ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Predicting Nevada's Outcome

[ Posted Friday, February 21st, 2020 – 17:45 UTC ]

We are hereby totally throwing in the towel on our usual "weekly news wrap-up" segment here, because the Democratic primary race is ever so much nicer to focus on. In place of it, we offer up what we wrote back in Friday Talking Points Volume 523, from last April -- a "Generic Weekly News Roundup" with Mad-Lib-style fill-in-the-blanks. Two paragraphs even caught our eye as being not all that far removed from the current week, to wit:

Trump was also in the news this week for firing [HIGH-RANKING ADVISOR], which he claimed was due to [TOTALLY MADE-UP AND CAPRICIOUS REASON]. Multiple White House sources report, however, that the real reason was that [HIGH-RANKING ADVISOR] refused to violate numerous federal laws when directed to by Trump, which sent him into a rage.

...and the slightly-more-tongue-in-cheek:

In the current field, Senator Elizabeth Warren released [WILDLY POPULAR AND DETAILED POLICY IDEA], but the media completely ignored it because it was so intently focused on [LATEST SHINY-OBJECT NON-STORY FROM CAMPAIGN TRAIL]. And also because they had to have time to run the [LATEST ADORABLE CAMPAIGN VIDEO] from [CURRENT MEDIA DARLING CANDIDATE], thirty or forty times each hour. "[CURRENT MEDIA DARLING CANDIDATE] has really locked up the [CAT-LOVERS / DOG-LOVERS / ROCK FANS / STAR WARS FANS / YOUTH ACTIVIST / SENIOR CITIZENS] vote, with this new video clip," said every cable news anchor, simultaneously.

Cynical? Perhaps. Amusing? We hope so, at any rate. But let's push on with the real subject at hand instead, shall we?

Every four years, we run a loose series of columns in which we offer up our predictions for each upcoming primary state. Since this is the first time this election cycle where a primary or caucus falls on a Saturday, this is the first time we're blending our Friday column in with this series. We promise that future such installments will be a lot more succinct and won't take up the whole introductory segment, too.

But we've always thought that pundits should act like sports reporters and publish their predictions of election outcomes before they actually happen. Right or wrong, this provides a record so that readers can judge their accuracy. Before we get to this year's record (so far) and our picks for Nevada, here's our own past record in Democratic primaries. We should mention that in the early primaries we predict more than just the winner, when the field is large enough that coming in second or third still matters, but that later on we just begin picking the overall winner (so as not to boost our own stats with obvious picks for second place when it's a two-person race). In 2008, when the race boiled down to Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton, here's how we did:

[Final 2008 Primary Pick Stats]
Total correct 2008 Democratic picks: 43 for 60 -- 72%
Total correct 2008 Republican picks: 37 for 50 -- 74%
Total overall correct picks: 80 for 110 -- 73%.

In 2012, there was no primary race among Democrats as Barack Obama was renominated as a sitting president. In 2016, the race was between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and here were our final stats:

[Final 2016 Primary Pick Stats]
Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 38 for 52 -- 73%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 37 for 47 -- 79%
Total overall correct picks: 75 for 99 -- 76%.

Overall, we're averaging roughly three out of four correct, which we consider not too bad. But enough resting on our laurels, let's take a look at this year. So far, we've been predicting the top five spots, since the field is so wide this time around. In Iowa, we didn't do so well, correctly calling only two out of five (unless Bernie Sanders turns out to be the winner, which would boost us up to three out of five). But we did a lot better in New Hampshire, and actually called the whole top five in correct order. This has boosted our running 2020 stats to:

Total correct 2020 primary picks so far: 7 for 10 -- 70%.

That's not too bad, for this early on, but Nevada is notoriously hard to predict, so that'll probably go down a bit after tomorrow night. At least we hope it'll be tomorrow night, although there are already a lot of fears that Nevada could screw up the tabulating of the results just like Iowa did (can we please just kill off the whole caucus concept?). But getting back to my picks, there are two reasons Nevada is always so hard to predict -- it is a caucus (where anything can happen), and there just aren't that many state-level polls (which are often proved inaccurate, in the end). One other thing worth mentioning is that Nevada -- like New Hampshire -- is almost certainly going to set a record for turnout. In the early-voting this week, an enormous number of people have already participated. The numbers already racked up in the early voting almost equal the total number of votes cast in 2016, to put it in perspective.

There were two last-minute Nevada polls which were just released, but neither one of them really showed any of the reaction to the Las Vegas debate this week, so that's got to be factored in as well. The first poll only reported numbers for the top four candidates (remember, Michael Bloomberg isn't in the running), which shortchanged both Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer. This poll put Bernie Sanders on top with 32 percent, followed by Elizabeth Warren (17), Pete Buttigieg (15), and Joe Biden (14).

The other poll was more inclusive. Bernie Sanders led this poll too, with 30 percent support. But this time Pete Buttigieg came in second (17 percent), followed by Joe Biden (16), Elizabeth Warren (12), Amy Klobuchar (11), and Tom Steyer (10).

There was one poll released a week earlier, which might show how the race has been moving since then. It put Bernie Sanders on top once again, with 25 percent, followed by Joe Biden (18), Elizabeth Warren (13), Tom Steyer (11), and Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar tied at 10 percent each.

While it's pretty easy to see who is in the lead, second through fifth place is a lot murkier, obviously. Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg each had one second-place showing, but the gap between second place and fourth place isn't all that big. Tom Steyer has been doing a sort of stealth campaign both here and in South Carolina, which is why he ranks so much higher here than he does nationally.

Also making things hard to see clearly, as we mentioned, the post-debate reactions aren't really accurately reflected in any of these polls. And adding to the confusion is the fact that Nevada is a caucus state, so if your candidate doesn't make 15 percent in the first round of voting, your second or even third choice becomes important.

But sometimes, in the prognostication business, you've just got to throw a few darts at the wall to see where they hit. So let's try to do so and call the Nevada results. The easiest and most-obvious pick is that Bernie Sanders is going to win the state. He may pull his highest percentage of the vote so far here, too -- predictions are as high as 40 percent (counting all the second-place votes he might pick up). But it likely will be nowhere near as close as both Iowa and New Hampshire were.

This is where it gets tough. Elizabeth Warren and (more recently) Pete Buttigieg have put together impressive ground games in Nevada, which includes reaching out to the more rural parts of the state in the north. So either or both may do better than expected outside the cities. But most Democratic primary voters are centered around Las Vegas, so the question may still boil down to how each does with Latinos and other voters of color. Both candidates could benefit from late-breaking surges, after this week's debate, too. Most pundits crowned Warren the winner of the debate, for whatever that's worth.

We're going to go out on a limb and predict that in the end Warren edges Pete out for second place. The safer bet would be to swap those two placements, but we were also very impressed with Warren's debate performance and think it may give her the edge she needs.

Trailing the top three will be Joe Biden, but we have no idea what the margin between them will be. It could be very close, and then again Biden's support might just completely crater. But we still think Biden will beat Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer, if only because he ends up making it to the final round of voting in more individual caucuses. We're really going to go out on a limb and predict that Amy Klobuchar loses fifth place to Tom Steyer, based on his impressive campaign investment here and Klobuchar's rather vicious performance at the debate.

Of course, any or all of this could prove to be wrong, so we invite everyone to list their own picks down in the comments, as always. Being Nevada, you've got to take a gamble, right? Here are our final predictions for tomorrow night's Nevada caucuses: (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Elizabeth Warren, (3) Pete Buttigieg, (4) Joe Biden, (5) Tom Steyer. We're not going to count predicting Amy Klobuchar in sixth place, because picking the top five is already almost too broad for the stats. So those are my picks -- what are yours?

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We're handing out both of our awards this week based on the Las Vegas debate, because it was easily the biggest political news of the week for Democrats. Which makes our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week pretty obvious.

Senator Elizabeth Warren was the most impressive one on the stage for two big reasons: she didn't fade into the background (as indeed she has been doing at the last few debates), and she absolutely eviscerated Michael Bloomberg on the issue of his sexism in the workplace. By next week's debate, no doubt he'll have formulated a better response to why he won't release people from those non-disclosure agreements, but this week he went from being a deer in the headlights to being strapped onto the fender of Warren's pickup truck, in one heated exchange. And no, we don't think that's too brutal a metaphor to use.

Elizabeth Warren showed why it is so important to have female presidential candidates, because people like Bloomberg can no longer get away with just skating on some version of "boys will be boys." Not in the #MeToo era, at any rate. To put it another way, while Hillary Clinton likely thoroughly enjoyed watching Warren's takedown of Bloomberg, if the country had been where it is now back in 1992, it is almost certain Bill Clinton would never have been nominated by the Democratic Party, let alone become president. Remember the "bimbo eruptions"? They happened during the primary season.

Nowadays, such things aren't even remotely funny. As Bloomberg is fast finding out. While Bloomberg did marginally better (...only marginally, mind you...) responding to some of the other attacks launched against him in his first debate, he absolutely blew it on the non-disclosure agreement issue. Warren, sensing this weakness, has continued to hammer Bloomberg on it, ever since the debate. We'll have to see what happens to his polling numbers as a result of all this being exposed.

Elizabeth Warren didn't let anyone off the hook in the debate -- she got in some jibes at pretty much every other candidate on stage. Even Bernie. Up until now, there's been a kind of "non-aggression pact" between the two, but Warren knows if she doesn't start doing better soon then her campaign is soon going to be over. So she has nothing much to lose, at this point.

Personally, we could see Elizabeth Warren debating Donald Trump on stage one-on-one, and coming away the victor of such a showdown. We certainly can't say the same about every Democrat running, but Warren can bring the heat when it is most needed, as she obviously proved this week.

We have no idea whether she'll get a big boost from this debate performance (as Amy Klobuchar did in New Hampshire), but she really deserves one. Out of all six of the candidates on stage this week in Las Vegas, Elizabeth Warren was easily the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

This one's pretty obvious, too.

Michael Bloomberg was far and away the easy choice for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. His debate performance was universally panned as one of the worst ever. The headlines were not kind, and neither were the pundits. Bloomberg went down in flames, plain and simple.

He reportedly had done a whole lot of debate prep with what one can only assume were high-priced political consultants, and either (1) he just didn't listen to them, or (2) they didn't throw their worst at him in practice debate sessions. For whatever reason, though, it wasn't exactly money well spent for Bloomberg.

Now all eyes will be on the next debate, which happens next Tuesday night. Will Bloomberg continue to self-destruct on stage? Or will he actually listen to his consultants next time and practice a few rehearsed answers to all the obvious attacks he's going to get? At this point, it's hard to see him turning in a worse performance than he did in Vegas. So maybe "when you're on the bottom, the only way you can go is up"?

Maybe, but then again maybe not. There's another pithy saying which might be more accurate, the one about finding yourself in a hole and trying to dig your way out of it.

Sometimes the worst problem with billionaire candidates isn't that they try to buy elections, but that they're billionaires -- and therefore are simply not used to people telling them what to do or attacking their opinions in any way, shape, or form. We'll see whether all Mike's money can buy him a better performance next time around, but for this week he was obviously the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Michael Bloomberg is technically a private citizen, and our blanket policy is not to link to campaign webpages, so you'll have to search his contact info yourself if you'd like to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 562 (2/21/20)

Before we begin, we'd like to urge everyone to raise their mouse (or touchscreen) in silent salute to the passing of one of the most influential men in the entire history of personal computing -- Larry Tesler. He invented "cut, copy and paste." He was instrumental in the development of the mouse, too. And the "graphic user interface" we all have grown to know and love. One of the most historic meetings in computer history happened when Steve Jobs toured a Silicon Valley facility run by Xerox, where he met Tesler. Out of that one tour came: the Macintosh, the first GUI operating system, WYSIWYG, the mouse, the AppleTalk LAN, and the LaserWriter. In the days when people interacted with all computers using only text and 80-column screens, all of these developments were beyond revolutionary. Tesler was arguably more historically influential than Steve Wozniak -- that's how important he was. So please, everyone, raise whatever graphic user interface you now use in a moment of silence for one of the key men responsible for it all happening in the first place.

Requiescat In Pace. You will be missed.

OK, with that out of the way, we're going to forego our usual talking points this week and just let loose a rant instead (as we are sometimes wont to do). Because there's a phrase making the rounds -- that we claim absolutely no credit for, by the way, because we didn't think it up or anything -- which could become the most important credo of this election season.

 

Vote Blue, No Matter Who

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. The goal in the 2020 election is a simple one: beat Donald Trump. Period.

Does any sane adult out there really want four more years of what we're going through now? Four more years of a man-baby in charge of the nuclear launch codes? Four more years of a narcissistic personality disorder being our sole representative on the world stage? Four more years of watching behavior you wouldn't tolerate in your own small child being somehow passed off as "presidential"? Four more years of cronyism, crooks, nepotism, and more incompetent and unqualified yes-men than you can shake a stick at? Four more years of having to watch Kellyanne Conway on our television screens?

Because that is precisely what we will get if Democratic and independent voters don't speak very loudly -- and with one single voice -- this November. Those are the stakes, and nobody should ever lose sight of that crucial fact.

As in all presidential primary seasons, there are going to be many people who wind up disappointed in the eventual nominee. This is normal, folks. It happens each and every time, in fact. But like in The Highlander, in the end there can only be one. The voters will decide which one that is, or perhaps we'll have to wait until the convention to find out who the Democratic nominee will be. Either way, there will only be one name on the presidential ballot with a "D" after it in November.

I don't know about you, but I'm voting blue no matter who that name turns out to be. I will not be staying home in a fit of petulance. I will not be voting Green or other third party in protest, even if my favored candidate loses. Instead, I will be enthusiastically pulling that lever or marking that box for whichever Democrat is running against Donald Trump. I will gladly and cheerfully vote for Tulsi Gabbard, if it comes to that. I will vote with enthusiasm for Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders. Because at the end of the day, we've still got to beat Trump.

I will admit that my enthusiasm level will be higher for some of those candidates than others. But come Hell or high water, I will be marching down to the polling place in my neighborhood to boldly vote for any of them -- even the ones I now think would be the worst possible nominee. Because no matter how excited or disappointed I am in the choice of nominee, any of them are a thousand times better than Trump, period.

Will the nominee eventually disappoint me after winning the Oval Office? Almost certainly -- and that goes for each and every one of them. Barack Obama was a disappointment in many ways, but I certainly wouldn't trade any of it for President John McCain or Mitt Romney. Even the most progressive Progressive will undoubtedly be disappointed by a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren presidency. Even the most center-of-the-road moderate will become disappointed with Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg, given enough time. Because there is no perfect candidate. Even if "your guy" or "your gal" gets the nomination and goes on to a landslide win over Trump, there will still be disappointments ahead for you. That's just the way the world works, folks. Of course, if your guy or gal doesn't get the nomination, there will likely be a higher level of disappointment in their presidencies, should they win.

I have one thing to say about that: get over it. In every single election since I've been old enough to pull that lever, a large contingency of the Democratic Party has had to hold its nose while voting. Why should moderates be any different, if Bernie Sanders wins? Progressive Democrats certainly have had to unenthusiastically vote for a very long list of milquetoast moderates over the past three or four decades. Perhaps this time the moderates will be the ones in that position, instead of the progressives (for once). Or perhaps not -- perhaps the progressives will be the ones (once again) who have to hold their noses when voting. But no matter which way it works out, the message for the supporters of the other side need a swift reminder: get over it. Get over it, support the nominee, and get out and vote for them this November. Because the stakes are incredibly high this time around.

Vote blue no matter who. I have no idea who came up with that phrase, but it should immediately become all Democrats' rallying cry for 2020. We can't afford any "Party Unity My Ass" PUMAs nonsense or disgruntled Bernie Bros this time around. Because this time it's more than just party unity. This time American democracy itself is in danger. The country might not survive another four years of Trump -- at least not the democracy we all know and love.

Because that's the choice. President Trump or a Democratic president. There is no other option. Staying home and not voting is exactly the same as a vote for four more years of Trump. Last time around, nobody believed he could win. Nobody should make that same mistake again this year.

Seeing a Democrat inaugurated next January is the prize. That prize may not be exactly the one you wanted, but that's just how it goes. Any of the Democrats -- even the one you now consider to be the worst -- will be miles better than a second Trump term. That's an indisputable fact, or it should be, to every Democratic voter.

Vote blue no matter who. That pretty much says it all. Do so as unenthusiastically as you wish, but cast that vote no matter what, because voters' enthusiasm isn't counted -- only the actual votes are. Hold your nose if you must, but vote. The choice is stark and it is critical to the future of this country. So no waffling and no foolin' around -- get out there and vote. For the Democrat. Beat Trump like a drum. Vote blue no matter who.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

146 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Predicting Nevada's Outcome”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    (1) Bernie Sanders
    (2) Elizabeth Warren
    (3) Pete Buttigieg
    (4) Joe Biden
    (5) Tom Steyer

    ... So those are my picks -- what are yours?

    Seems impossible to even make 5 picks since it's a stupid caucus where the winner is declared based on delegates rather than votes. How do I rank 2 candidates who might not receive any delegates? Thoughts to ponder.

    Also, it's a stupid caucus that also allowed early voting (what the hell?) so I factored that in as well:

    1. Sanders
    2. Biden
    3. Buttigieg
    4. Warren
    5. Steyer

    Only the top 3 candidates have a real chance of receiving delegates at all, and I can see a scenario where Bernie takes the majority and Biden and Buttigieg receive a similar number so it's near impossible to rank them.

    I can see Sanders being the only viable candidate at many precincts, but those precincts are also capped at a fixed number of county delegates no matter how bigly the turnout does turn out... and they have early voting in a stupid caucus state which is new and FUBAR.

    The entire thing is a crap shoot in Vegas, and like I said just before the stupid Iowa caucuses:

    So with all this new "stuff" going on, all this mess is fixing to get real -- real fast -- and what in the world could possibly go wrong? :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/01/28/iowa-up-for-grabs/#comment-152637

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    We are hereby totally throwing in the towel on our usual "weekly news wrap-up" segment here, because the Democratic primary race is ever so much nicer to focus on.

    Sorry, CW, but this is the worst thing you could do right now! Trump just freaked out when the House Intelligence Committee was briefed by the DNI’s top analyst on foreign interference in our elections after she told the committee that the Russians were once again interfering with our elections to aid Trump’s campaign.

    Trump wasn’t upset that Russia is once again working on his behalf to get him re-elected — that a foreign adversary is attacking our democratic elections

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: To put it another way, while Hillary Clinton likely thoroughly enjoyed watching Warren's takedown of Bloomberg, if the country had been where it is now back in 1992, it is almost certain Bill Clinton would never have been nominated by the Democratic Party, let alone become president. Remember the "bimbo eruptions"? They happened during the primary season.

    However, the multiple misogynistic allegations regarding Trump during the primaries, the comments about Meghan Kelly and blood, discussing his prick during a presidential debate, the multiple reports about Trump's wandering into the dressing rooms of scores of teenage girls at Miss Teen America pageants didn't stop Trump.

    So you're saying the Republican Party is full of a bunch of inveterate wankers? :)

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Now all eyes will be on the next debate, which happens next Tuesday night. Will Bloomberg continue to self-destruct on stage?

    It's hard to know, but unless all the other candidates are completely out of their minds, they should be aiming at least some of that "Me Too" fire at the front runner for his similar sexual statements of decades past, not unlike Bloomberg being held accountable when he hasn't exactly cornered the market on old men septuagenarians behind debate podiums who've had sexist words published... and that goes equally for Joe Biden and maybe more so. Who knows?

    Let it fly. Have Bernie explain his multiple publications from 1969-1972 where he discusses themes like men fantasizing about abusing women and women fantasizing about being gang raped. Has anyone had a child out of wedlock without contributing financially to their upbringing while their mother lived on welfare? Show of hands. Just Bernie. Mayor Pete, how about you? *shakes head*

    Things like this would definitely be a liability for any of them in the General Election... and with three old men ages 77-78, there's just got to be something out there that the GOP wankers led by Limbaugh and friends would overlook in Trump but will vilify mightily in the Democrats and Bernie.

    Might as well rip off all those old Band-Aids now... run every one of them through the "Me Too ringer." Republicans will.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

    Never heard that one. ;)

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This time American democracy itself is in danger.

    Donald Trump: A guy who believes that accumulation of wealth is the true sign of a man's worth, who easily takes both sides of any issue for political expediency while his true loyalty lies with himself, a confident con no matter which side he's taking, and the biggest threat to our country coming not from without, but from within, a guy who fancies himself a true patriot but who'd turn coat on America and her people in order to satisfy his insatiable greed and lust for power and title... a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

    "Benedict Donald": pronounced "Been A Dick," with a silent "T" like Stephen Colbert.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/13/ftp391/#comment-75291

    I've been sounding the alarms around here since May 2016 and my first post in Weigantia, and I'd wager you thought I was kidding... when I wasn't.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    JL,

    i fundamentally disagree with the popular vote count being about "vanity." the popular vote is a measure of just that, how popular a candidate is overall.

    And that is.. or at least it SHOULD be.. meaningless..

    This isn't high school anymore..

    When you become an adult, in the grand scheme of things, who is and isn't popular is meaningless..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you become an adult, in the grand scheme of things, who is and isn't popular is meaningless..

    Again.. At least, it SHOULD be..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Vote Blue, No Matter Who

    Here's the problem with this..

    It turns ya'all into mindless automatons.. Party slaves who do what they're told..

    It says, that if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them..

    Democrats could nominate a Jeffery Epstein or a Harvey Weinstein and ya'all would vote for them...

    When ya look at it, that is very very VERY sad..

    And that's from a large group that has made 'sad' their daily mantra...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, CW, but this is the worst thing you could do right now! Trump just freaked out when the House Intelligence Committee was briefed by the DNI’s top analyst on foreign interference in our elections after she told the committee that the Russians were once again interfering with our elections to aid Trump’s campaign.

    Nice Try, Russ..

    Russia Collusion as it pertains to President Trump is passe' and so 2016...

    The CURRENT delusion is that the Russians are working to get Bernie elected..

    hehehehehehehehehehehe

    Seriously, dood. Yer beginning to sound like Jackie Gleason reincarnated...

    Get back down to earth.. Enjoy REALITY for a change, eh? :D

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Russians are not one trick ponies. They can walk while chewing gum, and they can pick Bernie among the dems just in case Donald doesn't work out

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russians are not one trick ponies. They can walk while chewing gum, and they can pick Bernie among the dems just in case Donald doesn't work out

    You miss my point..

    Will Russ et al harp on their Russia Collusion delusion if the object of collusion is a DEMOCRAT???

    Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russians have been interfering in our elections since they were the USSR...

    It's only an issue NOW because Democrats lost in 2016...

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Bernie isn't a democrat

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Vote blue no matter who.

    New slogan(?)- same old shit.

    It's that approach that gave us Trump in the first place.

    I will give you credit for at least saying that if a progressive wins the nomination that the shoe should be on the foot for a change.

    But now is NOT the time for repeating the same failed approach.

    Now is the time to tell the big money Dems that if they want our votes that they NEED they are going to have to give us what we want or they will not get our votes.

    When the opponent (and make NO MISTAKE about it the big money Dems are also the enemy) is down is not the time to back off- it is the time to attack.

    Why do citizens always act like people in a horror movie that have the "creature" on the ground but instead of just chopping the creature's head off they drop the ax and run away allowing the creature to get up and kill more people?

    Hey Dems- Let's hide over there behind the chainsaws instead of getting in the running car and escaping!

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie isn't a democrat

    Not factually accurate...

    Search Results
    Bernard Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician who has served as the junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007 and has been a member of the Democratic Party since 2019

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Does any sane American really want four more years of big money controlling our political process?

    Other than Trump and Conway everything else you complained about in that paragraph will continue if a big money Dem wins.

    So you, CW, will vote blue no matter who?

    Does that mean if Bernie or whoever the nominee is declares they will run a small donor only campaign in the general election you will still vote for them?

    If so, then you should consider putting the small donor only commitment idea into the public discourse.

    Just because you and the loyal Dems are impressed with the vote blue no matter who slogan and sentiment doesn't mean that the independents that you need buy into that nonsense.

    You have a choice.

    You can risk repeating the same old nonsense and try to squeak out a victory that impresses the choir but leaves the independents you need depressed and uninspired to vote for Dems or you can try to offer the independents are reason to vote for Dems and add another 6% of the vote of non-voters/third party and independent voters to what the Dems already have and blow Trump out of the water.

    So far you have chosen to risk repeating the same old nonsense.

    If you truly thought beating Trump was the most important thing you would choose the option that could blow Trump out of the water.

    Sorry, CW. But your actions clearly demonstrate that the most important thing to you is maintaining the status quo. Beating Trump is a distant second.

    In that sense we are opposite sides of the same coin.

    The most important thing to me is destroying the status quo and beating Trump is a distant second.

    Beating Trump while maintaining the status quo that created him is not solving the problem.

    And that will lead to another Trump that could be even worse if we survive four or eight more years of the status quo with a big money Dem in the White House.

    Putting a bandaid on a compound fracture and claiming it's all better is not a good long term strategy for healing.

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Bernie isn't a democrat

    Not factually accurate...

    fair enough... bernie doesn't "identify" as a democrat. he's a political trannie.

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    for that matter, so is donald.

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We have established that Bernie is a Democrat and a socialist.

    One thing he isn't is a small donor only candidate.

    Similar to some trannies he dresses in small contribution clothing and thinks it somehow makes him a small donor candidate or at least thinks it fools other people into thinking he is a small donor candidate.

    Unlike Garth, I do not find Bugs Bunny in a dress appealing. :D

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Although Bernie would look more like Elmer Fudd or Mr. Magoo in a dress.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    To explain the "some trannies" reference:

    I know of four kinds of "trannies". There's transexuals and transvestites. There's also transgender.

    As I don't know exactly what a transgender is so I don't really know for sure if it is covered or partially covered under the first two or not.

    The fourth is the Trans Siberian Orchestra.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    for that matter, so is donald.

    Yep.. President Trump governs as an independent...

    Just as I said..

    Some people have a problem with FACTS.......

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Chris is right, the Cherokee Banshee was more than the billionaire could deal with in the "debate" format.

    However, not everybody would define what fauxcahontas accomplished there as a "win". Stridency doesn't necessarily equate to competency!

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    true, the fact that liz could dress mike down doesn't necessarily reflect well on her own capabilities should she win the office of president, but it absolutely reflects poorly on his.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    2

    Trump wasn’t upset that Russia is once again working on his behalf to get him re-elected — that a foreign adversary is attacking our democratic elections.

    Nope. The DNI has now been fired, and yet another one bites the dust... for doing their job and keeping their sworn oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We don't swear an oath to the president.

    Meanwhile, Trump aids and abets, ignores, denies, and claims it's a hoax, while the rubes nod in unison like obedient sheeple and the lying Limbaughs of the world deny repeatedly it happened. Remember the hoax they invented about weapons of mass destruction? Remember that guy signalling Russia to hack his opponent on live television? That wasn't Trump but a clone of the deep state complete with phone, diaper, and orange face. That Mueller Report describing all that obstruction, perjury, and cover-up? Just words. Who reads words anyway? Pay no attention to Roger Stone lying to cover for Trump; that had nothing to do with Trump except all the lying for Trump and going to prison for lying for Trump... nothing whatsoever to do with Trump and Assange and any pardon Stone lied about. Never happened. Putin didn't want Trump to win... unless you believe Vladimir Putin. Putin? Trump doesn't even know who that is. Trump Tower Moscow? Felix Sater? Pay no attention to all that... never happened... just ask the attorney who lied to cover for Trump... not that one, the lawyer already in prison.

    **********

    They can't all be the ignorant rubes they're being played for, can they?

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    9

    Vote Blue, No Matter Who

    Here's the problem with this..

    It turns ya'all into mindless automatons.. Party slaves who do what they're told..

    How long before Democrats will be chanting like mindless drones to jail their opponents and build a wall?

    It says, that if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them..

    Except neither of them are on any ballot in America, and if they were, they'd be running as Republicans.

    Democrats could nominate a Jeffery Epstein or a Harvey Weinstein and ya'all would vote for them...

    Said the guy who voted for President P Grabbing Pedophile Peeping Don Paid Off a Porn Star who routinely brags about grabbing women's privates, crashing multiple dressing rooms of underage girls, which has been verified by said women he's grabbed and said underage girls.

    When ya look at it, that is very very VERY sad..

    And self-awareness isn't exactly your strong suit. :)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except neither of them are on any ballot in America, and if they were, they'd be running as Republicans.

    And if I had said they would be on any ballot in America, you would have a point..

    But I didn't so, as usual, yer full of shit..

    Said the guy who voted for President P Grabbing Pedophile Peeping Don Paid Off a Porn Star who routinely brags about grabbing women's privates,

    Any facts to support that President Trump said that??

    No???

    As usual, you are full of shit..

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    13

    Russians have been interfering in our elections since they were the USSR...

    It's only an issue NOW because Democrats lost in 2016...

    Wrong. No other candidate in American history has publicly called on Russia to hack his political opponents while at the same time knowingly being in negotiations with Russia to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. While a presidential candidate, Trump secretly signed an 18-page letter of intent to build a Trump Tower in Moscow... dated October 28, 2015, the exact same day of the third Republican presidential debate.

    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/12/18/attachment.1.pdf

    Meanwhile, there were news reports that Russia was interfering in our election, while Trump misled and outright repeatedly lied to voters: "I have nothing to do with Russia" (July 2016). "I don't deal there," he said (October 9 residential debate). Trump repeatedly said he would consider easing sanctions placed against Russia for its violent seizure of Crimea while he simultaneously routinely questioned America's continued role in NATO, our longstanding bulwark against Russian aggression that Putin despises and has been working to weaken for decades.

    And that's just an ever so light scratching of the surface of the publicly available information, while still under investigation are Trump's many co-conspirators, and their obstruction in the coverup is landing them in prison. See Mueller Report Volume II for the multiple-lane map to Obstruction Highway. Trump needs to pardon his co-conspirators to protect himself; Stone never has been very good at keeping quiet. It'd be a shame if that landed them in prison... oh, wait.

    Meanwhile, your false equivalency is alive and well.

  30. [30] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The PBS Newshour took up the reports of new, or more, or on-going, or whatever, Russian meddling in the 2020 presidential election last nite, in the Brooks & Shields segment.

    Brooks (no friend of Trump) said he was very skeptical of the opinion that anybody ever changed his political ideology on the basis of the dreaded 'misinformation' floating around the internet.

    Anybody who believes (and many do) that Bernie backers, the farthest left of all the lefties, voted for Trump in 2016 because of false Russianinternet rumors/propoganda about Hillary, has simply lost contact with rationality.

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So the Dems have been offering substandard candidates for some or much of their constituency for decades and people are just supposed to get over it?

    Get over it applies to things that happened in the past. It does not apply to things that are still happening.

    The advice should be do something about it!

    But no let's just advise people that are being abused to just get over it.

    After all, getting kicked and stratched and punched and bitten is not as bad as your other choice of getting beaten with brass knuckles and a baseball bat.

    So just get over it.

    You need to get over getting over it and do something about it instead of surrendering.

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    28

    And if I had said they would be on any ballot in America, you would have a point..

    So that wasn't you who insisted, and I quote: "... if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them." So good luck explaining to the Democrats in Weigantia how they're "all" going to vote for their Democratic nominee that isn't listed on any ballot in America.

    But I didn't so, as usual, yer full of shit..

    Looks like your head is full of shit since connecting those very large dots proved too difficult for you.

    Any facts to support that President Trump said that??

    I didn't quote him, dipshit, are you seriously asking if there are facts that prove Trump brags about grabbing women's privates?

    I guess "denial" really ain't just a river in Egypt... so after you pull your head out of President P Grabbing Pedophile Peeping Don Paid Off a Porn Star's bigly fat ass cavity and then crawl yourself out from under that obvious giant rock you're under, you should probably Google it: "Pussy Trump"

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    So that wasn't you who insisted, and I quote: "... if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them." So good luck explaining to the Democrats in Weigantia how they're "all" going to vote for their Democratic nominee that isn't listed on any ballot in America.

    If you can't actually exhibit some reading comprehension, yer too much of a hopeless case for me to spell it out for you...

    I didn't quote him,

    Exactly my point..

    I caught you spewing bullshit.. AGAIN...

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    30

    Brooks (no friend of Trump) said he was very skeptical of the opinion that anybody ever changed his political ideology on the basis of the dreaded 'misinformation' floating around the internet.

    Did Brooks factor in all those disgruntled political ideologues that might have just stayed home after viewing said misinformation floating around on the Internet that was designed to drive a wedge between the differing factions of Democrats and depress turnout? I would wager not.

    Anybody who believes (and many do) that Bernie backers, the farthest left of all the lefties, voted for Trump in 2016 because of false Russian internet rumors/propoganda about Hillary, has simply lost contact with rationality.

    There were definitely some "Bernie backers" who voted for Trump in 2016 -- think of them as the anti-establishment voters if that helps -- just as sure as there were definitely some Rubio and Kasich backers who voted for Clinton in 2016... it worked both ways.

    We'll never know, and it really doesn't matter. The bottom line is that crimes were knowingly committed and knowingly covered up in the 2016 election... and are continuing into this election without abatement. The President of the United States of America -- regardless of Party -- should be doing everything in their power to protect our democracy rather than actively referring to Russian interference as a hoax when he knows damn well he's covering up and lying and therefore continues the aiding and abetting of that interference. Full stop.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    33

    If you can't actually exhibit some reading comprehension, yer too much of a hopeless case for me to spell it out for you...

    It says, that if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them.. ~ Mike

    You were the one claiming Democrats would "all" be voting for them and then whined when I said none of them will be on the ballot. Meaning: Democrats obviously already know who the Democratic candidates are for which they are saying the phrase: "Vote Blue, no matter who." And not a single one of them are any of those guys you listed so we obviously won't be voting for any of them.

    And if I had said they would be on any ballot in America, you would have a point.. ~ Mike

    Nice of you to concede "a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler" would be a Republican, though. However, you definitely said Democrats would be voting for them, and that obviously can't happen if they're not on any ballot. Connecting huge dots just isn't your strong suit.

    Exactly my point..

    So your point was I didn't quote Trump and therefore no facts exist that he said what I described? I'm not going to quote Your Worship just to prove he said something you already know he said.

    I caught you spewing bullshit.. AGAIN...

    If I had wanted to spew bullshit, I could have easily quoted President P Grabbing Pedophile Peeping Don Paid Off a Porn Star, and me not quoting him doesn't change the fact he said it... so I reiterate: Google is your friend... but I'm not your huckleberry.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    You were the one claiming Democrats would "all" be voting for them and then whined when I said none of them will be on the ballot.

    Once again.. You are totally and completely full of shit..

    So your point was I didn't quote Trump

    My point was that Trump didn't say what you said he said.

    So, once again.. Yer full of shit..

    Too much crack in yer diet, apparently...

    Attacks on my wife and grandkids in 3... 2.... 1....

  37. [37] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Based on the admittedly very little bit of the Dem debates I've watched, I'd say the Dems do not need any help whatsoever from the Russians "driving wedges between their differing factions".

    They're handling that nicely all by themselves!

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Based on the admittedly very little bit of the Dem debates I've watched, I'd say the Dems do not need any help whatsoever from the Russians "driving wedges between their differing factions".

    They're handling that nicely all by themselves!

    Yep... In Spades....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man, I am gonna have SO MUCH FUN around here when Democrats lose the House and President Trump wins re-election in Nov.. :D

    It's gonna be like Shangra-la and Disney World all rolled into one.. :D

  40. [40] 
    dsws wrote:

    There's no good reason for picking a bunch of people and saying their votes don't matter. Large state, non-swing state, wrong caucus site, whatever: it all stinks.

    Everyone's vote should matter. That means no winner-take-all.

    Strength of preference should matter too. So should second- and third-choice preferences.

  41. [41] 
    dsws wrote:

    Ok, here are my guesses. I'll be different, for the heck of it. I haven't made anything resembling an attempt at informed prognostication.

    1. Sanders
    2. Buttigieg
    3. Biden
    4. Klobuchar
    5. Warren

    I like Elizabeth Warren. I think she would be a good president. I think she at least has the potential to be a good general-election candidate, who could connect to people from the middle of the country (she's from Oklahoma). But I have magical powers, in a negative way. If I like someone, that means she can't be nominated.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS...

    So, would you say my early estimates of Biden's chances of winning the Primary was factually accurate??

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment backfire? Schiff opponent launches new ad thanking him for helping Trump

    Eric Early, a Republican vying to oust Rep. Adam Schiff from office, launched his first TV ad Saturday mocking the "limelight"-seeking California Democrat for leading an unsuccessful impeachment crusade.

    The 30-second spot features several people telling Schiff "thank you."

    Early, a Los Angeles attorney running against Schiff for Congress, says Republicans are grateful that Schiff's impeachment backfire has boosted President Trump's likelihood of winning another four years in office.

    “I thanked Adam Schiff for helping President Trump ultimately get reelected to the presidency," Early, 60, told Fox News. "President Trump’s approval ratings have never been higher since this impeachment. We can thank, in part, Adam Schiff for that."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-backfire-schiff-opponent-launches-new-ad-thanking-him-for-helping-trump

    WOW.. :D

    Talk about adding insult to injury... :D

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    I will not be able to live-comment the NV results tonight, due to the fact that I won't be here, I'll be up in San Fran watching a concert tonight. Sorry!

    Entrance polls looked good for Bernie, though...

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll be up in San Fran watching a concert tonight.

    Watch where you step.. San Fran has a human feces problem.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie Sanders just declared war on the Democratic establishment
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/politics/bernie-sanders-2020/index.html

    Blue On Blue civil war!!! Love it!!!! :D

    The ONE person that Victoria DOESN'T want to win the Dem primary is gonna bring home the gold!!! :D

    LOVE IT!!!! :D

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    if you're going to nominate stalin, make sure to correctly use the oxford comma.

    No one said anything about Stalin whatsoever.. :D

  49. [49] 
    dsws wrote:

    So, would you say my early estimates of Biden's chances of winning the Primary was factually accurate??

    I don't remember what you said. It's on me to acknowledge that I was way off. If I'd made a bet with you, it would be on me to keep track if you were right. But other than that, I'm not keeping score.

  50. [50] 
    dsws wrote:

    No one said anything about Stalin whatsoever.. :D

    Fie, heretic. Stalin has been mentioned in the traditional example of Oxford comma usage since time immemorial. (Or at least I don't remember how long.)

  51. [51] 
    dsws wrote:

    And it's always a good time to mention the Oxford comma.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fie, heretic. Stalin has been mentioned in the traditional example of Oxford comma usage since time immemorial.

    Fair enough..

    Stalin wasn't mentioned whatsoever in the context of a nomination or a vote..

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[9] (as opposed to M-9)

    It says, that if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them..

    @m[48]

    Stalin wasn't mentioned whatsoever in the context of a nomination or a vote..

    can you understand now why i thought it might be appropriate to mention the oxford comma?

    JL

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    36

    My point was that Trump didn't say what you said he said.

    It's established that I did not quote him, dumb-ass, but if it's your claim that President P Grabbing Pedophile Peeping Don Paid Off a Porn Star has not bragged about grabbing women's privates and crashing multiple dressing rooms of underage girls, then your ass really has been living under a great big rock along a wandering bank of denial.

    Attacks on my wife and grandkids in 3... 2.... 1....

    Angry old man describes his typical abusive evening; although, still far too much information because Honey Badger and nobody else gives a shit.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    37

    Based on the admittedly very little bit of the Dem debates I've watched, I'd say the Dems do not need any help whatsoever from the Russians "driving wedges between their differing factions".

    Oh, where were you in 2016 when this odyssey began? This crap isn't new and is all part and parcel of the continuing shenanigans and wedge driving of the prior election.

    They're handling that nicely all by themselves!

    Oh, but they did have help... lots and lots of help; this is merely the continuing saga of the same song, second verse; it's gotta get better 'cause it can't get worse. Oh, wait... sure it could get worse.

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Nice Try, Russ..

    Russia Collusion as it pertains to President Trump is passe' and so 2016...

    The CURRENT delusion is that the Russians are working to get Bernie elected..

    It’s more that Russia is trying to help Bernie win the nomination...which is what Trump wants to happen because Trump thinks Bernie is probably the only Democrat that he can beat.

    Here’s the strange thing: Bernie has already spoken out saying that he does not want Russia interfering with our elections at all — something Trump does not seem to want Russia to hear...coming from him, at least!

    “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement. “My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”

    Bernie also said:

    Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia. Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.

    Trump is a coward and a traitor... and yet you still support him!?!

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    46

    The ONE person that Victoria DOESN'T want to win the Dem primary is gonna bring home the gold!!! :D

    As I have noted previously, it's always a special bonus when it's you highlighting your very own ever-present cluelessness:

    Bernie is done.. His campaign is over..

    ~ Mike

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/10/04/ftp545/#comment-146328

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

    Now leave me alone, please. Me and Barack Obama, the Clintons, and all those Democrats are busy planning our escape from your cranium. After years of searching the area, none of us has seen even a solitary sign of intelligence, but keep rolling your eyes, maybe you'll find a brain back there.

  58. [58] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    As Sanders solidifies his 'front-runner' status, the Republicans seem to have decided that 'socialism' is the scare word for 2020. So far the Democratic primary/caucus results show that it is ineffective. The reason: spiraling health-care costs in the ONLY first-world country without universal health care and Sander's promise of 'Medicare for All'.
    We've all seen the talking-heads throwing eggs at the idea, but it remains a reasonable solution to ALL American voters (except those with an 'I've got MINE!' attitude). None of the other candidates - even Warren's "I have a plan!" - cuts through the misinformation as effectively.

  59. [59] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Here's hoping that Sanders chooses a young, vibrant progressive as his vice-president; I sadly admit that disqualifies Buttigieg.
    I was stunned to see that Trump is the YOUNGEST of the bunch!
    '..the advanced age of four leading contenders for the presidency—Donald Trump, 73; Bernie Sanders, 78; Mike Bloomberg, 78; and Joe Biden, 77. None of the four amigos is likely to croak tomorrow, but the actuarial odds are bending against them. One scholar on aging reports that Trump has an 84.8 percent chance of surviving a 2020 term, while Sanders, Bloomberg and Biden rate several percentage points worse.'
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/19/2020-running-mate-vp-bloomberg-biden-bernie-sanders-trump-old-116117

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    can you understand now why i thought it might be appropriate to mention the oxford comma?

    I can't speak to the Oxford comma as I am not as edumacated as much as you or DSWS..

    " Well he don't know talkin' good like me and you, so his vocabulistics is limited to "I" and "am" and "Groot," exclusively in that order. "
    -Rocket, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

    But, I CAN speak intelligently to what I meant..

    While I DID bring up the ATTRIBUTES and attitudes of Josef Stalin, I did not bring up the man himself..

    Note what I said..

    It says, that if Democrats nominate a Josef Stalin or an Adolph Hitler, ya'all are going to vote for them..

    Logically speaking, I am pointing out that you Democrats would vote for a guy like, a guy with the attributes and attitudes of someone like Stalin or Hitler..

    Ergo, it doesn't mean I am saying that those two historical scumbags are actually going to be in the race, as Victoria always whines and cries about..

    See the point??

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    It’s more that Russia is trying to help Bernie win the nomination...

    Which is the first step in getting Bernie elected POTUS..

    Did you fall and hit your head again???

    Trump is a coward and a traitor... and yet you still support him!?!

    Again, your opinion is based SOLELY on hatred and bigotry and, as such, is meaningless..

    I am also constrained to point out that your messiah Odumbo is coward and a traitor and you support him..

    So, by yer own standards, you are actually guilty of what you falsely accuse me of..

    Funny how that ALWAYS is the case.. :D

    As I mentioned above, it's going to be heaven here in Weigantia when Trump wins re-election and Democrats lose the House.. :D

    I have to wonder how ya'all are going to handle all the shame and embarrassment of being WRONG.. AGAIN.. :D

    I shouldn't worry.. Ya'all have had LOTS of practice in dealing with shame and embarrassment of being wrong.. :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Sanders solidifies his 'front-runner' status, the Republicans seem to have decided that 'socialism' is the scare word for 2020.

    I can forgive you because yer obviously not an American, but socialism has ALWAYS been on the outs here in this country...

    The reason: spiraling health-care costs in the ONLY first-world country without universal health care and Sander's promise of 'Medicare for All'.

    Venezuela gives us all we need to know about how well socialism works..

    Here's hoping that Sanders chooses a young, vibrant progressive as his vice-president; I sadly admit that disqualifies Buttigieg.
    I was stunned to see that Trump is the YOUNGEST of the bunch!
    '..the advanced age of four leading contenders for the presidency—Donald Trump, 73; Bernie Sanders, 78; Mike Bloomberg, 78; and Joe Biden, 77. None of the four amigos is likely to croak tomorrow, but the actuarial odds are bending against them. One scholar on aging reports that Trump has an 84.8 percent chance of surviving a 2020 term, while Sanders, Bloomberg and Biden rate several percentage points worse.'

    There ya go..

    We need to keep the young turk in office!! :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    James Carville Says People Who Think Bernie Will Beat Trump Are as ‘Stupid’ as Climate Deniers
    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/james-carville-says-people-who-think-bernie-will-beat-trump-are-as-stupid-as-climate-deniers/

    Blue on Blue Civil War!! :D

    "I'm lovin it..."
    -McDonalds

    :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC Melts Down As Bernie Sanders Projected To Win Nevada Caucuses
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/22/msnbc-melts-down-bernie-nevada-caucuses/

    Anything that causes the Democrat Water Carrier MSMBC to meltdown is a good thing for this country.. :D

    And Sanders winning the Dem nomination is ALSO a good thing for this country..

    It GUARANTEES a President Trump victory in Nov..

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    }}}}}The ONE person that Victoria DOESN'T want to win the Dem primary is gonna bring home the gold!!! :D{{{{{

    As I have noted previously, it's always a special bonus when it's you highlighting your very own ever-present cluelessness:

    The fact that I was wrong in my Bernie prediction doesn't preclude the hate you feel for Bernie and the joy I will feel when he wins the Dem nomination.. Something else I can rub yer nose in til the end of time.

    You are on record as saying Bernie can't win..

    Time will prove you wrong...

    Just as it will when President Trump wins re-election and Dims lose the House.. :D

    It's gonna be sheer heaven for me here in Weigantia come 4 Nov 2020... :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave’

    When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.

    In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.

    Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.

    “Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush.
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuit

    Ooooo, that's just GOTS ta piss off Democrats!! :D

    And, when Democrats finally succeed in their goal of killing RBG, President Trump will have a THIRD pick to add to the SCOTUS.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC's Chris Matthews compares Sanders' Nevada win to France's fall to Nazis, draws calls for his firing
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-chris-matthews-compares-sanders-nevada-win-to-frances-fall-to-nazis-draws-calls-for-his-firing

    HA!!!!

    How do you Democrats like Nazi comparisons, eh!?? :D

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch!!! :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC’s Chris Matthews drew ire on social media Saturday after he compared the Nevada Democratic caucus victory of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders to France's fall to the Nazis during World War II.

    “I'm reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940," Matthews said during the network's caucus coverage. "And the general calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over,’ and Churchill says, ‘How can it be? You got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It's over.’”

    The backlash on Twitter was swift and severe, with many commenters calling for Matthews to resign or be fired. Many pointed out that Sanders' family includes survivors of the Holocaust.

    Nazi comparisons are no fun when ya'all are on the receiving end, eh?? :smirk:

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:
  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders eviscerates the conventional wisdom about why he can't win

    In Nevada, he exposed his main rivals as weak, divided, and grasping at increasingly tenuous arguments about their viability.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/22/bernie-sanders-nevada-2020-election-116762

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Democrats would choose Party Purity over electability....

    Oh wait.. :D

    Ya see.. That's what happens when ya take a FACT-based, a REALITY-based approach to predictions..

    Instead of a WISH-CASTING approach to predictions..

    To be fair, I myself have had my fair share of wish-casting predictions..

    But NOT when it comes to President Trump and his opponents... :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    LAS VEGAS — On Saturday in Nevada, Bernie Sanders laid waste not just to his five main rivals but also to every shard of conventional wisdom about the Democratic presidential primaries.

    You could see the dominoes of punditry cliches falling inside the caucus rooms. At the Bellagio Hotel, which held one of several “Strip caucuses” meant to be easily accessible to hospitality workers along Vegas’ main drag, 75 Sanders supporters gathered along the wall of a ballroom.

    The powerful Culinary Union, which opposes Sanders’ Medicare for All plan and spent the final weeks of the campaign in a high-profile fight with his campaign, was supposed to weaken him. And yet the Sanders’s ranks were speckled with red-shirted Culinary members. (Overall, Sanders won 34% of caucus-goers from union households, besting all of his rivals.)

    Party Purity, not electability...

    Wins the day....

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hooray for Bernie for standing up against those pesky meddling Russians that are trying to undermine our democracy by dividing us and any other foreign powers trying to do so.

    (insert Hillary on the Scooby Doo set saying "We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling Russians.")

    Now if Bernie would only stand up against the big money interests that are trying undermine democracy by trying to divide us by declaring he will run a small donor only campaign in the general election.

    Aren't the representatives under an oath to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic?

    "I got the Homegrown blues again
    I got the Homegrown blues again
    I've been planting my seeds
    but I just can't seem to win
    You know I still got hope
    I'm gonna do it over again."
    Homegrown Blues
    My Friends Band

    Come on CW. I have offered you the magic beans and am not even asking for you to give me your cow.

    All you have to do is plant them and see if they grow.

    While a cow only gives milk, there are many things that can be made from milk.

    Like ice cream that you can have with your pie.

    And the big money politicians will not stop taking big money until citizens demand it.

    They are not going to buy the cow when they are getting the milk (our votes) for free.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden’s possible resurrection in South Carolina also makes the case for Michael Bloomberg tenuous. Bloomberg got into the race by arguing he would be a Bernie slayer if Biden collapsed. But Biden’s stubborn refusal to collapse completely means that Bloomberg is now more likely to play the role of assisting Sanders’s march to the nomination — by keeping Biden wounded and the non-Sanders candidates further divided — rather than preventing it.

    The race is Sanders’ to lose. He’s the best funded non-billionaire candidate. He has the best organization. He is winning the broadest coalition.

    And Bernie is also the one candidate that President Trump REALLY wants to face.. :D

    With Bernie, President Trump's predicted Saint Ronald Reagan-esque landslide is all but assured... :D

    So..

    GO BERNIE!! GO!!!! :D

    I fully support Bernie in his quest to win the Dim Primary.. :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    You Bernie Suckers Are Going to Get Fooled Again

    If you are dumb enough to slobber over a socialist then you’re already inclined toward being a hapless mark, so it should be no surprise that you Bernie dorks are about to get screwed over again by the Democratic Party. Here’s how it’s going to go: Because you are stupid – you support a socialist, so you are presumptively stupid – you think that if you work really hard and win the votes the establishment creeps who own the Democratic Party are going to let you have a say. But, like last time, you won’t get a say. You’ll work real hard – maybe if you worked really hard at actual jobs you wouldn’t be half-wit socialists – and you’ll win the votes, and all your dreams will die as you end up with the nomination going to a malignant midget multi-zillionaire.

    I don’t know exactly how they are going to do it – more convenient caucus kerfuffles, super-delegates, shenanigans at the convention – but there is no way your masters will ever let you win. Like I said, you’re socialists, and therefore stupid, so you will get cheated and you will end up having to vote for the Verne Troyer of American big-money politics.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/02/20/you-bernie-suckers-are-going-to-get-fooled-again-n2561582

    I just LOVE Kurt Schlichter... :D

    He is the Right Wing version of CW.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, at this point, you probably have some complaints about this column. By complaining, you can temporarily distract from the indisputable fact that your own foolishness has put you in the position of being crushingly humiliated by the Democratic elite once again. Let me briefly address your whiny protests.

    Yes, I say “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. This is because it’s a very bad thing. Like, to the tune of 100 million corpses bad thing. I’ve actually lived in the ruins of socialism and you, well, you had a man-bunned sociology TA tell you it was swell. And you believed him because you are a dupe. Be glad that I am assuming that you are stupid instead of the only other reason one would ever cavort with these blood-stained goblins: that you are evil.

    But he’s a “democratic socialist,” you interject, because you are stupid. Would you feel fine with a “democratic Nazi?” Actually, you probably would, since Nazis are just a genre of socialist with white and black added to the color palette.

    Heheheheheheheheh... Gods, ya just HAVE to love Kurt Schlichter!! :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    And your next protest will be that Donald Trump is worse than Mini Mike. In fact, you’ll say, Trump is like Hitler combined with…well, Hitler is the only dictator you don’t like, so we’ll just stick with “He’s literally Hitler for real!” Again, you have been suckered. If you were actually raging against the machine rather than aspiring to be a cog in it, you would back him. Now, you may not like it, and you may be too dumb to see it, but Trump is the only disruptor of the establishment in this race. Short Stuff’s gnome-ination is designed to re-establish the establishment. And mark my words: you’ll help him do it.

    Yeah, I bet Wall Street is quivering in its collective Guccis over the muffled pitter-patter of the tiny little footsteps of the approaching Bloomberg administration. Bloomberg is not just an eager supporter of the globalist vision but a leading advocate, the Dwarf King of Davos. Trump, not so much. But you’ve been told to hate Trump, and like obedient little ants, you hate him.

    In fact, you hate Trump so much that you will vote for the polar opposite of your crusty commie hero even after your preference has been torn from your soft little hands yet again. If you wanted to burn down the system, Trump would be your man. But you don’t...not really. You just want some scraps, like getting out of your loans or making other people pay for your doctor and you’ll be happy. That’s why you’ll give your general election vote to the Stop ‘N Frisk Doughboy even as you assure yourself that the guy who got minority unemployment to record lows is the big, bad racist in this race.

    You’ve been had. You’ll cry, but you’ll still go along with the scam as this all plays out.

    It's like Schlichter is living in the heads of Dumbocrats everywhere!! He knows them SO WELL!!! :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, you bought into the idea that another four years of prosperity and peace under Donald Trump is much, much worse than reinstalling the party apparatus that has screwed you over in the last two cycles. You’ll ignore the economy, the lack of new wars, the trade rebalancing, and all the other stuff and instead focus on what your masters have commanded you to focus on: that Trump tweeted something mean. Oh, and Russians.

    And here’s why you will let the Democrat puppetmasters succeed. It’s because you are stupid. Now, you could stop being stupid. You could refuse to play along. You could even insist Bernie run as a third-party candidate. I like that because it guarantees Trump II: Fossil-Fuel Generated Electric Boogaloo. But it would serve your interests too by forcing the party to recognize and respect you instead of assuming you’ll fall into line once again. But you won’t. You’re all talk and no revolution. Take off that Che t-shirt and put on one with Mini Mayor’s pouty little mug on it. He’s your man. You’re all Bloomberg Bros. Just give it time.

    You’re saps, and you’ll take whatever you’re given and tell yourself you like it.

    Speaking of what might happen if America’s urban dummies were foolish enough to elect an out socialist, check out my latest conservative thriller, Collapse, along with the other entries in the best-selling series, People's Republic, Indian Country, and Wildfire. America breaks in two as leftist foolishness, and evil, becomes unbearable. Action and liberal bashing ensue.

    Kurt Schlichter tells it like it is.. :D

    Ya see, we don't have to worry about bashing Democrats because President Trump DOESN'T NEED Democrat supporters to win the election..

    But Demorats **DO** need Trump Supporters to win..

    How awesome is that!!??? :D

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, it's bernie by a LOT. biden in second, but not particularly close. carolina looms large. and as for donald... well, does anyone wonder why he hasn't mentioned coal miners lately?

    Why would you lie about how much coal you have?
    Why would you lie about something dumb like that?
    Why would you lie about anything at all?
    ~vampire weekend, oxford comma

    wow were those guys some Nostradamus or what?

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/18/the-myth-of-u-s-energy-independence-has-gone-up-in-smoke/

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Bernie socialist stuff was hilarious!

    When someone says that Bernie (or Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, etc.) are socialist or promoting socialism it tells me one thing about their opinion on whatever issues they are talking about.

    They have decided not to think about the issue before forming an opinion.

    If they can label something or someone as socialism or socialist and socialism is bad then anything they are proposing is bad so they don't have to think about it they can just be against it.

    While I will listen to their opinion it will be considered only under the knowledge that the person has decided to not think before forming an opinion.

    There may be some minor similarity to CW, but your guy is as far away from CW who is holding a distant second as CW's thinking maintaining the status quo is most important keeps the importance of beating Trump a distant second in importance to maintaining the status quo.

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as i've said before, donald's presidency is a lot less like adolf hitler than warren g. harding. he campaigns a LITTLE like hitler, but he governs a LOT like harding.

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and one of these days CW, you will finally give pie the chance it needs.

    people are already overwhelmingly in favor of pie, and i think i have been posting enough valuable information to warrant some attention in an article. how can pie catch fire nationwide as a political movement if it isn't first covered by members of the media, like yourself? meet your responsibility! eat pie! vote! or are you simply too enamored of cake to make room for something different?

    JL

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    he campaigns a LITTLE like hitler,

    No more so than any other candidate..

    Barack DEMONIZE FELLOW AMERICANS Obama for example...

  83. [83] 
    dsws wrote:

    Apparently, we were all wrong, and the results are

    1. Sanders

    Everyone else seems to have fallen into the memory hole.

  84. [84] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NYpoet (81)-
    That's big cake.

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I guess when your living/ideology depends on cake you just say let 'em eat cake.

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    40% of eligible voters are not responding to the offer of cake.

    Some may respond if the Dems offer pie.

    And the Dems that are enamored with cake have made it clear they will eat anything other than the racoon restaurant menu offered at the Trumpster.

    Give Pie a Try!

    Or tell us fucking WHY! (not)

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    yes, donald campaigns SIGNIFICANTLY more like hitler than any other north american politician since the invention of radio, and even THAT is still only a LITTLE. i bookmarked a link for these occasions when clarification would be necessary.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/expert-on-nazism-explains-the-shocking-similarities-between-trump-and-hitlers-propaganda-tactics/

    JL

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    well, it's bernie by a LOT. biden in second, but not particularly close. carolina looms large.

    I don't think even a YYYUUUGGGEEEE Win for Biden in SC will salvage his campaign....

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and as paradoxical as it may seem, that statement is as much praise for his effectiveness as criticism for his impact.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, donald campaigns SIGNIFICANTLY more like hitler than any other north american politician since the invention of radio, and even THAT is still only a LITTLE. i bookmarked a link for these occasions when clarification would be necessary.

    As I said, I understand why you (and the Left Wing rag you use as a source) would think that..

    But the simple fact is President Trump's "propaganda" is no different than the "propaganda" used by Left Wing candidates..

    If you have any points of difference...

    "I'm all ears.."
    -Ross Perot

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is really nothing new under the sun when it comes to campaign tactics and "propaganda"..

    BOTH sides use it, as much as you would like to pretend that Democrats are somehow "better" then the GOP on that..

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have any points of difference...

    Note, I ask for DIFFERENCES.... Not distinctions..

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Someone remind me how down-ballot Democrats are going to benefit in 2020???

    Down-ballot Democrats move to distance themselves from Sanders
    https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/down-ballot-democrats-move-to-distance-themselves-from-sanders/

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS that prove otherwise.. :D

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sotomayor issues blistering dissent, says Republican-appointed justices have bias toward Trump administration
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayor-issues-blistering-dissent-says-republican-appointed-justices-have-bias-toward-trump-administration

    And Democrat appointed judges have biased AGAINST President Trump..

    What's this bigots point???

  95. [95] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes, the raw story is a left wing publication. However, I am not a left wing voter. Since I saw enough of value to link it as evidence, I suggest you read the text prior to drawing conclusions about its validity based on a blanket ad hominem fallacy. I am not going to spam this forum with each individual point, so if you have any real criticism feel free to offer it.

  96. [96] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and if you don't, kindly concede the point that donald has employed propaganda in a few ways that hadn't made their way into mainstream politics since the fall of the third reich.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    and if you don't, kindly concede the point that donald has employed propaganda in a few ways that hadn't made their way into mainstream politics since the fall of the third reich.

    I cannot concede that because it is not factually accurate..

    About the ONLY thing you can say that President Trump is that other past candidates, including DEMOCRAT candidates, is that President Trump is more rude and crass and arrogant than other past candidates.

    Now, if you want to claim that it's THOSE attributes that are reminiscent of the Third Reich.... Then I would have to say that you don't get out much... :D

    "Well, it's fanatics who make history. General Patton was a fanatic. That's what made him great."
    -CRIMSON TIDE

    Adolf Hitler was a persuasive orator..

    Obama was (arguably) a persuasive orator..

    That doesn't mean that Obama is Hitler..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give me ONE attribute that you can ascribe to President Trump and ONLY to President Trump and no one else and that was also an attribute of Nazi Germany and no where else....

    Betcha can't do it..

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    I cannot concede that because it is not factually accurate..

    you still have yet to submit any content from the article for review of its factual accuracy. you can't claim a piece contains blanket factual inaccuracy without first addressing all the facts, or any fact for that matter. nor is it appropriate to turn it back on me to pick out the specifics for you. since it doesn't seem you'll be reading anytime soon, here are some of the parallels based on my own reading (but which really are not an adequate substitute for reading the article itself):

    donald stirs pride about an imagined and glorified past, like germany pre-1918. he encourages fear of foreign people, even if they happen to be citizens, whose parents have religious or ethnic backgrounds that don't reflect his ideal. he stokes anger based on grievances both real and imaginary, cruelty and deliberate violation of societal norms, trusting tribalism and public apathy to allow most of them to go unanswered.

    instead of finding real legal cover, he just puts those violations of human decency right out there and dares anybody to say something, only adjusting slightly if the courts temporarily strike them down, as was the case with the "muslim ban"

    tactics donald has brought back from relative obscurity include, the maneuver, the panacea and the fabrication. more than any politician since hitler, he is able to take advantage of a new media environment and change his beliefs to suit the crowd. he has no real ideology beyond his own brand, and has said he favors things that contradict each other on the same day to different audiences, to curry the favor of both. he proposes simple solutions that people can understand, even though they will never happen and wouldn't be much help even if they did. mexico will pay for a border wall, now they won't, now the money is coming from the military, but who cares, he's keeping his promise. will it keep anyone out? no, but they won't dare bring their kids because we'll lock up the kids and deport the parents, then lose the paperwork so they can never find each other again. that'll teach 'em to live here without permission. china invented global warming, then hillary clinton did, then it's a conspiracy by energy companies, then a conspiracy against energy companies. he releases a budget that will cut medicare, medicaid, foot stamps and social security, then gives a speech about how he's just strengthened all of them. and it's all part of a larger plan to keep the media environment saturated with all things trump. as milton meyer said, he doesn't care if it's a good car or a bad car, as long as it's a national socialist car. hooray, volkswagon!

    the reason you're framing it as "ONE attribute" is because there's always ONE attribute that a politician or movement has used at one time or another. what makes donald unusual isn't that he's doing something new, it's that he's doing something old, which until he came along just wasn't thought possible.

    JL

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    you still have yet to submit any content from the article for review of its factual accuracy. you can't claim a piece contains blanket factual inaccuracy without first addressing all the facts,

    I am asking YOU for facts to support your position..

    A link to a long biased missive is nothing but an appeal to authority..

    I will be happy to refute ANY facts you have to support your opinion that Trump is Nazi-like..

    Once you offer them..

    I know what you are trying to say..

    Trump is mean and nasty and Nazis are mean and nasty..

    Ergo Trump=Nazi

    I am asking for more substance than that from YOU...

    To put it more succinctly..

    It would be as if I said, "PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT NAZI LIKE" and, as proof, I offer ....

    TrumpIsNotNaziLike
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

    ... as my "proof"...

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    either respond to the article directly, or concede the point. trying to turn it back on me to meet some arbitrary standard you yourself just set isn't factual, it's false.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. I hit SUBMIT too soon..

    donald stirs pride about an imagined and glorified past, like germany pre-1918.

    So did Ronald Reagan.. So did Bill Clinton.. So did Barack Obama... I am not seeing anything grossly different..

    he encourages fear of foreign people, even if they happen to be citizens, whose parents have religious or ethnic backgrounds that don't reflect his ideal.

    And Obama and Hillary encourage hatred of Americans who are better off than the middle class, whose parents had a richie rich background that doesn't reflect Democrat's ideal..

    Again, VERY similar to what you attribute solely to Donald Trump..

    I suspect what you further attribute is simply more of the same..

    What you are describing are DISTINCTIONS, not differences..

    Obama and Hillary fostered hate and fear of Rich Americans, Donald Trump fostered hate and fear of criminals and terrorists..

    They are distinctions on the same theme.. The only REAL difference is President Trump's is more morally acceptable and Obama/Hillary's fosters hate and fear of FELLOW AMERICANS which makes it, at the VERY least, morally questionable..

  103. [103] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as it happens, the article does address and refute your arbitrary standard, in its first body paragraph:

    The first thing to say is that this is not all about Donald Trump. He represents merely the apex of a cultural trend and before he appeared there were movements and events that presaged his arrival.

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    either respond to the article directly, or concede the point. trying to turn it back on me to meet some arbitrary standard you yourself just set isn't factual, it's false.

    I concede that your Left Wing article supports your Left Wing position..

    But, as you summarize it, it is not factually or reality-based accurate...

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and again, what you're responding to is my own short paraphrase. either read the article and refute its content, or don't and concede that you didn't.

    JL

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    The first thing to say is that this is not all about Donald Trump. He represents merely the apex of a cultural trend and before he appeared there were movements and events that presaged his arrival.

    Which kinda refutes your claim that President Trump is unique amongst Right Wing politicians..

    Apparently, according to your own article, it's the GOP movement that is Nazi like, not solely President Trump..

    And yet, when we get into the SPECIFICS as you illustrated above, we find that they are merely distinctions on a central theme..

    Choosing a group to focus hate and fear...

    "Your Good and your Evil use the same methods. To achieve the same goals."
    -Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

    Democrats and Republicans use the same Nazi-esque methods to achieve their goals...

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I concede that your Left Wing article supports your Left Wing position..

    i.e. you refuse to engage in any reading, much less thinking, that might lend factual substance to a political view other than your own.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    I refuse to waste my time reading an article I know supports a position that is factually unsupportable..

    It's nothing but an opinion and the few "facts" I have gleaned from it thru you are easily refuted..

    I have a slow day tomorrow.. Maybe when I wake up in the morning and get the wife off.....

    .... to work :D I'll have the time and the inclination to read it and refute it en masse..

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with throwing around Nazi comparisons flippantly is that it leads to things like what I mentioned in comment #72...

    I am sure Matthews believes that Sanders is Nazi like, just like you believe Trump is Nazi like..

    And I am sure Matthews thinks he has JUST as many "facts" to support HIS position...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, Joe Biden is 5th in delegate count...

    He is going to have to sweep SC to remain viable...

    Considering the head winds he's bucking..

    I doubt he will be able to prevail..

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats happily backing Bernie Sanders, the most left-wing presidential candidate ever
    https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/democrats-happily-backing-bernie-sanders-the-most-left-wing-presidential-candidate-ever/

    Bernie is going to make George McGovern look like a contender.. :D

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does ANYONE seriously believe Bernie can beat President Trump??

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The similarities between Donald and the nazis are unusual, and not flippant -at all. He campaigns much as they did. His presidency always brings me back to 'patterns of force.' No matter how benign his intentions, he's playing with fire.

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Yes, Bernie can beat Trump. Warren could beat Trump.
    It is even possible some of the others could beat Trump.

    Bernie has the best chance to beat Trump.

    To anyone that is not already in Trump's camp or the Dems camp Trump is now the establishment candidate.

    Bernie would be the anti-establishment candidate against establishment Trump for those voters.

    Trump has not satisfied the anti-establishment desires of these citizens and some may be inspired by an anti-establishment candidate against him.

    I believe Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016 and would beat him now as there are many anti-establishment citizens that were not fooled by Trump in 2016 that may not have voted (or left the presidential slot blank) in 2016 and some that voted for Trump that may have wised up by now.

    You make the same mistake the Dems make in assuming that all citizens find your logic logical or at least are only concerned with appealing to citizens that find your logic logical.

    If either side really wanted to blow the other out of the water they would try to find out what might appeal to the 40% of citizens that don't vote and adopt those positions.

    But since both parties are just putting on a show for the rubes because that's what the big money interests want them to do because the big money interests are not in favor of what the 40% (and many of those that do vote for the actors* in the show) want- which is to get the big money out of politics and have ordinary citizens control who controls the government.

    That is why people like CW will not consider informing citizens about or even discussing One Demand.

    Preserving the status quo is more important than beating Trump.

    They are willing to risk winning or losing a close race to Trump rather than challenge the big money "wing" of the Dems by demanding that the candidates run small donor only campaigns in the general election to try to appeal to the 40% of non-voters and voters that do not consider themselves part of either party.

    You will probably not admit it, but I bet you are secretly gloating about how easy it would be for Bernie to beat Trump if Bernie were running a small donor only campaign in the general election and how CW and the rest of them won't take my advice.

    * some of the actors may not realize they are actors

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    65

    The fact that I was wrong in my Bernie prediction doesn't preclude the hate you feel for Bernie and the joy I will feel when he wins the Dem nomination.. Something else I can rub yer nose in til the end of time.

    Wow! You are hysterical, and I do not mean comical. Tell us all more about your obsession with my feelings; I don't think you've embarrassed yourself enough with your flailing attempts at gauging my emotions and how your happiness depends on your fantasies about me.

    You are on record as saying Bernie can't win..

    You're projecting your feelings of hatred and cluelessness on others yet again. I am on record predicting Bernie would win Nevada:

    1. Sanders
    2. Biden
    3. Buttigieg
    4. Warren
    5. Steyer

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/02/21/ftp562/#comment-154061

    On the other hand, you are ever the inveterate liar flailing in your attempts to push a narrative of your own making in order to get your jollies on a political forum where discussing yourself and attempting to soothe your perpetual feelings of low self esteem are the highlight of your now pathetic existence.

    Time will prove you wrong...

    Said the moron whom time has proven wrong and now flailing desperately in his attempts to spin it.

    Thank you giving us all that glimpse into your psyche... it seems like it sucks to be you.

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I refuse to waste my time reading an article I know supports a position that is factually unsupportable..

    yes, that's exactly what i said. you refuse to engage in any reading that might lend factual substance to a political view other than your own. it's circular reasoning; you won't read any facts that don't support your conclusions, because they wouldn't be supported BY your conclusions. that's bad mainly because it isn't very good.

    JL

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, that's exactly what i said. you refuse to engage in any reading that might lend factual substance to a political view other than your own.

    What part of factually unsupportable was not clear to you??

    It's a Left Wing rag...

    By definition, it CAN'T be factual...

    But, as I said.. If I get bored watching the paint in the kitchen dry and then watching the grass growing doesn't hold my interest..

    Then I'll read your Left Wing Rag commentary...

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    The similarities between Donald and the nazis are unusual, and not flippant -at all.

    They ARE flippant..

    As evidenced by the FACT that they are not being applied to Sanders..

    Or do you believe that the Sanders/Nazi comparison has merit??

    The fact remains.. You cannot point to a SINGLE attribute that is shared by Nazis and President Trump that is not shared by ANYONE else..

    Ergo, your comparison is flippant and non-factual..

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted for clarity..

    The similarities between Donald and the nazis are unusual, and not flippant -at all.

    They ARE flippant..

    As evidenced by the FACT that they are now being applied to Sanders..

    Or do you believe that the Sanders/Nazi comparison has merit??

    The fact remains.. You cannot point to a SINGLE attribute that is shared by Nazis and President Trump that is not shared by ANYONE else..

    Ergo, your comparison is flippant and non-factual..

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Indeed, at the Nevada debate, all of the other candidates seemed to concede that they don’t have a hope, let alone a plan, to win the most votes or delegates when they all signaled they’d support the Democratic establishment handing the nomination to someone the voters had rejected.

    This fundamentally anti-democratic plot would destroy not just any notion of “unity” (which is a scam the Democratic establishment has been opportunistically and hypocritically pushing throughout the election) but also hand the election to Trump, who wants nothing more than a fractured Dem party ripe for accusations of rigging the process. Imagine how many voters would be driven from the system by the unprecedented injustice of a stolen convention.

    It would be an unmitigated disaster to so fully reject the will of the voters. It would likely be the end of the Democratic Party.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/484209-what-if-bernie-has-already-won-this-thing

    We're all bearing witness to the beginning of the end of the Democrat Party... :D

    And all I can say is it's about frakin' time!! :D

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK JL, I read your Left Wing rag..

    And yunno the ONE thing that stuck out???

    If you replace TRUMP with OBAMA, the entire essay STILL works...

    If you replace Republican with Democrat, the entire essay STILL works..

    Thereby proving my point..

    What you would like to ascribe to President Trump and the GOP specifically can easily be applied to Obama and the Democrat Party as well..

    It's not that Trump is Nazi like.. Or that the GOP is Nazi like..

    It's that the process itself has gotten mean and nasty and those looking for a connection will find when where their agenda says there is one..

    It's like the 3 blind men and the elephant..

    Each one "sees" whatever confirms their environment...

    It's confirmation bias...

    Nothing more..

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Washington Journal is talking about the 100 million that don't vote today and mentioned a report by the Knight Foundation where they studied the non-voters to try to find out the answers to the questions I have been asking here about non-voters and what might motivate them to vote.

    So now it's not just me asking the questions and providing possible answers.

    So how about an article on the non-voters report with a section on what they have found out about non-voters and a section on some ways that these citizens may be inspired to participate such as One Demand?

    I can understand when people can't comprehend what I am talking about when I am far ahead of the curve, but the curve has caught up with me on this.

    It's time for you to at least catch up to the curve even if you can't quite catch up to me.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders defends Castro policy despite Cuba's communist nightmare

    Bernie Sanders defends Fidel Castro's socialist Cuba: 'Unfair to simply say everything is bad'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-cuba-socialist-defense

    This is EXACTLY why Bernie Sanders will never be President Of The United States..

  124. [124] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    incorrect.

    The key similarity is the emotional strategy and, specifically, the way in which both maestros of rhetoric exploited the primal emotions of Pride, Fear and Anger.

    obama might have inspired a bit of pride, but fear and anger weren't even on his radar. nor clinton, nor either bush. they all shied away from exploiting fear or anger in their campaigns. the last one to exploit fear, though very indirectly through code words, was reagan. maybe sanders stokes a bit of anger and makes a bit of a panacea of fixing income inequality, but he certainly didn't create people's interest in that issue.

    what makes donald unique isn't any one of those things mentioned in the article, it's that he does all of those things at once, and unapologetically, in the face of what most people consider decent behavior.

  125. [125] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    U.S. "Intelligence" (?) sources are saying Putin is fostering and supporting the candidacies of BOTH Trump AND Sanders, and James Carville agrees and explains it by saying Putin thinks Sanders would be a disaster for the Dems, enabling Trump's re-election!!!

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    obama might have inspired a bit of pride, but fear and anger weren't even on his radar.

    Bullshit..

    "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun."
    -Barack Obama

    "They", of course, being fellow Americans..

    Odumbo's and Shrillary's entire campaign was about hating on Americans who were rich and more successful.

    Much like Bernie's and Biden's campaign today...

    what makes donald unique isn't any one of those things mentioned in the article, it's that he does all of those things at once, and unapologetically, in the face of what most people consider decent behavior.

    In the face of what Trump/America hating people consider "decent" behavior..

    In what YOU are describing, President Trump is no different than any other Dem candidate present or past..

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. "Intelligence" (?) sources are saying Putin is fostering and supporting the candidacies of BOTH Trump AND Sanders, and James Carville agrees and explains it by saying Putin thinks Sanders would be a disaster for the Dems, enabling Trump's re-election!!!

    Sanders nomination WILL be a disaster for the Dems..

    But it will be a HUGE boon for this country and for the American people...

    Anything that's BAD for Democrats is GOOD for America...

  128. [128] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Russians are helping Bernie because they think Trump can beat Bernie?

    Not likely. If this were true then we wouldn't be hearing about it now.

    What is more likely is that the Russians believe Bernie would beat Trump so they are appearing to help Bernie to try to hurt Bernie in the primaries so Trump won't have to run against Bernie.

    Of course the establishment Dems will go along with this so they don't have to support Bernie and can claim that Bernie can't beat Trump as there is no other rational argument that Bernie can't beat Trump in their usual electability mantra.

    How are people so easily fooled by such transparent attempts to manipulate them?

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Russians are helping Bernie because they think Trump can beat Bernie?

    Not likely. If this were true then we wouldn't be hearing about it now.

    Speaking as one who dealt a LOT with the Russians when they were the Soviets, I can assure ya'all of one thing.

    The Soviets/Russians will do anything and everything to fuck with America and Americans.. ANYTHING that sows discontent and strife amongst Americans is their bailiwick...

    I just never thought it possible that they would find such a willing and eager partner in Democrats and the Democrat Party...

    Live and learn....

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    How are people so easily fooled by such transparent attempts to manipulate them?

    Easy..

    The manipulation feeds their hate and bigotry..

    So they welcome it..

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just never thought it possible that they would find such a willing and eager partner in Democrats and the Democrat Party...

    Because let's face reality..

    Democrats are doing EXACTLY what Putin and the Russians want them to do...

    EXACTLY....

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    or maybe that's just what they want you to think. hmm...

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    or maybe that's just what they want you to think. hmm...

    Explain the reasoning behind that fact-less assumption??

    I mean, what makes MORE sense??

    Putin wants to pit AMERICAN against AMERICAN and Democrats are willing and eager participants??

    Or Putin just wants us to THINK he is pitting AMERICAN against AMERICAN and he is REALLY doing...???

    WHAT exactly???

    I mean, seriously.. Does ANYONE here besides yours truly have ANY experience in dealing with ACTUAL Soviets/Russians??

    Anyone at all???

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    in the face of what most people consider decent behavior.

    You see, JL, that is the ENTIRE problem with your premise.

    You are taking a VERY subjective piece of evidence (what people consider "decent") and applying falsely to an absolute.. President Trump is the ONLY candidate to use some specific attribute that Nazi Germany used..

    Yer trying to fit a round peg in a square hole and telling me, "Trust me.. It fits.."

    And I say "No.. SHOW me it fits..."

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't think it's always hatred and bigotry.

    It's more likely that people are really more interested in finding people or information (true or not) that confirms what they already believe so they don't have to change anything they do rather than find out if what they believe is true because if what they believe is true is not true then they may have to admit they were fooled and/or change something they do to get better results.

  136. [136] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    When you dealt with the Soviets did you ever work with Chuck Barris? :D

  137. [137] 
    John M wrote:

    [28] Michale wrote:

    "Said the guy who voted for President P Grabbing Pedophile Peeping Don Paid Off a Porn Star who routinely brags about grabbing women's privates,

    Any facts to support that President Trump said that??

    No???

    As usual, you are full of shit.."

    YES. Go back and re listen to the Access Hollywood tape Michale where Trump says EXACTLY that in his own voice during an on air interview!

    Kick isn't the one who is full of it Michale, it's you!

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think it's always hatred and bigotry.

    When it comes to REPUBLICAN Donald Trump..

    It's ALWAYS hate and bigotry..

    Granted, some more than others..

    But, at it's base, it's nothing but hate and bigotry..

    I mean, honestly.. As far as business activities goes, does ANYONE here honestly believe that Billionaire Donald Trump is MORE guilty of nefarious things than Billionaire Jeff Bezos?? Or Billionaire Warren Buffett?? Or Billionaire Tom Steyer???

    Does ANYONE believe that Donald Trump is unique amongst Billionaires in his actions that has made and kept his billions??

    Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    YES. Go back and re listen to the Access Hollywood tape Michale where Trump says EXACTLY that in his own voice during an on air interview!

    Actually, he didn't.

    But why let FACTS interrupt your hysterical hate-filled rant..

    Hell, even VICTORIA admitted she wasn't quoting Donald Trump....

    Kick isn't the one who is full of it Michale, it's you!

    And yet, SHE has ***ALWAYS*** been WRONG about everything and I have been dead on ballz accurate.. :D

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, Victoria said that Donald Trump "routinely" brags about it...

    He said something about it ONCE..

    So, right there, she was full of shit.

    And, what Donald Trump DID say that one time is that women are so shallow and superficial that, when yer rich, they LET you grab them by the pussy..

    And, yes.. By and large, that is true in the circles that Billionaire Donald Trump ran in at the time..

    So, I axe you???

    What's the problem??? Donald Trump spoke the truth...

    Why do you have a problem with it???

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M???

    You still there???

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I guess not.. :^/

  143. [143] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Does anyone here really believe that it matters that much if one person is more guilty than another guilty person?

    Am I the only one that believes that it's the being guilty part that matters more then the how guilty part?

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    124

    The key similarity is the emotional strategy and, specifically, the way in which both maestros of rhetoric exploited the primal emotions of Pride, Fear and Anger.

    Oh, yes; I remember it well.

    [46] nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    if donald did not have the attention span to read a book, how do you explain the similarities between the propaganda of his campaign speeches and that of Adolf Hitler in My New Order, the book his ex-wife ivana said he kept on the night stand? osmosis?

    JL

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/28/ftp434/#comment-99148

    what makes donald unique isn't any one of those things mentioned in the article, it's that he does all of those things at once, and unapologetically, in the face of what most people consider decent behavior.

    These inconvenient facts about Trump are sadly as valid now as they ever were.

    I don't like to analyze myself because I might not
    like what I see.
    ~ Donald Trump, 2014

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    138

    I mean, honestly.. As far as business activities goes, does ANYONE here honestly believe that Billionaire Donald Trump is MORE guilty of nefarious things than Billionaire Jeff Bezos?? Or Billionaire Warren Buffett?? Or Billionaire Tom Steyer???

    Nah. I don't think it; I know it for a fact. Donald Trump has been laundering money for decades, primarily but not exclusively with Russians.

    Does ANYONE believe that Donald Trump is unique amongst Billionaires in his actions that has made and kept his billions??

    I know he is. The fact that you would equate all billionaires reveals your faulty and ever-present false equivalency fallacy you employ on this forum ad nauseam. The false equivalency fallacy is convenient in that it requires no actual intelligence to argue that "they're all identical."

    Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    140

    Regardless, Victoria said that Donald Trump "routinely" brags about it...

    He routinely brags about his exploits with women including his peeping into the dressing rooms of underage girls when he owned Miss Teen USA, part of the Miss Universe pageants brand. If you're denying that, no one here is surprised.

    He said something about it ONCE..

    Wrong. Your ignorance regarding the issue is your problem and no one else's.

    And, what Donald Trump DID say that one time is that women are so shallow and superficial that, when yer rich, they LET you grab them by the pussy..

    Trump said nothing whatsoever about women being "shallow and superficial" or his being rich in that example of his regularly bragging about his exploits with women. I would wager no one here is the least bit surprised you've got an excuse for Trump wherein it's the women's fault Trump just can't help himself.

    I cannot help you if you believe Trump hasn't regularly bragged about his exploits with women and continues unabated to this day. You are obviously deep in denial and living so far up Trump's ass you can see Sean Hannity.

Comments for this article are closed.