Why?

Biden is the most qualified because he's got the most experience in domestic and foreign policy bar none. He's has first-hand experience dealing with world leaders who are still in power and have been for decades. There's no learning curve that exists with a guy like Biden.

I get that he's an elder statesman and basically good guy and that he was Veep. But he - and, sadly, Obama - were ineffective in dealing with the Repubs up to and including allowing Mitch McConnell to threaten them out of revealing Russian interference in the election.

Hindsight is 20/20, but it doesn't rob a person of their experience and their contacts with other world leaders. Biden could hit the ground running and start cleaning up the Trump stench without the necessity of going through a learning curve.

I want someone who's been very largely informed by this crisis, not people who want to go back to something that is irretrievably broken.

They're all informed now, and there is no going back. The Republican Party as we knew it is gone. That's why you're seeing more and more people leaving the party as decision time nears. They're out.

I also want someone younger who may not have spent quite so many years being comfortable. However well-meaning, rich folks in Washington never have the urgency for problems that bedevil un-rich Americans.

You want Beto! :)

I think our older Dems are priceless resources for us and can help rebuild the democracy. But I don't want one at the top.

I hear you, but remember: I'm simply stating that Biden is the most qualified to clean up the Trump stench. I'm also the one saying I don't think Biden can win unless he has a younger running mate and promises to hit the ground running, clean up the Trump stench, and then pass the torch after 2 years to his Vice President. It's the only way I believe he can win. Otherwise, he's not likely to secure the nomination so it won't matter. Whoever wins the nomination -- and hopefully the job -- had better have Clinton (both of them), Richard Clarke, Obama, Biden, etc. on speed dial; they're going to need them. :)

And so much hinges on the midterms.

Why?

I get that he's an elder statesman and basically good guy and that he was Veep. But he - and, sadly, Obama - were ineffective in dealing with the Repubs up to and including allowing Mitch McConnell to threaten them out of revealing Russian interference in the election.

Pretty much all the top Dems underestimated/misunderstood the severity of GOP rot or the genuine threat they represented. Furthermore, a lot of long serving Dems are nostalgic about past comity in the Senate during which they politely laid down for Repubs to walk over them. Not always, but often. Chris Coons went on TV to wax enthusiastic about Jeff Flake's agonizing over Kavanaugh - only to have Flake flake as usual. I like Chris Coons and, had Flake voted 'no' I'd have called it a "win" for Chris Coons. But now I see it as a "Lucy with the Football" and that rules Chris out for top job.

I want someone who's been very largely informed by this crisis, not people who want to go back to something that is irretrievably broken. Dems coming are going to need to make a lot of changes and turn a lot of what used to be "tradition" into laws.

I also want someone younger who may not have spent quite so many years being comfortable. However well-meaning, rich folks in Washington never have the urgency for problems that bedevil un-rich Americans.

I think our older Dems are priceless resources for us and can help rebuild the democracy. But I don't want one at the top.

Will do.

Kasich is my Governor. He presided over a massive scandal in which a privatized school company looted millions of Ohio dollars for sub-standard schools.

Nice post. Sadly, Kasich is allegedly one of the only decent Republicans left... so disappointing.

Since Blotus he's made some good disapproving statements but otherwise he's kept his head down. He's not a leader. His solutions to our Rust Belt woes have been - nothing. And he's had hacks working for him who've tried a couple different voter suppression schemes on his watch.

Different in rhetoric only? Ugh.

I don't think Biden's gonna make it either but we'll see what happens.

I think Biden's age is going to severely hinder him. The only way I can see him getting the nomination is a "passing the torch" type scenario since people want to vote for someone they believe will be alive to serve. Still, I think Biden is easily the most qualified person on the planet to clean up the Trump stench. :)

And, michale, if you are lurking out there, watch out for this hurricane. This thing is going to run over 85 degree water, is facing diminishing wind shear, and it's not inconceivable that it hits as cat 4.

I thought it should have been Richardson. But, that's mainly because I've felt for a long time that the best way to overcome the problem of Hispanic turnout is with a Spanish speaker to convince the youngsters to take the risk to turn out and to understand their collective interest is to turn into Democrats.

That, by the way, is why I think Beto is not totally out of the question as a '20 VP, assuming he beats Cruz due to turnout of new voters, particularly Hispanic. (Not top of ticket, because he's not presidential. Yet. But he sure can skateboard, and deliver a speech to a friendly crowd, in either of two languages.)

Thanks for the link - let me know if you come across anything else!

Neither one of us thought that Biden would be chosen to be VP, though.

I was advocating for Biden since he announced his candidacy on Meet The Press in 2005 and to anyone who would listen.

Once he withdrew from the race on a point of personal privilege immediately following the disastrous Iowa caucuses (disastrous for Biden, phenomenal for Obama), I began advocating for Biden to be on the ticket with Obama and often stated that he was on the short list of one. No one else would do.

So, with respect to predictions on Biden and tickets, I'm batting about 500.

AFAIK, he didn't. But maybe if he had, instead of that stupid helmet, he might have carried a couple more states and lost by less than 300 electoral votes.

[140] Biden's got some good qualities

For some reason, I remember when I was talked into Biden's presidential qualifications and political acumen. It was by an AP reporter the night of the 2008 GA primary, at the Vortex bar on Peachtree in Atlanta. He made the case that among all the Dems in the primaries, only Biden and Obama were electable, and Biden was by far the more qualified. We agreed, though, that he had no chance in the primaries, and if the Democratic Party had any political sense, they'd nominate Obama. Neither one of us thought that Biden would be chosen to be VP, though.

It's important to remember Blotus is where he is because the Republican Party actively supports him. And members of the party have been busily doing dirty things for years to set the stage for this. They have betrayed all the "values" they claim define them to the extent they've just put a sex-offender on SCOTUS. They have a lot to answer for so the idea of some kind of unity ticket like that does not appeal to me at all.

Oh, you better get used to seeing Biden's name in my comments going forward, at least until he declares his non-candidacy. And, even then, I'm pretty sure he'll come up in one way or another.

Advocating for Biden is the whole reason, after all, that I got involved in this blog and one or two others in the first place, don'tcha know. :)

I'll defer to you on Governor Kasich.

And, as much as I would like to see Biden prove the old adage that the third time is the charm, I doubt he'll run. I still think he is the best antidote to Trump.

Is there any Republican out there who you think would be a good choice for Biden, should he decide to run and get the support he deserves?

Kasich is my Governor. He presided over a massive scandal in which a privatized school company looted millions of Ohio dollars for sub-standard schools. He "plays" the centrist, but other than his correct action on ACA - he accepted expanded Medicare from the Feds - he has been a Republican. He's been useless with the opioid crisis. Since Blotus he's made some good disapproving statements but otherwise he's kept his head down. He's not a leader. His solutions to our Rust Belt woes have been - nothing. And he's had hacks working for him who've tried a couple different voter suppression schemes on his watch.

I don't think Biden's gonna make it either but we'll see what happens. Biden's got some good qualities but, aside from a few speeches he's basically been MIA since Blotus. He has not been a Resistance Leader. He has not made me feel the least bit more confident we'll survive all this. In that sense he's been about the same as Bernie - uninspiring, unimpressive, helpful around the margins.

I think the Dems on the Judiciary Committee stood out as putting up the most vigorous fight against Blotus and his GOP enablers to date and I could get behind some of those folks. Elizabeth Warren gets an honorable mention too - she's been more vocal and fearless than Bernie. There might be a few Dem Governors to consider. A lot hinges on whether we get the House next month - and if we get the Senate too -- we'll see more Dems be more aggressive.

[121] Democrats may well choose Warren, a candidate whose main presidential qualification may be that she's a little taller, in heels, than Michael Dukakis.

Owch! Epic burn, man.

Liz [129] You're beginning to get a bit like ol' Donnie-one-note on the Biden thing. Don't forget that we have 399 million 999 other citizens to choose from too. We don't necessarily have to go with King Lear. Kasich is a party hack, always has been. He just caught standing when the game of presidential candidate musical chairs ended in 2016.

Thanks and right back at ya! NoDemand is not even a well thought out concept, much less a legitimate non-profit organization! He is asking CW to write an article that will have nothing good to say, which benefits neither him nor CW in any way. I can only assume that he continues you to nag CW because it’s easier to do that than to actually put in the work himself and have it fail.

All legislators take Big Money by your standards. You have yet to demonstrate that the reason people do not vote is due to their hatred of Big Money. Yes, 80% may want Big Money out of politics, but you have absolutely no data to even suggest that if Big Money were removed, more people would choose to vote.

Even many of the 40% that don't vote at all have a one time or another voted.

This cracked me up. If you have voted at “one time or another”, then I am pretty sure you cannot claim to be someone who does not vote at all!

And participation in One Demand in 2018 by citizens that would not otherwise vote does not accomplish nothing. It would get people that wouldn't vote to vote and would be a beginning of a process to bring about change. You know- BASIC DEMOCRACY!

BASIC DEMOCRACY...as in the choice to not cast a vote? Oh HELL! They’ve been exercising their democratic freedom this whole time!

Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending to be that stupid?

I would love for OneDemand to accomplish all that you suggest is possible, the problem is that YOU aren’t doing anything to make it happen at the same you are yelling at CW for not promoting your idea for you!

What exactly would CW report is happening with OneDemand? How many candidates have signed up? How many volunteers do you have lined up? What type of promotions have you lined up? I am “stupid” for recognizing that OneDemand has accomplished nothing and that it won’t ever accomplish anything unless YOU do something other than harass CW!

You should rethink calling anyone “stupid” for pointing out the reality of the situation to you!

I would wager they're hypocrites. :)

Can you remember a time when they weren’t hypocrites???

After I wrote that line, I stopped to consider if I should leave it because I typically dislike hyperbole....but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it wasn’t hyperbole! Seriously, I cannot recall the last time the GOP (as a party) has shown an ounce of integrity. It was well before 2007, that much I am sure. How incredibly sad is that?!?

Do you know what it was that people think Biden did wrong as chairman during the Thomas/Hill hearing? What could/should he have done differently?

I haven't had time to do my own research on this …

Oops... almost missed this question. Answer is very complicated and one of those "eye of the beholder" type issues depending on multiple factors.

My best suggestion for now is to watch the HBO movie Confirmation… caveat being it's a product of Hollywood where historical events tend to become dramatized -- and set to musical soundtrack -- beyond the events as experienced in reality.

https://confirmationhbo.com/?_ga=2.262568843.649241718.1539032014-776763365.1539032014

There are some additional links with interesting videos and discussions there too. :)

I would wager they're hypocrites. :)

Just a last quick thought until later tonight …

How does a Biden/Kasich ticket grab you.

The candidate from the "magic state" where unicorns "boof" rainbows and a Republican hasn't won the presidency without winning that state? I would vote for that ticket in a heartbeat, and I would wager quite a lot of Republicans who have left the Trumplican Party would unite under that large tent. :)

It would be just like Biden to choose a good Republican … you know, if Jerry Brown has had enough of public life.

I believe it would be a wise choice, but that's because I'm a centrist Independent. On the other hand, it might alienate the lefties who would favor a younger running mate with more left-leaning ideas.

So much time between now and then and a lot to play out, and I haven't lost faith in OSC Mueller because he's already flipped Flynn, Gates, Manafort, Mikey Cohen, and others. It's not easy to pierce the veil of attorney-client privilege unless an attorney and/or his client is involved in the furtherance of a crime or fraud, and Mueller has pierced it and flipped the attorney... and collected a million documents in the process. :)

Does it have to be a similar younger choice for VP?

Only if you wish to unite the older Democrats and left-leaning Independents who favor a centrist approach to governing with the younger Democrats and left-leaning Independents who favor more robust taxing and spending.

I mean, I wouldn't want to eliminate a great pick based on age.

I know you want Brown, EM, but two old white guys [no offense to JB and JB or old people or white guys] is exactly what the righties are likely to offer in 2020. Having said that, there's more than one way to unite a Party of diverse ideas to move the country forward, and I would vote for a shoe before I would vote for a Trumplican in 2020. ;)

How does a Biden/Kasich ticket grab you.

It would be just like Biden to choose a good Republican … you know, if Jerry Brown has had enough of public life.

Do you kmow what it was that people think Biden did wrong as chairman during the Thomas/Hill hearing? What could/should he have done differently?

I haven't had time to do my own research on this ...

Does it have to be a similar younger choice for VP?

I mean, I wouldn't want to eliminate a great pick based on age.

So, Kick, do you have anything to say about Biden?

My opinion of VP Biden remains intact.

EM: I'll tell you what, no matter how much longer Trump remains in office, foreign policy and national security will have to be firmly in the wheelhouse of the next president of the United States...

Again, I agree 100%. Do we perhaps know anyone who fits this description? Say it with me: Joseph Biden. I believe if Joe chooses to run in 2020, he should run on a platform that he will lead our country out of this quagmire and turn over the reins to the presidency after 2 years, with the proviso that his running mate be no older than 55. America needs Joe's experience, but she also needs to make way for a new generation of leaders. Republicans I would trust to lead this nation forward include John Kasich and Marco Rubio (with a big maybe as a qualifier), yet very few others as the GOP we once knew has given way to the Bannonites, nativists, Birthers, conspiracy nuts, white supremacists, paranoids, anti-science uneducateds, misogynists, isolationists, and others who have moved from the far-right fringes into the mainstream and have now taken over the Republican Party.

I will take Biden/Booker [or Harris or similar younger candidate] in 2020 for the win... one can dream. :)

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/08/17/ftp496/#comment-124889

LB is correct that the Kavanaugh confirmation process has cast a shadow on some old wounds from the Clarence Thomas confirmation process... but plenty of time to heal those -- I say hopefully. :)

Yes, Kick, I realize the Jan 20th date.

My answer wasn't at all meant to "zing" you regarding the date of inauguration... quite the contrary. My answer was meant to say that whether or not Trump wins or loses reelection in 2020, he and his spineless minions in Congress can still wreak quite a lot of damage to our democracy unless as many of them as possible are voted out of office... starting in 2018.

In short: Vote them all out. :)

It shouldn't. Democrats may well choose Warren, a candidate whose main presidential qualification may be that she's a little taller, in heels, than Michael Dukakis.

The only candidate who can win in 2020 is probably Biden. I agree with you that Gov. Moonbeam would be a good Veep, if he weren't about 112 or so in 2020. If Joe remains in good health, and adds Harris, he will be nearly unbeatable.

But "NO!" will say the faithful. Because Anita Hill. Because he missed his turn. I have to be getting at 3 and I'm not ready. Continue later.

Wake up if you think any president is "finished" on or before election day whether he wins or loses reelection. :)

I can't say that gives me even a modicum of peace of mind.

There was a time when I put all of my faith in the Mueller investigation. I don't anymore.

I am afraid that … two things. Number one, Democrats won't go into the 2020 campaign with the strongest candidate and make no mistake - a strong candidate will be needed to beat Trump. Number two, the Democratic message will not be effectively communicated, let alone be the right message.

I'd put that a little more proactively: Stay awake if you want Trump to be finished on or before November 2020.

My observation in my moderated comment was, in a nutshell, this.

When Strzok's gofundme launched, it was a done deal that it would raise its target. It's not there yet.

When Collins voted on Saturday, it was a done deal the opposition's crowdpac would raise their target. It's not there yet.

When rage at Grassley peaked on Saturday, it was a done deal they would raise their target. It's not there yet.

Trump understands what's encoded in human DNA. Democrats rely what's in their minds.

Wake up if you think Trump will be finished on or before November 2020.

I have said CW doesn't have to promote it, just discuss it.

He already did. You want him to publish it under a title? I can picture it now:

*wavy lines*
*wavy lines*
*wavy lines*

"Average Person" with "No Degrees," "No Years of Running a Successful Business," "No Experience in Political Campaigns or Activism" Won't Stop Trolling Me to Discuss His "Real Idea"... "One" Should be Careful What They "Demand"

My blog is dedicated to "reality-based politics," not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow. And I believe in both hitting politicians when they err as well as praising them when they do the right thing. For whatever motive, a vote is a vote in Congress.... But that's somehow not remotely good enough for you? Wow.

Sure, money in politics is a problem. Sure, things could be better. There are indeed ideas for how to achieve these things (many of them, in fact, some more achievable than others). But only the most naïve would call for all other politics to essentially come to a grinding halt until such perfection is achieved. You advocate not just a litmus test, but sanctification, it seems.

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

*wavy lines*
*wavy lines*
*wavy lines*

Is CW promoting Trump when he writes aboot something Trump does or claims and then gives his opinion on that?

He's generally disparaging Trump because Trump is a Giant Gaslighting Trolling Propagandizing Blowhole. You want the same treatment?

I believe that if he were to look at and discuss One Demand fairly (or objectively) that he might to decide to promote it.

I believe CW is doing you a favor by not publishing his opinion or discussing you and your "real idea." If you believe otherwise, then you are the true epitome of your stated credentials, those being "average person" with "no degrees," "no years of running a successful business," and "no experience in political campaigns or activism." :)

On the other hand, if I'm on a troll watch list, all I can say is: a month from election day, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Crowdfunds show very clearly some of the dynamics which beat Hillary. People are willing to engage collectively when they feel angry and threatened. Otherwise, people show the same traits as do all domestic animals: they are lazy, and instinctively don't want to stand out. If feed is plentiful, they won't compete for food. People add one other trait not found in cattle or sheep. They are cheap, and are not moved to either give to, or work for, political "shoe-ins".

Here are three data points.

(1) Peter Strzok's donations passed $400 K towards the $500 K goal at the rate in excess of $1000 per hour when when the news was new. Two days later, at $450 K, it all but died. It sits at $462,883, with a contribution rate of less than $100.00 per day. https://www.gofundme.com/peterstrzok

(2) The Grassley opposition PAC rose $60K to $190K against $200K goal on Saturday alone. It now sits at $199,721. https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/388598/fund-chuck-grassleys-future-opponent?ref_code=social

(3) The Collins opposition PAC's $1000 per minute rate collapsed by Saturday night. It now stands at $3,572,854. https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/387413/either-sen-collins-votes-no-on-kavanaugh-or-we-fund-her-future-opponent?ref_code=social

Wonky data, maybe. They are cautionary tales for DH as he labours * to harness the self-disenfranchising Great Middle.

They are cautionary tales for November, for sure.

* Spelled thus in honor of Don's running joke aboot his spelling.

good humor is neither good nor humor, discuss.

*laughs* I'm getting verklempt.

Best "Coffee Talk" eva: Mike Myers, Madonna, Roseanne Barr, and surprise guest

https://youtu.be/oiJkANps0Qw?t=333

Give it a rest Don, CW isn't going to promote OD for either the reasons we have been giving you for a couple of years or whatever; or he has other reasons of his own.

Most of us have looked fairly at OD, given out feedback and constructive criticism, and now our patience is over. If you aren't going to listen any feedback, but start whining to/about us, it is over.

And that makes it NOT spam.

Next, I will be NOT trolling the author with my "real idea" for a political themed restaurant called "Bubba Trump."

https://www.deviantart.com/dearrea/art/Bubba-Trump-Shrimp-co-693951489

The idea is real whether you like it, agree with it or care aboot it.

If CW writes about "One Demand," I know a 3-year-old who's going to insist on equal time for their political lemonade stand. You pay $200 for a glass of lemonade and then go vote for Don Lemon. It's better than your "One Demand" because people get refreshed, and Don Lemon might... big might... get elected somewhere like Dixville Notch.

After CW writes about the political lemonade stand, I have a campaign to rename Dixville Notch. It's called "Turn Dixville Into Dicksville." It's a real idea.

The idea itself regardless of whether only one person supports it is information. A journalist is supposed to inform citizens aboot ideas.

Says who?
_____________________

The above comment is dedicated to Mikey Cohen, a very nice addition to the "Mueller Snitch Hunt Choir." A capella, Mikey. :)

Why does there have to be demand for an idea before it is discussed or entered into the public forum?

Again, you're mischaracterizing what I said by the use of questions. Here, let me explain it in terms that a guy with "no degrees," "no years of running a successful business," "no experience in political campaigns or activism," and an "average person" could understand -- again, all your definitions of yourself (not mine).

Political journalists cover the political news and discuss what's happening... not what's not happening.

But with you, Russ and I there is 33% of those polled that DO want One Demand. :D

We already agreed there is "no demand" for "One Demand."

More like purposely playing stupid.

About the Founder
Don Harris

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. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system.

"Playing stupid" (your term) is infinitely preferable to your condition as defined by you.

You, Russ and I are three people. I was obviously referring to the millions of people that do not know aboot it. Not an understandable mistake on your part.

I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

It was not your affirmation that was not valid in that sentence, it was Listen's comment. An understandable mistake on your part.

I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

no, i'm comparing me to darth vader, i just thought vader would be nicer than what i really want to say.

good humor is neither good nor humor, discuss.

JL

But I'm glad we agree that opinions as your wish only referred to spamming and trolling which by definition in this forum I am not doing.

Me neither.

I suggest you add an "in my opinion" when making further accusations that are considered false in this forum.

I suggest that you pound sand.

As CW has made his decision that it is not spamming or trolling, whether you agree or not in this forum it is not spamming or trolling.

Link to that decision by CW, please.

If what I am doing is spamming and trolling then CW would put a stop to it.

He did.

Game, set and match. nyp …

That's that then. So glad that's cleared up.

...waiting to hear "clean up on aisle Trump" again, feels like eons since his last outrage.

LL&P

CW actually did specifically request for you to limit your solicitation posts to one per comments section, until and unless someone else decided to take up the topic with you first. to my knowledge he's never taken that step with anyone else; not even michale has managed to be sufficiently redundant to elicit that response from our host. yet comments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17 in this comments section are in direct violation of that request, as they all occurred prior to russ's response.

i find your lack of faith disturbing.

https://youtu.be/F1xAUfdK9FE
;)
JL

There seems to be quite a number of posted comments here that contain little else than personal insults directed toward fellow Weigantians which might have been discarded on sober second thought or re-phrased.

For the record, it's okay to make negative comments about what people post so long as you are not engaging in the always boring personal attacks.

Hope that was clear as mud. Ahem.

This article, http://www.kut.org/post/93-percent-eligible-voters-travis-county-are-track-register-modern-record , quotes the county registrar as forecasting 93% will do so by the registration deadline. Count on Republicans to challenge sources of registration.

While Travis County, dominated by Austin, can never be confused with the rest of Texas, to say nothing of the nation at large, this does indicate the sort of civic intensity, and community organizing, that has been aroused, and may be more pronounced than detected in polls or reporting.

It doesn't look like Beto should be counted out just yet.

And thanks to Michale for taking some time off as people like Kick need someone to attack and with Michale not here it increase discussion on One Demand.

Oh, Don, how sad that you believe someone is "attacking" you because they disagree with your spamming and trolling the comments section and the author of CW.com near daily with your personal solicitations.

I don't need someone to attack, Don. I simply agreed with Russ and added my own thoughts to his comment. It's not remotely the first time I've agreed with Russ and made a comment regarding one of his posts, and I can assure you it won't be the last. It's also not the first time I've made similar comments regarding "One Demand," and I can assure you it won't be the last either... regardless of who is or is not commenting on the board at the time. :)

Apparently you do not understand the difference between spamming and posting an opinion and offering information on a political idea.

Offering information? Don, your handiwork above on this commentary is spamming and trolling; apparently it's you who doesn't understand the difference.

You can post comments where you wish that CW would ban people that you don't agree with from posting comments.

I didn't ask CW to ban anyone from posting comments whether I agreed with them or not, and your BS I quoted directly above is a gross mischaracterization regarding my "One Wish" that near daily solicitations and trolling of the author be made via his email versus the comments section of his blog.

As for Listen's comment that there is no demand for One Demand which you have affirmed as somehow being valid, it is technically correct- but just plain stupid.

If we are "technically correct," then how is my affirmation "somehow" valid? <--- rhetorical question.

So you, Russ, and I agree that there is "no demand" for "One Demand." Progress at last.

And that is the very reason why I keep encouraging and cajoling CW to write aboot it and complain when he doesn't.

*cue music*
You say "encouraging" and we say "spamming"
You say "cajoling" and we say "trolling"
Encouraging, spamming, cajoling, trolling
Let's call the whole thing off. <--- sung to the tune of

The only way that statement would be valid is if people knew aboot it and did not want it.

You and I and Russ are people, and we've agreed there is "no demand."

50% of eligible voters know aboot the Democrats and Republicans and have shown they do not want either by not voting in off year elections.

Have you considered they know about the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, and others and want nothing to do with them either? Have you considered they're apathetic and don't care who gets elected?

These citizens obviously want something other than the Big Money Democrats and Republicans.

These citizens aren't voting for Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, et alia either. Have you considered they don't want "something other than" and don't care who gets elected regardless of Party? Despite your seeming belief otherwise, there are more than two political parties in America, although admittedly the majority of Americans that choose to vote tend to choose either a Democratic or a Republican candidate. This, of course, is less factual in parts of the North and Northeast.

The only way to find out if they might want One Demand is if they find out that it exists.

You and I and Russ know it exists, and we've agreed there is "no demand."

And CW writing aboot it is one way for that to happen. And no matter what else I or anyone else does or doesn't do it makes no difference to whether or not CW should write aboot it.

I wholly and wholeheartedly disagree with you there. I believe if there was some kind of demand for "One Demand," it would be far more likely that CW would or "should" write about it. As we've established, you and I and Russ agree there is "no demand." I believe you believe CW is your ticket to whip up demand for your "One Demand;" however, I believe the fact of the matter is that CW would be infinitely more likely than not to write about your "One Demand" if there was some kind of demand other than the "no demand" that we agree currently exists.

CW is a journalist and a journalist provides information. A journalist that has information and does not provide that information is not being an honest journalist. And a journalist that claims to be covering reality should cover all reality or stop claiming that they do.

The fund to defeat Susan Collins in 2020 is fast approaching their current goal. You go raise close to $3,500,000 and climbing for your political venture, and I would wager CW will write about it without your near daily solicitation, spamming, and trolling.

Again, you and I and Russ have agreed there is "no demand" for "One Demand." Perhaps that is exactly why, among other reasons, that CW feels no need to discuss it, and that's on you to change and not remotely on him. :)

The fundies now have their abortion-ready SCOTUS and I'm sure they have a nice test case lined up. Let's see the damage as the Republicans impale themselves on the promise they've hoped not to be able to deliver on since the late 1970's when Carter integrated schools and they lost their marbles.

The new symbol for the GOP will be an elephant dragging a chain of bloody coat hangers.

how about instead we pledge to nominate candidates for office who stand up for their constituents' pocketbooks?

Excellent idea. Health care is an issue that falls right into this lane.

perhaps we could promise to vote for candidates who will scrap the cap on social security tax and treat capital gains as income.

Perhaps we could also promise to vote for candidates who will promise to index the minimum wage to inflation or something similar. The cap on SS should have absolutely been scrapped long ago or at minimum exponentially raised. As far as capital gains as income... ouch, but I sure like your way of thinking. :)

we've hashed and re-hashed the difference between dimensions of public opinion. so, i'm not going to waste everyone else's time explaining yet again why your idea has multiple canyon sized holes that you need to address if you ever plan to be successful.

nonetheless, the corrupting influence of campaign money is a real problem, and some aspects of your idea hold merit, which is why i hope some folks here consider those line-items in spite of the daily attempts at nuisance solicitation.

JL

Very well said, sir. :)

There is no demand for OneDemand!

Exactly right. In fact, I would wager that on this board there would actually be a larger demand to prohibit solicitors from spamming the board to promote their own product and that the only person who should be allowed to promote their product regularly on CW.com should be CW himself.

For instance, I've collected money for veterans' causes and have done so for decades where 100% of the proceeds go directly to veterans. I take no salary whatsoever, pay all costs associated with the foundation, and kick in generously myself... a true charity that benefits veterans. I have decided that I'm going to spam this board daily seeking donors, and I'm going to whine incessantly and troll the author until he devotes time in his very own blog to America's fighting force. Who's with me?

Yes, of course I'm not going to do that because I don't believe my solicitation belongs on another man's blog. Perhaps if I start near daily solicitations and demands that the author shill for my political venture, that in and of itself would speak volumes.

My "One Wish" is that "One Demand" and similar solicitors not be allowed to spam this board near daily demanding that the author publish on their behalf, and I would wager I'm far from being alone. CW has an email that he makes available to the entire world so it's not exactly going to limit "free speech" if people wishing to solicit their personal ventures do so to the author via his email.

Rant over. :)

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/04/bill-c-76-liberals-elections_a_23550832/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

Also, I'm glad that shit is done. Mr. K can wear a cape any day of the year, and not just on Halloween, he remains a creepy bugger.

Time to reflect-- an overhaul of the process might be in order-- the shine this turd needs is a drastic de-politicising of the judiciary, obviously.

Here's how I get my kids to split anything fairly... one cuts, the other chooses. The same logic can be applied to the US senate and its Judiciary committee... Have the minority suggest candidates for the majority to consider... I'll wager you'd see more centrists parading past these committees.

SCOTUS renders itself redundant with every partisan decision it makes. If a conclusion is foregone, why bother with the palaver of a court? Get rid of it, dissolve it, remove it, dismiss it, dismantle it, disband it, liquidate it, disestablish it or drain it, just do it. Seems SCOTUS was originally a roving band of judges, sent out to oversee legal matters, this panel went from town to town as arbiters for the state. Dispatch it :)

LL&P

although don's demand may be unrealistic as he currently conceives it, in principle the strategy of direct voter action isn't crazy. how about instead we pledge to nominate candidates for office who stand up for their constituents' pocketbooks? perhaps we could promise to vote for candidates who will scrap the cap on social security tax and treat capital gains as income. that's a hard line i could live with. it's not as sexy as abortion or marijuana legalization, but that's the policy that will actually help bring us back from the brink. the other issues and court confirmations, while important, tend to be wielded as implements of distraction so we won't follow the money.

JL

Here is a much better way forward for Democrats:

https://deepstateradionetwork.com/a-reaction-to-a-heartbreaking-week-in-american-politics-a-defeat-or-a-call-to-action/

A call to action, indeed!

Why do you think it is that Republicans understand so well how critical presidential nominations to the Supreme Court are when Democrats, generally speaking, do not take that presidential authority nearly so seriously?

I hope Democrats don't follow your tactic or that of Senator Chuck Schumer because they are both losing propositions.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

And, I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to be facetious here.

:-)

(wanna guess who I'm paraphrasing?)

Newly formed Republicans for Rape Pac will be inviting Susan Collins to share her thoughts on "Republican Rape Culture: How Young is too Young?" What is the best age to start teaching your sons to rape and your daughters to accept rape?

The R4R will be asking Susan to use her new high profile as America's Rape Representative to see if she can lure Ivanka Trump to join her and share her thoughts on "Incest - Do Father's Know Best or Can Brothers Get In On The Act?"

Although some may draw the line at incest it's clear that to have a truly flourishing Rape Culture you need rapists to build their skills and there's no getting round the convenience of sibling proximity. And daughters have always been available to rape-inclined fathers and now that the GOP has given rape the green light it's time for daughter-raping-Republicans to come out of the closet and share the love their hero, Donald Trump, enjoys!

Let's not forget the ladies! Republican women who allow their daughters to be raped, and their athletic sons to be molested (here's looking at you Ohio State, vying with Penn State to move Jim Jordan into the top spot as America's Most Powerful Molestation Enabler!) deserve some attention! R4R will be encouraging Moms to compete for the "Most Enabling," "Best Excuses for Rape," "Most Skilled Slut-Shamers" Awards.

Republicans for Rape Pac (R4R) is funded by Bill Shine, Bill O'Reilly and Harvey Weinstein. © 2018, All Rights Reserved.

Dedicated to Brett Kavanaugh, America's first Rapist Supreme Court "Justice"!

So OneDemand is now going to be a third political party, is it?

You keep attacking the Democrats, but what if a Democrat wanted to run a small donation only campaign? Why would they want to align themselves with you and OneDemand given your vocal negative opinion of Democrats?

You attack politicians who take large money contributions as being beholden only to their largest donors, but you have never shown any evidence that shows them voting for legislation that harms their constituents and only benefits their largest donors.

But then again, you haven’t ever provided any evidence to suggest that the reason that people do not vote is because those running accept donations larger than $35 dollars!

Yet, you think people who have never voted are going to finally agree to go vote just so they can write their own name in on the ballot and guarantee that their effort accomplished NOTHING!

I am sure tons of people are just itching to wake up extra early on voting day to go cast their ballot with their name written in so that they can have their family and friends make fun of them when Bart Simpson gets more votes than they do! How again is that a demonstration that citizens want candidates that place small donation campaigns above everything else?

There is no demand for OneDemand!

Take the one that fits best.

1 boogle of weasels;
2 confusion of weasels;
3 gang of weasels;
4 pack of weasels;
5 sneak of weasels.

Sue, herself, is one of them.

P.S. What's the correct collective noun for a group of weasels?

LL&P

I don't remember; it's been part of the media "buzz" since its inception. CW, above, mentions that he first wrote of it on 9/14. So it has been at least since then.

It's not just Collins; that site is named crowdPAC. There's one for Grassley, for example, which is also trending. From the $ChuckCHUCK page:

Because Chuck has already raised $1,078,202 from lobbyists, we need to be prepared to spend big money to defeat him.

Why don't you take a good look at crowdpac dot com, and figure out some way to put that platform's gearing behind your crank?

You crazy kids, watching a Gofund cash ticker for shits and giggles...

I beg your pardon, sir; we were participating for "shits and giggles." ;)

I watch the Abbey RD live webcam when I have a few ticks to waste.
Behold … http://www.onabbeyroad.com/cam.htm

Oh, this is super cool. |bookmark| It's dark and raining, and I just watched this dude almost get run over by this car driving on the wrong side of the road. :)

I watch the Abbey RD live webcam when I have a few ticks to waste.

Behold … http://www.onabbeyroad.com/cam.htm

Last year, my nieces were in London, they wanted their own iconic 'Abbey Road' shot...I watched in real-time and in stitches as they dodged traffic to pull it off.

;)

LL&P

" The word "shit-heel" comes to mind too. :)"

A rare gift for me is a word I'm not familiar with, 'shitheel' is such a word. I looked it up, it could have had a picture of Trump next to the definition, it's that suitable.

If I want to hurl abuse and invective at strangers online, I have a few Facebook chat sites I can frequent. I've been on the business end of more than one 'mute' button over the years. I encounter lots of people who enjoy monstering others in the comments section of WSG, WAPO, The Hill, NYT etc, it's not a good look, so I steer clear of cyber-mud slinging more often than not.

LL&P

I just watched it roll over. Was $2,999,125 and I waited one minute and refreshed, and it was $3,000,875.

Oh, you liked that, did you? Well, I strategically timed my donation in excess of Don's "One Demand" in order to push it over the $3,000,000 mark. Me and LB are movers and shakers that way. ;)

I love how $20.20 is the most popular amount to donate.

I just watched it roll over. Was $2,999,125 and I waited one minute and refreshed, and it was $3,000,875.

That's a cool million raised, in less than 24 hours...

-CW

It should be over 3 million in about ten minutes at the current pledging rate. (2,992,000+ as I click this)

The figures looking out the windows of AF1 are amusing as well.

Thanks for sharing.

Oh, looky there. The defeat Susan Collins fund is < $20,000 away from clearing the $3,000,000 mark. :)

Very well said, sir. :)

Kick had Michale to kick...

I am an equal opportunity "kicker." Seriously. If you'd like to test that theory, please begin hurling a regular repertoire of repetitive insults and invectives while simultaneously whining like a toddler about name calling. :)

More cartoon gold... Everything one expects from the Guardian. The line, "It's a bit telling that no one thought to tell him" made me chuckle.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2018/oct/05/martin-rowson-on-the-brett-kavanaugh-controversy-cartoon

*laughs*

The word "shit-heel" comes to mind too. :)

Some Chris guy lets people hang in his yard. The gate has no lock.

LL&P

OneDemand doesn’t have anything to offer!!! How many times do you have to be told this before you get it?

Think I am wrong???

Then by all means, PROVE me wrong!

You say the king is wearing beautiful royal garments.
We reply that the king is not wearing ANY garments, he’s naked!
You hear, “We don’t like the style or color of the royal garments”!
We repeat that there is nothing there for us to like or dislike!

Provide us with evidence showing how great your group is at getting people motivated to vote. You have no success for Chris to write about, and you have the gall to blame him for your failures!

You seem to believe that political movements take off because the press reports on them, but the press reports on political movements because they have taken off!

Why do you think that Chris has the ear of the non-voting public, as I am guessing most people following political blogs tend to be voters? There may be a small number of non-voters who follow politics but refuse to vote (to prove to the world just how serious they take their commitments and how deep they are... the same folks who love the smell of their own farts) but these contrarians will shoot far more holes in your weak premised movement than anyone here has bothered to the second they hear your strategy!

Why aren’t you spending time at sites where more people rally behind your idea? Or is this the “best” response when compared to how others have trashed you elsewhere?

LL&P

(2)

Reminds me of the recent story about the Hartford, Michigan cheerleader allegedly trading marijuana laced brownies in exchange for votes to become homecoming queen of her high school. :)

Obama has been excoriated, his legacy-- all but undone. Trump's braggadocio notwithstanding, Obama has been kicked around, I like to think he should get to own the overall praise for putting the US back on the rails.

LL&P