ChrisWeigant.com

Year Of The Woman 2.0

[ Posted Wednesday, June 6th, 2018 – 17:27 PDT ]

I suppose, if one were more classically-minded, that slogan should be: "Year Of The Woman II." But whatever you call it, 2018 is shaping up to be even bigger for the fairer sex than 1992, the original Year Of The Woman in American politics. There are two reasons this is probably soon going to become conventional wisdom (if it already hasn't): impressive women candidates, and suburban and minority women as the key voting demographics.

Here's a quick rundown of the tally so far:

Voters have cast primary ballots in 32 of the 56 Republican-held House districts most vulnerable to a Democratic takeover, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Of the 28 races that have been called, Democratic women have won in half the districts, with women leading the Democratic ticket Wednesday afternoon in one of the four remaining seats still being counted in California. The party's nominees in these crucial districts also include six military veterans and seven nominees who are black, Latino or Asian.

The winners include new political stars such as Amy McGrath, a former Marine fighter pilot running in Lexington, Ky., and Mikie Sherrill, a Navy pilot and former prosecutor running in northern New Jersey.

In addition, this tally doesn't count Republican women, some of whom have been winning their own primary races. So far, the number of women who have entered politics for the first time by running for office is impressive almost across the board. Now, to be fair, not all of these candidates are going to win in November. It's a lot easier to win a primary in a contested district than it is to win a general election, especially when the woman is running against an incumbent. So the results of the general election might not have as many victories as have been happening in the primaries.

Some individual races are already gaining national attention, mostly for landing in a "first" category: the first Native American woman in the House, the youngest woman ever in the House, et cetera. A lot of different types of glass ceilings may get broken this year. Overall, women still have a long way to go to get to anything resembling equal representation -- there are currently only 23 women senators, and only 19 percent of the House is female. Still, women politicians have been building these percentages up over the years (here in California, for instance, we haven't had a male senator since the original Year Of The Woman, which was over a quarter of a century ago) and the numbers could jump upwards in this election.

If there weren't so many women candidates running, an alternative political label might have been resurrected. This year might also prove to be the "Year Of The Soccer Mom 2.0." Back in the 1990s, the mainstream media used to love coming up with catchy names for key demographics in each election cycle (there was also a year of "NASCAR Dads," for instance). In 1996, suburban women were seen as key, hence the "Year Of The Soccer Mom." This moniker now seems a little out of date and demeaning, though, since it reduces suburban mothers to nothing more than taxi drivers for their children's activities, so it probably won't see a resurgence this year.

But whether you call them "soccer moms" or the less-catchy "married women who live in the suburbs," they could be the key to the Democrats' chances of regaining control of the House of Representatives. There are two big reasons for this. The first is that suburban districts currently held by Republicans are without doubt the most vulnerable takeover opportunities out there for Democrats. There are more suburban districts with a Republican in the House where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump than any other category of vulnerable district. These are the main targets for Democrats in November. The second reason is intertwined with the first. The reason there are so many of these districts is that suburban women are the biggest demographic group which is currently undergoing a big change in historical voting patterns. Young single women live in more urban environments, for the most part, and then when they get married and move out to the 'burbs, they start getting more conservative and voting Republican. This may sound sexist, and it actually used to be even more so (because the conclusion used to end with: "...and they start voting the way their husbands tell them to vote"). But ignoring the pop psychology aspect, the numbers did indeed show that married women used to be a fairly solid bloc of fairly solid Republican votes. This is how all those suburban districts initially elected all those Republicans, after all. Add to this the effect of gerrymandering, and it's pretty easy to see that Republicans used to cherry-pick suburban women voters as a faithful part of their base.

But this is rapidly changing. More than any other demographic, suburban women are having serious second thoughts about their political affiliations in the age of Donald Trump. Remember, it was women who kicked off the entire "Resist!" movement, with their massive march on Washington the day after Trump was sworn in. This fervor hasn't seemed to die down much at all, and is likely responsible for the record number of women newcomers who have run for office this year.

Suburban women are the ones most horrified at Trump's daily antics, to put it bluntly. The day-to-day three-ring circus emanating from the White House is shrugged off by true-believer Trump supporters (as "just Trump being Trump"), but the soccer moms are not so dismissive. Moms, after all, have to explain to their children why they aren't allowed to say the same things as their president regularly says. Trump's general boorishness combined with his attacks on healthcare and women's rights have changed a lot of suburban women's minds about which political party truly stands for them.

Because there are so many vulnerable GOP districts located in the suburbs and because the women voters there are the demographic that has shifted most considerably since the last election, if Democrats do manage to regain control of the House, it will likely be suburban women who put them over the top.

Less noticed than the soccer moms, at least so far, are the minority women voters, who may also influence key races -- not so much from changing their politics, but for getting enthusiastic and boosting their turnout. African-American women were already seen as key in the defeat of Roy Moore in Alabama, and if Democrats manage to turn states like Georgia and Tennessee a bit bluer this year, this will likely be one of the biggest reasons why. African-American voting patterns are tough to discern over the past few decades, mostly because Barack Obama's elections gave rise to huge improvements in African-American voter turnout. But this didn't hold true for the midterms he faced, and it was seen as a temporary "there's a black man at the top of the ballot" bump. Democrats couldn't maintain the momentum of Obama's election years, so the voting turnout data bounces all over the map over the past decade.

But if African-American women are as determined as other Democrats to send Trump a message this year, they could be crucial to Democratic candidates' chances for success. This demographic votes overwhelmingly Democratic, to the tune of 90 percent and up. So pretty much every additional African-American women who votes is a solid vote for the Democrats (unlike the suburban soccer moms, who may now be shifting allegiances, but to nowhere near as much as 90 percent of their collective vote). Of course, African-American voting can only be key where they live, meaning this won't have much of an effect in many districts and states. But where there is a high percentage of African-Americans in the electorate (as in the South, most notably), increased turnout might be enough in close races to give the Democrat the edge.

Other minority women may prove to be key in individual districts, such as how the influx of Puerto Ricans into Florida is going to change that state's electorate (remember: Puerto Ricans, being American citizens, can instantly register to vote when they move into any American state). Additionally, Latina voters may also prove to be key in border states such as Arizona and Texas.

So we've got more women candidates running than ever before. We've got more women candidates winning their primaries. We've got diverse women candidates now poised to break some glass ceilings. We've got more vulnerable House districts in the suburbs -- which just happens to be where the biggest demographic partisan shift is now taking place, among women. And we've got women of all ethnicities and races fired up and enthusiastic about voting this year. If 2018 does prove to be a combination of the original Year Of The Woman and the Year Of The Soccer Mom, then the Year Of The Woman 2.0 could prove to be far more memorable than either 1992 or 1996. And it might just return the first woman to ever be speaker of the House to her old leadership job.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

35 Comments on “Year Of The Woman 2.0”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In 1996, suburban women were seen as key, hence the "Year Of The Soccer Mom.

    @CW,

    the concept of soccer as the sport of the white, middle-class suburbanite is not just harmful to the country, it's harmful to the sport. i say this as i prepare to watch a world cup in which the USA will not participate. in just about every other country in the world, futbol is the most democratic of team sports - all it takes is a ball, a patch of dirt and four random objects to mark goalposts. before he was discovered, pele ran barefoot through the streets kicking a sock stuffed with rags. our soccer parents have to pay thousands of dollars to enroll in "academies" in order to get noticed. the lionization of the white suburban "soccer mom" is not just what's wrong with the sport, it's what's wrong with the country. so there.

    JL

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Woman 2.0 could prove to be far more memorable than either 1992 or 1996. And it might just return the first woman to ever be speaker of the House to her old leadership job.

    From your keyboard to God's ears.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Great. The Big Money Democrats will get back in control by taking advantage of women voting for other women because they are women?

    A Big Money candidate is a Big Money candidate, regardless of whether they are male or female.

    "Less noticed than the soccer moms, at least so far, are the minority women voters"

    You know what is even less noticed, at least so far and for way too long, than minority women voters?

    The 20-30% of presidential election voters that don't vote in off year elections, the 40% that don't vote at all and how some of them can be mobilized in 2018 to create and demonstrate demand for small contribution candidates in 2020 rather than waste their votes by not voting in 2018.

    Stop making the mistake of the enticement of short term temporary gains at the expense of the long term gains that could be achieved by forcing the Democrats off Big Money. This could get a significant portion of the 40% (say 10-15%) to start voting or start voting again because they would no longer feel they are choosing between two Big Money parties that do not represent their interests.

    And it would force the Big Money Democrats that do get elected in 2018 to live up to more of their promises due the fear of an alternative to the false choice between Big Money candidates.

    Stop regurgitating the false narrative that the Big Money Democrats are the only hope when they are in reality complicit in the end of hope for democracy.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    1

    i say this as i prepare to watch a world cup in which the USA will not participate.

    Winning! Not. Trinidad and Tobago.

    Grieve not, kind sir, since the United States Women's National Team is the reigning women's World Cup champion, and though our great ladies may not win them all, they have indeed won the World Cup and will... I would wager... continue to represent America proudly while the men take a seat.

    the lionization of the white suburban "soccer mom" is not just what's wrong with the sport, it's what's wrong with the country. so there.

    Grieve not, kind sir, rather allow yourself to at least concede that the women are winning! ;)

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    2

    From your keyboard to God's ears.

    Cue the pathetic whining in unison of Donald Trump and his ilk.

    BONUS MONEY SAVER: They can take out their t-shirts with the choice nouns like the "C" word and the "P" word and just cross out Hillary's name and write in Nancy's.

    Neil M is so right about this. :)

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    not at the olympics. hope solo embarassed herself and our nation after our quarterfinal loss to sweden.

    JL

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    3

    Great. The Big Money Democrats will get back in control by taking advantage of women voting for other women because they are women?

    I read the article front to back and didn't see anything remotely like the ridiculous scenario you are describing; I'm therefore inclined to conclude that you're one of those men "taking advantage of" men voting for other men because they are men, and you're simply projecting your own BS onto the author. :)

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    6

    not at the olympics. hope solo embarassed herself and our nation after our quarterfinal loss to sweden.

    Even the greatest of franchises can't win them all... as Solo is "bombing" at the box office. ;)

  9. [9] 
    Paula wrote:

    In other news: Sean Hannity goes on propaganda-central tonight and tells people being investigated by Mueller to smash their cell phones because - it turns out - bunches of people surrounding Blotus have been using phone apps to encrypt and destroy their phone calls and now Mueller is looking into that. Then he says he's just kidding. Yeah. That sounds really innocent doesn't it? Convinces me he/they have NOTHING TO HIDE!!!!

    Sean Hannity - party to obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and witness tampering(?).

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/06/cambridge-analytica-brittany-kaiser-julian-assange-wikileaks?CMP=share_btn_tw

    A Cambridge Analytica director apparently visited Julian Assange in February last year and told friends it was to discuss what happened during the US election, the Guardian has learned.

    Brittany Kaiser, a director at the firm until earlier this year, also claimed to have channelled cryptocurrency payments and donations to WikiLeaks. This information has been passed to congressional and parliamentary inquiries in the UK and US.

    Cambridge Analytica and WikiLeaks are already subjects of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but the revelations open up fresh questions about the precise nature of the organisations’ relationship.

    "the revelations open up fresh questions about the precise nature of the organisations’ relationship." -- I'll say!

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    And then there was the new Stormy Daniels lawsuit - the text messages between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson (ostensibly Daniels' lawyer) are damning. They were clearly working together. Cohen gets in deeper doodoo by the day.

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    9

    Sean Hannity - party to obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and witness tampering(?).

    Hannity is not kidding. He is under investigation... has been for quite a while. Remember the three people Michael Cohen listed as his clients when he attempted to claim attorney-client privilege on the multiple millions of documents seized... Sean Hannity was one them. There's a reason for that. :)

  13. [13] 
    Paula wrote:

    [12] Kick: And today in the new Stormy Daniels lawsuit the texts between Cohen and Davidson are about arranging for Stormy to appear on Hannity - this was right before the election.

    It would be great if Hannity would be deposed in that little matter. Good times.

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula

    Speaking of Michael Cohen, it was only a matter of time before the news caught up with Ivana Marie Trump a.k.a. "Ivanka."

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391029-ivanka-trump-connected-cohen-with-russian-offering-to-help-facilitate

    Consider the fact that Ivana Marie knew all of this and see if the word "feckless" doesn't come to mind. :)

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula

    Forgot to add: Mueller knows :)

  16. [16] 
    Paula wrote:

    [14] Kick: Yep.

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula

    The funniest part about Hannity instructing the witnesses to destroy the phones is his apparent ignorance about how data is stored. They can destroy the phones all they wish, but techs can still pull the data and/or the encoding. There's not a whole lot of encryption that can't be broken. It either takes some time or the decryption key. No worries there. :)

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula

    And based on history regarding FBI and the iPhone incident, we know Trump will be squarely on the side of law enforcement. After all, he is the "law and order candidate," and it was Trump who declared on Twitter that we should "boycott all Apple products until such time as Apple gives cellphone info to authorities..."

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-boycott-apple-until-they-help-fbi-access-shooter-n522031

    Why would he change his mind now, particularly since he claims he's done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide. ;) /sarcasm off

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (7)-
    So you read the entire article front to back and completely missed one of the concepts and then jump to a false conclusion that has nothing to do with my comment?

    At least you are consistent.

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The Kick and Paula dispatches above suggest a new term for suburban women voters:

    Smartphone Moms

    Well connected, educated, upwardly mobile married women many of whom drive SUVs to work and soccer practice, but you can only make a catch phrase so long before it becomes wordy like this sentence.

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula [9]

    "Sean Hannity party to . . destruction of evidence . ."

    Believe it or not, there is NO LAW against Hannity advising people to destroy their electronic gadgetry!!

    Of course, you and Kick will assure me that there surely IS such a law. probably in 'Obscurity County', WI, or maybe in 'Outer Mongolia', but the fact remains that there is NO SUCH U.S. federal law!

  22. [22] 
    Paula wrote:

    [21] Stuck-being-a-shill-for-corrupt-GOP-ie:

    I think there are laws against destroying evidence during an active investigation but I'm not a lawyer. But I think it's clear that it's not a matter of "destroying electronic gadgetry" but rather a matter of destroying what's on the "electronic gadgetry". But maybe in republican-land those distinctions are too challenging to grasp.

    [17] Kick: Yes, I was thinking the phone calls and txts may well still be on servers, if not on the phones, since the point of the apps is to make them disappear. If they're recoverable I'm sure Mueller will recover them.

    [20] TS: "Smartphone Moms" - not bad!

  23. [23] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula [22]

    Remember, we're not discussing Hannity "destroying evidence", nor Hannity doing anything, except talking. You know, that old "1st amendment" thing that you Dems/Libs all hate.

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Remember, we're not discussing Hannity "destroying evidence", nor Hannity doing anything, except talking.

    Oh stop it. You know full well that if a liberal commentator had suggested that Hillary incinerate her hard drives in June 2013, he (or she) would have been indicted as a co-conspirator in the Banghazi witch-hunt.

    Do how's the weather on your side of the political divide? Cloudy, with a chance of Stormy, I imagine.

  25. [25] 
    John M wrote:

    [23] C. R. Stucki

    "Remember, we're not discussing Hannity "destroying evidence", nor Hannity doing anything, except talking. You know, that old "1st amendment" thing that you Dems/Libs all hate."

    1) First of all, we ALL don't "HATE" it.

    2) Secondly, you are WRONG, as both you and Michale have both been told repeatedly in the past that the First amendment right to free speech is NOT an absolute one.

    3) The relevant concept is: Incitement, which in criminal law is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.

    4) The degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected.

    For example: Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law.

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'll tell you what, let's match all of the times that Stormy or her lawyer were proven wrong this last month, with all of the times that Giuliani and Trump, or even Hannity have been caught blatantly lying. Just in the last month...

  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M

    Re the free speech right being "non-absolute". The key to that would be the nature and the degree of the "incitement"

    The old "Fire in the crowded theater" thing would incite fear in the crowd, beyond their control, regardless of any other considerations, due to the "self-preservation" thing inherent in all living creatures.

    Me suggesting offhand that my neighbor go rob the local 7-11 would definitely NOT amount to a comparable level or degree of "incitement" of anything, not fear, not greed, not nothin'!

    If Hannity suggested you or I go trash our cell phones we'd laugh at him. (Actually only you, 'cause I don't have a cell phone.) If his suggestion doesn't "incite" you or me, there's no reason to assume it would "incite" the people in question, regardless of whether or not they are guilty of hacking or whatever.

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    [27] Stuck-in-a-corner:
    if his suggestion doesn't "incite" you or me, there's no reason to assume it would "incite" the people in question, regardless of whether or not they are guilty of hacking or whatever.

    It's not a matter of hacking. Hannity was telling people to try to destroy "phone calls" that might be of interest to Robert Mueller's investigation. The only reason to destroy them would be because they incriminate the person who made the call.

    Separately, you have zero idea about whether such an incitement would work or not work and that's not the point anyway. Just like you don't get away with "trying" to rob a bank and getting caught, thereby "failing" to rob the bank, you don't get away with telling people to destroy evidence even if the other party doesn't destroy the evidence.

    It may be Hannity will slither out of trouble on this - we'll see. But it certainly makes him look GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula-tics

    Re "You don't get away with telling people to destroy evidence . ."

    Nonsense, I'm betting you (he) DOES 'get away with it, and I'll publically announce to you and God and the whole world that I ALSO advise the people in question, whoever in hell they are, to destroy not only their cellphones, but their whatever 'pads', their computers, their photos, their emails, and every document and/or record they own, and I urge you to contact Mueller and make him aware that I did so. My youngest kid makes all those things for Apple, and I'm sure they would appreciate all the new business.

    I would love to be the test case to let the SCOTUS rule on it, but I'm smart enough to know Mueller would just laugh at you, but if I'm wrong, you be sure and let me know what he says.

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    [29] Stuck-drooling-nonsense-ie:

    No one gives a damn about what you suggest. Sean Hannity, however, is under investigation and knows other criminals also under investigation. Investigators care quite a bit about what he says and does.

    But continue to argue another point entirely, proving your inability to stick to the actual argument or even understand it. But probably you're just trying to redirect, something repubs/conserves now appear to do absolutely reflexively.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    19

    So you read the entire article front to back and completely missed one of the concepts and then jump to a false conclusion that has nothing to do with my comment?

    No, Don, I didn't completely miss "one of the concepts" as there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in CW's article that suggests "Big Money Democrats"... your meaningless bullshit term... would "take advantage of women voting for other women because they are women." The jumping to a false conclusion was all your handiwork, as per your usual.

    At least you are consistent.

    As long as you choose to troll the author whining like a little bitch for free advertisement and consistently projecting your fabricated bullshit onto his articles, you can naturally expect that people might respond to your consistent trolling, your consistent whining and begging, and your consistent fabricated bullshit.

    TS is so right you too, Don, when he says "be careful what you wish for." Were I the author of a blog with a self-admitted troll who interjected his bullshit near daily into my articles while begging for free advertisement, I would definitely devote a few sentences to that crap.

    Look, you've got something to say. You want the focus solely to be on it. More power to you. So as I suggested, perhaps you should set up a blog and write about precisely what you want to? ~ CW

    Of course, my sentences wouldn't be so nice as these. What part of that is at all confusing? :)

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    21

    Believe it or not, there is NO LAW against Hannity advising people to destroy their electronic gadgetry!!

    Yes, there is law (plural). Do you not understand the fact that Sean Hannity is under investigation and is "phone buddies" with the President of the United States who is also under investigation?

    Of course, you and Kick will assure me that there surely IS such a law.

    We frequently attempt to educate morons who post lies borne out of stupidity. You're welcome.

    probably in 'Obscurity County', WI, or maybe in 'Outer Mongolia', but the fact remains that there is NO SUCH U.S. federal law!

    The fact remains that you generally don't know what your talking about.

    18 U.S.C. Section 1512 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure §?1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to--

    (1) ?influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
    (2) ?cause or induce any person to--
    (A) ?withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
    (B) ?alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
    (C) ?evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding;
    ?or
    (D) ?be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; ?or
    (3) ?hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation? 1 supervised release,, 2 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1512.html

    FYI, Stucki: Just because you're not aware of "law," "a law," or "laws"... as frequently appears to be the case... in no way whatsoever should be interpreted or construed that "law" does not exist. :)

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Okay, not sure why "spaces" which were copied from findlaw.com would turn themselves into question marks, but obviously those weren't typed by me. Apologies.

  34. [34] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    See my [29], where I advised whomever Hannity advised to do the same thing Hannity advised. You are assigned to report me to Mueller, inasmuch as our buddy Impaulasible refused to do it.

    Maybe Hannity and I can be cellmates!!! I'm looking forward to it!

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    34

    See my [29], where I advised whomever Hannity advised to do the same thing Hannity advised.

    Are you just determined to remain an uneducated prig who lacks the ability to reason? If Hannity was any random uninvolved moron on a chat board such as yourself and simply spewing the same bullshit you are, you'd have a point, but he's not so you obviously don't.

    Since Sean Hannity speaks with the President of the United States on a well-known regular basis and was also identified by Michael Cohen, his lawyer, as one of his three clients, which exclusive list of three also includes Hannity's phone buddy a.k.a. the President of the United States, that makes him more than just an uneducated blowhard on a blog who keeps insisting that the First Amendment "freedom of speech" means that one can say whatever one wants whenever one wants and to whomever one wants.

    You are assigned to report me to Mueller, inasmuch as our buddy Impaulasible refused to do it.

    Since you're not a witness, subject, nor target of the investigation, it is the height of ignorance to believe you'd even be remotely relevant to Mueller, but the fact that Sean Hannity holds that distinction, it is beyond ignorant to suggest that Hannity's status is the same as your own.

    Maybe Hannity and I can be cellmates!!! I'm looking forward to it!

    I have no doubt you and Hannity would enjoy each other, old man, but I have a better idea for your consideration: Maybe you could grow a few brain cells and they could be "cellmates"... something the entire board could look forward to! :)

Comments for this article are closed.