ChrisWeigant.com

Warren Catching Up To Sanders

[ Posted Tuesday, June 18th, 2019 – 16:40 UTC ]

The first authentic polling trend of the 2020 Democratic nominating contest may now be happening. By "authentic," what I mean is a polling trend that is not merely an "announcement bump." Every candidate (well... every viable candidate) has seen some sort of boost in their polling immediately after making their official announcement, but most of these have since subsided. Now that the field is full, there will be no more such announcements to skew the polling, and any trends must thus be due to actual campaign successes or failures by the candidates. And we're seeing at least the beginnings of the first of these trends: Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to be enjoying a surge.

Of course, none of the current polling will be all that relevant in about three weeks, since the Democratic campaign is about to really get underway nationwide with the first televised debates, which will take place next Wednesday and Thursday. It will then take roughly a week or so for the aftermath of the debates to accurately show up in the polling. Polls from that point onward are going to be a lot more realistic snapshots of what the voters are thinking. At the current point, most of the voters still aren't paying all that much attention yet.

Even so, some are indeed already seriously weighing the field. Enough of them to at least see trendlines, even though (as mentioned) there haven't really been any to speak of until now. In fact, we're still really at the end of the announcement phase of the process.

Joe Biden's entry into the race caused a sensation, in the way that Steve Bullock's (or Bill de Blasio's, or any number of others') entry did not. Biden got an enormous polling bump, which at its peak put him north of 40 percent. His roughly 10-point spike was on top of his already impressive polling, which regularly put him around 30 percent or better. But now, that bump has almost completely disappeared. Strangely, the mainstream political media hasn't really noticed this all that much. There have been no "Biden In Trouble" stories, in other words, even as Biden's announcement bump faded like the morning dew. Biden is now polling at around 32 percent, roughly one percent above where he was polling before he announced. He's lost his 10-point bump, although he's still polling far above where any other candidate has so far managed, so overall he's still in a pretty excellent position in the race. He's still clearly the frontrunner to beat, in other words, and that dynamic will not change before the first debates.

Biden's bump dissipating signaled the end of all the announcement bumps in the polls, though. And his support has so far seemed to bleed off to one beneficiary: Elizabeth Warren. Now, this isn't a one-for-one trend -- Warren hasn't risen the full 10 points that Biden has fallen, but she's still the only candidate who seemed to entice former Biden supporters over to her side, which is impressive on its own.

But the much more interesting dynamic -- one that will play out over the next four or five months, no doubt -- is between Warren and Bernie Sanders. Sanders has also lost a bit of support over the past few weeks, although not nearly as dramatically as Biden's slump. And, once again, the only candidate to pick up such support seems to be Warren. This could turn out to be much more significant in the long run.

Sanders and Warren are clearly targeting the same ideological voters within the Democratic ranks. Many progressives are already torn between the two. Bernie started the revolution, but he's also got a lot of baggage by this point (such as how former Hillary fanatics still feel about him). Warren is fresher, but has stumbling blocks of her own to overcome. But ideologically, there is not much (if any) daylight between their respective agendas. They both believe in the same goals, and they both largely agree about the path the country needs to take to get there. There's no real ideological case to make that one of them would be a far superior progressive versus the other one, in other words.

Warren's recent surge has put her into direct competition with Sanders. In a handful of state polls and at least one national poll, Warren has emerged in second place to Biden. Sanders is still close behind her in third, but the fact that Warren is now so competitive is indeed newsworthy, because so far she's the only one to break into the top ranks in such a fashion.

To date, only four Democrats have even registered in double digits in the Real Clear Politics polling averages. Biden and Bernie, of course, have always been far above 10 percent. Kamala Harris managed to get into the low teens during her announcement bump, but then slid back down into single digits. But last week, Elizabeth Warren broke the 10 percent barrier for the first time, as her trendline turned sharply upwards. She's still behind Bernie in the rolling average, but not by that much. And, notably, she's scoring second place finishes in the polling in some of the key early-voting states such as Iowa and South Carolina.

So, heading into the first debates, the contest stands as Biden still far out front, followed by a contest between Sanders and Warren for who will emerge in second place. Sadly, because of the random vagaries of the draw, Sanders and Warren will not face each other onstage next week. Warren will go first in a debate with lots of minor candidates (some of them very minor). She'll thus get a chance to shine in the spotlight on her own, although she may have to weather some attacks by the other first-nighters looking for the magic breakout moment (such as, perhaps, Beto O'Rourke). Then on the next night Bernie will directly take on Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg. This almost assures the attention will be on Biden and how the other three interact with him. Sanders won't have any reason to attempt to make a difference between him and Warren with such a lineup, to put it another way.

Sooner or later, though, the two are going to have to face off directly. The only other candidates who seem like they could also enter this fight for progressive voters, at this point, are Kamala Harris and perhaps Cory Booker. Biden and Buttigieg (to say nothing of moderates such as Amy Klobuchar or John Hickenlooper) will not be courting the same ideological demographic, so they will be peripheral to this progressive struggle for support. Right now, all the momentum seems to be in Warren's favor, but that could quickly change at any time. But whenever it happens, there will indeed be a direct confrontation between Warren and Sanders at some point, because they are both fishing in the same pond of voters.

There's even a good argument to be made that Warren and Sanders would serve both the party and their progressive faction the best by agreeing to a pact -- at some future date (perhaps just after Super Tuesday), whichever one of them is clearly doing better, both in votes and in the polls, should be allowed to challenge Biden directly. In other words, if Bernie's doing better, Warren should drop out, and if Warren is ahead, then Bernie should gracefully bow out.

This probably won't happen, because anyone running for president has to sincerely believe that they are the only one who should win. But it would behoove the two of them to at least think about it. The lesson of Trump in the 2016 GOP primaries looms large -- if there are multiple "not the frontrunner" candidates for voters to choose from, then the anti-frontrunner vote gets split to such a degree that the frontrunner keeps winning primaries. This could easily happen with Biden, if Bernie and Warren are both still fighting hard well into next spring.

There are only a few possible outcomes of the whole race after the Super Tuesday dust settles. Neither Warren nor Sanders could do as well as expected, and they could both be far back in the pack (fourth or fifth, say). In this case, the argument as to who should drop out would mostly be moot. Or one of them could do very well while the other falters. Either Sanders or Warren could emerge from Super Tuesday in clear second place in both how they placed in all the states and in the delegate count, while the other one falls far behind. Or they could emerge in a virtual tie, perhaps both gaining roughly half of Biden's support (just for the record: this is all assuming, of course, that Biden doesn't have some sort of meltdown in the meantime).

If Warren is decisively beating Sanders (or vice versa) after the Super Tuesday votes are all counted, then the pressure should be on the loser of this matchup to gracefully exit the race while loudly declaring their support for the other one. Warren dropping out to endorse Sanders (or vice versa) would be a big green light to progressives to unite behind one candidate rather than continue to split their support.

This might be the only feasible way of making the ultimate contest an ideological one, between the "dream big" faction of the Democratic Party and the "let's just return to the Obama years" faction. If such a battle is going to take place, it's got to be a binary one. If the progressives are split, this battle will never really happen (again, think of Trump versus all the Republicans in 2016), and Biden may just waltz off into the sunset with the nomination.

It's a real shame that Warren and Sanders won't get to share a stage next week. While the contest is still one of "Who can take Biden down a peg?" there is a secondary contest emerging for second place -- which may determine which candidate even gets a solid chance at beating Biden. Elizabeth Warren is currently surging in the polls, and she's the first Democratic candidate to register such a surge so far (outside of initial announcement bumps). She's neck-and-neck with Bernie in second place right now, and the outcome of this matchup might define the rest of the Democratic race more than any other one-on-one matchup -- including "X versus Biden." Before there's a real race for first place, the race for second is going to need to be fought. And right now, that race is between two candidates with virtually identical agendas. Maybe we'll get to see them both on the same stage in the second debate -- ideally, on the night that Biden doesn't draw. More than any other lineup, that would serve to clarify the race right now.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

128 Comments on “Warren Catching Up To Sanders”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bernie scored a faux pas last week with his "why I'm a Democratic Socialist" speech. Though I don't know much about it, I do know that Warren hasn't gone that far yet. And I think it helps.

    Bernie was the left's dream when Hillary ran, but I think that Warren is closer to the party's main stream. That will also help.

    I also see Kamala Harris eating into Biden's lead. She's got the 'female Obama' vibe, and could carry California. With that state's primary position, that could rocket her near the top of the polls.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden supporters are not enticed over to the Warren camp, for the record.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    It is a shame EW isn't in the debate with JB, BS, etc. but there it is. I'm looking forward to both nights and really hope it results in at least a few candidates dropping out - though it may be too soon to expect that.

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You've got to be kidding.(not for the content- I couldn't get past the title.

    You have officially used up your quota of presidential horse race articles for the rest of the 2020 election cycle.

    I would have preferred another sorry I couldn't do a column today because the car ate my homework post.

    If you have time to regurgitate this nonsense you have time to address One Demand.

    Get real.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] Dude, get your own blog. Whether you agree or don't with CW's writings, he's the one producing columns day after day and he can write about whatever he wants.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    he can't ignore pie forever!

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-4

    That's one of the cheapest shots I've seen in a while. If you didn't waste so much time repeating yourself in the CW comments section you might find the time to update your own moldy webpage.

  8. [8] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    We should all be thankful that we didn't get the random outcome which is the same except Warren and Biden swap places.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9YTQS7XoAAjPEd.jpg

    Let's see Warren OR Sanders do THAT! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's one of the cheapest shots I've seen in a while. If you didn't waste so much time repeating yourself in the CW comments section you might find the time to update your own moldy webpage.
    -Stig, 19 Jun 2019

    I am pleased to find I am in complete agreement with these five posts. Well said!
    -Stig, 18 Jun 2019

    :eyeroll:

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I just think the country is too complex now to call a couple hundred people and ask them what they think. There are so many ways and different people who show up and vote now. The way turnout works now. The abilities we have now to turn out voters. The polling can't understand that. And that's why the polling was so wrong in 2016. It was 100% wrong. Nobody got it right — not one public poll. The reason why — it's not 1962 anymore."
    -Brad Parscale, Trump Campaign Manager

    When it comes to Presidential Elections, reliable polling is dead.. It died the day they claimed Hillary had a 98% chance of being POTUS...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    4 years ago, President Trump announced his intention to run for President Of The United States..

    And the world will never be the same.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump stages his greatest show yet

    The president’s elaborate reelection rally in Florida featured thousands of adoring supporters.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/18/donald-trump-2020-launch-florida-1369868

    Politico way understates it.. There was easily over 100,000 people there...

    Dem Candidate rallies draw...what?? A thousand?? Mebbe a couple hundred if they're lucky...

    Ya'all see where this is heading, right?? A landslide victory in Nov of 2020 for President Trump..

    Four More Years...

    Keep America Great...

    :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    “And so, folks, look, if you start off with the notion there's nothing you can do, well, why don't you all go home then? Or let's start a real physical revolution if you're talking about it, because we have to be able to change what we're doing within our system because you talk about the creed. We the people, we the people, we hold these truths self-evident. We haven't always lived up to that standard, but we've never fully abandoned it. And when we abandon it, we lose everything we stand for nationally and internationally in terms of the power of our persuasion. The reason why the rest the world follows us and we're secure is not because we have the largest military in the world, it's because we're not going to lead by the power — the example of our power, but the power of our example. And you can shame people to do things the right way."
    -Joe Biden

    So, if Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters won't compromise and won't work with President Trump, then the ONLY recourse is an armed Civil War..

    And since Lefties hate guns so much and won't own or use them and since 98% of Law Enforcement and Military supports the Commander In Chief....

    It's going to be a bloody and short Civil War...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Gun ownership is a right, but it is a right that comes with responsibilities. And just like you get a permit in many places to hunt, and in every state to drive, we think you need a license if you're going to buy a firearm."
    -Swalwell

    Fine.. Then you need to get a permit to be able to speak freely... You need a permit and a photo ID to be able to vote...

    Fair 'nuff???

    :eyeroll:

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And just like you get a permit in many places to hunt, and in every state to drive,

    In each of those cases, the permit is to USE the items in question, not to OWN the items...

    Just like you have to have a permit to CARRY a weapon, but you don't need a permit to OWN a weapon..

    If Dumbocrats want to give a license to exercise a Constitutional Right, then they must agree that ALL Constitutional Rights must have a license to exercise...

    That's the reality sunshines..

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Even first amendment rights require a permit when public safety is an issue. Where firearms are concerned, public safety is always an issue.

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    10

    Well, Michale, DH routinely and regularly takes cheap shots near daily at CW for not paying attention to his "idea," and meanwhile DH has been doing the exact same thing by neglecting his own website. That is a fact.

    "Continuity of thought" isn't a 2-day prospect. Who among us isn't capable of understanding the rather basic concept that a poster being in agreement with a few posts of Don's on one day does not magically neutralize the multiple years of whining and cheap shots by Don toward CW that are archived herein for all posterity... oh, wait!

    *eyeroll*

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,
    I wonder about that too. Updating a website and changing a few links can generally be done pretty easily and without much expertise. One might say it is easy as pie...

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    And since Lefties hate guns so much and won't own or use them and since 98% of Law Enforcement and Military supports the Commander In Chief....

    Liar. Simple reasoning skills aren't your strong suit, and I can easily prove it.

    Ask yourself this: How does this drivel of yours square with your regular spew about all the violence in Chicago and cities full of lefties? Do you think they're throwing the bullets really fast at each other? Moron. :)

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    One might say it is easy as pie...

    One MIGHT say that.. If someone was pie-inclined :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN CUTS AWAY FROM TRUMP SPEECH AFTER CROWD SHOUTS ‘CNN SUCKS!’
    ‘That is a lot of fake news back there’

    https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-cuts-away-trump-speech-after-crowd-shouts-cnn-sucks

    Heh

    CNN can't handle the heat.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Have Trump’s Rallies Accomplished?
    No president in at least a century has had a greater need to win over new voters. Yet Trump doesn’t even try.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-19/what-have-donald-trump-s-rallies-accomplished

    This is what Trump/America haters don't get..

    Trump broke the mold of polling and campaigns..

    The old way of doing things simply are not relevant any longer..

    Those who wallow in the past are doomed to relive it..

    ANOTHER Trump victory....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    The game changer is going to be impeachment...

    If Democrats DO impeach President Trump, Independents will flock to President Trump by the millions.

    Winner: Trump

    If Democrats DON'T impeach President Trump, their base will stay home by the millions in disgust.

    Winner: Trump

    It's always uncanny to me how President Trump can always seem to maneuver Democrats into a LOSE/LOSE situation...

    It's mind-boggling...

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    CW can write aboot whatever he wants.

    And I can post my opinion on what he writes and what he doesn't write.

    Me getting my own blog suggestion is dodging the issue. It has nothing to do with whether or why CW does not address One Demand.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Me getting my own blog suggestion is dodging the issue.

    The Go-To tactic around these here parts.. :eyeroll:

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (7)-
    If CW would address One Demand and not keep perpetuating the lie that the Democrats are an opposition to the Republicans instead of running the good cop/bad cop show for the benefit of the big money interests that they both work for that is the reality I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

    CW ignored One Demand when the website was new and when it was updated for 2018 and 2020.

    This another dodge to avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand.

    Of course, if you could address the issue(s) at hand, you would. But you can't, so you dodge the issue(s).

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (9)-
    Let's see Warren and sanders do that.
    http://www.onedemand.org

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (18)-
    CW keeps perpetuating the lie and I keep pointing it out. Pointing out reality is not a cheap shot.

    CW ignored One Demand when it new and when the website was updated for 2018 and 2020. So your claim that the website needs to be updated is not factually correct.

    All you have is non-factual cheap shots used to avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand.

    But I do agree with you that agreeing with me on one comment does not mean you have to agree with me on other comments.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I do agree with you that agreeing with me on one comment does not mean you have to agree with me on other comments.

    True...

    But if Person A attacks you and calls you a bunch of vile names, but then turns around and slaps you on the back and embraces you when you say something that Person A wants to hear...???

    Well, it seems to me Person A lacks any thing to speak of in the credibility department..

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet (19)-
    Updating the website for a pie shop is easy as pie. Updating the One Demand website is more complicated.

    When looking for someone to set up the website the majority of companies I contacted said it was too complicated for them to do.

    The parts of the website that needed updating were done when they needed to be done.

    But this has nothing to do with why CW will not address One Demand. And even if it is part of why CW will not address One Demand it is an excuse and not a valid reason as demonstrated in comments 27 and 29 and there is no way to know if it is part of why CW will not address One Demand until CW explains why he won't address One Demand.

    Until CW mans up and addresses One Demand all we can do is speculate on his reasons.

    The most likely explanation is that he would make the same bullshit arguments that the rest of you make that avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand as he did the one or two times he did comment on One Demand, has seen how my responses exposed your bullshit and doesn't address One Demand because he has no valid argument against what One Demand really is.

    What needs updating is your bullshit used to avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand and CW's bullshit aboot the Democrats being an opposition to the Republicans instead of the the reality that they are working together for the benefit of the big money interests.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Democrats DO impeach President Trump, Independents will flock to President Trump by the millions.

    Why do you think that will happen? I don't understand.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Democrats DON'T impeach President Trump, their base will stay home by the millions in disgust.

    Don't you assume that their disgust with Democrats not impeaching is far more than their disgust with how President Trump is governing.

    I mean, would that be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And to all that have posted your bullshit dodges:

    Commenting here is just one way of many to try to get One Demand into the public discourse.

    It is exactly what someone like me should be doing to try to get One Demand into the public discourse.

    I know this is different motivation than most commenters here have, which is to spout bullshit talking points and have battles instead of discussions.

    But I am motivated by recognizing and addrsessing a real problem with a real possible solution rather than validating the illusion that most commenters have so they don't have to admit they fucked up in the past and can continue to believe the illusion going forward.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you think that will happen? I don't understand.

    Majority of Independents may not like President Trump but they think that impeachment is not warranted..

    Further, it's what happened when Republicans impeached Clinton...

    Finally, apparently, the Democrats leadership thinks that what will happen.. Which explains why Pelosi is so against it..

    Don't you assume that their disgust with Democrats not impeaching is far more than their disgust with how President Trump is governing.

    The polls say different...

    Democrats losing independents on Trump impeachment: poll
    A plurality of independent voters don't think Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump even though most don't approve of the commander in chief, according to a new poll.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/442256-democrats-losing-independents-on-trump-impeachment

    Since this is not an election poll, it has a bit more credibility....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump raises $24.8 million in less than 24 hours, RNC says
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/trump-campaign-contributions-rnc-1369896

    Democrats are bankrupt going into the election season..

    Republicans are awash with cash.... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Donald Trump raised almost 25 million dollars in his first 24 hours...

    Joe Biden raked in less than 6.5 million dollars his first 24 hours..

    It's clear where the enthusiasm is... :D

    #KeepAmericaGreat

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Sorry top burst your bubble, but it is not Trump manuvering Democrats into a lose-lose position.

    That is just Democrats doing their job as part of the illusion of being an opposition party to the Republicans.

    Let's hope that independents will not be suckered by the show into supporting Trump, Reopublicans or the big money Democrats in 2020, impeachment or not.

    When you are offered two bad choices the only sensible choice is to choose and demand something that is not being offered.

    Basic democracy.

    This independent is not fooled by either of the false arguments that the other "side" is worse so the only choice is to support the less worse choice.

    There are other choices and citizens should be informed aboot the other choices by people like CW because citizens can't decide if they want to make another choice if they don't know it exists.

    By perpetuating the lie that there are no other choices CW is not providing the reality he claims to present in his blog. By not providing citizens with information aboot the existence/option of One Demand CW is presenting a false reality that becomes a like a self-fulfilling prophecy because if you only offer two choices then you can say that's what people choose even though they have not been able to make a real choice because they don't have all the information needed to make the choice.

    CW even wrote something aboot Trump creating such a false reality into a reality recently, but doesn't seem to realize when he is doing the same thing.

    It would be comical if there weren't such serious consequences.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats say White House lawyer is refusing to let Hope Hicks answer questions

    Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday said a White House lawyer is refusing to let Hope Hicks answer questions about her time in the Trump administration.

    The lawmakers said the White House attorney repeatedly claimed Ms. Hicks, President Trump’s former communications director, had “blanket immunity” from talking about her White House tenure.

    “I’m watching obstruction of justice in action,” Rep. Ted Lieu, California Democrat, told reporters while Ms. Hicks’s closed-door testimony was unfolding.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/19/democrats-say-white-house-lawyer-refusing-let-hope/

    Hehehehehehehe Sucks to be Democrats :D

    They had their shot to take down the King...

    They missed...

    End of story...

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "DON"

    Would you mind sending us your -

    Name:

    Age:

    Address:

    Email Address:

    Phone Number:

    Pompton Plains is nice - about 80% of my extended family out to 2nd cousins lives within a 25 mile radius, more or less.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Trump has been the best president we’ve ever had”
    -Ron Freitas, Registered Democrat

    How are Democrats going to win back Ron's vote??

    I mean, demonizing him and attacking him seems to me to be counter-productive...

    But what do I know.. I am just the ONLY guy here who called the 2016 Presidential Election down to the EXACT Electoral College count... :D

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Just like you have to have a permit to CARRY a weapon, but you don't need a permit to OWN a weapon..

    Wrong on multiple levels. If you're referring to open carry, 40+ states allow open carry of firearms without a permit, though a few states require that the guns be unloaded and some states have different more lax rules for long guns versus handguns. However, if you're referring to concealed carry, there are 12 states that do not require any permit whatsoever to carry a concealed weapon:

    Alaska
    Arizona
    Idaho
    Kansas
    Maine
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    New Hampshire
    North Dakota
    Vermont
    West Virginia
    Wyoming

    Permits are also required to own a weapon in several states and the District of Columbia.

    You are without doubt and hands down the commenter who posts the most flat out false, invented, and outright phony information. That's the reality, sunshine. :)

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    19

    I wonder about that too. Updating a website and changing a few links can generally be done pretty easily and without much expertise. One might say it is easy as pie...

    Heh. I like the pie idea. :)

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats don't have to worry about the election...

    A swarm of 1,000 earthquakes hit Southern California — how nervous should we be?
    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-earthquake-swarm-small-20190619-story.html

    California is going to slide into the ocean and take with it the Democrat advantage.. :D heh

  45. [45] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH- "When looking for someone to set up the website the majority of companies I contacted said it was too complicated for them to do."

    Let me guess. The companies that could do the work asked you to pay them for their services. That would be their own "One Demand."

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    24

    If Democrats DO impeach President Trump, Independents will flock to President Trump by the millions.

    Winner: Trump

    If Democrats DON'T impeach President Trump, their base will stay home by the millions in disgust.

    Winner: Trump

    I know, right!? In the exact same way you predicted over and over that "Red Tsunami" in the 2018 midterms over disgust regarding a myriad of things.

    Loser: Trump.

    It's always uncanny to me how President Trump can always seem to maneuver Democrats into a LOSE/LOSE situation...

    Yep... always always… like that time Trump shut down the government and Democrats were maneuvered into giving him all those billions for "The Wall" and the "Red Tsunami" they were maneuvered into because the Scare-A-Van is arriving any moment now in 3... 2... 1...

    Fast forward to today where Trump maneuvered the Fed into lowering interest rates. NOT.

    Yes, sir. That Trump fear and smear "always always" works on Earth II where their heads are planted so high up their asses that their eyes are "always always" rolling around. :)

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here are the tough debate questions 2020 Democratic candidates should have to answer

    With the first 2020 Democratic debates coming in a double-header next week in Miami, here are a few questions that would be equally tough on the 20 Democratic candidates who made the cut.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/19/presidential-debates-tough-questions-for-democrats-miami-column/1477294001/

    Dumbocrats won't answer the tough questions..

    It will be nothing but HATE on Trump and America..

    That is all the Dumbocrat Party has...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 'Most Diverse Congress' Is Really the Least Diverse
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/19/the_most_diverse_congress_is_really_the_least_diverse_140593.html

    This lame pathetic Democrat "wave" Congress has produced a paltry 17 laws...

    Useless... Utterly and completely USELESS..

    No wonder a large group of commenters have left Weigantia...

    They are embarrassed that Dumbocrats promised so much and delivered so little...

    And the Mueller delusion??? Totally decimated the morale of the hysterical Left...

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    25

    CW can write aboot whatever he wants.

    That's exactly what Paula said to you, and she didn't mince words. Why would you think it necessary to respond to her statement telling her what she just told you? She's the one who gets it. You... not so much.

    And I can post my opinion on what he writes and what he doesn't write.

    And Paula and anyone else can post her opinion on your daily drivel.

    Me getting my own blog suggestion is dodging the issue.

    No it most certainly isn't dodging the "issue"... it's Paula's "issue"... an entirely different "issue" than your BS and an "issue" on which several posters quite agree with Paula.

    Your paramount problem, Don, is that you keep confusing your "issue" as everyone else's "issue"... which it isn't and never was and never will be and is exactly the reason you should get your own blog and stop expecting anyone/everyone to treat your "issue" as if it's theirs when it isn't.

    New issue: Don, stop pissing on the author of this blog. We're all free to discuss whatever we want (except violence... note to Michale) and equally free to not… a concept you seem to grasp for yourself... if only you could allow yourself to let it "sink in" that it equally applies to CW! :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH: Me getting my own blog suggestion is dodging the issue.

    Michale: The Go-To tactic around these here parts.. :eyeroll:

    Nice to see you admit that "dodging the issue" is your "Go-To tactic"... being that you are without doubt and hands down the most prolific deflector and dodger on the blog. Your routine response is to change near every subject to Obama and Hillary... who live rent free in your tiny little cranium. :)

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oberlin College and the rise of social justice vengeance
    Could a bakery’s court win over a liberal arts school be the turn of the tide?

    For those of us who have been the victims of a public shaming, as I was at the beginning of 2018, something rather wonderful happened last week. The jury delivered its verdict in a law suit that a bakery in Oberlin, Ohio had brought against the neighboring liberal arts college for defamation, infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference. In brief, students and staff at Oberlin College engaged in a long campaign to brand the local business as ‘racist’, inflicting a terrible toll on its reputation, and the jury sided with the plaintiffs.
    https://spectator.us/oberlin-college-social-justice-vengeance/

    Between the SCOTUS rulings and stuff like this???

    The writing is on the wall, haters...

    No longer will ya'all be able to attack and demonize with impunity..

    NOW..... It's gonna cost ya.... :D

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    27

    This another dodge to avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand.

    Note to Don: CW decides the issues.

    Of course, if you could address the issue(s) at hand, you would. But you can't, so you dodge the issue(s).

    You should allow yourself to grasp the concept that no one is required to discuss your issue. Suggesting that you take your issue to your own blog isn't dodging your issue but simply a polite way of saying eff off. The author won't tell you because he is infinitely tolerant of your bullshit and everyone else's for that matter, including mine.

    New issue: If the author won't tell you, I will. Eff off.

    That's not dodging your issue; it's addressing it head on. :)

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH: But I do agree with you that agreeing with me on one comment does not mean you have to agree with me on other comments.

    Good form, Don, and a nice starting point. Now apply your tolerance to the author who equally owes you nothing regarding any comment you might post.

    Michale: True...

    Yes, I am correct, Michale. Glad you agree on the fact that seems to have eluded you earlier due to your obvious dearth of "continuity of thought." It obviously isn't a 2-day prospect.

    But if Person A attacks you and calls you a bunch of vile names, but then turns around and slaps you on the back and embraces you when you say something that Person A wants to hear...???

    But "Person A"... TS... didn't call Don a bunch of names and sure as hell didn't slap him on the back and embrace him. You are quite the drama queen and as ever quite the mover of the goalposts since none of that actually happened. If name calling actually did bother you, then referring regularly to posters here as "Trump/America haters" in nearly every single post wouldn't exactly be an optimal way to go about proving that... now, would it? Nope.

    But the good news is that you hurl the names so frequently and to the point that it becomes meaningless and gets tuned out... which is a phenomenon that is catching up to Trump also. :)

    Well, it seems to me Person A lacks any thing to speak of in the credibility department..

    You presuming to lecture anyone on this blog regarding credibility is indeed side-splitting comedy. *laughs*

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (40)-
    Congratulations. You came up with a dodge that hasn't been used in a while.

    One Demand must be the only organization/place that asks for that info.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congratulations. You came up with a dodge that hasn't been used in a while.

    One Demand must be the only organization/place that asks for that info.

    Heh....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    And President Trump's approval rating takes a tick upwards.. :D

    Must be an announcement bump... :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Congratulations. You came up with a dodge that hasn't been used in a while.

    One Demand must be the only organization/place that asks for that info.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery and THAT was definitely mockery.."
    -Dr Leonard McCoy

    :D

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig (45)-
    Of course the companies that could do the job expected to paid for their work.

    One wouldn't do it because they only took clients that would spend a guaranteed minimum of 40,000 dollars per year which was beyond what I could guarantee.

    The other one said they could do it within my price range.

    The rest could not do it.

    What's your point? Just another dodge?

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    31

    Until CW mans up and addresses One Demand all we can do is speculate on his reasons.

    Wrong. There are several other things "we" can do. Paula made a good suggestion and so did TS.

    The most likely explanation is that he would make the same bullshit arguments that the rest of you make that avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand as he did the one or two times he did comment on One Demand, has seen how my responses exposed your bullshit and doesn't address One Demand because he has no valid argument against what One Demand really is.

    One Demand is nothing if not your issue. No one here is required to address it; however, telling you to shove it up your backside or making no comment at all is indeed addressing it. Some people are addressing it with their ideas of where you can put it, while others are addressing it with dead silence. If you don't understand the concept of silence... years of silence... then you're quite obviously beyond help, and anything the author said could never match the genius of the purity of his unadulterated silence... which truly does speak louder than words... but absolutely does not and never should be equated with assent. :)

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Look like Joe Biden has stepped in it again..

    Joe Biden under fire from rivals for remarks about civility with segregationists
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden/joe-biden-under-fire-from-rivals-for-remarks-about-civility-with-segregationists-idUSKCN1TK2DI

    Look for a Joe Biden 180 in the next day or so.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC deal with South Carolina Dems rankles media

    COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina’s Democratic leader says he granted MSNBC exclusive live rights to this weekend’s party convention because the network agreed to show 21 presidential contenders speak and it offered a strong chance to reach black voters.

    The coverage arrangement for the event, a stop in a key early primary state and a chance for candidates to make their case before next week’s opening debate, angered other media outlets.

    C-SPAN says it shuts them out of a previously open political event it has covered live for many years. Journalist Roland Martin, former host at TV One, said the “terrible” decision hurts black-owned media outlets. Fox News Channel lodged a complaint.
    https://apnews.com/04ef3799185f49a8970ab4ce1400c5f2

    Looks like South Carolina Dumbocrats can't handle the scrutiny of any but an In-The-Tank media organization...

    Wonder what SC Dims are afraid of...

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    So I agree with Paula that CW can write what he wants and she gets it and I don't.

    Impecible logic!

    I also agree that anyone can comment on anyone's else's comments or CW's articles.

    Paula was responding to my comment on CW's article and basically telling me to not comment with my opinion.

    It sure looks like I'm the one that gets it when it comes to comments, not you (as also demonstrated by your "new issue" dodge) or Paula or anyone that uses the get your own blog dodge.

    Paula's dodge and your new issue dodge are dodges because it is raising another issue to avoid addressing the issue she is commenting on.

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (52)-
    No one is required to discuss my issue.

    But when you comment on my comments aboot my issue by dodging the issue or telling me to fuck off which is a dodge in itself instead of discussing the issue I will point out your bullshit.

    When all you have is being an asshole you just go with it.

    And you do it well. You are a premier asshole.

  64. [64] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [48] The 'Most Diverse Congress' Is Really the Least Diverse

    Misleading at best. The House has delivered 180+ actions to the Senate.

    It appears that the diversity problem is all on the Senate side, where those paltry 17 bills emerged.

    Good attempt at tarring the other party, though. Almost worked, even.

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH

    What needs updating is your bullshit used to avoid addressing the issue(s) at hand and CW's bullshit aboot the Democrats being an opposition to the Republicans instead of the the reality that they are working together for the benefit of the big money interests.

    This is where you are infinitely wrong and missing the entire point and genius of the pie issue. I might have mentioned this a time or two, but I like the pie idea. Wrong! I love the pie idea because JL's pie "issue" in very few words... and a relevant link that works... completely and masterfully mirrors your issue, and in no way whatsoever does his pie issue prevent CW from addressing your "One Demand" that is actually multiple demands, but I digress.

    JL is simply asking CW for nothing more than you're asking CW... and you're too shortsighted and obtuse to see it because you seemingly believe that JL (and everyone here) owes deference to your "issue" and a discussion regarding your "issue" that meets with your approval... when the fact is that no one here owes you a flipping thing.

    No one. :)

  66. [66] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (59)-
    Your other suggestions will have no effect on CW addressing the issue.

    What a fucking asshole.

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (65)-
    Okay short and sweet.

    ASSHOLE!

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Misleading at best. The House has delivered 180+ actions to the Senate.

    I seem to recall ya'all ridiculing the GOP when none of their "actions" became laws..

    So, I guess you only count LAWS when it's GOP and "actions" when it's Dumbocrats...

    Yep.. No double standard there.. :eyeroll:

    It appears that the diversity problem is all on the Senate side, where those paltry 17 bills emerged.

    Because the Dumbocrat House was only concerned with pushing their hate and intolerant agenda..

    Good attempt at tarring the other party, though. Almost worked, even.

    Facts ALWAYS work.. But, because you are blinded by Trump/America hate, you can't see it..

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    34

    It is exactly what someone like me should be doing to try to get One Demand into the public discourse.

    I disagree. Paying someone to advertise for you is exactly what you should do.

    I know this is different motivation than most commenters here have, which is to spout bullshit talking points and have battles instead of discussions.

    That you claim to know anyone's motivations is infinitely ignorant.

    But I am motivated by recognizing and addrsessing a real problem with a real possible solution rather than validating the illusion that most commenters have so they don't have to admit they fucked up in the past and can continue to believe the illusion going forward.

    It's equally infinitely ignorant to claim that you know anything about anyone's past unless you actually do. You want to talk about "fucked up"? Claiming to have a "suite" in your address for "One Demand" when that address is easily searchable to be nothing more than a post office box in a run down section of town is as misleading as hell. This fact and your bio confirms your ignorance, and... I will just end on that note and reiterate my belief that you should eff off. :)

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick (65)-
    Okay short and sweet.

    ASSHOLE!

    Heh Nailed it... :D

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    36

    Democrats are bankrupt going into the election season..

    Another lie from Michale. Oh, shocker. :)

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    45

    Let me guess. The companies that could do the work asked you to pay them for their services. That would be their own "One Demand."

    I can't stop laughing... and I would wager a dead on accurate guess too! Also, his website doesn't look the least bit complicated either. :)

  73. [73] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is going to be an interesting primary.

    Most of the people I know just want to know who to vote for to get rid of Trump because he is an annoying embarrassment - like Sarah Palin was in 2008 but worse.

    I'm sure there are the supporters who are really, really pulling for one candidate over all the others (perhaps EM with Joe, as EM has been very positive on Joe for far longer than this primary cycle), but I expect most of them will accept any of the other candidates - I'd even hold my nose and vote for Gillibrand if that was the choice.

    And, as CW points out, we are the fanatics - very involved in the race when most people haven't even started to think about the next election. The polls will still be mostly name recognition tests even after the first debates.

    I'm not on the Bernie wing of the party, but Warren appeals to me, so maybe I'm missing out on the "Bern" in some way - i.e. the ideas are sound, just Bernie annoys me where Elizabeth doesn't.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Racial uproar explodes among 2020 Democrats as rivals attack Biden for comments about segregationists

    Sen. Cory Booker called on the former vice president to apologize, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren said it is never OK to 'celebrate' segregationists.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-cites-segregationist-senators-he-recalls-past-civility-senate-n1019211

    Ooooooo Biden has REALLY stepped in it this time...

    Hyserical Dumbocrats are losing their fraking minds!!!

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [74]

    The hypersensitization of America prevails, once again.

    This, more than anything else, may eventually be the death of America.

    Who needs Iran when Americans can't stand each other!?

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    (perhaps EM with Joe, as EM has been very positive on Joe for far longer than this primary cycle),

    You have no idea. :)

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The salient point here, is that Senator Biden is the only Democratic presidential candidate who is at all capable of getting things done in Washington and across the country.

    I understand that bipartisanship has become a four-letter word around these comments sections, and I dare say this blog as well.

    As Biden recently said, if working across the aisle has become quaint and old-fashioned, then America is in deep trouble, Trump or no Trump.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    If I were an American, I'd vote for Gillibrand, too. Heck, I'd do the same for Yang and Williams(on?)… almost.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    62

    So I agree with Paula that CW can write what he wants and she gets it and I don't.

    Now you're getting it. Repeating back to Paula exactly what she said to you may have shaken you out of your stupor. Nice progress.

    I also agree that anyone can comment on anyone's else's comments or CW's articles.

    I believe you missed my point which was that Paula or anyone else can respond to your daily drivel in any manner they wish.

    Paula was responding to my comment on CW's article and basically telling me to not comment with my opinion.

    Wrong. She was responding to your comment disparaging CW's blog topic and near daily whining that he's not discussing your "issue" by suggesting that your issue could be discussed on your own blog. She's correct, you know. If you wish someone to discuss your issue, you obviously have a keyboard and an Internet connection. If you're whining yet again about CW not addressing your issue on his blog, why would you have a problem if another poster pointed out that you aren't addressing your issue on your blog? You're criticizing CW near daily for not addressing your issue on his blog when you aren't addressing your issue on your blog either. It's a rather easy concept to grasp.

    It sure looks like I'm the one that gets it when it comes to comments, not you (as also demonstrated by your "new issue" dodge) or Paula or anyone that uses the get your own blog dodge.

    Don Harris not liking others' answers to his "issue"... or years of silence regarding his "issue"... isn't a dodge; it's a statement regarding your "issue" whether you like what that statement is or not. Kindly explain why you are dodging your own issue by not discussing it on your own blog, Don. You're being bitchy to CW and everyone else for not adequately discussing your issue, which you refuse to adequately discuss on your own blog. :)

    Paula's dodge and your new issue dodge are dodges because it is raising another issue to avoid addressing the issue she is commenting on.

    No one is required to address your issue; however, Paula's suggestion that you discuss your issue on your blog is exactly what you are requesting CW to do. So if Paula is dodging your issue by suggesting that you discuss it on your blog, then you are doing the exact same thing by expecting CW to discuss it on his blog.

    If you don't have a blog, then Paula's suggestion that you get one in order to discuss your "issue" is not only not a "dodge" but actually a very good suggestion that speaks directly to your issue. :)

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I could boil that down to one sentence.

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    63

    No one is required to discuss my issue.

    Exactly right... and CW is defined as being "someone" because he is… in point of fact... someone.

    But when you comment on my comments aboot my issue by dodging the issue or telling me to fuck off which is a dodge in itself instead of discussing the issue I will point out your bullshit.

    But you just agreed above that no one is required to discuss your issue, and you agreed in your prior posts above that anyone can respond in any way they wish. So what's your problem? If you're going to routinely curse at CW and whine near daily about his responses or lack thereof, then it shouldn't surprise you in the least if someone responds to you in the very same manner you're displaying toward the author. It too is an easy concept to grasp.

    When all you have is being an asshole you just go with it.

    I'll take your word for it. Obviously I can be an asshole, but unlike you, I have so much more than that, and I have the college degrees and medals and all kinds of other things to prove it. :)

    And you do it well. You are a premier asshole.

    Thank you, Don. I confess that I am pretty much "premier" at everything I do. I have an entire room in one of my homes where I keep the proof. I'm sorry for you that's it's all you have, though, but you and Michale have so much in common. That's likely why he "slaps you on the back and embraces you when you say something that he wants to hear." :D

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    80

    I could boil that down to one sentence.

    So could I. I just chose another route this time.

    Go Joe! ;)

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The hypersensitization of America prevails, once again.

    I know, right!!!

    With hysterical Democrats, identity politics is PARAMOUNT...

    That's why they won't win in 2020...

    This, more than anything else, may eventually be the death of America.

    Only if the Democrats succeed in their agenda..

    Who needs Iran when Americans can't stand each other!?

    And who do we have to thank for that??

    Democrats and their identity politics..

    The salient point here, is that Senator Biden is the only Democratic presidential candidate who is at all capable of getting things done in Washington and across the country.

    He won't be given the chance..

    I understand that bipartisanship has become a four-letter word around these comments sections, and I dare say this blog as well.

    I am all for bi-partisanship..

    Unfortunately, Democrats have re-defined "bi partisanship" as "do everything OUR way"...

    As Biden recently said, if working across the aisle has become quaint and old-fashioned, then America is in deep trouble, Trump or no Trump.

    And I couldn't agree with him more on THAT sentiment..

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    66

    Your other suggestions will have no effect on CW addressing the issue.

    My other suggestions weren't meant to have an "effect" on CW addressing your issue. CW is capable of making his own choices without any suggestions from me and/or whiney bitchiness from you or anyone else if they don't like his choices. :)

    What a fucking asshole.

    I've already accepted your praise and given you my pity that all you have is being an "asshole," and now you want to confess to being more than your original claim!? Congratulations on your promotion, Don. Perhaps we should all start referring to you as "FA" rather than "DH." Either way, your initials suit your well. :)

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    70

    Heh Nailed it... :D

    Michale nailed Don! Seriously, though... TMI.

    I guess you weren't kidding around when you described those posters who slap others on the back and "embrace" them when they say something you want to hear. Thanks for the demonstration, but still.. TMI. :)

  87. [87] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But if Person A attacks you and calls you a bunch of vile names, but then turns around and slaps you on the back and embraces you when you say something that Person A wants to hear...???

    Well, it seems to me Person A lacks any thing to speak of in the credibility department..

    Kinda like when you bash me all the time claiming that my arguments are based solely on party propaganda...except for when I speak up in support of police officers being attacked in the media for doing their jobs? That’s the lack of credibility you were talking about?

  88. [88] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-54

    You ask the public for personal information.

    Your ID is as vague as a doctored passport photo (thank you John LeCarre for that meme). Your public face is Willy Nelson. You live in a NJ suburb (maybe). You "helpfully" provide a non-resume of what things you don't have. What's your home phone? Your personal Email?

    I know more about the guy that cuts my grass than I do about you. I find that asymmetry off-putting

    Why should I trust you with my personal data? Or God Forbid money? Or time?

    Are you registered as a corporation or charitable organization? Not that I can find.

    Is my position a dodge? Absolutely. I am dodging what looks suspiciously like fraud. Or maybe incompetence. I don't want to collide with either.

    I use a handle around here for a good reason. The internet is a dangerous place and is especially combustible with respect to the-more-than-usual-highly-polarizing politics live with today. It can get very ugly.

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick!

    Glad to see your posts again. Missed ya!

    Liz

    The salient point here, is that Senator Biden is the only Democratic presidential candidate who is at all capable of getting things done in Washington and across the country.

    I’m sorry, but when I read comments like this, I think of Trump claiming that HE is the only person who can fix our country’s problems! Biden is great, but all of them are capable of getting things done. And do not forget that Biden was not able to break up the GOP’s plan to vote against everything Obama supported.

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When have any of them ever talked about getting things done with Republicans, Russ?

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In fact, Russ, most of them have made fun of Biden whenever he talks about working with Republicans.

    So, don't be sorry, just know your stuff.

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you will agree that a President Biden is not the same animal as a vice president Biden.

    Which is why he had to be convinced to take the job. Rest assured he would not have taken the job if, ah, how to put it … Billary had won, not that it would have been offered.

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    73

    I agree with every single word you said and confess that I will vote for a ham sandwich over Donald Trump.

    I said this many years ago when it likely had less relevance, but now that time has passed:

    Vote "D" for Democracy or "R" for Russia.

    This is going to be an interesting primary.

    Yes, sir. Prepare for nasty and name calling from the Trump cult because Trump is a dearth of ideas who has to lay claim to the products of others and cheats at everything he does. He wrote zero of the words in his book; he stole his campaign slogan from Ronald Reagan, etc.

    The cult generally believes Donald Trump doesn't lie *laughs* and some even believe he is anointed. They are united in their hatred. Trump is the avatar for that hatred and allows them to act out. Grievance and victimhood are what Trump is selling, and they're eager to hate and grieve and don't see their own hypocrisy.

    On the one hand, they'll whine when Nancy Pelosi says she wants to see Trump in prison, a statement which was made behind closed doors and in private and only made public by what they routinely refer to as "fake news." The supposed "fake news" publishes something that was reportedly said one time in private, and Trump and the cult whine that Democrats want to create a "banana republic" and imprison their political adversary. Meanwhile, they have been chanting "lock her up" unabated and on cue for over 3 years regarding Trump's prior political opponent who Trump seems unaware isn't running in 2020. That about sums it up.

    The Trump campaign strategy is the same as 2016 and 2018, simply "fear and smear" and "divide and conquer." The game will be played on a digital platform, and it's lie, lie, lie and hatred, grievance, and victimhood.

    Same BS, different day. :)

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I use a handle around here for a good reason. The internet is a dangerous place and is especially combustible with respect to the-more-than-usual-highly-polarizing politics live with today. It can get very ugly.

    Yikes!

    I just think real names lend a certain credibility, more or less.

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    77

    The salient point here, is that Senator Biden is the only Democratic presidential candidate who is at all capable of getting things done in Washington and across the country.

    I understand what you're saying, and I generally agree with your points regarding Joe's capability and his unique abilities and experience; however, I avoid using terms that sound very similar to "Joe alone can fix it."

    I understand that bipartisanship has become a four-letter word around these comments sections, and I dare say this blog as well.

    Cut us some slack, please. The fish rots from the head, and the head of our country is a flailing clownfish pushing grievance and hatred and "us versus them." He is also Putin's asset who knows what he did and had full knowledge of what Russia, Wikileaks, et alia were doing to help him.

    As Biden recently said, if working across the aisle has become quaint and old-fashioned, then America is in deep trouble, Trump or no Trump.

    Working across the aisle died long before Trump exploited the gullible masses who are united in their hatred and following their Avatar Trump in lockstep. :)

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    As my goal is to have CW address reality and the suggestions will not accomplish the goal why would I follow your suggestions?

  97. [97] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But what will accomplish the ultimate goal of entering One Demand into the public discourse is persistence.

    In fact, I GUARANTEE it will be entered into the public discourse. And sooner than anyone here (except for me) thinks.

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    89

    Kick!

    Yes, sir. :)

    Glad to see your posts again. Missed ya!

    I missed you too. Guess what happened, though... I got a call from the daughter of a veteran who stormed Normandy 75 years ago asking if I would sponsor her father to go back for the first time in his life. I agreed to sponsor him and her both and asked if they perchance needed a translator to tag along. She said she couldn't speak a word of French.

    Je lui ai expliqué que je pouvais parler français, et nous sommes tous partis en Europe!

    I explained that I could speak French, and off we went to Europe! The United Kingdom, Paris, Normandy and several points in between. I then sent them home and stayed a bit longer. It was awesome! :)

    I'm back with hugs and kisses. Pardon my accent, though, darling... I simply stayed too long in the mother country. XOXOXO

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    88

    A work of art... a masterpiece and post all wrapped into one. More impressive than the Gafney Peachoid that we believe resembles Donald Trump's fat ass.

    Pardon my accent while I pat you on the back and embrace your wonderfulness since this post is flipping awesome.

    Is my position a dodge? Absolutely.

    No, it isn't. A dodge is expecting somebody to address your issue on his blog when you won't even address your own issue on your own blog. Am I right!?

    I use a handle around here for a good reason.

    Oh, piss it! You mean you're not "TheStig"?

    Liar! ;)

    XOXOXO
    Liar! ;)

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Working across the aisle died long before Trump exploited the gullible masses who are united in their hatred and following their Avatar Trump in lockstep. :)

    Yes, well, that was the point I was making with Russ. The rest of the Dem candidates for president think the same thing.

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    89

    I’m sorry, but when I read comments like this, I think of Trump claiming that HE is the only person who can fix our country’s problems!

    I swear I am posting as I read, and I posted my response to EM before I just now read your response that sounds exactly like mine.

    XOXOXO

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Cut us some slack, please. The fish rots from the head, and the head of our country is a flailing clownfish pushing grievance and hatred and "us versus them." He is also Putin's asset who knows what he did and had full knowledge of what Russia, Wikileaks, et alia were doing to help him.

    Who is talking about Trump!?

    I'm talking about how Biden will govern as president (after Trump is gone, in other words), as compared with ALL of his Democratic opponents who won't know what to do with their Republican counterparts, as evidenced by their rhetoric and criticism of Biden of this issue at this point in the campaign.

  103. [103] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    90

    When have any of them ever talked about getting things done with Republicans, Russ?

    Lunchtime. Every day they are in session and often by telephone when they're not. Don't let the BS on camera fool you, though, EM. For instance, Biden and McCain... McCain and Obama for that matter... McCain and Joe Lieberman too for that matter, but I digress.

    "They" wouldn't allow McCain to choose Lieberman as his VP, and then "they" weren't allowed at his funeral, were they? Nope.

    Quite a lot of them are great friends off camera and some even share apartments in DC. Many Republicans off camera are none too happy with Donald Trump and know exactly what he did. :)

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    The claim that Joe Biden is the only who can work with with Republicans is nonsense. All the candidates have examples of bipartisanship.

    However it's true that he may have a long track record of enabling GOP abuse by putting comity and his own comfort above the fact that the GOP was becoming ever more dishonest, obstructive and now traitorous.

    He spoke a few weeks ago about how he'd "achieved things by working with Repubs as VP." His examples: the ACA, which he said was passed without repubs coz that's what you have to do when they won't cooperate. So that's a fail.

    He/Obama got 3 repubs to sign on to the 2009 Stimulus Bill - one which helped stabilize the economy but did so by paying off offending banks.

    Those were it. 8 years and his self-proclaimed skills "I can convince republicans" got an extremely bank-friendly economic recovery bill passed and that's it.

    Now what he DID accomplish (along with a lot of other Dems, some of whom seem to have finally figured out they need to stop) was making the GOP look less harmful by acting like they weren't that bad.

    That did not serve us then and won't serve us in the future.

    We may well get stuck with JB as the nominee but I really, really hope we don't.

    We need someone who understands what today's playing field is really like, not someone who refuses to do so.

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    92

    I think you will agree that a President Biden is not the same animal as a vice president Biden.

    I wouldn't agree. I would say that there isn't a President Biden yet, and if there ever is one, he will be the same guy we've known for decades... just more wrinkled and jaded.

    Which is why he had to be convinced to take the job.

    Nah. He was asked to choose which job he'd prefer. No convincing was necessary. Hillary got the job Joe didn't choose but was better suited for.

    Rest assured he would not have taken the job if, ah, how to put it … Billary had won, not that it would have been offered.

    I disagree again. I believe Billary would have offered him a job as Secretary of State or something similar, and he would have gladly accepted it. He is a career politician and so shall he remain ever thus until his dying breath... like his good friend John McCain. :)

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wouldn't agree. I would say that there isn't a President Biden yet, and if there ever is one, he will be the same guy we've known for decades... just more wrinkled and jaded.

    Of course, that is not at all what I meant. The president holds the power. The vice president doesn't.

    Hope that's clear as mud. :)

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He wouldn't have taken it, Kick, for one reason and one reason only:

    Too many presidents in the WH.

    The position would not have been offered, in any event.

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    The claim that Joe Biden is the only who can work with with Republicans is nonsense. All the candidates have examples of bipartisanship.

    That is true, as far as it goes.

    Once again, I am going by what Biden's opponents have said and criticized him for.

    They believe what Kick believes - bipartisanship died a very long time ago and it would be the definition of obtuse to try to work with Republicans. Period.

    Biden is the only Dem prez candidate who thinks and has said otherwise.

    I hope this sort of question comes up at both of the debates because I would LOVE to hear how the others talk about bipartisanship ...

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    96

    As my goal is to have CW address reality and the suggestions will not accomplish the goal why would I follow your suggestions?

    You made it clear years ago that you weren't genuinely interested in "reality" by shitting on every suggestion that anyone made. If you will go back and reread the pledges that people are asked to make to join your "One Demand" that demands multiple things, you will realize that I keep explaining that in reality you're asking people to pledge and subscribe to do something that is not available to them in the vast majority of states, which is to pledge to vote for themselves by writing in their name. This pledge of yours cannot be accomplished by people in "reality" so why on Earth would anyone make a pledge they can't perform at the ballot box because it's not physically possible in the majority of states? Now that's reality which you refuse to address and have been refusing to address for years.

    If you were interested in reality, you wouldn't claim to have a "suite" when you have nothing more than a post office box in a dive in New Jersey across from Walgreens.

    Any more questions, Don, and utter nonsensical statements like you being interested in CW addressing "reality" when you won't address it yourself on your own website? I'll be happy to make you look foolish some more; all you need do is ask. :)

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    However it's true that he may have a long track record of enabling GOP abuse by putting comity and his own comfort above the fact that the GOP was becoming ever more dishonest, obstructive and now traitorous …

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

  111. [111] 
    Paula wrote:

    [110] Yes, it's shocking that he still doesn't get it.

    He wasn't alone, AS I NOTED. Indeed, Obama himself went on far too long enabling the GOP. I don't say that as a criticism but as an observation just like recognizing someone you know has a drinking problem and needs help. But alcoholics don't respond to help until they acknowledge their problem.

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    97

    But what will accomplish the ultimate goal of entering One Demand into the public discourse is persistence.

    It's worked so well so far. *laughs*

    In fact, I GUARANTEE it will be entered into the public discourse. And sooner than anyone here (except for me) thinks.

    Sooner than it already hasn't? You seem blissfully incapable of understanding the "reality" that the "Sooner" ship has already sailed a long time ago. :)

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    100

    Yes, well, that was the point I was making with Russ. The rest of the Dem candidates for president think the same thing.

    Oh, okay. Well anyone around here who is making the same point I am gets the "full Michale"... which is called the "full Michale" because of the way Michale "attacks you and calls you a bunch of vile names but then turns around and slaps you on the back and embraces you when you say something that Michale wants to hear.

    While it's an obvious fact that Michale doesn't recognize this behavior in himself, it is what makes his eyes roll so much. That and the fact that his head being up either his own ass or Donald Trump's so often it causes him the obvious optical issues he's experiencing and pointing out on a regular basis. ;)

    XOXOXOXO

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    102

    Who is talking about Trump!?

    I was explaining our country's problem that you were discussing. It's the fish/head thingy.

    I'm talking about how Biden will govern as president (after Trump is gone, in other words), as compared with ALL of his Democratic opponents who won't know what to do with their Republican counterparts, as evidenced by their rhetoric and criticism of Biden of this issue at this point in the campaign.

    I think I knew that but wasn't entirely sure. I hope he does become President Biden, but I am with Neil and voting for whomever becomes the Democratic nominee... up to and including a ham sandwich.

    I will definitely be voting for Joe in the Texas primary on "Super Tuesday," which I believe if I am not mistaken will fall on a Tuesday. And when I do it, I will think about you and blow you a kiss. My vote for Joseph Robinette Biden will be made in your honor. :)

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. to be exact. :)

  116. [116] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (109)-
    Of course I have addressed that. While many states may not count certain or any write in votes to elect a candidate or count them at all, that is not the purpose of those votes so the states that do count write in votes and the states where write in votes can be cast whether or not they are counted in the official total is enough places to get this started in 2020.

    Unless it's changed since I looked it up recently California's state constitution guarantees the right to cast a write in vote.

    And citizens participating in those states in 2020 along with citizens in states where they can't cast write in votes at all signing up for One Demand will help citizens change the laws to allow write in votes in future elections through either legislation or court challenges. if 10-20% of the registered voters in a state have declared they want to cast write in votes it will be difficult to make a case why it should not be allowed.

    And citizens only have to use a write in vote if there are no small donor candidates on the ballot. Enough citizens participating in a state where write in votes are not allowed at all could inspire many candidates to run small donor campaigns so many of the citizens would not have to cast a write in vote.

    Everyone with a box there has a suite. That's what they call them. Their name- not mine.

    You are really grasping for straws.

  117. [117] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (112)-
    Let me know how the crow tastes.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    106

    Of course, that is not at all what I meant. The president holds the power. The vice president doesn't.

    Obama leaned heavily on Joe and others (which included Republicans) regarding foreign affairs, but of course the final decisions belonged to the POTUS... as always.

    Hope that's clear as mud. :)

    It is now. :)

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent!

  120. [120] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    What can a President Biden do to stop the Freedom Caucus from refusing to support any Democratic legislation that VP Biden didn’t do? You have a group of Republicans who were elected based on their unwillingness to work across the aisle!

    And I have heard Buttigieg and Warren talk about working “with Congress” to get legislation passed — I take that to mean ALL members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation.

    Don’t get me wrong — I have a ton of respect for Biden and think he’d make a great President (esp. with Stacey Abrams as his running mate) — but I am not sure he has earned the Sainthood you obviously view him as deserving.

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    111

    Yes, it's shocking that he still doesn't get it.
    He wasn't alone, AS I NOTED. Indeed, Obama himself went on far too long enabling the GOP.

    Okay, I'm just saying that they were trying desperately to work across the aisle with Republicans. Call it what you will; they tried. They do a whole lot more consulting with each other in private versus in public. Then the camera comes on and the Republicans will knock Democrats for doing exactly what they suggested in private... same thing in reverse.

    Fast forward to now where Trump blames Democrats for not changing the bipartisan immigration rules signed into law by President George W. Bush, which Trump could have obviously changed at any time since Republicans held both the House and the Senate in the first two years of his presidency... but he needed those immigration laws to remain in place because that's the BS game that he pushes to his gullible sheeple via spoon-feeding ad nauseam.

    Sad to say that EM and Paula, you are both correct regarding your points.

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    116

    No, you haven't addressed the issues.

    I'm done with you on this. I at my "do not care" stage and giving you the "full Elizabeth Miller." I'm done with you on this.

    Everyone with a box there has a suite.

    Post office boxes are not suites.

    That's what they call them. Their name- not mine.

    This bullshit above is why no one here does or should ever believe your spew about "addressing reality." You're full of it, Don. All the way up to your eyeballs. You wouldn't know what reality was if it lived on your face.

    You are really grasping for straws.

    Straws can come in handy in a pinch, you know. They can be grasped by the end and severed in such a manner so as to be used as torture devices that can be shoved up into someone's fingernails in order to make them talk "reality," though not quite as effective as sodium pentothal, scopolamine, ethanol, etc. :)

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    117

    Like I already said: The "sooner" ship has already sailed. It's too late to impress anyone with how you got your idea into the public arena "sooner" after all these years of you not doing it.

    Let me know how the crow tastes.

    The crow flew off before the ship set sail. There is no crow and no ship.

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as i've said before, nothing would please me more than to see the outcome don is hoping for. if we're all wrong, then wonderful! i'll serve the first celebratory pie myself.

    we've all tried to offer suggestions over the years that we thought would help. initially we didn't even understand what on earth don was trying to do with vouchers and/or vendettas. now that we do understand, there are a few practical hurdles remaining that are preventing anyone from taking don seriously. one is that voting based on pie is a much more practical idea, as well as being more popular.

    this is CW i'm quoting when i say don's act just gets tiresome and eventually it all sounds like "blah blah blah." except for pie. pie is great.

  125. [125] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie..."

    Crows are birds and are black. That will be close enough...

    I suppose it will be a matter of personal taste.

    Kind of like in my personal taste The Democrat's claim they are an opposition to the Republicans and that there are only two choices and beating Trump (Bush, etc) in this election is all that matters are as tiresome a blah-blah-blah now as they have been for decades.

  126. [126] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (122)-
    If you are ever in need of money you could always use your posts as evidence when you sue your college or university for a refund.

    Though post 112 did contain one small bit of wisdom.

    You made the right choice to quit while you are behind.

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    124

    now that we do understand, there are a few practical hurdles remaining that are preventing anyone from taking don seriously. one is that voting based on pie is a much more practical idea, as well as being more popular.

    I like the pie idea. Wrong. I love the pie idea.

    this is CW i'm quoting when i say don's act just gets tiresome and eventually it all sounds like "blah blah blah."

    So Don's issue was indeed addressed by CW... in triplicate!

    except for pie. pie is great.

    Pie is peachy. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    126

    If you are ever in need of money you could always use your posts as evidence when you sue your college or university for a refund.

    Said the self-described "average person... working and living at survival mode." I'm good on money, Don, but thank you for your concern. The institutions I attended contact me on a regular basis, and the money flows in the opposite direction... from me to them.

    Are you trying to let us all know that you took your website and sued your university? Oh, wait!

    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. ~ Don Harris

    I will tell you again, it's never too late to get an education, Don. I'll also say that considering the piss poor condition of your website and your self-description, you aren't exactly a person who should be criticizing anyone else regarding education.

    Perhaps you're simply trying to beat Michale in the "just making up lies" department? I will just add this nugget of yours to the evidence pile regarding how much you value "reality." You keep whining and moaning about CW proving his claims about being reality-based, and meanwhile your collective spew is rapidly becoming a Bullshit Mountain. :)

Comments for this article are closed.