ChrisWeigant.com

My (Early) Picks For South Carolina

[ Posted Thursday, February 27th, 2020 – 17:25 UTC ]

Since my election forecast dominated last Friday's column, I've decided to post my picks for South Carolina early this week, to free up the format for tomorrow. Also, I sincerely doubt that one more day of polling is going to change my mind about any of these picks, so I feel it's pretty safe to put them out there a day early.

South Carolina will be the final of the first four states to vote, and Super Tuesday will follow almost immediately thereafter. Which brings up a technical note. Up until now, due to the breadth of the field, I've been posting my picks for the top five slots. But by now, I think that fourth- and fifth-place finishes are going to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so I'm only going to pick the top three for South Carolina, and then only try to pick the winner of each state from Super Tuesday forward. Squabbling about who came in second versus third is going to become all but meaningless as we move deeper into the primary calendar, mostly because people will be much more focused on the total delegate count.

Before we get to this Saturday's picks, though, we've got to first bring our scorecard up to date. Pervious to the Nevada caucus, this stood at:

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

My predictions for the Nevada outcome (based on the traditional delegate division percentages) were as follows: (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Elizabeth Warren, (3) Pete Buttigieg, (4) Joe Biden, (5) Tom Steyer. As it turned out, I wildly overestimated Warren and wildly underestimated Biden. I did get lucky in the middle of that split, and wound up picking the first, third, and fifth places accurately. The Nevada results came in the following order: (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Joe Biden, (3) Pete Buttigieg, (4) Elizabeth Warren, (5) Tom Steyer. This translates into 3-for-5 for my crystal ball, making my overall stats now:

Total correct 2020 primary picks so far: 10 for 15 -- 67%.

I usually do a lot worse in the earliest of contests, so I'm happy enough with calling two-thirds of the races accurately so far. But that average is quite likely to go way down on Super Tuesday, I fully realize.

 

South Carolina

With that out of the way, let's take a look at the state of the race in the Palmetto State. Over a decade ago, the Democratic Party decided that only allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to cut the line in front of all the other states in the primary calendar wasn't exactly representative of the Democratic voting base nationwide, since both states are so overwhelmingly white. So they added two more to the mix: Nevada, for the Latino vote, and South Carolina, for the African-American vote.

So far, Joe Biden has maintained an overwhelming lead in the polls, although it has gotten a lot less overwhelming than it once was. Tom Steyer launched what amounted to a stealth campaign in the state, while all the other candidates were pumping much more money into Iowa and New Hampshire. Having the airwaves to himself has paid off handsomely for him, if the polls are any indication. Steyer, like Bloomberg, is a billionaire, so having the money to spend wasn't an obstacle for him.

Also complicating the scene is the rise of Bernie Sanders. Before Iowa, he wasn't making many inroads into the South Carolina polls, but then when he started showing how strong his base really was in the first three states, South Carolinians gave him a second look. But while Sanders is doing well with African-Americans in general, he hasn't been able to shift the needle as much in South Carolina.

This week's debate is not likely to shift the vote dramatically, either, as it did in New Hampshire. The CBS debate was so badly managed that no candidate really stood out from the pack with a breakout performance (the universal conclusion from the debate was that "the moderators were the biggest losers"). Both Biden and Bernie held their own against several attacks, but none of the lower-polling candidates really held the spotlight to the degree that would have been necessary for the debate to be considered decisive for them in any way.

Personally, I think Joe Biden's support among the African-American base has a pretty high "floor." Sure, some black voters have been migrating to Steyer or Sanders or others, but it's been a trickle, not a flood. Older African-American voters in particular seem to have made up their minds to back Joe very early on and are pretty solid in their support for him. I think this is going to hold up on primary night.

Saying Biden's going to win is really the obvious call to make in South Carolina. The real story coming out of the returns is going to be how much Biden wins by, in fact. Some polls put him up by as much as 15 or 20 points, which would be a blowout if it comes to pass. But then again others only show him with a single-digit lead, which would lead to a whole different set of headlines. Some had been expecting Biden to finish a close second to Sanders in Nevada, but in the end Sanders got roughly twice the support that Biden did. So if Biden manages a big and convincing win, then he'll be in pretty good shape heading into Super Tuesday, but if he only manages to barely squeak out a victory, this will be seen as a major sign of trouble for him (even though he won).

Although the margin of victory for Biden may indeed be the key story to emerge from South Carolina, it likely won't matter much in the end, because the period between when those headlines are published and when one-third of the delegates are chosen on Super Tuesday is going to be an incredibly short one -- so short that no South Carolina story is likely to reverberate all that much.

The other story out of South Carolina could be a tight race for second place. Bernie Sanders is holding onto second in most of the polling, but Tom Steyer is very close behind him (and occasionally in front of him, in some polls). This is really do-or-die for Steyer, because while he could continue his campaign with a solid second-place finish, it would be much harder to do if he only places third. His campaign is pretty much doomed to extinction on Super Tuesday either way, but whether he realizes this or not may hinge on his South Carolina standing.

Bernie Sanders could afford a third-place finish in South Carolina, but obviously it'd be better for his campaign if he placed second. If he edges Steyer out, he can claim that he's been in either first or second place in all four of the early-voting states -- a claim no other candidate will even be close to making, it's worth noting. Psychologically, that would be a strong claim to head into Super Tuesday with.

As for the other candidates, it really isn't going to matter all that much how well Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren do in South Carolina, because they'll be fighting over the scraps of fourth, fifth, and sixth places. And at this point in the calendar, that's nothing to brag about. Pete Buttigieg in particular is going to be hurt by his South Carolina finish, because he'll be on such an obvious downward trajectory: first place (barely) in Iowa, a close second in New Hampshire, a distant third in Nevada, and then fourth or worse in South Carolina. No wonder he appeared so angry at the last debate.

 

My picks

Having said all of that, I'm going to make fairly conventional picks for South Carolina. Joe Biden will win, although his victory won't be nearly as big as it once could have been. I'll go out on a limb and make a side bet that Biden wins by less than 10 percent of the vote. Bernie Sanders will pick up second place, as the youth vote turns out in big numbers (including a lot of younger African-American voters). Steyer won't do as well as his polling now suggests, but he will still win third place handily.

Those are my picks: (1) Joe Biden, (2) Bernie Sanders, (3) Tom Steyer. As always, feel free to disagree. In other words: if you don't like my selections, then what are yours?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

69 Comments on “My (Early) Picks For South Carolina”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW The Nevada results came in the following order: (1) Bernie Sanders, (2) Joe Biden, (3) Pete Buttigieg, (4) Elizabeth Warren, (5) Tom Steyer.

    Oh, we're checking predictions. M'kay... {checks notes}:

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

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

    That person nailed it!

    This translates into 3-for-5 for my crystal ball,

    May I recommend brass balls? ;)

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    When I first read your picks for Nevada the other day, the results were already known. So, of course, I immediately checked the time stamp on your comment containing your Nevada predictions …

    You should win an award (Chris?) for being so, how is it said around here … "dead on balz accurate"!

    You have my sincere congrats!!!

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hmmm … I don't think that (Chris?) part came out as intended.

    You don't have to be the award, Chris, you just have to think one up. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Just for the record, you understand, I will be hoping against hope that you are wrong again about how well Biden will perform in SC and that he will ultimately prove that you don't have to be a great debater or campaigner if you have precisely the qualifications that will be required to beat Trump, clean up the mess left behind by Trump and restore America's global leadership role, and fast!

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    So far all my picks have been 100% accurate.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Although the margin of victory for Biden may indeed be the key story to emerge from South Carolina, it likely won't matter much in the end, because the period between when those headlines are published and when one-third of the delegates are chosen on Super Tuesday is going to be an incredibly short one -- so short that no South Carolina story is likely to reverberate all that much.

    Damn. Biden can't catch a break, can he?

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, that's because you're a one issue guy with an attitude who thinks Biden is a big donor candidate and nothing more. Which is why I don't bother discussing anything with you.

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    While you may hope that CW is wrong about Biden's chances in SC, I hope you will let me know if you think Biden was wrong when he said "This is America. There's not one thing we can't do if we do it together." or wrong for not running a small donor only campaign as he said it can be done.

    That's your guy saying One Demand can be done.

    Why isn't he doing it?

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Your way of thinking, Don, is too one-dimensional for my kind of discussion, in other words. I'm not saying that can't or won't change, though. :)

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Nope. I'm not a one issue guy.

    I concentrate on one issue because it is the one issue that prevents all other issues from being solved. Many of which have available, affordable solutions such as the War on Habitat.

    So any candidate taking big money is not trying to solve any other issue because the first step to solving most issues is to get the big money out of politics.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's your guy saying One Demand can be done.

    Don, that betrays a purposeful misread of what Biden is talking about in a disingenuous effort on your part to increase support for OD.

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While you could not have seen it when you commented as you were posting while I commented, comment 10 shows just the opposite of comment 9.

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Those are my picks: (1) Joe Biden, (2) Bernie Sanders, (3) Tom Steyer. As always, feel free to disagree. In other words: if you don't like my selections, then what are yours?

    Remember, the older African American vote in South Carolina tends to come in underestimated, but this cycle the GOP have canceled democracy and shut down their primary in SC with some groups urging Trump voters to crash the open primary and "vote Trump" by voting for Bernie. Tom Steyer has been consistently underperforming his polls... so:

    (1) Biden
    (2) Sanders
    (3) Steyer

    I think Biden will win about 35 delegates in South Carolina, but I hope I'm wrong and he wins more; however, the GOP/Berners are throwing a monkey wrench into my calculations.

    And now my list of those candidates who should drop out of the race on Saturday and/or before Super Tuesday:

    Gabbard........... but ditto what you said about not caring
    Buttigieg.......... because he can't win in the South
    Warren............ unless she wants to lose her home state
    Klobuchar........ see above, although less likely
    Steyer............... but he won't just to make us all mad
    Bloomberg....... but he won't because he's not even in yet. :)

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    No, it is not any misrepresentation of what Biden said. He said we can do anything. Not anything but run small donor campaigns.

    So is Biden wrong about we can do anything?

    If not, why is he not running a small donor only campaign?

    This the real Biden. Let's have a real discussion about the real Biden.

    Explain how he will solve other issues when he will be working for the big money interests that have more interest in continuing to make money off those problems not being solved?

    Why is Biden now the Kurt Russell at the end of Used Cars and not the Kurt Russell at the beginning of the movie?

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    So any candidate taking big money is not trying to solve any other issue because the first step to solving most issues is to get the big money out of politics.

    You know that I don't disagree with that. Biden is a prime candidate to use as an example of someone who would benefit most from serious campaign finance reform. He hates having to fundraise - maybe he should use kittens, I don't know. But, that should count for something with you.

    Has the subject of campaign finance reform even come up at any of the debates or town halls?

    Campaign finance reform is hard and we both understand why. I think it is pure folly to expect that all big money will get out of politics with the One Demand campaign. It seems that you want the end result without putting in all of the hard work that will be required to start passing campaign finance reform legislation.

    What I'm trying to say is that OD is an end result, not anywhere near the beginning of the work that needs to be done on this subject.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … but this cycle the GOP have canceled democracy and shut down their primary in SC with some groups urging Trump voters to crash the open primary and "vote Trump" by voting for Bernie. Tom Steyer has been consistently underperforming his polls...

    Now, THAT is way beyond distressing.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … except for the Tom Styer bit, of course. :)

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, just to be clear about comment #15 …

    So any candidate taking big money is not trying to solve any other issue because the first step to solving most issues is to get the big money out of politics.

    It's that highlighted in bold print part that you know I and most here don't disagree with.

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    2

    You should win an award (Chris?) for being so, how is it said around here … "dead on balz accurate"!

    I blush... but unlike Adolph "He Who Must Not Be Named," I have two balls... so that is "dead on ballz accurate." It's a lot harder to predict outcomes that are not a mere 50/50 guess, and that's why only those with brass balls should even attempt to do it. *kidding* ;)

    Hey, EM... remember that time when I told you who I was voting for?

    I hope he does become President Biden, but I am with Neil and voting for whomever becomes the Democratic nominee... up to and including a ham sandwich.

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

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/06/18/warren-catching-up-to-sanders/#comment-137554

    Well, that technically "Super Tuesday" vote is taking place actually tomorrow morning. I decided to vote early... because I can.

    You have my sincere congrats!!!

    I blush again... and tomorrow? Off we go to vote for Joe! :)

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    No, it is not any misrepresentation of what Biden said. He said we can do anything. Not anything but run small donor campaigns.

    Here is my last response to this misrepresentation that is quite obviously purposeful and disingenuous and betrays a one-dimensional thought process that will surely hinder any effort toward progress.

    Vice president Biden is talking about the big things that America needs to get done now and fast, not everything including OD.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick, what do you suppose Biden's chances are in Texas on super tuesday as of right now?

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Gosh, I hate owning slaves but I just can't set them free.

    Sorry. Doesn't count for anything.

    There is nothing serious about campaign finance reform.
    That is a thousand times the folly of One Demand at the very least.

    The big money legislator/candidates have had decades to pass campaign finance reform legislation and have failed miserably.

    Of course, they have only failed miserably if you believe they were trying. They have succeeded if you are able to recognize they were only appearing to be trying.

    In recent comment threads I have demonstrated that the money is available through small donors so there is no reason why any candidate has to take big money.

    I have also shown how it could add 6% or more to the others the Dems already have from non-voters.

    One Demand is the end result?

    So that means we shouldn't get started on the end result now because we can't achieve the end result now?

    That sounds more like you want to be able to skip to the end result without doing the work.

    The hard work that needs to be done to pass campaign finance reform legislation is to get the big money out of politics.

    The big money legislators will not pass any serious campaign finance reform legislation because the big money interests have no interest in having that legislation passed. (Remember the decades of proof mentioned earlier?)

    So the hard work that needs to be done is to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators.

    It is pure folly to think that legislation can be passed to solve the problem without first solving the problem.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    So getting the big money out of politics which you agree is the first step in getting things done can be put off until sometime in the future instead of taking action now?

    There is nothing disingenuous about it.

    He said we can do anything.

    I am simply applying what he said to One Demand.

    Why should I not be able to do that?

    It is perfectly acceptable to apply basic principles to other things to which those principles apply.

    It is not acceptable to keep coming with excuses to avoid the issue and then state it's your last word.

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    16

    Now, THAT is way beyond distressing.

    I know, right!? The MAGAts want to run against Bernie.

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    21

    Kick, what do you suppose Biden's chances are in Texas on super tuesday as of right now?

    Right now, it definitely appears to be a close race, but after Biden wins South Carolina by high double digits on Saturday, I think his chances for winning Texas will improve exponentially.

    So to recap: I believe Biden will win Texas. :)

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A fine note to end on. :)

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris|Elizabeth Miller
    22

    It is pure folly to think that legislation can be passed to solve the problem without first solving the problem.

    I would listen to him, EM. He is definitely the blog expert on "pure folly."

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    In recent comment threads I have demonstrated that the money is available through small donors so there is no reason why any candidate has to take big money.

    I have also shown how it could add 6% or more to the others the Dems already have from non-voters.

    No you haven’t! You have never demonstrated/explained how OD would generate new contributions from people who not only have never given to any candidate before, they have never even voted before. You simply claim that small donor only campaigns will be able to raise enough money that they won’t need large donations...but you do not offer any actual evidence nor do you offer any studies showing that the premise for OD will work.

    You fall back to your “but COULD it work” defense — a magical argument based in wishful thinking but not much else.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Factually incorrect.

    At least I am honest enough to say it could work.

    The Dem supporters here keep saying you have to settle for big money Dems because they are not as bad as the Republicans and that is what works so we need to stick with it.

    In reality it works so well that it resulted in President Trump and even when the Dems have won they were still not doing what they promised.

    So even though it hasn't worked for decades all of you keep saying you have to stick with what works!

    You keep asking for proof One Demand will work before we try it, but the only way to obtain that proof is to try it.

    But we have decades of proof that your approach DOES NOT WORK.

    If it did work there would not be a President Trump or a problem with big money in our political process.

    I have shown that trends show it can work. Math shows it can work. Joe Biden says it can work.

    I guess the report from the Knight Foundation doesn't count because it doesn't fit what you want to believe.

    You just make a claim that is patently false and you think that does anything but expose your hypocrisy?

    I guess when you have no rational argument you just make stuff up.

    Do you ever listen to what you hear when you speak?

    You obviously are not paying attention to what I am saying or you wouldn't be making stuff up- unless that is your way of reacting when you don't want to admit you have no rational argument.

    That's a really weak fall back position from a position of weakness to begin with.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    dsws wrote:
    [62] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
    Prolific tediousness in conjunction with a complete lack of self-discipline has ruined this place.

    Yeah.

    Thirded

    It was nice in the olden days when we all just got along.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    (the universal conclusion from the debate was that "the moderators were the biggest losers").

    And the universal conclusion was also that President Trump was the biggest winner.. :D

    Some polls put him up by as much as 15 or 20 points, which would be a blowout if it comes to pass.

    And Biden is going to need a win like that to remain in the race...

    he only manages to barely squeak out a victory, this will be seen as a major sign of trouble for him (even though he won).

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that outcome.. :D

    Oh.... wait... :D

    Those are my picks: (1) Joe Biden, (2) Bernie Sanders, (3) Tom Steyer. As always, feel free to disagree. In other words: if you don't like my selections, then what are yours?

    I think Biden is going to eek out a win, but it will be a "Buttagig win".. IE a win in name only...

    Bernie is going to run it right up Biden's tail so we'll likely have an Iowa finish.. A finish so close who actually "wins" doesn't matter.. Biden has to have a shut out in SC, so anything less is a loss, no matter the actual standings...

    I am gonna go out on a limb and say that Democrats will not allow a billionaire to buy a primary election.. I could be wrong.. Democrats in SC can show that they are the easily led sheeple, enamored by the Benjamins that I have always said that Democrats were.. But I am going to say that SC Democrats won't let Steyer buy a 3rd place finish. They gay guy doesn't stand a chance in SC, but there is a niggling feeling that he might get just enough support to finish third..

    Logically, if Steyer can't buy 3rd and there is no way black Americans are going to vote for a gay guy, Warren will be the likely 3rd place "winner"...

    So my picks are Biden by a nose (but it's still a loss) Bernie up Biden's ass and Warren (MAYBE Buttagig) in 3rd...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who would have thunked that the Dumbocrats and their faux impeachment coup would jam up Joe Biden right before he needs it as less as humanly possible...

    Joe Biden under probe in Ukraine for alleged link to top prosecutor’s 2016 ouster: report
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-under-probe-in-ukraine-for-alleged-link-to-top-prosecutors-2016-ouster-report

    Oh... Wait :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    Russ,

    And yet, the FACTS show that President Trump IS seeing to the needs of those who elected him..

    Yeah, he’s bending over backwards for Putin!

    And yet, the FACTS clearly prove that yer messiah, Odumbo, was Putin's bitch..

    Odumbo was even caught on a hot mic professing his fealty to Putin and promised to give Putin The Crimea if only Putin would help Odumbo win Odumbo's election...

    I would also point out that Odumbo had lock stock bona fide PROOF that the Russians were trying to meddle in our elections and Odumbo did NOTHING for MONTHS!!!

    And WHY did Odumbo do nothing?? Because he was afraid it would hurt Hillary's chances of having a blowout in the election..

    How do we KNOW that Odumbo put Hillary's campaign BEFORE the safety and security of this country and it's elections??

    Because Odumbo hisself SAID so!

    Face the facts, Russ.. You lost.. You have ALWAYS lost.. You will ALWAYS lose...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    But hay.. I am a fair guy... If you want to table this discussion until 4 Nov when the reality catches up with my facts??

    I am more than willing to do so..

    Because **ANYONE** who is NOT a Party bitch and who does NOT have shit fer brains KNOWS that President Trump is going to win re-election easily and Dumbocrats are going to lose the House..

    But hay... Like I said.. If you want to table the discussion until reality catches up with the FACTS....

    Let's do it.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (30)-
    Really?

    Did you not see Liz engaging in the very tediousness and lack of self discipline in this very thread that she is complaining about?

    Doing everything she can to avoid discussing the issue and just making statements about One Demand being folly with nothing to back it up and ignoring or dismissing without reason anything I post to back up my argument.

    You should be seconding my comment on her statement from the previous thread, not thirding Liz's comment.

    I really don't care if we get along.

    What I care about is having real discussions without the bullshit dodges and other childish nonsense.

    There was at least some of that when I first got here, but it didn't last long and could be considered extinct as it has not been seen for so long.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    As a bow to the Democrat Trump/America coronavirus hate??

    It's the end of the world as know, I feel fine
    That's great, it starts with an earthquake
    Birds, snakes, and aeroplanes
    Lenny Bruce is not afraid
    Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn
    World serves its own needs, dummy serve your own needs
    Feed it off an aux speak, grunt, no, strength
    Ladder start to clatter with fear, fight down height
    Wire in a fire, representing seven games
    A government for hire and a combat site
    Left of west and coming in a hurry
    With the furies breathing down your neck

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfyNlISf_No

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    Russ,

    Actually, the coronavirus has a higher mortality rate currently than the 1918 flu. The 1918 flu was 1.8% and the coronavirus is at 2%. This is the percentage of people who do not survive getting the illness. Compare it to the start of HIV outbreak in the mid/late 80’s where the death rate was pretty much 100%.

    OK... So you say that coronavirus has a mortality rate of 2% and THEN you say we should compare it to the early HIV that had a mortality rate of 100%..

    Yea... Cuz 100% is a LOT closer to 2% than 1.8% is... :smirk:

    Well.. I am SURE glad you didn't stoop to hysterical and unfounded fear mongering..

    Do you even THINK before you spew your Trump/America hate bullshit???

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I am all for tabling discussion of Obama did the same stuff Trump is doing discussion for eternity.

    Think of all the space tabling discussion of irrelevant things would open up for real discussions of things that do matter.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you not see Liz engaging in the very tediousness and lack of self discipline in this very thread that she is complaining about?

    Liz cannot be blamed for adopting the thinking WHEN IN ROME....

    It's the people who brought us to this "ROME" who are to blame..

    I really don't care if we get along.

    And that's why there are issues here.. :D

    Because, sans a very few, NO ONE cares if we get along..

    What I care about is having real discussions

    Which is not mutually exclusive to getting along..

    In the days of Weigantia yore, we had real discussions left and right (see what I did there?? :D) we had real discussions coming out our arses!!

    And yet, we managed to get along..

    As I said, one is not mutually exclusive of the other..

    There was at least some of that when I first got here,

    Exactly...

    Liz, JL and I have been here since the beginning... Going on 15+ years...

    Things here were much better..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am all for tabling discussion of Obama did the same stuff Trump is doing discussion for eternity.

    And yet, there are those who insist on attacking President Trump for things that Odumbo hisself was guilty of..

    Sometimes, as in the case of children in cages, these dullards are attacking President Trump for what Odumbo specifically did!!!

    How moronic is that???

    Think of all the space tabling discussion of irrelevant things would open up for real discussions of things that do matter.

    "Things that matter" is in the eye of the beholder...

    For MANY people here, the *ONLY* thing that matters is their Trump/America hate...

    Many have fallen who couldn't handle the reality of their hate... They are no longer here...

    Who will be the next to fall?? :D

    My guess is that most will hold on until President Trump wins re-election and the Dims lose the House..

    After that latest utter decimation and defeat, they won't be able to handle the loss... :D

    Then it will be just the 4 of us, starting anew...

    A BRAVE NEW WORLD :D

  40. [40] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Should the survival rate be the only determining factor in comparing the coronavirus to the 1918 flu?

    What is the comparison of the infection rate?

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We know the infection rate of big money infecting the candidates and CMPs is 100%. :D

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So you are saying Liz is infected by the bolognavirus so it's not her fault that she allows herself to be infected and helps spread the disease? :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I am saying that, when in Rome, one does what Romans do...

    It's inevitable..

    It's a corollary to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle...

    Heisenberg postulates that what you observe invariably changes...

    The corollary postulates that what you observe also changes you..

    AKA Going along to get along...

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The when in Rome comparison doesn't work.

    Liz has been here for 15 years.

    She is one of the Romans.

    I would have thought you of all people would have recognized it's those pesky immigrants that are not behaving according to the when in Rome axiom and changing the culture here that are the problem! :D

  45. [45] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Are you certain about the certainancey of the uncertainty principle?

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz has been here for 15 years.

    She is one of the Romans.

    Nope.. She's a druid in Roman clothing.. :D

    We druids were here first.. :D

    Are you certain about the certainancey of the uncertainty principle?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly..... ish... :D

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the real problem is not enough pie.

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The reason there's not enough pie is because of the ingredients provided.

    It's like one of those cooking shows that says you can make a pie if you want but the only ingredients provided are jalapeno peppers and moose poop.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry if the moose poop comment offended any locals. It's an immigrant thing. :D

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Okay. Liz is a Druid in Roman clothing dancing to the beat of the immigrant culture. :D

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    BEST movie review ever..

    HOME ALONE 1990

    Just call the cops you sadistic little monster!

    :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry if the moose poop comment offended any locals. It's an immigrant thing. :D

    Moose poop???

    Impressive.. The force is strong with this one...

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as this coronavirus goes, here's the thing.

    NO ONE loves apocalyptic end of the world scenarios more than me.. I AM LEGEND, THE POSTMAN, PLANET OF THE APES...

    Give me human decimation on a global scale and I am there!! :D

    But we have all seen this dog and pony rodeo before.. Bird Flu... Swine Flu... Ebola...

    And, the media hyped it up and it turned into nothing..

    But what's different today is ya'all are HYSTERICAL about coronavirus and yet, ya'all are STILL playing politics with it..

    A virus starts in China and, all of the sudden, it's ALL President Trump's fault..

    I mean, do you people HEAR yerselves!!??? Ya'all are the perfect caricature of a bigot and a hater...

    One would think ya'all would have more self-respect than that..

    Yet.. Here we are...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden reverses course, admits he didn’t get arrested in South Africa

    Former Vice President Joe Biden reversed course Friday on his claim that he was arrested in South Africa during apartheid -- saying instead that he was simply “stopped” and not allowed to “move where I wanted to go” as he sought to meet with Nelson Mandela.

    “When I said ‘arrested’ I meant I was not able to move, cops would not let me go with them and made me stay where I was. I guess I wasn’t arrested, I was stopped, I was not able to move where I wanted to go,” he said on CNN.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-reverses-course-arrested-in-south-africa

    In other words, Biden was detained but not arrested...

    :eyeroll:

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former NFL player calls Trump 'first black president' at White House event
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-nfl-player-calls-trump-first-black-president

    So much for the bullshit claim that President Trump is a racist.. :eyeroll:

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Here’s one example of the great speakers finest:

    “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”

    Because having the best words is so important!

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blacks in America have listened to Presidents campaign on empty Promises for over 50 years, now @realDonaldTrump
    has delivered real Policies that are bringing people out of poverty and freeing our black sons and fathers from mass incarceration. The Black Awakening is happening

    -Jack Brewer

    Yep... Democrats will lose black American support by the 10s of millions.. :D

    Another of my predictions that is going to turn out to be factual... :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here’s one example of the great speakers finest:

    "I am exhausted, having campaigned in all 57 states.."
    -Barack Odumbo

    Face reality, Russ.. You can find all you want to confirm your hate and bigotry..

    But it's ALL still nothing but hate and bigotry..

    At the end of the day, yer STILL a luser...

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trump may not be a racist, but he uses racism to manipulate people that are.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump may not be a racist, but he uses racism to manipulate people that are.

    For example...???

    Further, it's the Democrat Party who is the MASTER of using racism, ESPECIALLY false accusations of racism, to manipulate people..

    The false accusations against President Trump, Jussie Smollet and the Journo List debacle prove THAT beyond a reasonable doubt..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The false accusations against President Trump, Jussie Smollet and the Journo List debacle prove THAT beyond a reasonable doubt..

    I failed the Oxford Comma :(

    The false accusations against President Trump, Jussie Smollet's bullshit hate crime accusation and the Journo List debacle prove THAT beyond a reasonable doubt..

    There...

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I didn't really bother to catalog any specific examples.

    But I do remember there were many times since Trump started campaigning in 2016 to present where they showed his speeches and rallies that he was clearly race baiting.

    If you really want specific examples you can probably google just about any of these things and you will find it, if you are willing to see it.

    And no, It won't just be people seeing what they want to see. It really is there.

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    56

    Hey! I posted that before. It's just as pathetic on video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elhyo-_fR0E

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    53

    But what's different today is ya'all are HYSTERICAL about coronavirus and yet, ya'all are STILL playing politics with it..

    Right-wing drooling talking points spewed back on cue like a useful idiot. Anyone on the forum says anything about Donald Trump, and off you go whining like a wounded animal... the perpetually aggrieved right-wing whine machine. I cannot fathom why the right-wing believes Donald Trump is "strong" when all he does is incessantly brag about himself and whine and complain constantly and just outright make shit up about Democrats.

    So here are the facts: Donald Trump has a huge credibility issue, and the Trump administration dropped the ball on this issue... big time.

    A virus starts in China and, all of the sudden, it's ALL President Trump's fault..

    All of "the" sudden? Who talks like that? Maybe it's a locality thing. Moving on. All of a sudden, no one here is blaming Trump for a virus. But people are definitely blaming the Trump administration for their handling of the issue so rather than whine and spew right-wing bullshit... ask yourself why.

    In 2018, the Trump Administration significantly cut funding and staffing the United States needs in order to respond to a health crisis. Multiple top officials were fired from the National Security Council's global health team that dealt with pandemics and biological attacks, and many of them weren't replaced. As if that wasn't enough, funding to the Center for Disease Control was significantly cut by the Trump Administration. Those funding cuts were to the tune of 80% of the CDC's funding for global disease outbreak prevention, including to China.

    At the time this all happened, people were advising against it to no avail. Articles were written in 2017 by the scientific community describing how Trump's massive cuts were going to leave the United States vulnerable and unprepared to combat the next outbreak or pandemic. Example:

    Pandemics, Personnel, and Politics: How the Trump Administration is Leaving Us Vulnerable to the Next Outbreak

    by Gregory D. Koblentz and Nathaniel M. Morra
    6 Apr 2017

    Within months of President Barack Obama taking the oath of office in January 2009, he was confronted by a novel strain of H1N1 influenza spreading throughout North America and then the world. At the same time that the United States was mobilizing to respond to the first flu pandemic of the 21st century, the Obama administration was attempting to fill senior positions within key Federal agencies with qualified, knowledgeable individuals. Although the United States is not currently facing a pandemic, this situation could change quickly and dramatically. China is currently experiencing its fifth and largest outbreak of Asian lineage avian influenza A (H7N9) virus (“Asian H7N9”). According to the Influenza Risk Assessment Tool (IRAT), Asian H7N9 is the influenza strain with the greatest potential to cause a global pandemic. Based on the ten criteria measured by the IRAT, Asian H7N9 presents a moderate to high risk of developing the potential to be transmitted from person-to-person and having a severe public health impact. In February, Bill Gates, the richest man in the world and a leading global health philanthropist, warned that the next pandemic could claim 30 million lives worldwide and cost the global economy $570 billion.

    Despite this heightened risk of a global pandemic, the Trump Administration has dragged its feet in appointing senior officials to key Federal agencies responsible for preparing and responding to a pandemic or bioterrorist attack. These agencies are also subject to steep budget cuts under Trump’s budget for Fiscal Year 2018. The delays in installing senior leaders at these agencies and pending budget cuts puts U.S. and global health security at risk.

    More...

    https://globalbiodefense.com/2017/04/06/pandemics-personnel-politics-trump-administration-leaving-us-vulnerable-next-outbreak/

    Fast forward to Trump's press conference on coronavirus where he downplayed its outbreak in the United States. Trump incorrectly claimed that there are only 15 known cases in the United States. Lie. In point of fact, at the time he told that lie, there were 59 known cases of the virus in the United States.

    Lastly, you just sound like a colossal useful idiot when you spew the ridiculous right-wing talking points in this forum. Trump and the right-wing echo chamber morons like Limbaugh and Hannity all have huge credibility problems, and it becomes your problem too when you constantly bitch about Democrats, but if anyone says anything negative about Trump, you bitch about that too. It's like you've got this misconception that everyone here should be posting to please your worldview. It's spectacularly stupid.

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Former NFL player calls Trump 'first black president' at White House event

    This takes judging a person by what you see on the inside to a whole new level; however, somebody should really pull that NFL player's head out of Donald Trump's ass.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    It's not really up to me to substantiate your claims.

    You'll note that I made claims about Democrat race-baiting and provided several examples. That is how you make a claim and substantiate it.

    If you can't substantiate claim maybe you shouldn't be making them.

    Saying that I heard it somewhere is not very substantial wouldn't you agree?

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    In most cases yes.

    This behavior by Trump was so prolific that in this case it is like being asked to substantiate that the earth is round.

    The only ways you could have missed it is if you weren't paying attention or just pretended you didn't see it.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    This behavior by Trump was so prolific that in this case it is like being asked to substantiate that the earth is round.

    If it's so prolific, then it should be EASY to substantiate..

    As I did with the Democrats whose racism and race-baiting IS actually prolific..

    My GUESS is someone told you that President Trump was race-baiting and you simply took it at face value.

    Kinda back when ya'all took it at face value that President Trump is racist, but when I tied ya'all down for FACTS, ya'all conceded that there were no facts to support the claim.

    I have a feeling that this is simply more of the same..

    The only ways you could have missed it is if you weren't paying attention or just pretended you didn't see it.

    You mean, like you pretending that small donor candidates are actually possible in today's political climate.. Like you weren't paying attention when it's obvious and prolific in today's candidates that Big Money is the way it's gonna be..

    You mean like that?? :D

  69. [69] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [65]

    Kick wrote:

    Lastly, you just sound like a colossal useful idiot when you spew the ridiculous right-wing talking points in this forum. Trump and the right-wing echo chamber morons like Limbaugh and Hannity all have huge credibility problems, and it becomes your problem too when you constantly bitch about Democrats, but if anyone says anything negative about Trump, you bitch about that too. It's like you've got this misconception that everyone here should be posting to please your worldview. It's spectacularly stupid.

    OMG Dude, this is a wonderful summary of the Michale experience we all get to tolerate here.

Comments for this article are closed.