One Demand" was the authority on what constitutes a "small contribution candidate."

It's not a purity test- it's an integrity test.

If only "purity" wasn't a synonym for "integrity," you'd have a point, but it is... so you lose this one big time, pal.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/integrity

Do you really believe it will be all "rainbows and unicorns" if there is a Big Blue wave in 2018 when that Big Blue wave is polluted by Big Money?

Lousy straw man, Don; I never even remotely said anything of the sort.

Of course not. That is why you keep complimenting the Big Money Democrat establishment "Emperor's New Clothes" and get all upset when I point out that the emperor is naked.

Another lousy straw man, Don, and more putting words in my mouth that I never said. You really suck at solicitation on multiple websites.

So go ahead and troll me when I comment with a dissenting opinion. It is not effective when you contradict yourself in your argument and just exposes how weak your position is and it reeks of desperation.

Read that one back and pretend CW wrote it to you since you are... in fact... the one trolling his website and his readers, you inveterate moron, and not the other way around. :)

And when it fails to materialize, can I say I TOLD YA SO with yer blessing?? :D

I would classify DH as crank - some who holds tightly to an eccentric theory or invention in spite of overwhelming evidence and or logic against it.

I can be moved by a good explanation.

Trolls are interested in sowing public discord, for fun and/or profit.

Okay, so Don is a crank and a troll. Told you I could be moved. :)

I would classify DH as crank - some who holds tightly to an eccentric theory or invention in spite of overwhelming evidence and or logic against it.

Trolls are interested in sowing public discord, for fun and/or profit.

Funny, I seem to recall you stating over and over that polls are meaningless, and the only thing that counted was the ballot box.

Check this out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/special-election-results/pennsylvania/?utm_term=.5299d5dd16bf

Scroll down to the graphic labelled: "What the race means nationally"

See those big blue arrows? That is the new reality at the ballot box. Big blue wave a-comin'...

-CW

*LOL* He's right about that box of hammers too. PA-18 literally has an entire Republican county slapped onto what would otherwise be a regularly drawn district so that the votes of citizens are diluted.

This gerrymandering and redrawing of districts is how the Republicans "won" the 1,000 seats that Michale keeps droning on and on about. They did everything they could to keep citizens from voting and then further diluted their votes with gerrymandering.

If a Democratic candidate can win in a heavily gerrymandered district the likes of PA-18, the sky is the limit. :)

Would you like some fine whine, or are you happy enough with your sour grapes?

I am just happy that JM didn't take me up on my wager..

THAT would have been intolerable.. :D

Except for that whole "115 districts are more competitive" thing...

Dems need 24 seats. Shouldn't be too tough, out of 115 to choose from...

I seem to recall such bravado... Hmmmmm When was that.. Oh yea... It was in October of 2016... :D

Except for that whole "115 districts are more competitive" thing...

I predict more retirements in the GOP's near future.

Dems need 24 seats. Shouldn't be too tough, out of 115 to choose from...

Just think how an un-screwed Pennsylvania could potentially provide 1/4 to 1/3 of those seats all by itself. :)

“We should be able to elect a box of hammers in this district. If we’re losing here, you can bet there is a Democratic wave coming,” said veteran Republican consultant Mike Murphy, a Trump critic

-CW

I even forgot about y'all ruining the ending for me until I read it and realized it all over again. Just funning y'all. ;) Drinks!

Money was essentially no object in Pennsylvania. National Republicans spent at least $10.7 million to help Saccone, more than five times as much as their Democratic rivals. They will not be able to do that in every close race this fall.

-CW

They'll kick you out of the right-wing echo chamber for pointing this out and thus helping to dispel their frequently hurled ridiculous talking point that all Democrats want to "BAN" guns when the fact is that the majority of Democrats agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller as written. The SCOTUS in Heller granted Americans the right to bear arms to protect their homes and reinforces and reiterates states' rights to regulate the terms of gun ownership.

The SCOTUS has consistently refused to intervene in a state's right to put common sense regulations on firearms, which is completely in line with their decision in Heller. It would serve righties well to actually read the SCOTUS decision in Heller since it doesn't exactly say what they're being spoon fed by the NRA attack dogs who are getting ever more vicious as their grip loosens.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

https://tinyurl.com/aa48rny

Except for that whole "115 districts are more competitive" thing...

Dems need 24 seats. Shouldn't be too tough, out of 115 to choose from...

-CW

Would you like some fine whine, or are you happy enough with your sour grapes?

Heh.

-CW

:D

“For the weeks of Feb. 4 and Feb. 11, roughly two-thirds of the broadcast television ads from Saccone’s campaign, the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee mentioned taxes … For the week of Feb. 18, that dropped to 36 percent, and to 14 percent the week after. … Since the beginning of March, tax ads have been essentially nonexistent.”

-CW

Actually, it's Pelosi 2.o The Senile Vers...

Yep.. November is coming fast.. Ya'all better ditch Pelosi quickly..

"Harry! We don't have time for this! Ditch the bitch!!"
-Tom Arnold, TRUE LIES

Of course, there is always HILLARY to help out the GOP..

:D

Dems are angry over Hillary Clinton’s latest comments
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/378259-dems-are-angry-over-hillary-clintons-latest-comments

Imagine how much more decisive the win for Democrats if Hillary hadn't opened her fat yap... :D

You know I'm right.. :D

Steel tariffs -- didn't work.

How could I have forgotten that one?

-CW

"Tax cuts are wonderful, elect Republicans!" -- didn't work.

"Nancy Pelosi is the devil!" -- didn't work.

Trump personally campaigns -- didn't work.

"Democrats hate God!" -- REALLY didn't work.

Get used to it. November's coming fast... and so is Speaker Pelosi 2.0...

:-)

-CW

Conor Lamb is also pro-gun and pro-gun ownership...

The NYT times has a nice graphic of the flip. A big blue wind blew through PA-18.

Thank you, TS. It is a very nice shade of blue.

The win is of little consequence in strictly political terms, but it's psychological impact is huge.

Exactly. :)

More so because Trump decided to personally intervene at the last moment...and did it rather ineptly.

Remember, TS, Benedict Donald also intervened in mid January too and sent out Mike Pence and Benedict Donald, Jr. in a hairnet to intervene too. ;)

I can do this as long as you can, Don. :D

Conor Lamb is a small contribution candidate, Don. Oh, sure, he didn't meet your asinine "farts unicorns and rainbows purity test," but then no one does and ever will so you trash them all.

The question, CW, is whether you want to continue to be a cheerleader for a fantasy team or a real leader for real change.

A better question is why you insist on labeling everyone who doesn't meet your pathetic definitions and dismiss them all. Conor Lamb is a small contribution candidate, yet here you are trashing him... proving the only cheerleader for a fantasy team is... in fact... YOU!

Seriously, Don, your solicitation for your damn political venture and trolling another man's blog about shilling for you is beyond the pale. Keep it up, pal. Every time you trash CW, I'm going to trash you back twice. I will even number them. This is #1. :)

The NYT times has a nice graphic of the flip. A big blue wind blew through PA-18.
The win is of little consequence in strictly political terms, but it's psychological impact is huge. More so because Trump decided to personally intervene at the last moment...and did it rather ineptly.

Opinion: Why the Pennsylvania Special Election Is Not So Special
Such contests are more about storylines than winning
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/special-election-lunacy-pa-18

Lemme know when Dumbocrats are even CLOSE to reacquiring the over 1000 seats they lost under the Odumbo administration...

Allegheny........ ~3,108 - Lamb 1,930 - Saccone 1,178
Westmoreland... 1,748 - Lamb ...833 - Saccone.. 897 - Miller 17 - WI 1
Washington..... ~1,195 - Lamb ...609 - Saccone.. 547
Greene.................. 203

Lamb up 641

FUN FACT

PA-18 PRECINCTS FLIPPED

Red to Blue.... 172
Blue to Red ....... 0

Until tomorrow, everyone....

It is tomorrow. ;)

FUN FACT

PA-18 PRECINCTS FLIPPED

Red to Blue.... 122
Blue to Red ....... 0

PA-18 PRECINCTS FLIPPED

Blue to Red... 122
Red to Blue...... 0

Until tomorrow, everyone....

-CW

You did, but I was nunching crumbers. :)

It's still a good story, go back and read it...

I promise I will when the words stop moving. ;)

Well, I TOLD you to read it earlier! Heh. If you want to avoid spoiler alerts, you have to remain alert yourself...

:-)

It's still a good story, go back and read it...

I was reminiscent of "Connections" while writing it, as well, for those who recognize that particular reference...

-CW

I was surprised to find out the "a" was added, at some point. I had heard of macadam, and even tarmacadam, but never knew it was supposed to be "McAdam"!

:-)

-CW

I tried to make it as "Paul Harvey-esque" as I could...

:-)

Heh.

-CW

John McAdam! I thought it was only Scots 50 or older who knew John McAdam, as he was a frequent example in history and engineering classes in 1970's era Scottish High Schools.

Deep respect bro'.

Allegheny....... ~3,108 - Lamb 1,930 - Saccone 1,178
Westmoreland.. 1,748 - Lamb ...833 - Saccone.. 897 - Miller 17 - WI 1
Washington....... 1,195
Greene................. 203

Lamb up 579

-R

Allegheny.......... 3,108 - Lamb 1,930 - Saccone 1,178
Westmoreland.. 1,748 - Lamb ...897 - Saccone.. 833 - Miller 17 - WI 1
Washington....... 1,195
Greene................. 203

__________

Washington counting ballots now, and I don't think Greene will matter when Washington reports Lamb won the provisional ballots there. :)

Lamb up 579

-CW

https://www.co.westmoreland.pa.us/erlinkcp

Adding these in now.

I will drink to that! Talk about an inside source!

:-)

[lifts beer can in Kick's general direction...]

-CW

Where are you getting your absentee numbers from?

Just curious, haven't found an accurate breakdown myself...

Via text from my friend who is on the ground in PA-18 who is getting the numbers directly from the district reps via telephone who are getting hammered from all directions.

Drinks :)

Provisional ballots in gerrymandered districts are 85% Democrats who are kicked off the rolls for no bloody reason whatsoever. Provisional ballots won't help Saccone, and there aren't enough military ballots in that district to make up nearly 600 votes.

Example: Washington County reports 14 military ballots.

Where are you getting your absentee numbers from?

Just curious, haven't found an accurate breakdown myself...

-CW

OK, that squares with the CNN numbers. I was kind of wondering about the Westmoreland absentees, so thanks!

-CW

Allegheny.......... 3,108 - Lamb 1,930 - Saccone 1,178
Westmoreland.. 1,800 - counts included in totals already
Washington....... 1,195
Greene................. 203

__________

Washington counting ballots now, and I don't think Greene will matter when Washington reports Lamb won the provisional ballots there. :)

Lamb up 579

200th anniversary export stout for me. the margin is 579 votes according to cnn.

I heard Guinness is building a brewery in Baltimore. Mmmmmm... good stuff.

"Lamb holds a lead of 579 votes, with 1,398 absentee votes still outstanding."

OK, let's see. He needs 580 votes.

That works out to 70.74% of the remaining votes (580 plus half the remainder, or 409, equals 989 out of 1398).

No wonder Lamb declared victory...

-CW

-CW

Drinks :)

If there's ~3000 absentees still out, then Saccone would need around 1800 of them, to Lamb's 1200 to win. That's more like 60%, not 70%.

I'm guessing there's only about 2750-2800 absentees still out. Figure that math. :)

-CW

From the 3 non-Allegheny counties, I added up all the votes. In those counties, Saccone got a total of around 55% of the vote.

Lamb held his own in Washington County too and watch him actually win the absentee ballots there... wouldn't surprise me.

Again, he needs better than 70% of the absentees to win.

In the "safe" gerrymandered district of PA-18, a Democrat is your winner. Bring on November. :)

If there's ~3000 absentees still out, then Saccone would need around 1800 of them, to Lamb's 1200 to win. That's more like 60%, not 70%.

-CW

I just ran some numbers, after I figured out where the calculator was on this #@$! Windows machine...

From the 3 non-Allegheny counties, I added up all the votes. In those counties, Saccone got a total of around 55% of the vote.

Again, he needs better than 70% of the absentees to win.

-CW

Heh. Maybe I should have gone with Rolling Rock tonight... it'd have been appropriate!

Extra Pale ;)

CNN analysis says even if Saccone wins 70% of absentee ballots, he'll still lose.

So absentee ballots decide the race. Wow. Somebody do the math without the Allegheny absentee ballots. I had too many drinks for math. :)

-CW