ChrisWeigant.com

My New Hampshire Picks

[ Posted Tuesday, February 11th, 2020 – 15:16 UTC ]

It's "first in the nation" primary time, which means it is time once again to throw down my own markers and predict the winner of New Hampshire tonight. I've long felt that pundits who merely vaguely describe the race as it stands are craven, because it's a lot tougher to actually try to foresee the results ahead of time in an article under your own name. So I've always publicly announced my picks ahead of time, even if they turn out to be disastrously wrong in the end.

Which brings us to a new portion of the 2020 program, because now we can see how well my prognosticating is this year. My picks for Iowa were (in the order I predicted): (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Joe Biden, (3) Elizabeth Warren, (4) Pete Buttigieg, and (5) Amy Klobuchar. The actual order (as of this writing, since we're still not entirely confident of the Iowa results) turned out to be: (1) Pete Buttigieg, (2) Bernie Sanders, (3) Elizabeth Warren, (4) Joe Biden, and (5) Amy Klobuchar. I agreed to follow the traditional measure of "winning," the count of how many "state delegate equivalents" each candidate chalked up, and in this count Buttigieg edged Sanders (even though Bernie got more actual votes than Mayor Pete).

As you can see, this was a pretty dismal result for my prediction abilities. I only got two out of five right, although if Bernie had edged out Pete it would have been three. Obviously, I missed how far Biden was going to fall, but I certainly wasn't the only one not to see that coming. Also obviously, I underrated Buttigieg by a mile. Oh well, live and learn. For the record, here's my 2020 stats so far (counting only Democrats, since I never make safe predictions of an incumbent president winning his party's primaries in order to boost my score):

Total correct 2020 primary picks so far: 2 for 5 -- 40%.

OK, with that out of the way, let's take a look at the Granite State. I have to admit, I thought that by now I'd be limiting my picks to the top three, but the fluidity of the race at this point means I'm still going to be predicting the top five. When the race truly does narrow to four or three candidates, I will also narrow my predictions (again, so as to not rack up my score with obvious picks), but for now it's still a five-person race (six, really, counting Bloomberg).

Oh, and a technical note. All polling averages referenced below are from Real Clear Politics, both for national numbers as well as New Hampshire state polling.

 

New Hampshire

Much will be made of the fact that in 2016 Bernie Sanders won this state by over 20 points, but that was in a very different race. Bernie only had one viable opponent, Hillary Clinton, so voters essentially had a binary choice. This is nowhere near true in the 2020 contest, obviously, so Bernie won't be winning with 60 percent of the vote tonight -- that's a pretty safe prediction. Should Bernie win tonight, the pundits will use his previous win here to diminish his victory (they're already warming up to do so), but this ignores the vast difference between a multicandidate free-for-all and a two-person race.

Even without a 20-point lead, Bernie's still looking pretty good in the state with the longest shared border with his own home state. He's up in almost every poll, and his position has gotten stronger since Iowa voted (or tried to...). He still pulls in thousands to his rallies, and his base is fired up. They're feelin' the Bern, to coin a phrase.

However, Pete Buttigieg is nipping at Bernie's heels after his springboard victory in Iowa. Undecided voters are taking a second look at Mayor Pete, as are disillusioned voters of other moderate candidates (more on him in a minute). There's a very real chance that Buttigieg could pull off an upset here tonight. Chalking up two wins in the first two contests would put Pete at the absolute front of the frontrunner pack, and he could well become the candidate to beat from this point on, so he's got a lot riding on pulling off a surprise win tonight. New Hampshire skews even whiter than Iowa, so he won't run into trouble with minority voters for the simple fact that there just aren't that many of them to count tonight. But while he saw an impressive spike in state polling here post-Iowa, it seemed to plateau after the initial surge. This may be a function of comparing different polls, or it may mean his appeal is still limited. We'll have to see, when the votes are counted, whether this polling will prove to be correct or not.

Outside of the top two, things get a lot muddier, because there is essentially a three-way tie in the polling averages for third place between Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren. This grouping is rather striking, because it includes one candidate who, up until Iowa, was polling solidly in the number one spot nationwide, as well as a candidate who has lagged far behind all the others for the entire race. But that's the sort of realignment that happens after the voters actually start voting.

Joe Biden's numbers are in free-fall right now, both in New Hampshire and nationally. In the state, Biden was actually leading the polling average less than a month ago. Now he's fighting hard to avoid coming in fifth. Nationally, polls are starting to reliably show Bernie Sanders has edged Biden for the leading spot, although Biden's numbers nationally aren't nearly as bad as they are in New Hampshire. But it's undeniable that Biden is in a tailspin right now. Whether South Carolina is going to turn it all around for him is now in serious doubt as well. The question has now become whether South Carolina even can turn things around for Biden, even if he scores a big win there.

Amy Klobuchar, on the other hand, seems to be a big beneficiary of all of those Biden voters having second thoughts. Her numbers are a mirror-image of Biden's, to some extent. Where Biden has fallen, she has risen -- although not on a one-for-one basis, as she hasn't risen as fast as Biden has fallen (some Biden voters are migrating to Buttigieg, not Klobuchar). Even so, she's definitely seeing a surge of sorts in New Hampshire -- and last-minute surges can be decisive. Klobuchar finally had a debate performance that people paid attention to, according to her campaign. For whatever reason, she's getting a second look from more and more people. But also like Biden, her trendline nationally isn't as dramatic as it has been in New Hampshire -- yet. She's still polling in the single digits nationally, far behind the pack. Of course, a third-place New Hampshire finish could change all of that overnight.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is neither rising nor falling, really. She peaked early and fell back, but since that spike has managed to bottom out at about 15 percent nationally. Which is still a solid third, behind Biden and Bernie. For now, at any rate. In New Hampshire, her numbers have also showed consistency, but will this consistency be enough to both beat Biden and fend off Klobuchar? That remains to be seen.

 

Predictions

I'm going to go with the trendlines today, personally. I predict that Bernie Sanders will win New Hampshire tonight, as he did four years ago. He will not have as big a margin of victory, however, for the reasons I've already discussed.

Pete Buttigieg is the obvious choice for second place, but in the end I think his new rise will fail to top Bernie's New England base. Pete didn't exactly shine in the last debate, and a lot of New Hampshire voters were watching. The polls showing he rose but then plateaued will prove to be correct, and Bernie will edge him out. I have no idea what the margin between the two will be, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was very close -- within five points, say.

The next three are the hard ones to choose. But again, I'm going to go with the polling trendlines rather than my heart, and so must predict that Amy Klobuchar pulls out a surprising third-place finish. This will reinvigorate her campaign and will likely boost her national standing as well. Only a few weeks ago, I thought Klobuchar would be exiting the race at some point between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday, but that's obviously not going to happen now (unless she does a lot worse tonight than her polling now indicates). In the end, her late-breaking surge will be just enough to beat both Warren and Biden for third place.

Elizabeth Warren is the candidate I really wanted to see win third in New Hampshire, especially since she's also from a state bordering the Granite State. But I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of progressive voters want to see Bernie get a big win tonight and are beginning to see Warren as a lost cause. It really pains me to say this, but I think it may prove to be true. So in the end Warren will do just a little worse than expected, but that difference will be enough to only gain her fourth place tonight.

Fifth place is where the big storyline of the night is going to be, I predict, because Joe Biden's fall from grace is going to propel him all the way to the bottom of the pack. Biden's numbers are collapsing, and his entire campaign theme has been: "I'm the most electable!" which isn't going to cut the mustard when people start thinking you are losing. Much was made of the fact that during the New Hampshire debate Biden's first answer contained the prediction that he was going to "take a hit" in New Hampshire, which is not exactly a rallying cry for his supporters. It wasn't that long ago that Biden was confidently predicting victory in both Iowa and New Hampshire, after all. And now he's gone beyond even "managing expectations" to predicting a dismal showing. I think the people of New Hampshire were listening, and will deliver that dismal showing to Biden tonight.

This more than anything else is going to shake up the race in a big way. Biden will now have come in fourth and fifth in the first two contests, and that is not exactly a recipe for success nationwide -- no matter how well Biden does in South Carolina. If Biden doesn't even place in the top four in New Hampshire, then his candidacy will be on life support from this point on. But that polling trendline is impossible to ignore -- he's bleeding support at an alarming rate, both nationally and here in New Hampshire.

So those are my predictions: (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Pete Buttigieg, (3) Amy Klobuchar, (4) Elizabeth Warren, and (5) Joe Biden. What are yours? Think I got it monstrously wrong? Let me know about it in the comments (where I'll be spending time as the results come in, by the way).

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

89 Comments on “My New Hampshire Picks”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I predict you will hide behind making more predictions and speculating endlessly about the results of previous, current and upcoming primaries and debates mixing in just enough look what terrible things Trump is doing articles to make it through the entire primary season without having to write about anything other than show so citizens will miss another opportunity to get the big money out of our political process in 2020.

    So of course I will be 100% right again with my NH picks and my future primary picks:
    1. a big money candidate
    2. a big money candidate
    3. a big money candidate
    4. a big money candidate
    5. a big money candidate

    So, CW, you will either have to award me the prize for getting all my primary choices 100% right or you will have to take action to prove my predictions wrong.

    I would never be happier to be wrong (it's so rare I sometimes enjoy it when it happens) than if you were to prove me wrong by informing citizens how they could demand small donor candidates making my first prediction today wrong and that led to my future primary picks bring wrong.

    After all, you can't possibly have anything better to do as you seem to be able to spend a lot of time hosting your version of Entertainment Tonight and reporting on the show so you are obviously not doing anything worthwhile or productive, just busy work to pass the time until it's time to actually do something productive.

    You should try doing something worthwhile and productive- you might actually find it fulfilling.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris -

    I would urge you to read that last line you wrote multiple times.

    While looking in a mirror.

    Here's my prediction for you:

    1. Endless whining that no candidate is a unicorn
    2. Endless whining that perfection (as you define it) has not been achieved by anyone
    3. Endless whining that even the candidates trying to change the big money system are not pure enough for you
    4. Endless whining about me
    5. Endless whining...

    Let's see if I called this one right... hmmm?

    Heh.

    Everyone else -

    Hey, results are already coming in! Less than 10%, but still earlier than I thought...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Well, with 11,600 votes in, the results are exactly what I predicted.

    OK, I'm going to bed...

    Heh. Just kidding!

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    37K votes in, 12+%

    Bernie out front, 28.8
    Pete - 22.0
    Amy - 20.3
    Liz - 9.4
    Joe - 8.7

    Right now, looks like Amy's got a shot at catching Pete, and Joe also has the chance to pass Liz.

    Of course, it's still way early...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    This just in -

    Yang is out! Announces he's suspending his campaign...

    Wow, that was quick! Didn't expect any such announcements until at least tomorrow morning...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: ... Bernie won't be winning with 60 percent of the vote tonight.

    It's this type of reality-based hard-hitting political commentary that leaves me breathless. Of course, I am toying with you... as I am wont to do.

    So those are my predictions: (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Pete Buttigieg, (3) Amy Klobuchar, (4) Elizabeth Warren, and (5) Joe Biden. What are yours? Think I got it monstrously wrong?

    I think you got it monstrously correct this time with Bernie netting about ~11 pledged delegates out of the two congressional districts as well as statewide, Pete Buttigieg likewise netting about ~8 delegates, and Amy Klobuchar netting whatever is remaining since neither Warren nor Biden are likely to come close to clearing the 15% in either district or statewide and therefore coming out of New Hampshire with 0 delegates.

    FUN FACT: If my memory serves correctly, the State of Indiana has ~70 pledged delegates while Vermont has a paltry ~11. :)

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, 27% in, some slight changes but no swaps yet

    BS - 27.6
    PB - 23.3
    AK - 20.1
    EW - 9.7
    JB - 8.5

    Pete slowly gaining on Bernie, but everyone else pretty static for now...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Good point about delegate threshold. Right now, only 3 candidates in the running for delegates...

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bennet's out too!

    We are now officially down to SINGLE DIGITS!

    Woo hoo!!!

    Heh.

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I predict I'm going to get really sick of the word "Klomentum" before the night is out...

    And I'd bet the farm on it.

    Sigh.

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    dsws wrote:

    Do you know how delegate allocation works? The news will sound not-as-bad for Elizabeth Warren if she at least gets a delegate or two.

    It sounds as though there are separate 15% thresholds for at-large and for each of the state's two congressional districts. But it's a friggin' secret, as far as web searches are concerned, because any actual information is buried under an endless heap of opinion blather and horse-race reporting.

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    2

    So you're saying there'll be whining with nothing to show for it... but archived whining that's demonstrably nonproductive and remains endless at the present time? Heh.

    Let's see if I called this one right... hmmm?

    Well, he definitely does seem to enjoy whining via keyboard; I can tell because I used to read them and by the length of the comments that are contained in the comment boxes I did used to read. Don't get me wrong when I confess I don't read them because I actually do still read them; I just simply stop reading them after I get to the word "Don" followed by the word "Harris." :)

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    11

    Do you know how delegate allocation works? The news will sound not-as-bad for Elizabeth Warren if she at least gets a delegate or two.

    She won't.

    It sounds as though there are separate 15% thresholds for at-large and for each of the state's two congressional districts.

    That's it... 8 pledged delegates to distribute proportionally among the candidates in one congressional district to the West, 8 to distribute likewise in the congressional district to the East, and 8 to distribute likewise throughout the entire state.

    But it's a friggin' secret, as far as web searches are concerned, because any actual information is buried under an endless heap of opinion blather and horse-race reporting.

    Well then, there you have it... more or less. :)

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    50% in, things still remarkably stable:

    BS - 27.6
    PB - 23.3
    AK - 19.5
    EW - 9.4
    JB - 8.6

    Pete and Bernie are exactly where they were with only 27% in. Amy slipped 0.6, the biggest movement of any of them.

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Well, it's a start.

    I am doing something worthwhile.

    But it cannot be productive until other people are participating.

    And other people cannot participate if they don't know about the opportunity.

    Endless whining?

    Wow. How Trumpian.

    My opinion is endless whining?

    Why?

    Pointing out how you avoid addressing the issues I raise and only answer on rare occasions with the same bullshit nonsense that has nothing to do with One Demand such as your purity claim is whining?

    It is not a purity test.

    It is an adequacy test.

    It is an integrity test.

    And it is a test of citizens stepping up to meet their civic responsibility.

    So no, you didn't get the whining prediction right.

    And you're not doing too well on the integrity or civic responsibility.

    Show some integrity and explain why One Demand does not deserve to be in the public discourse without the bullshit dodges like the purity claim.

    Review with an open mind the recent comments about what might happen if a Dem candidate for president declared now that they would run a small donor only campaign and respond to the actual arguments instead of changing the argument to something else that you can argue against.

    Then I wouldn't have to keep pointing out how you are not addressing the idea.

    And you wouldn't have to keep pretending that this is whining as an excuse to ignore it.

    Funny how the people that keep after other people for not doing things or considering ideas that you want or like are just being persistent and dedicated and I am just whining.

    Maybe I just expect too much purity from someone claiming to present reality in thinking that reality should include considering all ideas and possibilities and real discussion of those ideas instead of dodges.

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    So to recap:

    CW is nailing it with his predictions regarding:

    * The top 5 candidates in the New Hampshire primary

    * All 5 of his predictions about the endless whining of Don Harris regarding ___________ <--- Who gives a shit? I stopped reading after the word "Harris." :)

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    With 74% in, Pete's catching up a little bit:

    BS - 26.1
    PB - 24.0
    AK -20.0
    EW - 9.3
    JB - 8.5

    This could go late into the night...

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [15] -

    TL;DR

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hm.

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    i had to look that abbreviation up.

    your lack of attention to pie-based candidates is disturbing.

    JL

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Your attention to detail is impressive.

    It's as if Wecan'tia is the new orange.

    Hope that did not exceed your limited attention span.

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ABC news just called it for Bernie!

    Feel the Bern!!

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Nah. Bernie won with an "impressive" approximately one quarter of the entire state located just next door to his home state. Seems kind of anemic considering he's practically a resident. Teasing ;)

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I suppose I could be wrong about Wecan'tia not reflecting reality.

    It is similar to other media in covering the show and making that the unfortunate reality.

    But I will never get used to or accept hoping for Edward R. Murrow and getting nothing but Tony Snark.

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT [23]

    CW
    17

    This could go late into the night...

    Nah. Bernie won with an "impressive" approximately one quarter of the entire state located just next door to his home state. Seems kind of anemic considering he's practically a resident. Teasing ;)

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris -

    You know, one of the most annoying things about Donald Trump is that he always makes any event all about himself.

    It's primary night, dude. Either join the party or prepare to be ignored. How's that for reflecting reality?

    Sheesh...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    A win is a win is a win, at least to the punditocracy.

    This guarantees that Bernie won't be ignored for the next three weeks. A Pete win might have. That's a big difference...

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    27

    A win is a win is a win, at least to the punditocracy.

    Apparently a loss is a win to Bernie Sanders since he keeps claiming he "won in Iowa" when he most assuredly did not win the Iowa caucuses. Or in the alternative, if Bernie insists on claiming he won Iowa, he must concede that he tied in New Hampshire since he and Buttigieg are clearing that state having won 9 pledged delegates each with Klobuchar taking the remaining 6 of the total of 24.

    This guarantees that Bernie won't be ignored for the next three weeks. A Pete win might have. That's a big difference...

    Nah. Bernie wouldn't have been ignored if the positions were reversed since they're both leaving New Hampshire with the exact same delegate count of 9 each and 6 for Amy Klobuchar, and that brings us to our........ drumroll ..................

    Nationwide Delegate Race

    Now to find out who's ahead in the nationwide delegate race to 1,991... the necessary delegate total to win the Democratic nomination:

    Candidate --- IA --- NH -- Totals
    1. Buttigieg........14 ....... 9........ 23
    2. Sanders........ 12 ....... 9......... 21
    3. Warren.......... 8 ........0 .......... 8
    4. Biden ............ 6 ....... 0 .......... 6
    4. Klobuchar .....0 ........6 .......... 6

    FUN FACT: As I type this, William Weld is perilously close to winning a healthy 10% of the Republican Party vote in New Hampshire, and anyone not named Donald Trump is approaching a healthy ~15%.

    That's a Hell of a lot of Republicans coming out to shoot the middle finger to Comrade Trump. Salute!

  29. [29] 
    dsws wrote:

    Apparently a loss is a win to Bernie Sanders since he keeps claiming he "won in Iowa" when he most assuredly did not win the Iowa caucuses.

    Sanders 45,842
    Buttigieg 43,274
    https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa

    Buttigieg won the delegate count. Sanders won the first-round tally and the second-round tally. That's one kind of win for each of them. Each of them is entitled to make noise about the count they won.

    The second-round tally doesn't matter at the national convention. But the one-delegate difference almost certainly won't either. It's all about the spin cycles between now and Super Tuesday. And for that, a tally is as good as a delegate.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT to [28]

    Nationwide Delegate Race

    Now to find out who's ahead in the nationwide delegate race to 1,991... the necessary delegate total to win the Democratic nomination:

    Candidate --- IA --- NH -- Totals
    1. Buttigieg........14 ....... 9........ 23
    2. Sanders........ 12 ....... 9......... 21
    3. Warren.......... 8 ........0 .......... 8
    4. Klobuchar ......1 ........6 .......... 7
    5. Biden ............ 6 ....... 0 .......... 6

    Anyone not listed above has 0 pledged delegates to date.
    __________

    Edited to reflect Amy Klobuchar's 1 delegate pickup in Iowa and everyone else having bupkis. :)

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [28] -

    As Bernie puts it: "I got the most votes... where I come from, that's a win!"

    Heh.

    At the very least, you've got to admit that he was smart to force Iowa to report the actual caucus vote (after a similar result in 2016) rather than just the SDEs...

    Gave him something to crow about, right?

    :-)

    As for national delegate counts: (1) it's too early for that, and (2) pundits count states won, not delegates, at least for now...

    The score stands at:

    Bernie - 1
    Pete - 1
    Everybody else - 0

    And that's what the story will be tomorrow... as well as the "Dem party establishment starts FREAKING OUT in earnest" storylines, of course.

    As for your fun fact, you're ignoring your own metric -- Trump won all the delegates, didn't he?

    Just sayin'...

    Heh.

    -CW

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    29

    Buttigieg won the delegate count. Sanders won the first-round tally and the second-round tally. That's one kind of win for each of them.

    No, it isn't because it's a stupid caucus.

    Each of them is entitled to make noise about the count they won.

    You're inventing an "entitlement" to claim a win based on a vote tally that heretofore has never existed in Iowa since the inception of its caucuses and right up until the "Great Iowa Debacle of 2020(TM)" just days ago. Caucuses aren't determined in the same way as primaries and never have been, but then I would wager you already know that.

    The second-round tally doesn't matter at the national convention.

    And neither does the first-round "tally" because no vote "tallies" from Iowa will matter at the Democratic National Convention where they'll be counting delegates.

    But the one-delegate difference almost certainly won't either.

    It's a two-delegate difference, and of course it will matter since it's the delegate "tally" that determines the nominee and not the vote count, and if you don't believe me, just check out the Democratic Presidential primaries of 2008 wherein Hillary Clinton was determined the winner due to her larger vote "tally"... oh, wait!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

    I can assure you that the delegates are what they'll be counting in Milwaukee later this year... along with with all those "Bottles of Beer on the Wall," naturally... and if the nominee were being picked today, Bernie would obviously come in second because he's behind in delegates, has never held a lead in the delegate count, and they don't determine a winner based on a vote "tally." :)

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    31

    As Bernie puts it: "I got the most votes... where I come from, that's a win!"

    Heh.

    Bernie wasn't saying that in the 2016 Washington and Nebraska caucuses wherein he won the caucuses while Hillary easily won the primaries in both states when people were allowed to vote in regular fashion.

    At the very least, you've got to admit that he was smart to force Iowa to report the actual caucus vote (after a similar result in 2016) rather than just the SDEs...

    Yes, he was, because he clearly wanted to claim a victory in the caucuses knowing the rural areas wouldn't suit his delegate totals while being able to claim a victory in the primaries where the delegates might not. ;)

    Gave him something to crow about, right?

    Sure did, and if the Democratic Party presidential primaries ended today, Bernie could claim he won both states while at the same time still coming in second place and having to eat crow. :)

    As for national delegate counts: (1) it's too early for that, and (2) pundits count states won, not delegates, at least for now...

    As for national delegate counts: (1) Bernie is actually behind by two delegates, and (2) if Bernie was the delegate leader, there'd be no end to the crowing like a rooster insisting all that strutting and screeching made the sun come up. ;)

    As for your fun fact, you're ignoring your own metric -- Trump won all the delegates, didn't he?

    Yes, obviously, but I wasn't mentioning Poor Donald's vote totals in that context since I too follow your own stated metric and never make hay out of the safe predictions of an incumbent president winning his Party's primaries in order to give me a boost. I was simply mightily amused by the bigly number of Republican voters who took the time to get out in shitty weather in order to cast a vote against their Party's incumbent president while at the same time knowing Trump would win... and I would wager that their middle fingers wasn't the kind of flipping that Trump had in mind at his Monday New Hampshire rant/rally. :)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    From Previous Commentary..

    Russ,

    Funny, the Constitution is an “official document”, and Trump has no authority to alter it! Trump cannot alter court rulings, not change the criminal code at his whim.

    Are you REALLY that dense and stoopid??

    The Constitution is a HISTORICAL document..

    You are really reaching with your hate and bigotry, ain'tcha...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny how people go on and on about the Vanity Vote..

    And then want to ignore the Vanity Vote when it no longer suits their agenda.. :D

    CW,

    You were a Bernie supporter in 2016 Dem Primary.. From the gist of the comments, you appear to be against Bernie..

    A. Is that factually accurate??

    B. What changed??

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Jussie Smollett Indicted Over False Hate Crime Attack By Special Prosecutor; Ex-‘Empire’ Star Back To Court
    https://deadline.com/2020/02/jussie-smollett-indicted-empire-hate-crime-attack-special-prosecutor-1202857747/

    Faking a racist hate crime is WORSE than an actual racist hate crime..

    I hope they throw the book at him..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Check the temp in Joe..

    He's almost done..

    He has to do extraordinarily, ASTONISHINGLY well in SC to even continue...

    But since there are many reports of black Americans abandoning Joe in droves, I think it's safe to say that Joe Biden's campaign is toast...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's obvious what did Joe Biden in..

    The Democrat faux impeachment coup brought Joe's actions in Ukraine to light...

    Democrats were VERY afraid that Bernie would win the nomination..

    Dem's actions brought about the very thing they didn't want..

    Ya'all REALLY have to appreciate the irony.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    After Three Years of Hate, the Dems Have Lost It
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/after_three_years_of_hate_the_dems_have_lost_it.html

    It's simply amazing how much connects the current Democrat Party to the "Big Brother" government of Orwell's 1984..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since Democrats are so demoralized and decimated, I figured a spot of good news will cheer ya'all up.. :D

    Good News from the Apocalypse Desk
    https://tinyurl.com/s8pmagy

    Here is an especially telling quote..

    "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
    -Steven Schneider

    Climate {sic} "scientists" are arguing that the current process is too "honest"... too "transparent"..

    Currently, these so-called "scientists feel the better approach is to lie to people, ignore and cover up all the data that doesn't support the agenda...

    So much for the commitment to "truth", eh??

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    What We Don’t Know About Climate Is Killing Us

    Scientists’ honesty about the uncertainties of global warming is hurting their cause with the people they need to convince most.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-09/climate-change-scientists-honesty-is-killing-their-cause

    Get that?? Honesty in the Global Warming con is a BAD thing and should be avoided...

    Democrats... :eyeroll:

  42. [42] 
    dsws wrote:

    It's a two-delegate difference

    Bernie Sanders 12
    Pete Buttigieg 13
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

    And in NH, they're both at 9.
    (How many links does it take for the software to have a snit about it? I think it was three, but on the off chance that it's two, I'll leave out the NH link.)

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    (How many links does it take for the software to have a snit about it? I think it was three, but on the off chance that it's two, I'll leave out the NH link.)

    It's 2...

    You can post one link and it won't be moderated..

    One exception is a link from National Review.. For some reason the NNL filters don't like a NR link..

    It's a two-delegate difference

    Bernie Sanders 12
    Pete Buttigieg 13

    Hay JL...

    You saying that Trump supporters have a 2+2=5 issues??

    What about Dumbocrats and their 1=2 issue???

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most times, I like to wallow in my genius and gloat when I call things dead on ballz accurate...

    The spectacular collapse of Joe Biden as Democratic frontrunner
    https://nypost.com/2020/02/11/the-spectacular-collapse-of-joe-biden-as-democratic-frontrunner/

    This is not one of those times.. :^(

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    This Is No Way to Beat Trump
    I’m a former Republican who’ll vote for any Democrat. But Iowa has me worried.

    Watching the Iowa caucus this year was a new experience for me. Before the ascendancy of Donald Trump, I was an establishment conservative, one of those liberal New England Republicans whose tribe is now only of blessed memory. The Iowa Republicans seemed a strange bunch who fell for candidates like Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum. The Iowa Democrats seemed irrelevant; I wasn’t going to vote for the person they elevated. I just ignored the whole thing.

    That changed when I quit the GOP, became a charter member of the Never Trump movement, and committed to supporting the Democratic nominee in 2020. I have lashed myself to the party I once opposed, because Trump is a threat to the American system and its Constitution beyond any policy disagreement I could have with any current Democrat. (Not even Bernie Sanders can drive me away; I was one of his constituents for years, and I think he’d be a terrible president, but I will take him over Trump without a second thought.)

    Now I’m fascinated by the Democratic primary process—and Iowa has me worried.

    My anxiety stems from two realizations about the Great Iowa Debacle. First, the result shows a Democratic Party whose base still seems to lack the commitment to beat Trump. Second, and just as important, the complete meltdown of the process was a humiliation for a party whose argument is that Trump is too stupid, corrupt, and incompetent to be president.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/no-way-beat-trump/606109/

    Democrats..

    Their own worst enemy...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iowa’s Democrats seem to think that the best candidate to go up against Trump—that is, to flip votes in five or six states—is either Sanders or Pete Buttigieg. Those names make me feel the chill wind of a coming second Trump term, not just individually, but together.

    Step back, say, to 2004, when the top two choices were John Kerry and John Edwards: Two U.S. senators, one left and one center-left. Not my cup of tea, but I could see the outlines of the rest of the race, and I had some sense of the eventual outcome.

    Not this time. Iowa Democrats came up with a small-city mayor who cannot win statewide office in his own state and whose career has been blistered by people in his own party as emblematic of the neoliberal consultant class. Their other choice was a septuagenarian pseudo-socialist who has spent 30 years in Congress, has no significant achievements to show for his career, and just recovered from a heart attack.

    This does not look like a Democratic Party that knows what it wants, and it certainly doesn’t look like a party that is on fire to go out there, shoulder to shoulder with the biggest coalition it can find, and kick Trump out of the White House.

    Meanwhile, the process—and I am now the last to repeat what millions have already said—was an embarrassment. We have run out of metaphors (dumpster fire, circus, rodeo, other words unprintable in this magazine) for a Rube Goldberg scheme using an app poorly designed by younger people that was not understood by older people. If the Democrats are making the argument that they can be better guardians of the American electoral process after Trump’s chicanery, this was not the way to start.

    Democrats have proven beyond any doubt that they cannot be trusted with the levers of American power and might..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am known on social media for telling people not to panic. In fact, I have infuriated people who insist that panic is the only normal response to Trump, an argument I reject as both unfounded and poor strategy. Trump is the worst thing to happen to the American presidency, but he can be beaten. But if the Democrats are going to shoot random flares into the political skies, then this effort is doomed. Sanders and Buttigieg are good choices if your point is to make a public statement about your progressive politics, or perhaps to showcase your personal willingness to be open-minded about ideology, youth, old age, religion, or sexuality. But the point, unexciting though it is, should be to help Democrats find a candidate who can win over swing voters in Wisconsin and Michigan.

    When I was a Republican, I used to count on the Democrats being, in the words of the GOP consultant Rick Wilson, “holistically bad at politics.” The Democratic wave in 2018 suggested that the party, when faced with a menace on the scale of Trump, could regroup, and I was pleasantly surprised at how moderate candidates led the way to recapture the House.

    As I have said repeatedly.. It was MODERATE Dem candidates, acting as GOP Lite...

    THAT is what led the way in 2018...

    In the era of Democrat "woke" and Party purity???

    None of those moderate Dems can be found..

    Ergo, Democrats are in for a shellacking unheard of in the annals of American elections..

    Can't wait for 4 Nov to roll around..

    The gloating here in Weigantia is going to be EPIC... :D

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Tony Snark (26)-
    I will not apologize for my opinion being about what is important to me- getting the big money out of politics.

    But of course you change that to me making it all about me when it is clearly about getting big money out of politics.

    So this is primary night. So what?

    What is your feeble excuse for the other 364 days a year for the last five years?

    What is your feeble excuse for the next 365 days?

    At about 250 articles a year, that makes it zero out of over 1200 articles and about two comments in the comments section of those articles that were both changing what One Demand was and arguing against that instead of actually addressing what One Demand is.

    If you have no argument against One Demand then just admit it.

    But if you have any let's hear it and discuss it like adults.

    Maybe your not really Tony Snark.

    Brave Sir Robin seems to be a better fit.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Vengeance Is Mine, Saith the President

    John Bolton, Joe Manchin, Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, Doug Jones, Gordon Sondland, Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny Vindman, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Debbie Dingell, New York air travelers, federal prosecutors, the F.B.I. It’s been a mere week since Senate Republicans acquitted President Trump in his impeachment trial — assuring him once and for all that he needn’t fret about congressional accountability — but he has already made significant progress on his enemies list.

    Members of Congress, administration officials, law enforcement officials, residents of blue states — anyone who has ever displeased Mr. Trump is a potential target. Heads may not wind up on literal pikes, but the president is already neck-deep into his reprisal tour.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/vengeance-is-mine-saith-the-president/ar-BBZU0u9

    As I have always said..

    "If yer gonna try and kill the king.. You better KILL the king..."

    President Trump is unleashed.. Trump/America haters have NO WAY to rein him in...

    The faux impeachment coup only made President Trump stronger...

    Surely Democrats would not be stoopid enough to try again, eh??

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Far from denying Operation Vengeance, the White House has been justifying it. In the run-up to the president’s acquittal address last Thursday, the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, assured Fox News viewers that he would be talking about “just how horribly he was treated and, you know, that maybe people should pay for that.”

    Mr. Trump is now hard at work making that happen. And who’s to stop him?

    Exactly...

    Who's to stop him??

    Democrats tried not once, but TWICE to overthrow the fairly, freely, legally, duly, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States...

    They completely and utterly failed BOTH times..

    In fact, with each failure, Democrats became weaker and President Trump grew stronger..

    A sci-fi staple is fighting a monster with lasers or phasers or photon torpedoes or blasters, but the energy only makes the monster grow stronger...

    Looks like that particular staple has come home to roost on the Democrats heads...

    If only someone of clear-headed objective thinking could have looked at the FACTS and warned Democrats that this exact scenario would play out..

    Oh.. wait... :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    (CNN)If you need proof that Michael Bloomberg is the absolute wrong person to lead the diverse Democratic coalition to victory in 2020, look no further than a recently resurfaced 2015 recording of him defending not only the controversial policy of stop-and-frisk but violent, racist policing in New York City. Writer Benjamin Dixon, who supports Senator Bernie Sanders, posted the audio to Twitter on Monday.

    "You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed," Bloomberg can be heard saying. "You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets, put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods."

    "So, one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that is true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that is true. Why did we do it? Because that's where all the crime is," Bloomberg says. "And the way you get the guns out of the kid's hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."

    "Ninety-five percent of murders, murderers and murder victims" are male minorities between 16 to 25, Bloomberg says.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/opinions/bloomberg-recording-racism-stop-and-frisk-filipovic/index.html

    THIS is the guy Democrats are pinning their hopes on???

    "It is to laugh..."
    -Daffy Duck

    :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats, Don't Hit the Panic Button

    Rarely has a political party gone from confidence to gloom as quickly as Democrats did last week. In rapid-fire blows, impeachment foundered in the Senate, President Trump delivered a politically effective State of the Union address, and the Iowa caucuses imploded in a flurry of intraparty recriminations.

    Democrats also began to realize that the economy’s continuing strength will complicate their messaging and that the failed effort to remove Mr. Trump from office may have negative political consequences. Nearly 60% of Americans say they are better off financially than they were four years ago. A much-discussed Gallup survey put Mr. Trump’s job approval at 49%, a personal best, and found rising public approval of and identification with the Republican Party.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/democrats-dont-hit-the-panic-button/ar-BBZTPCE

    Seems to me, it's a PERFECT time to hit the PANIC BUTTON...

    Democrats are decimated and demoralized.. Just as predicted...

    :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those of ya'all who accuse me of just posting Right Wing rags (I am looking at you, Baltasar, where ever you are...) the last 7 comments are from LEFT WING rags...

    Even the dumbest of the dumb Democrats realize that President Trump is going to win re-election...

    But.. You heard it here first.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Even the dumbest of the dumb Democrats realize that President Trump is going to win re-election."

    Nah.

    That's just trying to instill fear in the base because fear is all they have to motivate their base.

    If they really thought they would lose and really cared more about losing than preserving the status quo then they would explore all possible ways that might help them win.

    "Ju know what I'm talking about."
    -Al Pacino

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they really thought they would lose and really cared more about losing than preserving the status quo then they would explore all possible ways that might help them win.

    You would think so, eh??

    And yet, here we are.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Fighters come and go, management stays on."
    -The Harder They Fall

    But don't worry Dems, all you have to do is vote for whichever Toro makes to the championship bout.

  57. [57] 
    dsws wrote:

    From the article quoted in [45]:
    But the point, unexciting though it is, should be to help Democrats find a candidate who can win over swing voters in Wisconsin and Michigan.

    I don't care who wins the unicorn vote. Even if the vote of each individual unicorn counts double, I still don't. Because unicorns don't exist. Swing voters aren't quite as rare as unicorns, but they're rare enough.

    In order to win a general election, there are three things you need to do. You need to get enough of your non-voters to turn into voters. You need to keep your unreliable voters from turning back into non-voters. And then there's the big one: you need to avoid helping the other side do the same job with their turnout voters.

    Then there's the premise that only Wisconsin and Michigan matter. (Or was it Pennsylvania and Florida?) Electoral-college strategy isn't eleven-dimensional chess, but neither is it 1x1 tic-tac-toe (where there's only one square, and whoever gets it is the winner). If your voter-registration drive can put Utah, Arizona, and North Carolina into play, your opponent has to campaign so as to secure those states.

    And every bit of effort you put into registration and GOTV, no matter where, has a chance to help with the rest of the ballot. Even Massachusetts can elect a Republican governor, and even Alabama can elect a Democratic senator.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Swing voters aren't quite as rare as unicorns, but they're rare enough.

    Rare or not, they still decide elections..

    If your voter-registration drive can put Utah, Arizona, and North Carolina into play, your opponent has to campaign so as to secure those states.

    For Democrats, that is a MIGHTY big 'IF'...

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    35

    CW,

    You were a Bernie supporter in 2016 Dem Primary.. From the gist of the comments, you appear to be against Bernie..

    A. Is that factually accurate??

    B. What changed??

    Nothing changed, dipshit; your pathetic inability to comprehend written English is alive and well and particularly rears its ugly head when anyone employs a vocabulary over a Trumpian fourth=grade level.

    Are you REALLY that dense and stoopid?? ~ Mike

    Yes. Yes, you are: EVERY. EFFING. DAY.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    From one of the biggest Democrat cheerleaders..

    Van Jones: 'People are depressed' by primary process, just want 'somebody to vote for against Trump'

    CNN analyst Van Jones on Tuesday said he thinks that Democratic voters "are depressed" and "sad" over the Democratic primary process, saying that it is a "messy, confusing choice" and Democrats "just want somebody to vote for against Trump."

    “I think people are depressed,” Jones said while discussing the large split of Democratic votes. “I think people are sad. I think people can't figure out which of the people they're supposed to vote for, and people are waiting to come out and vote against Trump.”

    "This is a messy, confusing choice," the former Obama adviser continued. "People are sad and depressed, and people just want somebody to vote for against Trump."

    Jones's comments come following Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) winning a tight New Hampshire primary, finishing just ahead of former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). It was also a night where top-tier candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden struggled, finishing fourth and fifth respectively.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/482715-van-jones-people-are-depressed-by-primary-process-just-want-somebody-to-vote

    Democrats are depressed, decimated and demoralized..

    I think it's so cute that some Democrats in Weigantia actually believe that Democrats can beat President Trump in Nov..

    Of course (sans JM) they don't believe it enough to make a wager... :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi calls for investigation into Roger Stone sentencing recommendation
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/482693-pelosi-calls-for-investigation-into-roger-stone-sentencing

    Nancy calls for an investigation!!

    BBBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yea.. Cuz THAT'S worked out so well for Dumbocrats in the past, eh??!! :D

    Trying the same thing over and over and over again, hoping for a different result.. :D

    The very definition of insanity.. :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    The move from the administration comes less than a week after Trump was acquitted by the Senate on impeachment charges. Since then, the administration has dismissed former national security adviser Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, both of whom testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings.

    Dumbocrats totally nuetered themselves with their constant attempts to overthrow the fairly, freely, legally, duly, democratically and Constitutionally elected President Of The United States...

    The only question that remains between now and 3 Nov is how low Democrats can sink.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You need to get enough of your non-voters to turn into voters. You need to keep your unreliable voters from turning back into non-voters. ...you have to avoid helping the other side do the same job with their turnout voters."

    Nah.

    That's not how you win elections. That's how you maintain the status quo.

    But the real gem in your statement is the basis of the problem with the big money two party deception.

    You only seem interested in motivating "your" voters.

    That means just people that buy into the Dems bullshit instead of the Republicans bullshit.

    Why bother to offer the 40% of the citizens that don't vote with motivation to participate and become "your" voters?

    Because it would require actually changing the Dems from bullshitters to being what they pretend to be as those in the 40% that would vote and vote for Dems if there was reason to believe that the Dems were not a false choice that represents the big money interests will not become those voters if all that is being offered is a false choice.

    Something like if the candidate for president and candidates for Congress and the Senate followed the presidential candidate's lead in declaring they will run small donor only campaigns in the 2020 general election.

    Winning elections is important.

    Helping the big money interests elect big money candidates is not winning elections unless you are a big money candidate or donor.

    The way to win elections is to not vote for big money candidates.

    The parties and the candidates should be "your" parties and candidates and not the other way around with the parties thinking voters are "theirs".

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    42

    Bernie Sanders 12
    Pete Buttigieg 13

    So The New York Times is apparently using the delegate count sans the unallocated delegate that will be awarded to the declared winner of the Iowa caucuses, and that's Buttigieg... unless, of course, the recount or recanvass or whatever they're calling it actually does manage to overturn the winner of the SDEs (highly unlikely)... and that's Buttigieg.

    And in NH, they're both at 9.

    Yes... so NH is a tie if we use Bernie's metric of declaring himself the winner of a caucus state which by design declares the winner as the candidate who wins the most delegates ---> Of course not. Primary states don't work that way; Bernie won New Hampshire.

    So to recap:

    * The caucus states determine a winner via delegate count and always have; they didn't even report vote counts until 2020 (and it's FUBAR). Caucuses have always sucked.

    * The primaries determine the winner by votes.

    Bernie didn't win in Iowa no matter how many times he claims he did, and he knows that.

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    43

    It's a two-delegate difference

    Bernie Sanders 12
    Pete Buttigieg 13

    Hay JL...

    Oh... FFS!

    Thank you again for making our case for us. Idiot.

    You saying that Trump supporters have a 2+2=5 issues??

    The poster not named "JL" was responding to my comment, whereupon you once again volunteered to interject with your demonstrable ignorance.

    Thank you again for proving our point; it's the bonus that keeps on giving because you're stupid.

    What about Dumbocrats and their 1=2 issue???

    You cannot help yourselp; you make Democrats look like Einsteins.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    44

    Most times, I like to wallow in my genius...

    I would wager it takes a substantially large high power microscope to locate it.

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    45

    I’m a former Republican who’ll vote for any Democrat.

    Take a number and get in line; they're leaving the Republican Party in droves.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders drags Democrats to the left; will it be 1972 all over again?
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/482718-sanders-drags-democrats-to-the-left-will-it-be-1972-all-over-again

    It will indeed be 1972 all over again.. And 1998 in reverse all over again..

    In other words, it's a FACT that Democrats won't win the White House..

    It's a FACT that Democrats will lose control of the House..

    Once again, I can't WAIT til 4 Nov rolls around.. :D

    The demoralizing and dejection of the Democrats here in Weigantia will be as sweet as candy.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic voters enter the core primary season unsettled and uncertain, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) narrowly won the New Hampshire primary — his second very strong performance — a move that could pull the Democratic Party to the far left and prompt a repeat of its 1972 electoral disaster.

    But the contest between the left and moderate wings of the Democratic Party is far from over.

    Sanders is an avowed socialist whose “free college” mantra has captured the part's youth vote, despite his having turned 78 years old. For decades he has lectured against the problems of big banks, an economy that works for the few, and the need for revolutionary change. It is odd — in a time of such great prosperity, low unemployment and rising wages — that his message would resonate.

    Considering the utter hatred and bigotry of Democrats..

    Not so odd.

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    53

    For those of ya'all who accuse me of just posting Right Wing rags (I am looking at you, Baltasar, where ever you are...) the last 7 comments are from LEFT WING rags...

    I didn't look at all of them, but it takes a special kind of stupid to post a reprinted article from The Wall Street Journal located on the Microsoft Network and claim that it's from a left-wing rag.

    You seriously needn't keep volunteering to supply the endless proof of your bone-deep ignorance and your previously well-documented reading comprehension problems... but you can't help it... because you're stupid.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    57

    If your voter-registration drive can put Utah, Arizona, and North Carolina into play, your opponent has to campaign so as to secure those states.

    This. The action of making them defend states like Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas and use resources (spend money) to defend areas of America where they're not accustomed to having to invest has the equal and opposite reaction of forcing them to abandon some other areas of the country in order to defend those states... whether you flip them or not.

    On the flipside, the GOP has spent decades working hard and coming up with news ways to disenfranchise voters in a myriad of ways, up to and including their draconian voter purges and the GOP criminals in North Carolina collecting absentee ballots of minority voters and throwing them in the trash.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/13/voter-suppression-2020-democracy-america

    Donald Trump's game thus far appears to be to convince the American electorate that he's inevitable in 2020 so might as well stay home because there's no need to vote. This, of course, is utter nonsensical fantasy.

    And every bit of effort you put into registration and GOTV, no matter where, has a chance to help with the rest of the ballot. Even Massachusetts can elect a Republican governor, and even Alabama can elect a Democratic senator.

    Yes, sir... and wouldn't it be great if states like North Carolina, Kansas, and Kentucky could elect a Democratic governor that could help with all that voter suppression of every conceivable kind? Oh, wait!

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Deputy Sheriff Donna Richardson-Below
    DeSoto Parish Sheriff's Office, Louisiana
    End of Watch: Tuesday, February 11, 2020

    And remind the few....
    When ill of us they speak....
    That we are all that stands between....
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Oh, wait.

    A big money Democratic governor will only help stop all that voter suppression that suppresses "their" voters.

    On any suppression that does not effect "their" voters the Dems will only help continue or implement suppression of other voters.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    From the news source that is the only acceptable source in Weigantia..

    6. A brokered convention looms large.

    What this adds up to is a situation where no candidate has a majority of delegates by the time voting has wrapped up. The field simply isn’t winnowing fast enough, and most of the delegates will be awarded in the next six weeks; by the time March ends, only about a third of them will be up for grabs.

    With four or five serious candidates in the race winning delegates in different states (possibly even after they have dropped out) and fairly little separation between the survivors (incentivizing them to stay in), and with multiple Derby horses but no Secretariat, the first real contested convention in decades is a very real possibility. It is possible that such an outcome produces a consensus nominee and strengthens the Democratic Party. It is also possible that such an outcome smashes the Democratic coalition to splinters.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/12/takeaways_from_new_hampshire_142376.html

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I didn't look at all of them,

    That's funny because you have claimed in the past that you don't look at ANY of my links..

    Caught ya in another lie, sugar.. :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    And another one from the only acceptable news source in Weigantia...

    And the Winner of the Democratic Primaries Is … Donald Trump

    The fervent speculation in the media — Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg? — misses the point. There was, in fact, a clear winner of both the Democrat Iowa Caucuses and the Democrat New Hampshire primary: It was President Trump.

    The catastrophic breakdown that prevented the Iowa Democratic Party from reporting the complete results for the better part of a week allowed both Sanders and Buttigieg to claim victory in Iowa, but the lack of an official outcome also prevented either of them from enjoying the momentum boost that an Iowa victory normally confers.

    Not that a victory in this year’s Iowa caucuses would be much to brag about. A mere 170,000 voters participated— about one-third fewer than in 2008, and barely over half the 300,000 voters some Democrat leaders were expecting. The fact that turnout was roughly on par with 2016 is another troubling sign for Democrats — in the subsequent general election, President Trump trounced Hillary Clinton in Iowa, racking up a nearly 10-point margin of victory en route to a convincing electoral college win
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/12/and_the_winner_of_the_democratic_primaries_is__donald_trump_142377.html

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, Republican voters once again rallied behind the president in New Hampshire, handing him an overwhelming victory that underscores the unprecedented degree of unity within the GOP. Donald Trump racked up about 10 times as many votes as the second-place candidate — and even though the outcome was a foregone conclusion, he still managed to draw an astounding 120,000 voters to the polls. That’s more votes than any incumbent president has received in the New Hampshire primary in the past four decades.

    The main takeaway from the first two Democrat primary contests, therefore, has very little to do with which candidate received the most votes. Iowa and New Hampshire revealed that none of them inspire any real enthusiasm among voters, while all of them alienate at least one major faction of the Democrat base.

    Radical leftists such as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren terrify moderate Democrats almost as much as they enrage Republicans and independent voters with their socialist policy agendas. So-called “moderate” candidates such as Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, are still well to the left of the American electorate, yet they’re also reviled by far-left extremists who view them as traitors to the progressive cause.

    As the dust settles, it’s clear that President Trump is the only presidential candidate who can credibly claim victory in the first two primary contests. While the Democrat candidates jockeyed for position amid the botched Iowa results and vilified each other throughout the lead-up to the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump remained above the fray, reminding voters that there is a competent, trusted alternative to the radical Democrats vying to run against him.

    Boy, it really must SUCK to be a Democrat these days, eh?? :D

  78. [78] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    How desperate for attention and praise is Trump when you are heaping praise on him for his “resounding victories” in the first two Republican primaries? To think this a “real” accomplishment, you’d have to ignore the fact that he was running against candidates that barely bother to issue press releases about their campaign.

    As Kick pointed out, the funniest thing about it is that over 10,000 Republicans took the time to vote AGAINST the man-baby in NH, even though he is a shoe-in to win. Maybe he isn’t as popular within Republican circles as Trump desperately wants us to believe he is?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    How desperate for attention and praise is Trump when you are heaping praise on him for his “resounding victories” in the first two Republican primaries? To think this a “real” accomplishment, you’d have to ignore the fact that he was running against candidates that barely bother to issue press releases about their campaign.

    Considering how ya'all are always claiming Republicans are jumping ship "in droves" and that President Trump's base is turning against him....

    The Primary victories PROVE how full of shit ya'all really are.. :D

    As Kick pointed out,

    Everyone knows Kick is a crack whore hooker who is full of shit and hears voices in her head..

    Not your best source...

    Maybe he isn’t as popular within Republican circles as Trump desperately wants us to believe he is?

    Which is proven bullshit by the massive Primary wins..

    You really can't win, Russ.. All you have is hatred, bigotry and bullshit on your side.

    I mean, hell.. YOU were the one who said that President Trump would be removed from office.

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    If yer so sure you are going to be factually accurate about President Trump winning the election and Democrats keeping the House....

    Why don'tcha make a wager on it?? :D

    "Whassa matter, McFly.. Got no SCROT!"

    :D

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    75

    That's funny because you have claimed in the past that you don't look at ANY of my links..

    Wrong, dipshit!

    You seem just determined to step up at every chance you get and volunteer to prove your utter ignorance and the obvious reading comprehension problems that have plagued you in the past and appear will go on unrestrained and without abatement.

    I've claimed in the past that I didn't click on any of your links, and I don't; I have that trait in common with multiple other posters, in fact. However, reading a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and determining to where it leads and the article contained by invoking it aren't all that difficult... unless you're stupid.

    So to recap:

    * Looking and clicking are two entirely different things.

    * You simply cannot help yourself from volunteering to demonstrate your pure unadulterated demonstrable dearth of any functioning brain cells.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've claimed in the past that I didn't click on any of your links, and I don't; I have that trait in common with multiple other posters, in fact. However, reading a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and determining to where it leads and the article contained by invoking it aren't all that difficult... unless you're stupid.

    Apparently, yer stoopid..

    Because two of the links go to MSN, a Left Wing rag..

    The other goes to CNN a definite Left Wing rag...

    Further, you claimed "I didn't look at all of them, but it takes a special kind of stupid to post a reprinted article from The Wall Street Journal located on the Microsoft Network and claim that it's from a left-wing rag."

    You would have to CLICK on the link to know that it reprinted an article from WSJ...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So you got caught in ANOTHER lie...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Crack whore hooker mad now, so attacks on my wife and grandchildren in 3.... 2..... 1.....

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    78

    Maybe he isn’t as popular within Republican circles as Trump desperately wants us to believe he is?

    Yes, sir... and those circles continue to shrink, especially in the suburbs that are shifting to the left. This is how Democrats flipped all those House seats and picked up a net gain of around 40 seats while capturing a history-making percentage of more House votes nationally:

    Democrats: 53.4%
    Republicans: 44.8%

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Everyone knows Kick is a crack whore hooker who is full of shit and hears voices in her head.. ~ Mike

    It appears Mike has gone and named one of the trailer whores after my pseudonym. My fake persona is deeply honored, but as for me?

    Honey Badger don't give a shit! :)

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    82

    Because two of the links go to MSN, a Left Wing rag..

    I looked at one of the links; the one closest to your ridiculous claim. If I had wanted to look at more of them, I could have certainly done that, but I didn't care. I obviously know what MSN is; apparently you don't. I blame your pure unadulterated and freely volunteered ignorance for that.

    The other goes to CNN a definite Left Wing rag...

    See above.

    Further, you claimed "I didn't look at all of them, but it takes a special kind of stupid to post a reprinted article from The Wall Street Journal located on the Microsoft Network and claim that it's from a left-wing rag."

    Yes, I most certainly did claim that. Well then, it seems you are actually capable of posting a factual statement after all... as long as you're quoting other posters and telling them what they know already they said. How pathetic is that?

    You would have to CLICK on the link to know that it reprinted an article from WSJ...

    Only if you're a fucking idiot without any research skills and a wicked kick ass platform like mine that's not available to the general public.

    Any more questions? Feel free to volunteer to keep posting the irrefutable evidence of your ignorance. It is priceless when stupid people fall all over themselves to prove the depth of their ignorance. Don't stop.

    Crack whore hooker mad now, so attacks on my wife and grandchildren in 3.... 2..... 1.....

    You should have named your trailer whore after Honey Badger, Mike. :)

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Which kind of crack whore are we talking about?

    The kind that sells her body for crack or the kind that only sells her crack?

  87. [87] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I mean, hell.. YOU were the one who said that President Trump would be removed from office.

    Yep, that was my hope for how the impeachment trial would end. I still think it was the one chance that the Republican Party had to survive Trump’s destructive presidency without being viewed as entirely complicit for his crimes. They screwed the pooch by putting Trump before defending our Constitution and will deserve everything they will endure when the details of Trump’s criminal presidency become known.

    By the end of the impeachment trial, over 70% of Americans believed that Trump was guilty of the charges listed in the AOI and that he needed to be removed from office. Yes, the Senate acquitted him, but that was pretty much a certainty from the start. Trump’s defense team failed at their job...they didn’t convince the masses that Trump was innocent!

    And to make matters worse for Trump’s chances, there are idiots like yourself out there screaming obnoxiously at how Trump was “completely exonerated” — completely ignoring the facts and offering a dishonest view of reality — which only makes the 70% feel even stronger like Trump must be removed from office!

    Plus, I keep looking at the long game....There are sealed grand jury indictments that the courts are holding until the day that Trump leaves office, which means that Barr cannot stop them, and Trump cannot avoid them!

  88. [88] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The kind that sells her body for crack or the kind that only sells her crack?

    “The kind that only sells HER crack”? Are you suggesting that whores are now specializing in the services they offer? “Mouth whores”, “VaJayJay whores”, and “Handy whores”?

    And if you were still referring to the drug “crack”, i’m pretty sure the second one is just referred to as a “dealer”!

  89. [89] 
    dsws wrote:

    Rare or not, they still decide elections.

    When an election winds up with the difference between the top two candidates being a handful votes out of a gazillion cast, then you can say that practically anything made enough of a difference to decide the election. Even the unicorn vote. But what really decides elections is the biggest difference: who shows up and votes.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]