ChrisWeigant.com

California Moves To The Front Of The Line

[ Posted Tuesday, June 4th, 2019 – 16:37 UTC ]

The 2020 Democratic primary calendar has experience a shift of Biblical proportions since this time around "the last shall be first," at least out here in California. I know that's not entirely accurate, but it's close enough. In 2016, California was one of the last states to hold its primaries, on June 7. This time around, the guaranteed early-voting states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada) will technically be first, but California will now be among those states in the "first among all the others" category, voting on Super Tuesday in early March. Since California is somewhat of an 800-pound gorilla when it comes to the sheer number of delegates, this is going to shake up the campaign strategies of all the Democrats running. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is open to interpretation, though.

California has flirted with being an early-voting state before, with mixed results. The Sacramento politicians absolutely hate the early schedule, because for them a June primary means a shorter general election season, meaning less money has to be raised for the campaign chest. But whether they like it or not, this time around we will hold our primary early. Way early. First in line, in fact.

When assessing whether this is a good thing or not, two viewpoints must be considered: that of California voters and that of everyone else. For Californians, it means we'll be getting some actual attention from both the candidates and the media during primary season. In most presidential election years, we voted so late in the calendar that candidates were free to ignore us completely (other than, of course, using the state's wealthy donors as an automatic teller machine -- holding fundraisers here and then fleeing the state with bags of cash). This may astonish folks in Iowa and New Hampshire, but out here in the nation's most-populous state, we could go an entire primary season without seeing a single candidate ad on television for the presidential race. We saw far more ads for the propositions on the ballot than for Democrats or Republicans running for the highest office in the land. By the time California got around to voting, the winners were already either officially or unofficially known, so why would they bother spending money on a foregone conclusion?

Last time around, this wasn't entirely true, at least on the Democratic side. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were still engaged in a struggle for the final delegates, and neither one was guaranteed the nomination. California actually mattered, and we actually saw some ads for both candidates. This is an argument for holding a late primary, since in a certain way we became the deciding state.

This, however, overstates the case a bit, at least for the 2016 race. California is not a "winner takes all" state, and our Democratic delegates are proportionally awarded under rules that can only be properly called "Byzantine" (California is not alone in this, it bears mentioning, most states have very complicated formulas based on all sorts of criteria for awarding delegates). Clinton was clearly ahead of Sanders, just before California voted. Five other states voted on the same day (Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota), further diluting the importance of the California outcome. To put this another way, Bernie would have had to absolutely crush Hillary in California to have changed the eventual outcome. He didn't -- Clinton beat him here rather easily, in fact. Still, the possibility did exist (although slim) that California could have been the "game changer" and decided the race in a surprise finish. In other words, we were far more meaningful to the race than in most years. Most of the time, the winner had already been officially crowned (by reaping enough delegates to win the convention) far before California even voted. So 2016 was different, but not all that different -- since even if Bernie had won, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory and Hillary still would have become the nominee.

This time around, things will be very different. There will be no anointed victor (whether de facto or de jure) before California votes. Far from it. There may still be 20 or more candidates still in the race, in fact. Probably not, though -- with such a wide field, the number of candidates forced to drop out after disappointing results in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the rest of the early-voting states will quite likely be in the double digits. But no matter who is left at that point, Californians will still have a very large field to choose from. And the results will matter, since we have the lion's share of convention delegates. Californians will definitely see some ads and some candidate rallies this time around, unlike in years past.

This was evident this past weekend, at the Democratic Party's state convention, held in San Francisco. An astonishing fourteen candidates spoke at the convention, although what was also newsworthy was that the leading candidate skipped the event (Joe Biden claimed he already had a scheduled event in Ohio). This level of attention from the candidates is a new thing, and it was really the first large "cattle call" of the 2020 primary season. Up until now, the candidates have been politely ignoring each other's campaigns, crisscrossing the early states but rarely appearing together. Traditionally, there are a few events in Iowa (the state fair, most notably) that are considered the first of the cattle-calls, but this time around California claimed that distinction. The candidates were almost forced to rub shoulders with each other in San Francisco this past weekend. From all reports, most of them were more than up to the task.

But we've also got to consider what an early primary in California means to the rest of the country, and the race as a whole. There's another reason Californians rarely see primary ads, and that is our sheer size. Unlike a small state with a single large media market, California has multiple large metropolitan areas that are some of the largest media markets in the country. This also means they are the most expensive to buy ads in, which is further multiplied by how many of them there are. Only a few other states can claim such a distinction (Florida and Texas spring to mind). To put all this another way, being competitive in California means having to raise an enormous amount of money before the candidates get here. And they've got the challenge of doing well enough in the first four states to make it all the way to Super Tuesday to grapple with as well. Money saved to buy ads in Los Angeles or San Diego means money that can't be spent in Charleston or Las Vegas. This is one of the stated reasons for allowing a few smaller states to go first, in fact, because it gives the candidates a chance for a breakout victory on a shoestring budget. Candidates without huge war chests still have a chance to win by retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire.

So is California voting early going to upset this dynamic? Well, yes and no. Yes, it means that by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, the candidates must show national-level campaign fundraising figures in order to really be competitive. But California's not the only state to vote this early -- there are other very large or very important states voting on Super Tuesday as well (states like Texas, Virginia, and Massachusetts). A total of 13 states will be voting on Super Tuesday, in fact, plus the Democrats Abroad global primary. Getting to Super Tuesday has always meant having to have a robust pile of campaign cash, in other words, whether California is one of the participating states or not.

Unlike some Super Tuesday states (such as Utah and Oklahoma), California is a Democratic powerhouse. Donald Trump, to put it bluntly, is not going to win this state in the general election. Democrats could run a ham sandwich and it'd crush Trump by millions of votes. We're about as blue a state as exists today. Which should mean we have a strong voice in the selection of the Democratic Party presidential candidate, even if it does cost a lot of money to compete here.

So while I freely admit it may be my residential bias speaking, I have to conclude that moving California up to the front of the line (of the 46 states not graced with guaranteed early-voting status) is going to turn out to be a good thing. If the candidates aren't up to the task of campaigning in such a large state, then they probably won't be up to the task of competing nationwide in November. After all, if Texas can go first, then why shouldn't California do the same?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

69 Comments on “California Moves To The Front Of The Line”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    After all, if Texas can go first, then why shouldn't California do the same?

    That sure puts a low bar on it. Okay, let me play devil's advocate: the smaller states go first, to even out the outsize influence that bigger states ALREADY have in the general election.

    Sounds to me as though California democrats want to control the primary from the beginning. Okay, but what you risk is getting a candidate who enthralls the California masses, but completely misses in the rust belt. You can insert your own warning here.

    Unfortunately, the primary process was already broken, and what we need is a new compact, that gives back the early primaries to the small states, and makes the all the big states like Texas, Florida and California wait their turn.

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Just watched tonight's edition of the PBS Newshour. They started a new series tonight summarizing the Mueller report one section each night presumably 'til they get clear thru it.

    One thing I noticed in particular was that in the opinion of the two moderators/hosts at least, Mueller declares in his first section that "collusion" is NOT EVEN A CRIME !"

    Anybody here remember far enough back to recall where you likely heard that the very first time, and how you heaped scorn on that befuddled old geezer from whom you heard it?

    (Sorry for the off-topic.)

  3. [3] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    C.R.S. - You'd have heard many similar statements here. "Collusion" isn't a crime, but "conspiracy" IS a crime, and that's what Mueller was investigating.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but that's what we've been saying on the left here for awhile.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  5. [5] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Not too sure about that "we" part. I'm not gonna dig into the archives, but I guarantee you, your "we" does not include Kick and likely not Paula. I was berated MANY TIMES for claiming that 'colluding' to get "dirt" on Hillary could never be declared to be a criminal offense, and indeed, was told that the terms are essentially synonymous, which I actually agree with. I think trying to differentiate between 'collusion' amd 'conspiracy' is splitting hairs.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and the cherry on top of the im-peach-ment pie is that what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely a political decision. if a majority of house reps decided that the president committed a high crime by leaving the toilet seat up, they could impeach him for that.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    I was berated MANY TIMES for claiming that 'colluding' to get "dirt" on Hillary could never be declared to be a criminal offense, and indeed, was told that the terms are essentially synonymous, which I actually agree with. I think trying to differentiate between 'collusion' amd 'conspiracy' is splitting hairs.

    There was always one thing wrong with all of your claims that getting dirt on Hillary wasn't a crime - the all important context was never included in your claims.

    It's bad enough that Team Trump knowingly and happily met with representatives of the Russian government, expecting to receive dirt on Hillary. They never told the FBI and they lied about it when they knew that Russia had interfered with the election.

    What's worse, is that after all that has happened they might still do the same thing if they knew for a fact that the information they were seeking would be forthcoming.

    That failure to learn important lessons, taken with everything else we now know, is nothing short of dangerous.

    The difference between collusion, which Trump et al. clearly engaged in (not a crime), and conspiracy, which a preponderance of evidence was not, alas, sufficient to establish, is all laid out in the Mueller report in some detail,

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz [7] Yep!

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    This story is a part of an article I'm reading. I find it instructive:

    Something similar happened in the national conversation about climate change, where scientists accumulated fact after fact, stacking the data in front of powerful people and hoping it would change the course of policy. Instead, the country ended up in a debate about what sound science is. In each case, debates over policy ended with scientists learning, to their dismay, that you can’t bring a fact to a philosophy fight.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    C.R.S. - You'd have heard many similar statements here. "Collusion" isn't a crime, but "conspiracy" IS a crime, and that's what Mueller was investigating.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but that's what we've been saying on the left here for awhile.

    Moose poop!! Moose poop, I tell you!!!

    Ya'all were saying "COLLUSION" for YEARS..

    Now that you learned that CRS and I were factually accurate the WHOLE TIME.... NOW you want to rewrite documented history so ya'all do look so silly and stoopid..

    Sorry bub... AIN'T gonna happen..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Collusion" isn't a crime, but "conspiracy" IS a crime, and that's what Mueller was investigating.

    Then explain why we heard 95% "collusion" and 5% "conspiracy" from the hysterical Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters since Nov of 2016???

    Ya'all were just pleased as punch with the word "collusion".... Right up until the point you were shown how full of bullshit ya'all were....

    No Collusion.. No Conspiracy... No Crime Committed..

    Ya'all lost..

    "What are you still doing here?? It's over.. Go home... Go on..."
    -Ferris Beuhler

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And from the funny side..

    Trump supporter pops massive balloon depicting POTUS as baby at UK protests
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-supporter-pops-massive-balloon-depicting-potus-as-baby-at-uk-protests

    I was thinking how awesome it would be if someone with a pair of scissors would take down that ballon!!

    And lo and behold someone stepped up!! :D hhehehehehe

    Poo' widdle Trump/America haters.. They got their widdle balloon popped.. :D

    hehehehehehe Now THAT's funny..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    In California, Democratic Hopefuls Counter Biden’s Status Quo Politics

    Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders offer the most direct challenge yet to the front-runner in the 2020 Democratic primary.

    SAN FRANCISCO—“We asked a two-word question: ‘Why not?’” said Bernie Sanders, reflecting on his 2016 challenge, at a low-dollar fundraiser near the Moscone Center during the California Democratic Party convention. Many of the 14 Democratic presidential candidates who spoke here, at the first real cattle call of the 2020 primary, were asking that same question, daring to think beyond a cramped politics narrowly focused on defeating Donald Trump and exhaling. “Why not” is the language of activists, the language Robert Kennedy paraphrased from George Bernard Shaw in 1968, the language of the “si se puede” cries from farm laborers.

    It’s not the language of the front-runner in the Democratic primary, and this weekend in San Francisco offered some of the first lines of attack against Joe Biden thus far in the race. Biden had no presence at the gathering, save from quotes of his on a glossy flier being passed out by Bernie supporters (“I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble… the folks at the top aren’t bad guys”). But he hung over the convention, with numerous challengers taking on the mindset of the Biden wing of the party, if not the former vice president by name.

    This challenge was expressed most deeply by Elizabeth Warren, who received the warmest welcome from the assembly on Saturday—even more than the home-state candidate who preceded her, Kamala Harris—with a speech that assailed the small-ness of restoration politics, the inessential-ness at the heart of Biden-ism.

    “Some Democrats in Washington believe the only changes we can get are tweaks and nudges,” said Warren, who dominated the weekend, including bringing 6,500 people to a town hall in Oakland on Friday night. “If they dream at all, they dream small. Some say if we all just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses.”
    https://prospect.org/article/california-democratic-hopefuls-counter-bidens-status-quo-politics

    Biden ignores California at his own peril...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    “When a candidate tells you about all the things that aren’t possible, about how political calculations come first, about how you should settle for little bits and pieces instead of real change, they’re telling you something very important: they are telling you that they will not fight for you.”
    -Elizabeth Warren referring to Joe Biden..

    Well, I am sure Democrats don't stoop to personal attacks against fellow Democrats.. :^/

    As I predicted.. It was only a matter of time before the knives and claws came out..

    Democrat v Democrat.. Civil War... :D

  15. [15] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Bottom Line within the land of Weigantia is, was, and always will be, that neither 'collusion' NOR 'conspiracy' was the actual 'crime'!

    The ACTUAL CRIME committed by the Trump campaign was winning an election that ALL the pundits, ALL the pollsters, and ALL the crystal ball gazers promised Kick that there was NOT THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY THAT HILLARY COULD LOSE!!

    (BTW, where did she go? I'm starting to wonder if my joke about the inevitable wrist-slashing may have turned out to be all too prescient?)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ACTUAL CRIME committed by the Trump campaign was winning an election that ALL the pundits, ALL the pollsters, and ALL the crystal ball gazers promised Kick that there was NOT THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY THAT HILLARY COULD LOSE!!

    That about sums it up perfectly..

    The impossible happened..

    And those of weak wills and weak minds needed SOMETHING to blame it on because the FACTS were simply too hard to fathom..

    Hillary was a shitty candidate...

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Then explain why we heard 95% "collusion" and 5% "conspiracy" from the hysterical Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters since Nov of 2016???

    Well, for starters, throughout Trump's time in office he has be consistently saying that there was, how does he constantly put it, oh right … NO COLLUSION!!

    Of course, there was collusion, a lot of seen on live television for God's sake.

    So while you heard a lot of people say that there was collusion, most knew that collusion wasn't a crime and that proving conspiracy is not an easy task, as explained by the special counsel in his report.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And those of weak wills and weak minds needed SOMETHING to blame it on because the FACTS were simply too hard to fathom..

    To be clear, none of those people contribute here on a regular basis.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Thanks for the quotes in 13 and 14.

    Bernie and Warren make some very good points in those quotes that are eerily reminiscent of my arguments for One Demand.

    Bernie and Warren are good at using the language of activists, but fall short when it comes to taking action.

    They talk aboot doing the right thing at some point in the future while taking big money to finance their campaigns now and pretending their small contributions are coming from small donors when they are not all small donors.

    They are offering a small piece of real change on campaign financing action when they could easily make a full commitment to run small donor campaigns.

    They are both telling you they will fight for you while at the same time taking action that says they will not fight for you.

    Is that the best the Democrats can offer? A choice between a obvious corporate Democrat and some that are pretending to not be corporate Democrats?

    Someone should be asking Bernie and Warren "Why not?" when it comes to running small donor campaigns vs the deceptive small contribution campaigns pretending to be small donor campaigns.

    And the politicians are not the only ones guilty of failing to address this important "Why not?".

    The media has also ignored this question and sent the message that they are not going to fight for you.

    One more time, CW.

    WHY NOT?!?!

    And by one more time, I don't mean it will be the last time- though it could be depending on CW's action going forward.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Before I click on a link I need to know where it's going to take me.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, for starters, throughout Trump's time in office he has be consistently saying that there was, how does he constantly put it, oh right … NO COLLUSION!!

    He only did so after the DEMOCRATS cried collusion..

    Of course, there was collusion, a lot of seen on live television for God's sake.

    And yet, Mueller found no evidence to support the claim..

    The problem is ya'all define "collusion" as anything Trump does that ya'all don't like..

    So while you heard a lot of people say that there was collusion, most knew that collusion wasn't a crime and that proving conspiracy is not an easy task, as explained by the special counsel in his report.

    And yet, many in this forum claimed up and down for YEARS that collusion WAS a crime and that Trump was guilty of it..

    It took Mueller saying that they are full of kaa-kaa to realize that, all along, THEY were wrong and CRS and I were factually accurate..

    To be clear, none of those people contribute here on a regular basis.

    On this, you are factually accurate.. The *DID* contribute on a regular basis here, but once Mueller came out with his report that exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion, they all disappeared..

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    On the subject of the article, when are we going to end the primary charade?

    There is no benefit to continuing the process as it is.

    Every state making their own rules for primaries, who can participate, when they have them, whether they have a primary or caucus is not a good way to select a presidential candidate.

    Why not a national primary day when everyone (that means all registered voters) votes at the same time?

    Or if we have to for some reason have a long primary season with different states voting at different times, let's tie it to the states that do not have a Senate candidate in the presidential election as the states that go first in round one of the primaries, the states that went first in the last presidential election cycle going second in round two and the rest of the states going in round three.

    This way it would not always be the same states going first or last and would end this jockeying for position battle of states moving around their primaries.

    And there should be a national standard that all states must meet that allows all registered voters, parties and candidates to participate in the primaries.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    False.

    And, you know it.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [23] refers to [21]

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, there was collusion, a lot of seen on live television for God's sake.

    You can't claim "collusion" in the criminal sense because the ONE factor that defines collusion is completely unknown and unknowable..

    What you call "collusion" is nothing more than normal interaction...

    In your definition, EVERY POTUS has "colluded" with the Russians.. IN PLAIN SIGHT...

    "Please relay to Vlad (Putin) that if he can give me some space to win my next election, I can be more flexible for him..."
    -Barack Obama

    Now THAT is pure, blatant unadulterated "collusion"...

    Funny how no one here had ANY problem with it..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    False.

    Facts to support your claim??

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to define "collusion" as "having contact with Russians.." then every President Elect of the last 50 years, INCLUDING CLINTON AND OBAMA, "colluded" with the Russians..

    What makes Trump so special as to draw your ire???

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Furious Celebs Want Trump Impeached, Assaulted and Tortured to Death

    Donald Trump may be the most hated president in Hollywood since...well...ever. In the last month celebrities from Bill Maher to Cher have wished the worst, most vile things on the current president.

    Maher hoped First Lady Melania Trump would divorce her husband. Singer/actress Cher wanted to see Trump impeached, “locked up” and assaulted in prison.

    Author Fran Lebowitz claimed “impeachment” was just the “beginning of what he deserves” as she fantasized that Trump would be turned “over to the Saudis” to be tortured to death.
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2019/06/05/furious-celebs-want-trump-impeached-assaulted-and-tortured

    Ahhhhh yes.. The peace and tolerance and love of the Demcorat Party..

    :eyeroll:

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's hard to wrap my mind around how incredibly easy it is to manipulate the American electorate.

    It just never ceases to amaze.

    The Russians et al. have it so ridiculously easy.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If this comments section doesn't come under some serious fact-checking and moderation, it will be in danger of becoming part of the problem.

    I say, keep the blog, nix the comments sections.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's hard to wrap my mind around how incredibly easy it is to manipulate the American electorate.

    It really isn't..

    As is well documented, the Russian meddling had ZERO effect on the outcome of the election..

    If this comments section doesn't come under some serious fact-checking and moderation, it will be in danger of becoming part of the problem.

    The problem with fact-checking is who will check the fact checkers???

    As we have seen, well known fact checking sites have a decided and obvious left-wing bent...

    If a Democrat and a Republican says the exact same thing that is partially factual, the Left Wing fact check sites will say it's partially true when the Democrat says it and partially false when the Republican says it..

    This also is well documented..

    The Russians et al. have it so ridiculously easy.

    If you think that the Russians are the only ones who try to manipulate elections, you are incredibly naive..

    In the nicest way possible. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why didn't anyone here complain about Russian meddling in the outcome of the 2018 election???

    Because everyone here LIKED the outcome of the 2018 election...

    It is solely and unequivocally ideological based "outrage"...

    That is ALL it is...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's hard to wrap my mind around how incredibly easy it is to manipulate the American electorate.

    There will always be the gullible fools who believe that Hillary Clinton headed a child trafficking ring from the basement of a pizza place or that Justice Kavanaugh was the ringleader of a child rape ring in high school or that President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

    Fortunately, fools like that are few and have minimal impact on the election process...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barbs start to fly ahead of first Democratic debate
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446994-shots-start-to-fly-ahead-of-first-democratic-debate

    Yea.. Democrats can disagree on the issues w/o trading insults to character... :eyeroll:

  35. [35] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale's [32]

    Re: The notorious Democratic double standard that caused them to happily accept the 2018 election results in spite of Russian interfering, because they won.

    How about the double standard of the Democratics having paid big money to solicit foreign-generated "dirt" on Trump from the British guy and his notorious "dossier", that turned out to be bogus?

    How did that differ from Jr. offering to happily accept "dirt" on Hillary even though the "dirt" never materialized? Is foreign campaign help OK when it comes from England, but not OK when it comes from Russia, because we're still stuck in the 'Cold War' mentality?

    Remember, we have fought two wars against England, but we've never fought a single war against Russia!!!

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CRS,

    It's simply AMAZING how so many of the beliefs around here are based SOLELY on Democrat V Republican...

    Been binge watching SLIDERS...

    Imagine a world where there were no political Partys...

    Paradise.... :D

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    the Democratics having paid big money to solicit foreign-generated "dirt" on Trump from the British guy and his notorious "dossier", that turned out to be bogus

    1. The initial money paid came from Republicans, not Democrats. It passed through a lot of hands on the way to Hillary's campaign.

    2. Among these was the FBI, which flagged it over to the counter-espionage unit. In a FISA warrent on Carter Page, they used information from the Dossier that turned out to be TRUE.

    3. And it's amazing that so much of that Dossier, compiled of rumours as it was, was so correct. In fact, the parts considered "not substantiated" are also considered to be NOT UN-substantiated.

    4. So bite me.

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As is well documented, the Russian meddling had ZERO effect on the outcome of the election..

    Except to cause a large division in the Democratic voting base by making the case that the DNC had somehow robbed Bernie Sanders of the nomination...which, in turn, resulted in a large number of Bernie supporters either voting for Trump or not voting for Clinton.

    Do you deny that the release of DNC emails triggered a backlash against Clinton from Bernie’s supporters? It doesn’t matter if you admit the truth or deny it....the fact is that Russian interference did effect the outcome of the election.

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If a Democrat and a Republican says the exact same thing that is partially factual, the Left Wing fact check sites will say it's partially true when the Democrat says it and partially false when the Republican says it..

    This also is well documented..

    When do Republicans and Democrats say the same exact things while taking opposing sides in an argument?

    And by all means share these well documented cases that you are referring to!

  40. [40] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [38]

    Re: " . . which resulted in a large number of Bernie voters voting for Trump . ."

    Bernie voters, the most rabid, most ideologically fixated of ALL Democratics, sufficiently mad at Hillary to cause them to vote for Trump???

    You need to change your nom-de-keyboard to "Listen when yoU WRITE", for Gawdsake!! Try joining the world of reality someday! I don't even believe abstaining, much less "voting for Trump"

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    Bernie voters, the most rabid, most ideologically fixated of ALL Democratics, sufficiently mad at Hillary to cause them to vote for Trump???

    Funnily enough, you took the words right out of my mouth … well, except for the 'Democratics' part. Heh.

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LWYH [38]: You're right. That's what happened.

    Or for Jill Stein. Or Gary Johnson. You can pick your poison. Particularly in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    "Third-party voters don't matter." say the losers, every time.

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    Take your meds. Just because no one in the bubble that you exist in know Bernie supports who refused to support Hillary does not mean they don’t exist! I know of over a dozen Bernie supporters that did not vote for Clinton...a few voted for Trump (never believing Trump was going to win), some voted for Stein, the rest just did not vote.

    This is just one area that Russian interference benefitted the Trump campaign.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. The initial money paid came from Republicans, not Democrats. It passed through a lot of hands on the way to Hillary's campaign.

    Bullshit.. It passed thru ONE set of hands before Hillary picked it up.. They GOP'er figured it was simply too outlandish to be believable...

    2. Among these was the FBI, which flagged it over to the counter-espionage unit. In a FISA warrent on Carter Page, they used information from the Dossier that turned out to be TRUE.

    More bullshit.. Nothing in the dossier that was incriminating was true...

    3. And it's amazing that so much of that Dossier, compiled of rumours as it was, was so correct. In fact, the parts considered "not substantiated" are also considered to be NOT UN-substantiated.

    And still MORE bullshit.. Give me an example of something in the dossier that was incriminating and factually accurate..

    How much of the criminality of Benghazi and Clinton's emails was "NOT un-substantiated"..???

    If it weren't for double standards you would have no standards at all..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except to cause a large division in the Democratic voting base by making the case that the DNC had somehow robbed Bernie Sanders of the nomination...which, in turn, resulted in a large number of Bernie supporters either voting for Trump or not voting for Clinton.

    PROVE that a Bernie Support stayed home or voted for Trump as a result of the Russia meddling...

    You can't because you know you are full of shit..

    Do you deny that the release of DNC emails triggered a backlash against Clinton from Bernie’s supporters? It doesn’t matter if you admit the truth or deny it....the fact is that Russian interference did effect the outcome of the election.

    So, you are calling Odumbo Mueller and all of the rest of the Democrat minions liars??

    Is THAT what you are saying??

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    When do Republicans and Democrats say the same exact things while taking opposing sides in an argument?

    And by all means share these well documented cases that you are referring to!

    Would it change your mind and cause you to concede the validity of the point??

    Of course it won't..

    So why should I bother??

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    You need to change your nom-de-keyboard to "Listen when yoU WRITE", for Gawdsake!! Try joining the world of reality someday! I don't even believe abstaining, much less "voting for Trump"

    Russ has a tendency to spew absolute bullshit without a single fact to back it up..

    It's adorable.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funnily enough, you took the words right out of my mouth … well, except for the 'Democratics' part. Heh.

    Balthy seems to be claiming that Democrat voters are vain and hateful and don't have the intelligence to vote for Hillary even though she wasn't their chosen candidate...

    As you and I have said many times..

    They will blame everyone and every thing.. except for the person who was REALLY at fault..

    Hillary Clinton..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    LWYH [38]: You're right. That's what happened.

    Or for Jill Stein. Or Gary Johnson. You can pick your poison. Particularly in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    And yet, you don't have a SINGLE SOLITARY IOTA of a fact that supports your claim..

    Why is it ALWAYS that way???

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know of over a dozen Bernie supporters that did not vote for Clinton...a few voted for Trump (never believing Trump was going to win), some voted for Stein, the rest just did not vote.

    Complete and utter bullshit...

    Yer a typical Trump/America hater..

    You have to lie to make your case...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really simple..

    Ya'all claim that Russian interference elected Donald Trump as POTUS..

    I am simply asking for FACTS that probe this..

    And you have none...

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ya'all claim that Russian interference elected Donald Trump as POTUS..

    FALSE

    If this place doesn't get a moderator and fast, it will lose all credibility and attract only partisan/political hacks.

    And, that would be a shame.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    If this place doesn't get a moderator and fast, it will lose all credibility and attract only partisan/political hacks.

    You mean it's not like that now?? :D heh

    Com'on.. Where is the sensible and rational and OBJECTIVE discussions about President Trump and politics??

    "Benedict Donald"... "President Madman".... "Orange Cheeto"... "Justice Fratboy".... "Orange Leader"....

    Surely those aren't the comments of "credible" people, are they??

    They are the comments of partisan hacks...

    Ya'all claim that Russian interference elected Donald Trump as POTUS..

    FALSE

    Maybe YOU aren't claiming that... And since you are not claiming that, then why do you consider your self part of "ya'all"???

    But it's a bonafide fact that the vast majority of Weigantians ARE claiming that.. Just as the vast majority of Democrats are claiming that..

    If you want calm rational objective discussions, the FIRST step is to accept reality as it really is...Not as you would wish it to be...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hugs, not macho handshakes: Trump shelves politics at D-Day anniversary

    PARIS/COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France (Reuters) - President Donald Trump briefly set aside politics and his testy relationship with France’s Emmanuel Macron on Thursday, heaping praise on U.S. war veterans in a speech to mark the 75th D-Day anniversary and steering clear of issues that might rile Europe.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dday-anniversary-macron-trump/hugs-not-macho-handshakes-trump-shelves-politics-at-d-day-anniversary-idUSKCN1T71TM

    President Trump... A true statesman....

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michale,

    Com'on.. Where is the sensible and rational and OBJECTIVE discussions about President Trump and politics??

    I'm afraid that a sensible and rational discussion about President Trump and his administration is something that you would attack.

    Because you don't seem to see the harm that he is doing with respect to America's global leadership role. I see his behavior on the world stage as slowly but surely chipping away at the institutions at home and abroad that have kept much of the world at peace for more than 70 years.

    I find that particularly disturbing at this moment as we commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. I see all of the progress made since that time being dismissed or damaged by this American president.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm afraid that a sensible and rational discussion about President Trump and his administration is something that you would attack.

    We'll never know because there never has BEEN any...

    Because you don't seem to see the harm that he is doing with respect to America's global leadership role.

    No, I don't..

    NATO is off it's ass and realizing it needs to do it's fair share... American PRIDE and American prestige are once again front and center..

    There IS no harm being done to America's global leadership role..

    Only in the minds of those who want to see America under President Trump fail..

    I find that particularly disturbing at this moment as we commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day. I see all of the progress made since that time being dismissed or damaged by this American president.

    And yet, it's President Trump who is coming across as a great statesman and people like Pelosi saying she wants her President in jail..

    Used to be attacks like that stopped at the waterline when a POTUS was overseas

    Not any more.. Democrats HATE Trump and so all the old rules are out the window..

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't have the perspective of people like me who live outside of the US in formally allied countries (NATO) and beyond who understand that many of the greatest challenges facing all of us today require astute US leadership.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Used to be attacks like that stopped at the waterline when a POTUS was overseas

    That goes for everyone, including the president.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't have the perspective of people like me who live outside of the US in formally allied countries (NATO) and beyond who understand that many of the greatest challenges facing all of us today require astute US leadership.

    That's true.. I don't.. I only have the patriotism that comes from being a soldier and airman and officer who served combat tours in two different branches of the US Armed Forces..

    That goes for everyone, including the president.<

    And yet no one here condemns anyone *BUT* the President..

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do other former members of the military call the last president Odumbo?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do other former members of the military call the last president Odumbo?

    Oh, quite few...

    Those who chewed dirt and blood under Commander In Chief Ronald Reagan don't have much respect for Obama..

    He even had an Aircraft Carrier named after him..

    https://tinyurl.com/y5mkqggw

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't have much hope for your country, anymore.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, I ain't no "former" anything..

    As a commissioned officer, my service is lifetime and the pleasure of the President Of The United States...

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm assuming you meant 'quite a few', meaning a lot.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, Mr. sensitive, I should have said inactive.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't have much hope for your country, anymore.

    Not as you hoped for anyways...

    Let me put it this way..

    If there ever is to be a one-world government, it will be as a center right with the US as it's model..

    Ala the United Federation Of Planets

    Not some left wing elitist cesspool with no values and no soul...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, Mr. sensitive, I should have said inactive.

    Not so much "sensitive"..

    It's like saying a US Marine is a "former" Marine.. Or a cop is a "former" cop..

    "Being a cop is not what we do, it's WHO WE ARE.."
    -James Woods, THE HARD WAY

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all condemned Trump and Trump supporters for the "LOCK HER UP" chant???

    Liberal MSNBC hosts rip Pelosi’s call to jail Trump: ‘Stuff we used to see in Pakistan’

    Liberal MSNBC hosts Ari Melber and Chris Matthews both condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent call to lock up President Trump on Thursday -- comparing it to a rallying cry that Trump supporters have long used against Hillary Clinton.

    Pelosi told senior Democrats that she would like to see Trump “in prison,” according to Politico. While MSNBC is typically in lockstep with Pelosi, Melber and Matthews didn’t agree with her reported comment.

    Melber asked if the counter argument would become, “Is this the Democrats' version of 'lock her up?'” The MSNBC host then said “there was a judicial, legal, process,” which “did not result in an indictment, whether you like it or not,” obviously referring to the Mueller report.
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/liberal-msnbc-hosts-pelosi-jail-trump

    And yet, ya'all are strangely silent when the Democrats put forth THEIR version..

    Showing once again, how it is ALL about the -D/-R.....

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    CRS
    15

    (BTW, where did she go? I'm starting to wonder if my joke about the inevitable wrist-slashing may have turned out to be all too prescient?)

    United Kingdom, France... London, Normandy. Awesome trip.

    The ignorance of the effing trolls on this blog is simply stunning and never ceases to amaze me. That the trollers buy "all in" to their oft repeated BS would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic. *laughs* :)

Comments for this article are closed.