ChrisWeigant.com

Predicting The Super Tuesday Outcomes

[ Posted Tuesday, March 3rd, 2020 – 14:49 UTC ]

Welcome back again for our continuing series where we attempt to pick the winners of all the 2020 Democratic primary contests. This is really the second part of a two-part article, as yesterday I discussed at length the shifting nature of the contest after three of the moderate candidates dropped out (Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar). Today we're going to forego the "big picture" analysis altogether and just dive right in to the state-by-state predictions.

Before we begin, we've got to update our totals for the race so far. In South Carolina, I only made picks for the top three positions, which all turned out to be correct. Personally, I was rather astonished at the margin of victory Joe Biden racked up, after predicting it would only be in the single digits (my worst prediction of the year so far, I humbly admit). Even so, going 3-for-3 in the South Carolina standings selection gives me a new total of:

Total correct 2020 primary picks so far: 13 for 18 -- 72%.

Not bad, so far. But as always, Super Tuesday means making a lot of stab-in-the-dark guesses; this year even more than most (what with the recent narrowing of the field). As always, we'll be starting from any recent polling in each state and also considering FiveThirtyEight.com's probabilities for each state -- although we give less weight to these numbers, because we really have no idea how Nate Silver quantifies the situation in places (like American Samoa, for instance) where no polling has been done at all. But even in the states with multiple polls, none of the polls reflect the new lineup in the race, so it's anyone's guess where Steyer, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar voters will migrate to.

Also, since we're past the early voting now, from this point forward we will only be making predictions about the winners of each state. Second and third place is going to matter less and less as time goes by, plus it'd be too tough to keep track of them all on Super Tuesday. Well, we may mention who we think might place second and third, but these don't count towards our running total -- only the state winners will.

One last technical note before we begin -- we're going to begin adding links at the bottom of each of these columns to all our previous 2020 prediction columns, organized by state. This list will grow over time so you can see whether I got any individual state right or wrong just by clicking on it.

 

Alabama

Alabama has no polling data available, so everyone has been kind of assuming they'll vote in a similar pattern to South Carolina. This may well prove to be the case, due to the large African-American population in the Democratic voting base. Deep South states don't always act exactly like each other politically, but it's still a pretty safe bet that Joe Biden will win here, although probably not as decisively as he won in South Carolina. He could do even better, though, with the narrower field. No matter what the margin, we're going to go ahead and call Alabama for Biden.

 

American Samoa

The Pacific territories are always tough to call, because they're never polled. Last time around, American Samoa went for Hillary Clinton, for whatever that's worth. My gut instinct is to call the state for Joe Biden, but I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict a Michael Bloomberg upset. I've heard Bloomberg is already advertising in Puerto Rico, so what's stopping him from running a few ads in American Samoa? If he's the only one up on the airwaves, he might just pull out a win. So even though I fully admit I have no real clue what the result will be, I'm going to say Bloomberg manages a win here, just for the heck of it.

 

Arkansas

Nobody's paid a whole lot of attention to Arkansas, which could mean anything. It could mean Bloomberg's got a pretty good chance here, since he's likely been the only one on the airwaves with campaign ads. In fact, I think if Bloomberg has any chance of winning an actual state, his best prospects might be here in Arkansas -- or possibly Oklahoma or some other state with no polling. But Joe Biden also has to be seen as a strong contender, since Arkansas is pretty conservative overall.

I'm going to resist the urge to call the state for Bloomberg, though, and say that Biden wins here -- due at least in part to the crossover vote from Klobuchar and the others. But I wouldn't really be all that surprised if Bloomberg or even Bernie Sanders emerged with the win, since the state is really up in the air from what I hear. As you can tell, this is one of my Super Tuesday predictions that I just don't have a lot of confidence in.

 

California

Finally, a state with some actual polling! Bernie Sanders seems to be dominating the field in the Golden State, although the biggest question coming out of Super Tuesday is how many other candidates break 15 percent statewide and how many delegates each of them manage to get. A warning is necessary here, because California is notoriously slow in counting, so the final delegate split likely won't be available for days... or even weeks. I did wonder whether Bernie would sweep the statewide delegates (or perhaps just split them with Warren), but that was before the most recent polling and before the three dropouts happened. In the last two polls, Bernie was still way out front with 38 and 31 percent, but Joe Biden had climbed to 21 and 19 percent, which is well over the threshold to win some of the statewide delegates -- and which put him in second place (Warren had been holding second in previous polls). And Biden wasn't the only one, as Elizabeth Warren hit 16 and 18 percent, which would also give her a slice of the statewide delegate pie. Michael Bloomberg has fallen back a bit to only 11 and 12 points, even after flooding the airwaves, so he could wind up with very few California delegates.

The other big question is where the voters for the three who just exited will go. The partial answer to that is "nowhere," since hundreds of thousands of people in California have already voted by mail. This early turnout is down, percentage-wise, from previous races, though, so this impact won't be as big as normal. Even so, you've got to account for at least some Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer voters already having voted for them.

Pete Buttigieg was polling at 7 and 9 points in the latest two polls, while Amy Klobuchar was at 5 and 4 percent. Steyer barely moved the needle, at 2 and 3 percent. That's 17 percent at most, and 13 percent at the least of the total vote, when you add them all together. The migration of these voters will likely boost Biden a bit, but not enough to threaten Bernie much. Warren could also benefit, and it even could push Bloomberg over the 15 percent threshold.

Thankfully, we're not predicting margins of victory or third and fourth places anymore. Which means it's pretty easy to choose Bernie Sanders as the big winner in California. How big? Well, he'll definitely get a lot more delegates than anyone else, but he's not going to walk away with an overwhelming advantage here, as was previously possible.

 

Colorado

Colorado was a pretty conservative state, not that long ago. But they've had an influx of voters from other states in the past few decades, which has turned the state rather blue. Many of these are younger voters, which could be the most important factor. This has been reflected in the polling, where Bernie Sanders has been leading pretty handily. Bernie's gotten 32 percent and 27 percent in the last two polls, along with Elizabeth Warren (21/15), Joe Biden (18/11), and Michael Bloomberg (16/11). The second of those polls was taken a week ago, though, so who knows how things have shifted? (Pete Buttigieg was still listed with 8 and 12 percent, and Amy Klobuchar got 4 and 6 percent). Nate Silver seems pretty confident that Bernie Sanders is going to win here, putting the chances of a Bernie win at 86 percent. In this case, we have to agree, and go ahead and call the state for Bernie Sanders.

 

Democrats Abroad

Democrats living in foreign countries have seen (obviously) how other countries handle healthcare. They know -- more than any other voters in America -- that "socialized medicine" is not the bugaboo some would have you believe. So I'm going to go ahead and call the Democrats Abroad primary for Bernie Sanders. One technical note, however: this particular election is unique because it will begin on Tuesday, but won't end for another week. So while we are calling it now, we won't actually know the outcome for a while.

 

Maine

Maine has been flooded with not only Michael Bloomberg ads, but also (for some reason) Tulsi Gabbard ads. But my guess is that the state will still go for Bernie. Once again, there is no polling, so this is a total gut feeling, and Maine is notorious for charting its own political path independent of what anyone else is doing. So even a Bloomberg or a Biden win here is within the realm of possibility. But I'm still calling it for Bernie.

 

Massachusetts

Massachusetts is going to be possibly the most interesting state to watch tonight. Logically, Elizabeth Warren should clean up here, since it is her home state. But for some reason she's never been all that popular in Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders has been neck-and-neck with her in the polling (up two points in one, down two points in another). Bernie just held a massive rally in Boston too, as a show of strength.

While my heart says Warren wins her home state, my head is telling me that Bernie's going to edge her out in the end. It wouldn't surprise me to be wrong on this one, but I'm going to go ahead and call the state for Bernie.

 

Minnesota

In the final polls right before Amy Klobuchar pulled out, she was in the lead, but not by much over Bernie Sanders. She had a six-point lead in the last two polls, but only hit 29 and 27 percent in them, which is not overwhelming for a home-state advantage. Bernie was at 23 and 21 percent, with Warren bringing up third with 11 and 16 points.

But now she's out of the race. I considered the possibility that she would win her home state anyway (as a show of support for their own sitting senator), but somehow I don't think enough people will be willing to "waste" their vote in the polling booth. So I'm going to go ahead and say that Bernie wins Minnesota, kind of by default.

 

North Carolina

North Carolina and Virginia are tossups, at this point. Biden and Bernie are battling it out for first place in both places, so both are pretty hard to predict. The margin is close enough that the decisive factor might be the votes from the three dropout candidates. But how will those voters migrate? That is not entirely clear.

The latest polling in North Carolina shows Biden with an edge, but one poll from February 27 actually showed Bernie out in front by two points. Michael Bloomberg was the only other candidate to crack 15 percent, meaning we may see a three-way delegate split here. There is a huge financial industry in North Carolina, so maybe the prospect of a Bloomberg presidency looks pretty good to some folks. But in the end, I think the crossover vote is mostly going to go to Biden here, and that he'll emerge with a solid win.

 

Oklahoma

No polling exists from the Sooner state, so this one's a dart-at-the-wall guess. I considered making a shocking prediction that Elizabeth Warren wins the state (she is a native daughter after all, no matter how you define "native"). But then I decided a woman winning Oklahoma was pretty farfetched, and decided not to.

A case could be made that Bloomberg wins Oklahoma, since I'm almost positive he's the only one on the airwaves with ads in the state. But the whole "guy from New York City" thing likely doesn't play too well in Oklahoma -- that's my guess, anyway. Maybe I've just seen too many of those macho salsa commercials, I dunno.

Kidding aside, I'm going to almost by default hand this one to Joe Biden. I can't see Bernie Sanders doing all that well here, and if you cross out Warren, Bernie, and Bloomberg, what you're left with is a Biden win. Which is how I'm calling it.

 

Tennessee

Tennessee is also a gut call, really. While the African-American vote here is nowhere near as high as in South Carolina or even Alabama, it could prove decisive. Tennessee is generally pretty conservative (as indeed all the states in the South are), so once again I am going to play it safe and predict that Joe Biden wins here, too.

 

Texas

Texas is a tough one to call. There is polling, but the margins are so close that the dropout vote could be decisive. But then again, over a million votes have already been cast, so perhaps this won't have as big an effect as it could have.

Here's what the most recent two polls say: Bernie Sanders at 31 and 30 percent, Joe Biden (at 26/26), Michael Bloomberg (16/13), Elizabeth Warren (14/17), Pete Buttigieg (5/6), Amy Klobuchar (4/6), and Tom Steyer (2/1). However, Biden seems to be already enjoying a surge as the poll before that showed Bernie at the same point (30 percent) while Biden was at only 21 percent, tied with Bloomberg. So maybe Biden is already riding a wave there -- a wave which could only grow after Amy and Pete endorsed him (at a Texas rally, no less)? Nate Silver seems to think so, as he puts Biden on top with a 55 percent chance of winning, with Bernie having only a 43 percent chance. Biden's team predicted today that they will win the state, as well.

Somehow, though, I don't buy it. I think Bernie will eke out a win here, although I also think that this could be one of the closest contests of the night. We may not know until Wednesday morning who won Texas, but I'm going out on a limb and say that Bernie has already corralled enough early votes (and that many more will be wasted on Pete and Amy) to wind up winning the Lone Star state. Although I will admit, this is probably the prediction I feel least confident about, at this point.

 

Utah

This is a truly odd one, because the only thing I have to base a prediction on is Nate Silver, and somehow I have a hard time believing his numbers. He's got Bernie for the win with a 90 percent chance, which seems awfully high to me. Utah is a very conservative state all around, but then again most of the conservatives in the state are Republicans. So perhaps all the Democrats are young and rebellious? I normally don't trust Nate Silver all that much, but I'm going to chance it here and say he's right and Bernie walks away with Utah.

 

Vermont

OK, this one's pretty easy, for obvious reasons. Bernie for the win. This is the prediction I feel most confident about, in fact, especially since Nate Silver is giving him a 99-percent-plus chance of winning. Favorite son Bernie takes the Green Mountain state, hands down.

 

Virginia

Like North Carolina, Virginia is also a tough one to call. Bernie and Joe have been fighting it out in the polls, with Bernie mostly retaining an edge. But there are a lot of crossover voters up for grabs as well -- Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were polling (taken together) between 17 and 20 points, which is a lot of votes.

I think that this could be one of the closest races of the night, but it will also be an early subject for the media to talk about since their polls close earliest of all the states voting. I'm going to go ahead and predict that the polls are right and Bernie pulls out a win here, but I could very easily be wrong about this one. If all the Amy/Pete votes move en masse over to Biden, he could easily come out on top. But while I'm not very confident about it, I'm still going to say Bernie squeaks a win out here.

 

Conclusions

OK, let's add them all up. We've got Bernie Sanders for the win in ten races, although one of them won't be decided for another week. Bernie will win: California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad (eventually...), Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

Joe Biden will win five contests tonight: Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

Michael Bloomberg will win one contest, in American Samoa. He may pick up some second-place finishes as well, but we're only picking winners.

Elizabeth Warren may come in second in a number of states too, but won't win a single state (unless I turn out to be wrong about Massachusetts, of course).

Tulsi Gabbard's name will barely be mentioned tonight, which is as it should be since she won't come close in any state, period.

The big question, of course -- which will now become the overriding question for the entire race -- is where the delegate race stands after all these votes are counted and all the delegates apportioned. This may not happen for quite some time, especially considering how slow California is to verify its results.

My guess is that Bernie Sanders emerges as the clear delegate winner, but by a smaller margin than could have been if Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar hadn't dropped out.

Now, I realize that my predictions are weighted towards Bernie, and I could turn out to be wrong about a lot of states where the crossover vote proves to be decisive (for Biden, most likely). But no matter who wins which states, after today the race will be seen as a two-man race between Bernie and Biden. The pressure on Elizabeth Warren to drop out will become enormous, but in this instance it won't be pressure from the Democratic establishment, but rather pressure from both Bernie Sanders supporters and even some of her own backers. The longer Warren stays in the race, the tougher it will be for Bernie to rack up a clear majority of delegates, and their ideology is so similar that progressives will be making a big push for Warren to gracefully exit. There will be, I predict, much talk of a "Sanders/Warren" ticket for the general election -- which would make a lot of sense, considering how closely the two are in political ideology. It might not make much "political conventional wisdom" sense, because Warren won't be bringing a swing state with her or a new base of ideological support or anything, but it would be the obviously logical progressive choice for Bernie to make. But he'd only consider doing so if she dropped out early, that's my guess. If she stays in the race for another month or more, Bernie may never choose her for his veep. That's a lot of stew to make out of one Super Tuesday oyster, I admit, but at the very least, the pressure will indeed be on Warren to drop out if Bernie does really well and Warren fails to get better than second anywhere, when all the votes are counted (or even "anywhere but Massachusetts," if Warren pulls out the home-state win there).

There will also be lots of voices calling on Mike Bloomberg to drop out as well, but I wouldn't exactly call it "pressure" in the same way it will be applied to Warren (or Pete or Amy, for that matter). Bloomberg obviously doesn't give a fig for what the Democratic National Committee thinks, and he's always been free to chart his own path due to his almost-unlimited supply of money. But Bloomberg's entire rationale for being in the race in the first place was that Biden would eventually stumble so badly that Bernie Sanders would be in danger of winning the nomination. That was really his main motivating factor to run. But if Biden is doing better -- by far -- than Bloomberg, then that shoots that rationale full of holes, really.

Would Bloomberg stay in the race if he were in danger of being the spoiler that prevents Biden from a clear victory? I doubt it, personally. The real question, assuming he doesn't win a single state after spending a breathtaking amount of money (a half a billion dollars or, put another way, more than Barack Obama spent on his entire campaign) is when Bloomberg does decide to bow out, and -- even more importantly -- whether the Bloomberg campaign organization will continue operating and spending truckloads of cash in support of Biden over Bernie. If Bloomberg exits immediately and heartily endorses Biden, it could be a lifesaver for Biden in the form of an absolute boatload of cash. This could even propel Biden to the nomination. But if Bloomberg stays in for another three or four weeks and eats into Biden's voter base, that may serve to boost Bernie from just the candidate with the most delegates to the candidate who is going to have the winning majority of delegates at the convention. That's an awful tough choice to make after spending a half-billion of your own money, but that's what it may come down to for Mike.

I've already been shocked twice by Democratic candidates ending their campaigns early (Buttigieg and Klobuchar), so I'm prepared to be similarly shocked by Bloomberg. But then again, that's an awful lot of money to have spent to just walk away from the effort so fast. So we'll have to see.

Polls begin closing at 7:00 Eastern, but full results won't be available for a while (from places like American Samoa and California, to say nothing of Democrats Abroad who won't finish voting until next week...). It'll be a wild ride no matter what the outcome, so you can be sure I'll be watching the returns closely tonight.

 

[Previous states' picks:]

[IA] [NH] [NV] [SC]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

173 Comments on “Predicting The Super Tuesday Outcomes”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:


    Conclusions

    OK, let's add them all up. We've got Bernie Sanders for the win in ten races, although one of them won't be decided for another week. Bernie will win: California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad (eventually...), Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

    Joe Biden will win five contests tonight: Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

    I concur.. Bernie will take the day.... :D

    So much for the claim that " Joe is in great shape and right now (barring any unforeseen major event), on track to win the Democratic nomination"

    Biden will likely drop out after a poor showing in Super Tuesday..

    You herd it hear first.. :D

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    Fivethirtyeight has a narrow edge in delegates for Biden.

    I think they'll both win enough states that the narrative will be mostly about delegates, but "seven states versus six" will count for something too.

    Here are the highest probabilities they have for state wins.

    Biden: TX, NC, VA, TN, AL, OK, AR
    Sanders: CA, MA, MN, UT, ME, VT

    And they have an exact tie on probabilities for American Samoa, with Biden and Sanders at 36% each.

    I still think Biden is an even weaker general-election candidate than Sanders, and therefore more likely to be nominated.

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    Oops. I still think Biden is an even weaker general-election candidate than Sanders, and I still think that means he's more likely to be nominated than the latest news on any given day would suggest. So I once again, not "still", think that he's the nominee.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    OK, I had to laugh at your last line there. Sad, but all too often true...

    :-)

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Biden will drop out?

    Man, put down the crack pipe. You been smokin' too much...

    Heh.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Just sifting through the daily dose of the obvious and stumbled across this...

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/opinions-trumps-new-attack-on-biden-exposes-his-own-unfitness/ar-BB10GB7W?ocid=spartanntp

    It wasn't because the article is directly on point that was so amusing, (let's face it, in a normal world, both Biden and Trump would be out to pasture) it was because it reminded me of something Bush sr said about Clinton during their Presidential race. Clinton was chugging along, leading in the polls, then up popped Paula Jones and all of a sudden, Bush was in with a chance (Perot having just withdrawn) and the mud started to fly...Clinton decided to get into the mud to fight his pig and started hitting Bush with Iran-Contra and all the shit that was stuck to Bush and his obvious involvement. During a rally of his supporters Bush said, " Now Clinton is saying I can't be trusted in high office! well that's like being called ugly by a frog..." Lol, brilliant line, one worthy of reminiscence at this point, considering Trump's recent dementia-like utterances regarding immunizations and all things medical.

    Funny how some people see the world, the article is a fun read, however its premise is flawed. The time has long since passed that anything Trump says about any political adversary resonates with anyone outside his core base. I'm not sure if Trump, or indeed anyone within his orbit, realise that his core base is like any political mass, they rely of their leader to feed and satiate their emotions to sustain their impetus. There will never be enough to grow the herd, only to maintain it in a fashion to which it has become accustomed.

    In short, Trump could accuse Biden of being on the grassy knoll, for all the good it will do, all his assertions about Biden will reach saturation with his base, and go no further.

    LL&P

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (4)-
    "Here's my story
    sad but true...."
    Run Around Sue

    DO something about it.

    Start the conversation in the public discourse on the candidate that has the BEST chance to beat Trump- small donor only Bernie.

    And stay away from run around Sue. She is stepping out with the big money interests.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Biden will drop out?

    Man, put down the crack pipe. You been smokin' too much...

    Heh.

    -CW

    It might not be IMMEDIATELY after ST.. Biden might try to save face and give it a few days or a week or so..

    But Biden will have such a poor showing in Super Tuesday, his demise will be inevitable..

    I am open to any wager ya want to name.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, Trump could accuse Biden of being on the grassy knoll, for all the good it will do, all his assertions about Biden will reach saturation with his base, and go no further.

    Change Biden to Clinton and it will be as much bullshit as it's current forma..

    Face reality dood.. President Trump's "base" far FAR exceeds what ya'all believe it is..

  10. [10] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [5] Agreed, over-medication can launch flights of fancy. And no, I see Biden going anywhere but the White House (even if it's in his capacity as a cadaver lying in state, after having beaten Trump from the grave, ala
    Mel Carnahan or Patsy Mink...lol)

    LL& posthumously P...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agreed, over-medication can launch flights of fancy.

    So, you are saying you were over-medicated when you bet your entire reputation on Mueller actually finding something illegal or impeachable with President Trump..

    Plus you are saying you were over-medicated back in 2016 when you claimed that hillary clinton would win the election..

    So, basically, you have been over medicated since Nov of 2016 when ***EACH*** and ***EVERY*** President Trump prediction you made was WRONG..

    Is that what you are conceding now??? :D

    OK.. I accept your concession..

  12. [12] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Change Biden to Clinton and it will be as much bullshit as it's current forma.."

    The flaw in your calculation is as obvious as it is myopic; Biden will have more support in the rust belt than Clinton, and will close the idiotic electoral college backdoor win. This is where Trumpian hubris and reality meet head on, Trump has less chance of increasing his popular vote count than I do of becoming the next Pope and the blue collar votes in Wisconsin and Michigan will go to Biden in time...So where does you path for Trump's re-election go through? Florida and Texas are shaky for a Trump repeat. Given Trump's abandonment of Puerto Rico post hurricane and Florida's vast Latino voting bloc, I think it's wishful thinking he gains any ground there. Texas will be close too, many of the border counties could slip through Trump's fingers because of his botched wall scam.

    Nah, I'm all in with my previous prognostication, Trump will fall in the same way he rose, in an election that is crying out for a change in the status quo...Only this time, it's Trump who has become stagnant and repugnant to the electorate. Plus, right on cue, only not to Trump's natural flare for fiscal disaster alone but, ironically for the avowed germaphobe, a Chinese viral pandemic, the economy grinds to a halt. Add it all up and Trump is sending out for extra capacity Depends as his ouster draws near.

    LL&P

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    James T Canuck [6] -

    In short, Trump could accuse Biden of being on the grassy knoll, for all the good it will do

    Didn't he already do that with Ted Cruz's dad?

    Heh.

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, one final prediction:

    Vermont will be the first state called tonight by the networks.

    Feel pretty confident about that one...

    Heh.

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "So, you are saying you were over-medicated when you bet your entire reputation on Mueller actually finding something illegal or impeachable with President Trump.."

    Why yes, and it still stands, minus any over-medication on my part, Mueller did find no less than ten impeachable or illegal acts committed by Trump. Had you bothered to forgo the Barr-Trump cool-aid and read what Mueller wrote, you would see that it was only a DOJ "tradition" (it not actually being law) that prevented Trump's indictment for Obstruction of justice...However, I see no reason for that not to be remedied once Trump settles back into civilian life. Given Trump's propensity for retribution, coupled with his blunt-force paranoia and victimization complexes, I would imagine the thought of once again being a private citizen keeps him up at night.

    He has to expect his political foes to be as malevolent in victory as has been, it's built in to his character to assume and project his own worst impulses on others. It would follow that in his mind failure to be re-elected means certain persecution.

    LL&P

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    D'oh!

    I spoke too soon... the channel I was tuned to (NBC) actually called VA before VT. Also, I got VA wrong. Double D'oh!

    Oh, well, ST is always a rollercoaster...

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [13]-[14] Way to read those tea leaves, CW...what's next for you? predicting the sun will shine at noon tomorrow...

    If Biden was on the grassy knoll, that would make five of the next 10 presidents who were in or around Dallas on or about 22 November, 1963.

    What curious happenstance.

    ;)

    LL&P

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    NC just called for Biden, right when polls closed.

    That puts me at 2-for-3, which might just prove to be my high point of the night... Biden's looking pretty strong so far...

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Alabama: Biden
    American Samoa: Biden
    Arkansas: Biden
    California: Bernie, but Biden holds his own here in delegate haul
    Colorado: Bernie
    Democrats Abroad: Why is this on Super Tuesday?
    Maine: Bernie
    Massachusetts: Sorry Warren: Bernie
    Minnesota: Sorry Klobuchar: Bernie
    North Carolina: Not a tossup: Biden
    Oklahoma: Sorry Warren: Biden
    Tennessee: Condolences, Nashville: Biden, easy call
    Texas... My Texas: Biden's Texas
    Utah: Bernie
    Vermont: Somebody wins their home state: Bernie
    Virginia: Not even close: Biden

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller (moved forward)

    Crunched all the numbers. Joe is in great shape and right now (barring any unforeseen major event), on track to win the Democratic nomination. If -- big if -- Bloomberg drops out of the race this week (and that's the rumor), it's basically over. If Bloomberg doesn't drop out this week, Joe should take a decent lead in pledged delegates by mid to end of March... by Georgia or Puerto Rico.

    Hope this makes sense. In a hurry.

    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Later. :)

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Holy crap!

    According to CNN, I got American Samoa right -- they're calling it for Bloomberg!

    Wow, didn't really think that one was going to come true...

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    1

    So much for the claim that "Joe is in great shape and right now (barring any unforeseen major event), on track to win the Democratic nomination"

    Oh, look: You're volunteering to highlight your own ignorance by mocking someone who actually knows what they're talking about. How pathetic is that?

    Biden will likely drop out after a poor showing in Super Tuesday..

    Your brain already dropped out.

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I'm already making adding mistakes, could be a long night.

    Called right: AS, NC, VT
    Called wrong: VA

    3-for-4's even better, but I doubt it'll last...

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    21

    Impressive! Good call on Am Sam. :)

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Next wave's a big one, top of the hour polls close in:

    AL, ME, MA, OK, TN

    Will MA be called right away or will it be close? No state has been close yet...

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [24] -

    Pure luck. I actually kind of laughed when I typed it, because I thought I was being too generous to Mike...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wait, what? They didn't call Massachusetts for Bernie already?

    Oh... that is good news for: Biden.

  28. [28] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hmmm...

    Only state called at top of hour was AL, for Biden.

    Now, OK has no exit polling, so that's understandable, and TN just had tornadoes, but it's looking like a close race in ME and MA.

    -CW

  29. [29] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bloomberg is already saying he's going to "reconsider" tomorrow whether he'll go forward or not. That's a big shift in attitude...

    -CW

  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TX and TN looking very close, but with less than 10% in...

    Bernie stronger than expected in TN, Bloomberg fairly strong in both...

    -CW

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Another top of the hour approaches... CO and MN this time...

    -CW

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    PBS just called CO for Bernie.

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bernie should have already won Maine and Massachusetts.
    I don't get it. If Biden actually holds his own in Maine and Massachusetts and manages to win either one or both of them, I will be:

    * Gobsmacked
    * Vindicated. :)

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    PBS (AP, actually) just called OK for Biden...

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [33] -

    I'm more surprised that TN hasn't been called for Biden yet...

    I admit I didn't see as much of a 3-way race in MA.

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    An update on my calls:

    Called right: AS, CO, NC, OK, VT
    Called wrong: VA

    Not too bad (5 for 6!), but the night is still young...

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, wait... forgot AL...

    Called right: AL, AS, CO, NC, OK, VT
    Called wrong: VA

    6 for 7 -- woo hoo!

    (I'm enjoying it while it lasts...)

    -CW

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    I thought they called Tennessee: 7 for 8 for CW.

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    CBS just called TN for Biden.

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Yep, 7 for 8. I'm on a roll!

    -CW

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Biden running strong in MN. Guess all her voters listened to Amy...

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    41

    Biden running strong in MN. Guess all her voters listened to Amy...

    Wait, what!?

  43. [43] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    CNN seems to be extra-cautious about calling states. They still haven't called OK, TN, or even CO yet...

    -CW

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    When she told them all to vote for Joe.

    That's what I meant.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    44

    I hear you, I was just shocked. Minnesota should be a win for Bernie. If Biden wins it, I will again be:

    * Gobsmacked
    * Vindicated! :)

  46. [46] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Interesting micro-factoid.

    Bernie's doing really well in AR up around Fayetteville. This is where the world headquarters of WalMart are, and Bernie almost singlehandedly got them to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour. Maybe he won a bunch of votes by doing this?

    -CW

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    University of Arkansas, dude! :)

  48. [48] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, just got back from casting my ballot... what'd I miss?

    -CW

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Ah. That would explain things...

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Looks like MN and AR for Biden.

    That's 2 wrong for the night...

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    interesting numbers in colorado. not where i thought bloomberg would come in so strong.

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    texas and maine both look very close. utah, not so much. is biden even on the ballot there?

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    It is a BFD that Biden won Minnesota... I totally underestimated Joementum.

    Dang! I'm cool with it, though. :)

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    52

    I really wanted Joe to win my Texas, but keep in mind the big cities of Dallas and Houston will come in last. The turnout in Texas (a typically non-voting state) is off the charts. Joe will come out with a huge haul of delegates from Texas whether or not he wins it. Still got my fingers crossed, though.

    Maine should not even be close. Bernie should have already won it. Ditto for Massachusetts. This is nuts. :)

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Y'all see the pattern to this, though?

    So far, Bernie has won the states that vote by mail and his home state, of course... votes that were likely mailed before Joementum kicked in.

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    'splain to me massachusetts?

  57. [57] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Utah goes into Bernie's column...

    -CW

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Pie.

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    very surprising

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 [51] -

    Good point. I have no idea why he's doing so well there. Lotsa ads maybe? Dunno.

    Kick [54] -

    TX could turn on how many people voted early. If Amy/Pete voters had waited, they might have made the difference. Or not, Biden could still win it...

    [55] -

    Doesn't TX have a ton of mail-in votes?

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yes, and we DRINK! every time we notch a state, and an unexpected Maine and Massachusetts will quite literally do me in. *hammered*

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    west coast closes in ten minutes

  63. [63] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, an update on my numbers:

    Called right: AL, AR, AS, CO, NC, OK, TN, UT, VT
    Called wrong: MN, VA

    9 for 11, still doing pretty good!

    :-)

    -CW

  64. [64] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Politico just called MA for Biden...

    So I guess "9 for 12"...

    -CW

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Doesn't TX have a ton of mail-in votes?

    The GOP makes it extremely hard to vote in this state.

    In order to vote by mail, you must be:
    * 65 years or older
    * disabled
    * out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance, or
    * be confined in jail but otherwise eligible to vote.

    So to recap: No!

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Massachusetts too?

    OMG

  67. [67] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [65] -

    I guess I meant to say "early voting" -- sometimes I confuse the two. CA doesn't really have early voting, you just request a mail-in ballot and then they have certain days where they have drop-off spots (if you don't want to mail it). In TX, isn't "early voting" more actually going down to a voting precinct and filling out a ballot in person? Like I said, I don't differentiate between the two since we don't really have it out here.

    -CW

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    maine still a dead heat, over half the votes in and less than 500 votes apart

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, time to start hearing from california. already called for sanders, so it's likely not at all close.

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Well, I am jealous, California!

    In TX, isn't "early voting" more actually going down to a voting precinct and filling out a ballot in person? Like I said, I don't differentiate between the two since we don't really have it out here.

    Exactly right, CW, and lines are hours long. People are still voting here who were in line when the polls closed. About to wrap up, though. The turnout is nuts. Expect it to come in really late. The way Texas allocates its delegates, it'll be about an even split between Biden and Sanders no matter who wins the vote total. It happens that way all the time.

    Full disclosure: I've had too many drinks. This is on you, Joe Biden.

    Oh, and Biden spent $0 in Massachusetts. Nice return on his investment. #Joementum

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    68

    maine still a dead heat, over half the votes in and less than 500 votes apart

    Who is winng in mayne?

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Joe is winning in Maine. I'm donefor.

  73. [73] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Politico already called CA for Bernie, but nobody else has...

    -CW

  74. [74] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Who else called CA for Bernie?

    -CW

  75. [75] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Then there's Oregon, where ALL ballots are mailed to voters. If you're a traditionalist, you can bring it down to a precinct on election day, but you just put it in a box, because you've already filled it out.

    Oh, and OR has the highest voter turnout of the entire country... maybe they're on to something?

    :-)

    -CW

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Y'all far Westerners are making us mightily jealous over here where the West begins and we're not allowed to vote unless we thread a needle of paperwork and wait in line for several hours.

    But.... we did get paper backup this year. :P

  77. [77] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    The good news (maybe) is that liberalizing voting rules seems to be a geographic trend that is moving from west to east. I think I wrote about this a few years ago...

    Let me see if I can dig it out...

    -CW

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden is winning states that he hasn't set foot in or spent money in.

    Can't say that I'm surprised. :)

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who else called CA for Bernie?

    Everyone … and their brother.

  80. [80] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Here you go, from six years ago. Doesn't look like the map has changed all that much.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/10/14/voting-by-mail/

    But CA is now in a trial period of going to all vote-by-mail. I think a handful of counties did it that way this year, and by the next presidential election I expect it'll be statewide.

    -CW

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Kick! You're my new go-to political prognosticator and predictor of primaries … it has been great fun watching Texas!

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    I've done my best to deliver Texas, EM, and now... the payoff comes. :)

  83. [83] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Yeah, it's undeniable Biden's having the night of his political life!

    -CW

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Look what we did there, EM!

    [Tuesday, March 3rd, 2020 at 21:52 UTC]

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    80

    Thank you! :)

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    OMG: Maine

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Big D little a double l as esssssssssssssssssssss...

    Texasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, hell..

    When I am wrong I don't fool around.. :D

    I think I should confine my predictions to President Trump where I have the best track record.. :D

    But, as always with me, I look towards the silver lining..

    The near even match-up of Biden and Bernie makes a nasty convention fight all that more possible.. :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was not a resurrection; it was a coup. Russiagate was not a coup. Mueller was not a coup. Impeachment was not a coup. What happened yesterday was a coup. And we will push back."
    -Marianne Williamson

    Looks like the space case also sees the DNC's hand in stopping Bernie...

    The Civil War begins anew..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    What could divide the Democrats more than conspiring to stop Bernie?

    The moderate 11th-hour dropouts are craven, not courageous
    https://spectator.us/divide-democrats-more-conspiring-stop-bernie/

    More and more facts emerging that show how low establishment Democrats will sink to prevent Bernie from being the nominee...

    While I hate being wrong, it IS encouraging that, by being wrong, my ultimate prediction of the disintegration and decimation of the Democrat Party looks to be prescient...

    :D

    I lost a battle, but the war is definitely looks like it's going my way... :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps the intense wave of establishment Democratic party consolidation around Joe Biden over the past 48 hours isn’t a concerted conspiracy — no smoke-filled rooms, no corrupt deals, no villainous blackmail schemes. But the Democratic party establishment (which we’re often told does not exist) is clearly making every effort to give the appearance of something conspiratorial going on.

    Take yesterday, for instance. Pete Buttigieg meets for breakfast with 95-year-old Jimmy Carter (?), ensures the visit is well-publicized, then heads home to South Bend and pulls the rug out from under his campaign. Wait, what? Is this the same Pete Buttigieg whose aides just a few days earlier released an elaborate memo detailing his surefire path to a formidable delegate acquisition? Yet suddenly his Super Tuesday plans are scrapped, and the thousands of early votes already cast for him in California and elsewhere are effectively nullified.

    We’re all supposed to pretend this is normal behavior? Because it seems a bit sociopathic.

    Yep.. The Hand of the DNC is definitely behind the latest Biden spurt..

    The big question of the day... Does Biden remember his wins?? :D

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    I personally would never have voted for Pete. Nor would I have voted for Amy Klobuchar, who pulled the same 11th-hour dropout stunt today. But part of me still finds it disgraceful that these candidates would gut-punch their staff, volunteers, supporters, and voters in such a manner — hours before a major national election they’d been working toward for a full year — after both candidates gave every indication that they were going to actively contest. Instead of patting themselves on the back, shouldn’t Amy and Pete be begging for forgiveness, especially from those who already voted for them in Super Tuesday states — as it turns out, on false pretenses? (This highlights a problem with so-called ‘early voting’, a now widespread practice which sounds nice in theory but may be a very bad idea in the context of volatile, sequential primary races.)

    Pundits today have been applauding the selfless courage of Pete and Amy, but what exactly about their actions is reflective of courage? They nuked their campaigns, in which many thousands of people were invested, on the basis of some vague strategic calculation about ‘uniting moderates’, whatever that means exactly. And they have to run around pretending that they are so very thrilled to be endorsing…Joe Biden? Does anyone in their right minds actually believe this shit? The performance put on today was so transparently phony and craven, it’s almost hard to process. There’s nothing heroic about what these two did; it just confirms that their campaigns were thoroughly devoid of principle all along. (Although that should have never been in doubt with regard to Amy and Pete.)

    Amy and Pete were bought off or succumbed to pressure by the DNC, totally destroying the will and morale of every worker, every volunteer in their campaign..

    And, somehow, they are the good guys???

    If I were on Amy's & Pete's team, I would vote en masse for Bernie Sanders.. Or even President Trump.. See how the *DNC* likes complete and abject betrayal...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are supposed to find impressive that establishment Democrats have suddenly decided to ‘work together’ and ‘unite’ around Biden, because the prospect of Bernie Sanders winning the nomination is just that unthinkable. I would certainly like a play-by-play of what Barack Obama has been up to for the past few days. Because it seems like he issued a memo on behalf of his old pal Joe. Probably not a literal memo: but whatever approximates that in Obama-land. (Reports indicate he spoke to Pete on the phone yesterday).

    Because it’s hard to believe that such a rogues’ gallery of hollow Democratic power-brokers would have all sporadically had a change of heart today and endorsed Biden without a blessing from the Big Guy: Harry Reid, Susan Rice, Amy, Pete… even Beto O’Rourke was brought out for a reunion special tonight in Dallas. He pranced around onstage and tried his best to emote enthusiasm for…Joe Biden? Please tell me no one actually believes this.

    The logic set forth by Klobuchar in her endorsement speech, which is no doubt shared across vast stretches of the Democratic professional/media class, is that Bernie would ‘divide the party’ and therefore hand Trump an easy win in November. Oddly, it doesn’t seem to occur to them that this coordinated establishment intervention done for the purposes of blocking Bernie will also inevitably ‘divide the party’, and probably more gravely so. Bernie’s most ardent backers are already absolutely incensed. They will not fall in line behind…Joe Biden. They just won’t. And yes, they are members of the Democratic party insofar as anyone who participates in the Democratic party primaries is a member. If you enrage and alienate them by appearing to rig the process against their candidate (for the second time) then you are inescapably ‘dividing the party’ and in all likelihood assuring a Trump victory.

    If the DNC steals the nomination from Bernie Sanders.... AGAIN.... It will guarantee a President Trump win..

    Even more so than it is already guaranteed by the Democrat's failed coup and the fact that they have NO legislative victories that aren't already the property of President Trump...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe the party is just too divided no matter what happens. That’s possible. The 2016 primaries were a watershed event because it split the party on ideological lines, rather than personality or temperamental lines, as was the case with the Hillary/Obama primaries in 2008. A rift like that can’t just be magically ‘healed’. Candidates love to talk about the ‘healing’ they will usher in, but few voters want to be ‘healed’ by a politician speaking in weird medical lingo.

    ‘Divisions’ aside, it is worth noting that Democratic party figures are better able to coordinate among themselves to achieve common political goals than Republican party figures. In 2016, the non-Trump candidates famously failed to produce anything like a coherent strategy to block Trump, and therefore he sailed to the nomination with a 30-40 percent plurality. The difference, I’d theorize, comes down to one key factor: prominent Democratic party figures are generally beloved by ‘normie’ Democrats. Obama, Biden, Hillary, etc. are still widely revered, and therefore they and their surrogates are able to engage in collective action without risking backlash from the party rank-and-file and the Democrat-aligned media. Conversely, Republicans tend to quickly sour on their leaders. McCain, Romney, the Bushes, etc. all became anathema to the GOP voter base once Trump entered the picture. So there was nothing they could credibly do to stop Trump.

    It’s just different with the Democrats. Especially in the context of being an opposition party, so much of their energies and enthusiasms are poured into loathing Trump that they have little mental bandwidth left for tolerating intra-party divisions. They want desperately to ‘unite’, and the one obstacle in their minds to achieving that goal is Bernie. So they machinate to deprive him of delegates. Or at least that looks like the move here. To quote Donald Trump, ‘we’ll see what happens’.

    The problem you Democrats face is that when the Establishment Democrats screw over another faction of Democrats for the second time and then go back to the scrooed over faction, hat in hand, begging for help...

    The scrooed over faction is going to do EXACTLY what it did in 2016, the FIRST time the Establishment scrooed over the Bernie Bros...

    Insure that the Establishment's candidate LOSES...

    Once again, the Democrat Party finds itself in a PERFECT LOSE-LOSE situation..

    This doesn't keep happening by accident, people.. :D

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    John Fund: Biden’s Super Tuesday victories may enable Democratic establishment to block Sanders nomination
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/john-fund-bidens-super-tuesday-victories-may-enable-democratic-establishment-to-block-sanders-nomination

    And the Democrat Party Establishment faction's plan is revealed..

    Lemme ask ya'all something..

    Do ya'all HONESTLY believe that the Bernie Bro faction is going to see their champion railroaded again and just sit still for that???

    Honestly???

    When was the last time ya'all felt that way???

    Hmmmmm Let's see.. It was Nov of 2016...

    And WHAT was the result of that Democrat Party betrayal???

    Why, I do believe it was the election of President Trump...

    Can anyone give me any good, solid and RELEVANT facts to indicate that history WON'T repeat itself??

    Anyone?? Anyone at all???

    Wow... Quiet bunch this morning.. :D

    I guess I'll fall back on the Weigantian Charlottesville Rule...

    "SILENCE GIVES ASSENT"

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    The results of Biden’s last-minute surge are impressive. He was vastly outspent by rivals in every state and didn’t even campaign in Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Oklahoma and yet won all of those states.

    Yea... Biden doesn't spend a red cent in ANY of those states and he won them..

    Anyone NOT smell the stench of machinations of the DNC behind the curtain???

    "We're gonna let {the DNC} do it to us again!!"
    -Unknown F-14 Pilot, 7 Dec 1941

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an aside to DH...

    The Bloomberg Bust once again proves that despite the attention that big money and an extensive organization can bring to a candidate, by themselves those factors aren’t enough to win.

    Just throwing that out there.. :D

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    One place where we expect all eyes to be focused now is Phoenix, where the next Democratic debate will be held March 15. We don’t know who will still be in the race by then but we know Biden and Sanders will be on stage representing their respective wings of the Democratic Party and you can expect a no-holds-barred contest.

    Oh great..

    Another "MOST IMPORTANT DEBATE EVER!!!"....

    :eyeroll:

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Calls for unity cannot hide stark cultural differences inside Democratic Party
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/calls-for-unity-cannot-hide-stark-cultural-differences-inside-democratic-party

    No matter how you want to slice it people... Yer Democrat Party is divided..

    Denying it and burying your heads in the sand does not make the claim any less factual...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Sanders wants to make real changes to make America a good country. I mean, America has never been a good country, since the get-go. We've been brainwashed. Our founders are so great, right? George Washington and all these guys? What they did was they came and committed genocide against the natives, stole their land, kidnapped Africans and enslaved them, and founded our great nation. Our nation is rotten to the core. We need a good refoundation. We need to have love among all people. We've got to start over again."
    -Bernie Bro

    This is exactly why Bernie cannot win the General Election..

    He hates America..

    His supporters hate America...

    This is an undeniable fact...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are even divided about being divided. A recent Gallup poll asked the simple question, "Would you describe the Democratic Party today as united or divided?" Among Democrats, 51% said united, while 49% said divided. They split virtually down the middle.

    Everyone else sees Democrats as deeply divided. Sixty-seven percent of independents and 78% of Republicans described the Democratic Party that way.

    Ya gotta just laugh at the facts... :D

    Democrats are even divided about being divided.. :D

    "That's funny as hell right thar, I tell yooo what..."
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

  102. [102] 
    dsws wrote:

    [2] I wrote:
    I think they'll both win enough states that the narrative will be mostly about delegates,

    I think I can claim the prize for wrongest prediction of the evening. No one cares how many delegates Sanders gets in California. Even if it turns out that late-counted ballots in the biggest of big blue states gives Sanders an edge in delegates, the narrative is that Biden is already nominated.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted for clarity...

    Democrats are even divided about being divided. A recent Gallup poll asked the simple question, "Would you describe the Democratic Party today as united or divided?" Among Democrats, 51% said united, while 49% said divided. They split virtually down the middle.

    Everyone else sees Democrats as deeply divided. Sixty-seven percent of independents and 78% of Republicans described the Democratic Party that way.

    Ya gotta just laugh at the facts... :D

    Democrats are even divided about being divided.. :D

    "That's funny as hell right thar, I tell yooo what..."
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I can claim the prize for wrongest prediction of the evening.

    Sorry, Dan.. That prize is taken.. :D

    gives Sanders an edge in delegates, the narrative is that Biden is already nominated.

    Oh com'on, you can't go THAT far..

    Sure, the DNC and Establishment Dems want you to BELIEVE that...

    But the facts still clearly show that Party Purity is the dominant factor in 2020...

    But, on the other hand, I have been known to be wrong on occasion...

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I wonder what Russia thinks

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wonder what Russia thinks

    Why??

    :D

  107. [107] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I wonder what Russia thinks."

    They are probably thinking "I wonder if we can Buy DEM too."

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Based on history and the evidence from yesterday's voting it is time to correct a long standing typo.

    The correct name for yesterday is STUPID Tuesday.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    They are probably thinking "I wonder if we can Buy DEM too."

    Shirley you jest...

    Russia has already bought and paid for Dems all the way back to when they were the USSR...

    All the Left Wing pinko demonstrators and such of the 60s, 70s and 80s on up thru today???

    All Demcorats.. All ran by the KGB then the FSB...

    The correct name for yesterday is STUPID Tuesday.

    Heh.. Point to DH...

  110. [110] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    the intel community said the russian government were trying to help sanders in the primaries, and sanders himself told them to get out.

    Mr. Sanders denounced Russia in a statement, calling President Vladimir V. Putin an “autocratic thug” and warning Moscow to stay out of the election.

    this being the case, i wonder whether putin retaliated by hurting or withdrawing his help from sanders, and what part if any that may have played in yesterday's results.

    JL

  111. [111] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Joe-mentum?

    I shudder to think what they might have done with that word if Buttigieg was winning. :D

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    butt-mentum?

  113. [113] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    they already used "klo-mentum" for amy.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    this being the case, i wonder whether putin retaliated by hurting or withdrawing his help from sanders, and what part if any that may have played in yesterday's results.

    It is my fervent hope that yer just spewing as a joke...

    If you actually believe this, I would be concerned for yer mental health.. :D

    Hitler had the jews..

    Democrats have the Russians.. :eyeroll:

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    I shudder to think what they might have done with that word if Buttigieg was winning. :D

    Heh

    And ANOTHER point to DH... :D

  116. [116] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i was sort-of half joking, but it does make one wonder.

    Hitler had the jews..

    ah yes, we never did finish that discussion.

    Donald Trump is not Hitler. But Trump’s words and actions encourage and embolden those among his supporters who yearn for an Adolf of their own.
    Because when an American president boasts at mass rallies of rounding up and summarily expelling asylum seekers to their perilous home countries – where all too many of them have since met their deaths – America loses.
    Hitler wins.
    When an American president sets up hygiene-compromised caging facilities and concentration camps to hold parents and, separately, the children which officers have taken from their arms of those parents, and then effectively keeps all of them out of the view of the public and beyond scrutiny and supervision – America loses.
    Only Hitler wins.
    Trump is not Hitler. But when an American president, addressing those mass rallies, signals that all honest journalists, all Mexican-Americans, all non-Christians, all Californians, and, in fact, all voters for the Democratic Party, are disloyal enemies of the state, he doesn’t even have to spell it out, nor use the words in the language of his own old relatives from the Old Country, when he echoes the sentiments which those who hope for a new Hitler are waiting to hear:
    “Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Fuhrer!”

    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-in-2020-america-hitler-is-winning-1.8503349

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    i was sort-of half joking, but it does make one wonder

    It only makes you wonder if yer searching for an excuse to explain obvious failures and blunders of yer chosen Party..

    Nice opinion.. Too bad it's not based on any facts..

    President Trump's rhetoric is no different from Obama's..

    President Trump's "boogey man" is foreign terrorists and criminals..

    Odumbo's "boogey man" were fellow Americans who made smart business decisions..

    A distinction.. Not a difference...

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    the intel community said the russian government were trying to help sanders in the primaries, and sanders himself told them to get out.

    Which is EXACTLY what a Russian plant would say... :D

    Compare and contrast that to President Trump's mocking at such an absurd and paranoid notion.. :D

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Nice opinion.. Too bad it's not based on any facts..

    it's based on MANY facts. for example:

    1. Neither was elected by a majority. FACT

    2. Both found direct communication channels to their base. in hitler's case it was free radios tuned to only one channel, in donald's case twitter. FACT

    3. Both blame others for the country's problems. in hitler's case jews, in donald's case illegal immigrants from non-european countries. FACT

    4. Both relentlessly demonize opponents. the epithets "crooked hillary," "lyin' ted," "failing new york times," etc. etc. echo the way hitler called all his political opponents "parasites, criminals, cockroaches, and various categories of leftist scum,” FACT

    5. They unceasingly attack objective truth. “Each began the assault by seeking to delegitimize the mainstream press. Hitler quickly coined the epithet Lügenpresse (literally ‘lying press’) to denigrate the mainstream press. Trump uses a paraphrase of Hitler’s lying press epithet—‘fake news’—cribbed, no doubt, from one of Hitler’s speeches.

    (1-5 of 20, to be continued)

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's based on MANY facts. for example:

    My apologies for not being clear.

    It's based on IRRELEVANT facts..

    For one thing, President Trump has never attacked Mexican-Americans..

    He's only attacked criminals...

    If the opinion get's that one basic thing wrong, it shows it's nothing but a hysterical Trump/America hate hit piece...

    Both blame others for the country's problems. in hitler's case jews, in donald's case illegal immigrants from non-european countries. FACT

    As does Sanders and so did Obama...A fact you refuse to acknowledge.. They blame AMERICANS which is even worse... Hitler blamed german Jews, so in essence, Sanders and Odumbo is MORE like Hitler..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    (1-5 of 20, to be continued)

    As I said, NONE of those are exclusive to President Trump and Hitler/Nazis

    They ALL are also shared by DEMOCRAT candidates for President, both current and past..

    So, yes.. There are valid comparisons.. But they are ALSO valid comparisons for your Democrats as well...

    As such the comparison is biased and SOLELY for the purposes of political propaganda and has no objective factual or comparitive value whatsoever..

    You find me a VALID factual comparison that is EXCLUSIVE to President Trump and to Hitler/Nazis and then you will (maybe) have a valid argument....

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The Bloomberg Bust once again proves that despite the attention that big money and an extensive organization can bring to a candidate, by themselves those factors aren’t enough to win.

    Well said, Michale!

    It just goes to show that big money in politics - make that big money in a political campaign - means nothing without a real candidate and a real rationale.

    See Trump as compared to Bloomberg for all the sound arguments you need to support the proposition that money without a rationale gets a candidate nowhere, fast.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well said, Michale!

    Thank you, Liz.. :D While, technically I didn't say it, I recognized it's worth in re-saying it...

    It just goes to show that big money in politics - make that big money in a political campaign - means nothing without a real candidate and a real rationale.

    I wouldn't say it means NOTHING.. But it's not too difficult to overcome...

    It's a leg up, but relative easy to kick the feet out from under...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted For Clarity

    Well said, Michale!

    Thank you, Liz.. :D While, technically I didn't say it, I recognized it's worth in re-saying it...

    It just goes to show that big money in politics - make that big money in a political campaign - means nothing without a real candidate and a real rationale.

    I wouldn't say it means NOTHING.. But it's not too difficult to overcome...

    It's a leg up, but relatively easy to kick the feet out from under...

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    US scientists have completed a coronavirus vaccine, Texas-based genetic engineering company claims
    Greffex said Wednesday that they had finished development of their vaccine for the virus that has killed more than 2,000 worldwide

    Their shot is now ready for animal testing, followed by human trials

    Scientists at Greffex are among dozens worldwide racing to develop shots and drugs to prevent and treat the virus that's struck nearly 76,000 worldwide
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8026293/US-scientists-completed-coronavirus-vaccine.html

    President Trump comes thru again!!!

    Another win for the President :D

  126. [126] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    (continued, edited for length)

    6. They relentlessly attack mainstream media. Donald constantly tweets ‘failing New York Times,’ leads crowds in chanting ‘CNN sucks,’ [and] is personally hostile to most reporters.” He refused to fly the flag at half-mast after the murder of five journalists in Annapolis in June 2018, tried to punish CNN by blocking a merger of its corporate parent, and revoke federal Postal Service contracts held by Amazon, which was founded by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.

    7. Their attacks on truth include science. “Both Trump and Hitler intensified their assault on objective truth by deriding scientific experts, especially academics who questioned Hitler’s views on race or Trump’s views on climate change, immigration, or economics. In both Trump’s and Hitler’s worlds, public opinion ultimately defines what is true and what is false, not objective reality.”

    8. Their lies blur reality—and supporters spread them. “Once Hitler had delegitimized the mainstream media by a series of systematic attacks on its integrity, he constructed a fawning alternative mass media designed to reinforce his direct radio messages and enhance his personal power. Trump is following the same path, simultaneously launching bitter attacks on the mainstream press while embracing the alt-right media, co-opting both Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox.

    9. Both orchestrated mass rallies to show status. “Once Hitler had cemented his personal communications link with his base via free radios and a fawning media and had badly eroded the idea of objective truth, he reinforced his emotional bond with his base by holding a series of carefully orchestrated mass meetings. “The powerful personal bonds nurtured by Trump’s tweets and Fox’s fawning are also systematically reinforced by periodic, carefully orchestrated mass rallies.

    10. They embrace extreme nationalism. “Trump echoes Hitler’s appeal to ultranationalist fervor, extolling American exceptionalism right down to the slogan ‘Make America Great Again,’ a paraphrase of Hitler’s promise to "restore German greatness.”

    (11-20 forthcoming)

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg's out..

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Warren, Biden and Bernie all that's left??

    The Biden-DNC / Sanders-Bernie Bros war is going to be EPIC!! :D

    Of course, I *HAVE* been wrong on occasion.. :D

    It's entirely possible that, in the spirit of amity, Biden or Bernie will roll over and show the other it's belly... :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    (11-20 forthcoming)

    Don't bother..

    Until you admit that NONE of the traits are exclusive SOLELY to Hitler & President Trump, yer just spewing hate/bigotry (not yours) filled opinion as fact...

    You DON'T have a trait that is exclusive, therefore you DON'T have a valid argument.

    Now, you can be like others here and simply continue to spew the BS regardless of the relevant FACTless nature of the spewings..

    But I have always thought that such lame retarded actions are beneath you..

    I hope you don't prove me wrong...

  130. [130] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It has been said that we Americans usually "get the president we deserve." If that's true, it appears we're a collection of stupid fumduckers doomed to endure the fat orange moron for 4 more yrs.

    Bad enough that given the choice, we'd invariably choose charisma over competence, but now we don't even have THAT choice!

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that's true, it appears we're a collection of stupid fumduckers doomed to endure the fat orange moron for 4 more yrs.

    Uh... Right... :D

    It's obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together and/or NOT afflicted by HHPTDS that the election is President Trump's to lose...

  132. [132] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Bloomberg's showing only shows that having more big money than your opponent(s) doesn't mean more than the candidate. We already knew that from 2016.

    It doesn't mean that a candidate taking big money is not going to be influenced by big money when they pass legislation. It will not solve the problem of big money in our political process as the last several decades have proven.

    We don't know if it is possible for a small donor only candidate to beat a big money candidate. We do know it is possible for a small donor only candidate to raise enough money to be competitive based on trends and math.

    So the pragmatic choice is not to continue repeating the same mistake that hasn't worked for decades that will allow the problem to continue and continue getting worse but to try something we haven't tried yet that trends show a strong possibility of being successful at beginning to solve the problem of big money in our political process.

    If there is nothing we can't do if we work together then we should work together on something that at least has a chance to begin to solve our problem instead of working together to make sure the problem continues to get worse.

    Biden should be asked why he can't run a small donor only campaign or why if he can do anything like he says he can he is not doing it.

    Now that Bloomberg is no longer getting his free pass and is no longer running (even though Michale did not provide FACTS to verify :D) isn't time that Biden, Bernie and anyone left in the race stopped getting a free pass on why they are choosing the big money interests over ordinary citizens to finance their campaigns?

    Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen and that trends showing it can happen should be ignored because it hasn't happened yet. If that were true then Obama would not have been elected in 2008, Hillary would not have won the nomination in 2016 and we would still be singing God Save the Queen before watching the Manchester United championship game instead of singing the Star-Spangled Banner before the Superbowl.

  133. [133] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    NO Michale, it's not Trump's election to lose- it's ordinary citizen's election to lose.

    It's a shame so many are willing to surrender to the big money interests without even trying.

  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    11. Both made closing borders a centerpiece. “Hitler all but closed Germany’s borders, freezing non-Aryan migration into the country and rendering it impossible for Germans to escape without official permission. Like Hitler, Trump has also made closed borders a centerpiece of his administration,”

    12. They embraced mass detention and deportations. “Hitler promised to make Germany free from Jews and Slavs. Trump promises to slow, stop, and even reverse the flow of non-white immigrants." Trump’s efforts to cast dragnets to arrest undocumented aliens where they work, live, and worship, followed by mass deportation… echo Hitler’s promise to defend Germany.

    13. Both used borders to protect selected industries. “Like Hitler, Trump seeks to use national borders to protect his favored national interests, threatening to ignite protectionist trade wars with Europe, China, and Japan similar to the trade wars that, in earlier incarnations, helped to ignite World War I and World War II,”

    14. They cemented their rule by enriching elites. “Hitler’s version of fascism shifted immense power—both political and financial—to the leaders of German industry. In fact, Hitler governed Germany largely through corporate executives,” he continues. “Trump has also presided over a massive empowerment—and enrichment—of corporate America.

    15. Both rejected international norms. “Hitler’s foreign policy rejected international cooperation in favor of military and economic coercion. “Like Hitler, Trump is deeply hostile to multinational cooperation, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the nuclear agreement with Iran, threatening to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, abandoning our Kurdish allies in Syria, and questioning the value of NATO”

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and

    Until you admit that NONE of the traits are exclusive SOLELY to Hitler & President Trump [snip]

    i conceded that point ages ago.

    however, the fact that he exhibits all of these traits simultaneously and continuously (rather than just one or two once in a while), IS unique to donald among US politicians post-adolf.

  135. [135] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hasn't the Trump/Obama/Nazi stuff played out yet?

    How about we move on to a discussion of how the citizens supporting the big money candidates are behaving like good little Nazis instead of standing up against this SIMILAR perversion of our political process?

  136. [136] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    16. They attack domestic democratic processes. “Hitler attacked the legitimacy of democracy itself, purging the voting rolls, challenging the integrity of the electoral process, and questioning the ability of democratic government to solve Germany’s problems,” “Trump has also attacked the democratic process, declining to agree to be bound by the outcome of the 2016 elections when he thought he might lose, supporting the massive purge of the voting rolls allegedly designed to avoid (nonexistent) fraud, championing measures that make it harder to vote, tolerating—if not fomenting—massive Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, encouraging mob violence at rallies, darkly hinting at violence if Democrats hold power, and constantly casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections unless he wins.”

    17. Both attack the judiciary and rule of law. “Hitler politicized and eventually destroyed the vaunted German justice system. Trump threatens the judicially enforced rule of law, bitterly attacking American judges who rule against him, slyly praising Andrew Jackson for defying the Supreme Court, and abusing his pardon power.

    18. Both glorify the military and demand loyalty oaths. “Like Hitler, Trump glorifies the military, staffing his administration with layers of retired generals (who eventually were fired or resigned), relaxing control over the use of lethal force by the military and the police, and demanding a massive increase in military spending” Trump has also demanded loyalty oaths. “He fired James Comey for refusing personal loyalty to the president; sacked Jeff Sessions for failing to suppress the criminal investigation into the 2016 elections; repeatedly threatened to dismiss Robert Mueller, called again and again for the jailing of Hillary Clinton, leading crowds in chants of ‘lock her up.’” A new chant, “send her back,” has since emerged at Trump rallies directed at non-white Democratic congresswomen.

    19. They proclaim unchecked power. “Like Hitler, Trump has intensified a trend of governing unilaterally, largely through executive orders or proclamations.” “Like Hitler, Trump claims the power to declare a national emergency (regardless of whether or not there actually is one), overrule Congress and govern all by himself.

    20. Both relegate women to subordinate roles. “Hitler propounded a misogynistic, stereotypical view of women, valuing them exclusively as wives and mothers while excluding them from full participation in German political and economic life. Trump violated campaign finance laws to shield his sexual misbehavior from public knowledge, attacking women who come forward to accuse men (especially himself) of abusive behavior.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and

    KIRK: But why Nazi Germany? You studied history. You knew what the Nazis were.
    GILL: Most efficient state Earth ever knew.
    SPOCK: Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination.
    KIRK: But it was brutal, perverted, had to be destroyed at a terrible cost. Why that example?
    SPOCK: Perhaps Gill felt that such a state, run benignly, could accomplish its efficiency without sadism.

    and here we are.

    JL

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    i conceded that point ages ago.

    Than any argument you make that the Trump/Hitler similarity is significant and the Odumbo/Hitler similarity is not will fail on it's merits..

    Or, in this case, lack thereof..

    however, the fact that he exhibits all of these traits simultaneously and continuously (rather than just one or two once in a while), IS unique to donald among US politicians post-adolf.

    That's an opinion unfounded by fact...

    It's spin, nothing more..

    Obama exhibited just as many traits just as simultaneously and continuously as Trump..

    Of course you will deny it... And there is no one who hates Obama enough to run the comparisons..

    That depth of hatred is reserved for Trump/America haters..

    Basically, your argument (such as it is) is that both Odumbo and Trump are Hitler-esque but Trump is MORE so...

    Do you REALLY think that's a valid argument???

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    How about we move on to a discussion of how the citizens supporting the big money candidates are behaving like good little Nazis instead of standing up against this SIMILAR perversion of our political process?

    Arguing about Big Money in politics is bad is like arguing that Nazis are bad..

    There IS no argument...

    But we can no more get rid of big money in politics than we can erase the Nazis from history..

    Give One Demand the force of law and THEN lets see what happens.. :D

  139. [139] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I did not say we should argue about whether big money is bad. I said we should discuss if those supporting big money candidates are behaving like good little Nazis.

    Just because you surrendered doesn't mean that I
    or anyone else will or has to.

    One Demand already has the force of law. The law says that if enough people vote for a candidate that candidate gets elected.

    So if people demand small donor only candidates and only vote for small donor only candidates then small donor only candidates will be elected under current law.

    You sound like a Democrat that thinks everything can only be solved by legislation and citizens are incapable of doing anything by working together instead of surrendering like you.

    Just because a candidate says they think we can do anything doesn't mean that's what they think.

    A candidate that believed what they say would do what they say.

    And citizens that say they want big money out of our political process would do something about it and demand small donor only candidates instead of being good little Nazis and and giving the big money candidates a free pass by surrendering to instead of standing up against the big money interests.

  140. [140] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It may have the force of law, but it doesn't have the force of pie!

  141. [141] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't think it is appropriate to make jokes about things put in ovens when discussing Nazis.

    Shame om you!

  142. [142] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @dh,
    I think you gave up any claim of authority on what's appropriate when you started trolling CW for his lack of interest in your crusade. You're just jealous that pie is more popular.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    You sound like a Democrat that thinks everything can only be solved by legislation and citizens are incapable of doing anything by working together instead of surrendering like you.

    Not at all... I simply postulate it would be a perfect way to see if it works or not..

    Voters would not be affected by the legislation at all..

    Only those who choose to run for office..

  144. [144] 
    John M wrote:

    [54] Michale wrote:

    "Biden botches Declaration of Independence: 'You know ... you know the thing'

    President hopeful Joseph R. Biden made social media headlines on Monday for all the wrong reasons after botching the Declaration of Independence in Texas.

    The former Vice President attempted to inspire a crowd by orating one of the most famous documents in world history, only to fumble over the words with “you know the thing.”

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” Mr. Biden, said. “All men and women created … by the — you know — you know the thing.”

    Yea... BIDEN is going to be the Dem nominee.. :D"

    You REALLY SERIOUSLY want to match Biden gaffes for Trump stupidisms????

    How about THESE Trump gems!! :

    >windmill cancer
    > revolutionary war airports
    > ram the manparts
    > oranges of Mueller investigation
    > Toledo mass shooting
    > wettest hurricane from standpoint of water
    > Tim Apple
    > kidney has special place in heart
    > moon is part of mars
    > ceaseless incoherence and slurring

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHA

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    You REALLY SERIOUSLY want to match Biden gaffes for Trump stupidisms????

    So, TRUMP is the bar you set for your candidate??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Funny.. You CLAIM to be better than Trump.. When all the time, you aspire to be JUST LIKE TRUMP... :D

    And consider this, JM.. With all those Trump gems, the MORON ***YOU*** voted for lost!!

    BBBBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That pretty much says it all about YOUR credibility.. :D

  146. [146] 
    John M wrote:

    [51] Michale wrote:

    "Biden's **ONLY** advantage is the black American vote..

    And THAT is waning for Democrats in and of itself by the 10s of millions..

    Today will, once and for all, puncture the Biden/Electability myth..

    Bernie will be unstoppable after today.."

    SO, we can continue to ADD to your LONG list of being WRONG! Remember: Doug Jones winning the Senate in Alabama, Virginia being completely take over by Democrats, and Democrats taking back the HOUSE in 2018???

    Not only did Biden sweep the African American vote, he swept the suburbs in areas like North Carolina and Virginia. He's putting back together the Obama coalition and the coalition of suburban voters who swept the Democrats to power in the 2018 midterms. Trump should be very afraid.

    "THEN, the fun and excitement will be in watching the DNC try to stop Bernie and how it will utterly tear apart the Democrat Party.. :D"

    The "establishment" would have happily thrown Biden under the bus if it suited their purpose. Ordinary voters chose Biden. The establishment had nothing to do with either stopping Bernie or promoting an alternative.

    Biden currently has a 50 delegate lead on Bernie, with even more friendly Biden states coming, like Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida.

    A brokered convention is looking less and less likely. More likely Biden walks away with it.

    [1] Michale wrote:

    "Conclusions

    OK, let's add them all up. We've got Bernie Sanders for the win in ten races, although one of them won't be decided for another week. Bernie will win: California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad (eventually...), Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

    Joe Biden will win five contests tonight: Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

    I concur.. Bernie will take the day.... :D

    So much for the claim that " Joe is in great shape and right now (barring any unforeseen major event), on track to win the Democratic nomination"

    Biden will likely drop out after a poor showing in Super Tuesday..

    You herd it hear first.. :D"

    Yep, we heard it hear first and dismissed it, AS USUAL, for being WRONG, as USUAL.

    Biden was a BLOW OUT WIN in at least 9 states including Texas and Massachusetts.

    [8] Michale wrote:

    "It might not be IMMEDIATELY after ST.. Biden might try to save face and give it a few days or a week or so..

    But Biden will have such a poor showing in Super Tuesday, his demise will be inevitable..

    I am open to any wager ya want to name.. :D"

    GREAT. I can't wait to see you honor our bet when Trump loses in November, and Democrats keep the House AND take control of the Senate!!!

    [88] Michale wrote:

    "Well, hell..

    When I am wrong I don't fool around.. :D

    I think I should confine my predictions to President Trump where I have the best track record.. :D

    But, as always with me, I look towards the silver lining..

    The near even match-up of Biden and Bernie makes a nasty convention fight all that more possible.. :D"

    A nasty convention fight is now even more remote than before. Especially with Bloomberg now dropping out and endorsing Biden as well.

  147. [147] 
    John M wrote:

    [145] Michale wrote:

    "You REALLY SERIOUSLY want to match Biden gaffes for Trump stupidisms????

    So, TRUMP is the bar you set for your candidate??"

    UH NO. Trump was the BAR YOU SET. NOT ME OR MINE.

    "And consider this, JM.. With all those Trump gems, the MORON ***YOU*** voted for lost!!"

    AGAIN, PROOF??? In the contest between Sanders and Clinton, I actually supported Sanders. SO, you are WRONG AGAIN!!!

    "That pretty much says it all about YOUR credibility."

    See your OWN list of how many times you have been wrong that I posted above... So much for YOUR credibility!!!

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    SO, we can continue to ADD to your LONG list of being WRONG!

    Only if you concede to all the times that YOU were wrong..

    That's the difference between me and ya'all..

    I concede when I am wrong...

    Ya'all never do...

    See your OWN list of how many times you have been wrong that I posted above... So much for YOUR credibility!!!

    My credibility far exceeds yours.. Because A> you have been wrong 10 times more than I have and 2> you ***NEVER*** concede when you are wrong and I am factually accurate.. :D

  149. [149] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    You are entitled to express an incorrect opinion.

    Expressing my opinion on CW's articles and our political process is not trolling.

  150. [150] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That was not supposed to post yet.

    Not giving CW a free pass on ignoring/not explaining why he is ignoring One Demand is not trolling.

    It is being consistent and not taking no for answer form someone that should be providing that answer.

    Something CW lauds others for doing.

    I am jealous in the same sense that slaves were jealous of people that were not slaves.

  151. [151] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Voters would not be affected by the legislation but candidates would?

    What legislation? One Demand does not require legislation.

    The only legislation that may be needed is in places where citizens can't cast a write in vote, but that could also be taken care of with court challenges as such laws are unconstitutional because it limits the free speech of voters that want to cast a write in and there is no harm caused by citizens using a write in vote that can justify the harm caused to these voters by taking away their right to free speech.

    And that doesn't stop it from getting started now in places where citizens can cast a write in vote.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    What legislation? One Demand does not require legislation.

    We are postulating a WHAT IF..

    One SURE WAY to see if One Demand works is to put the force of law behind it.

    FORCE the candidates to be One Demand candidates...

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    THEN we can see if it really works. :D

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoopi Goldberg mistakenly touts Dr. Jill Biden for surgeon general: 'She's a hell of a doctor'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/whoopi-goldberg-jill-biden-doctor-surgeon-general

    What *IS* it about Democrats that they utterly WALLOW in their ignorance???

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    I'm awake. What'd I miss? *laughs*

    Reader's Digest® condensed version: :P

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Schumer unloads on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh at abortion rights rally: 'You will pay the price!'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-unloads-on-gorsuch-kavanaugh-at-abortion-rights-rally-warns-they-will-pay-the-price-for-awful-decisions

    Yea...

    Just like President Trump "paid the price" for the Dumbocrats and their faux impeachment coup attempt???

    Democrats... Nuttin' but cheap rhetoric... No backbone.. No spine....

  157. [157] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    If it is legislated it is not One Demand.

    The purpose of One Demand is to provide a way for citizens to get the money out of politics without legislation because the big money legislators will not pass legislation to get the big money out of politics because the big money interests have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.

    So in order to pass legislation to get the big money out of politics it requires first replacing the big money legislators with small donor legislators. The problem has to be solved before the legislation can be passed.

    Making it into legislation is not going work.

    And since it is designed to work and can work without legislation, asking for it to become legislation is just a dodge to avoid trying it in a form that can work and to ensure it can't work.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reader's Digest® condensed version: :P

    You were right... I was wrong...

    That's all that matters.. :D

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Schumer threatens the Judiciary...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESTALZtXUAIIOGV?format=png&name=small

    Chief Justice Responds...

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would hope to see Schumer's name on the MDDOTW Trophy this weekend..

    But somehow, I think most, if not all, Democrats support Schumer in this wholly unfounded attack on a third of our government..

  161. [161] 
    Kick wrote:

    Testing

    My 'puter is acting nutty... comments disappearing

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Dang it! I can't post a comment to JL. It's getting eaten!

  163. [163] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Roberts has turned out to be a very interesting chief justice.

  164. [164] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,
    I look forward to reading it

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    119 126 134 136

    Dead. On. Balz. Accurate.... and good form!

    And balz is not misspelled either. Remember that Hitler (very much like Donald Trump) had visually defective body issues wherein he didn't quite "measure up" to others so constantly endeavored to do so. Donald has his wee small hands and obviously short stubby fingers, while Hitler was afflicted with unilateral cryptorchidism.

    So many of these demagogue types often have issues of inadequacy they're constantly looking to remedy.

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL

    I had to remove the link where we discussed this before and the word "test o sterone" <--- one word, and then it slithered through the filter. ;)

  167. [167] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    158

    Reader's Digest® condensed version: :P ~ Kick

    You were right... I was wrong...

    Well, that is factual, but here's another fact: That wasn't even meant for you personally.

    That's all that matters.. :D

    Nah. I crunched the numbers and knew what was coming. You win some you lose some... nothing new, no big deal. :)

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ | John M

    Y'all know exactly what happened last night because we had already discussed this before in late January, I believe. Be right back:

    [6] Kick wrote:

    CW: Sanders is in a strong position, based on recent polls, to win Iowa and then New Hampshire. A one-two punch in the first two states could make him hard to stop. Joe Biden's firewall -- his popularity among African-Americans in South Carolina and other Southern states -- would face a severe test.

    NOT a new scenario here.

    Sanders and Clinton virtually tied in Iowa and received approximately the same number of delegates; then Bernie won New Hampshire in a big way, and the more racially diversified South fell in line behind Bernie Sanders rather than their preferred candidate since he had the most delegates at that point. Oh, wait... no, they didn't.

    Those voters in the South who had an overwhelming preference for a more moderate candidate still voted their preference regardless of the outcome in the lily white North. The South isn't generally falling in line to vote for a self-described socialist in the primaries just because he won a few Northern states (to be honest).

    His "notion of a higher turnout of infrequent voters" seems to have worked, in the end, which neither Rahm Emanuel nor Matt Bennett acknowledge in any way.

    Probably because Trump didn't receive a whole lot more votes in 2016 than Mitt Romney did in 2012... about what would be expected due to our ever-expanding population:

    Romney 2012: ~61 million
    Trump 2016: ~63 million

    When that inconvenient fact is added in, what emerges is the Democratic Party establishment being afraid not -- as they profess -- that Bernie would lose the general election, but rather than he would win.

    I disagree. The statistical facts don't really bear that out.

    And that puts their comments in a very different perspective, doesn't it?

    No, what it actually brings to light is the Sanders' supporters still clinging to the conspiracy theory belief that there is an establishment boogieman who kept Bernie Sanders from winning the election when Bernie failed in spectacular fashion to carry the South. A candidate cannot generally win the nomination of the Democratic Party without carrying the South, and Bernie didn't do it and no one conspired against him to stop him from winning it. He just couldn't garner the support he needed and lost the primary on Super Tuesday because the support he needed from minorities just wasn't there.

    In 2020, Bernie is still miles behind the South's favored candidate... and no one is standing in his way to win them over. If he still can't appeal to minorities four years later, what do you say we don't blame it all on some kind of establishment conspiracy or fear of Bernie? Ball's in Bernie's court and always has been. It's up to Bernie to win the Southern voters, and he's had ample time to do so.

    Bernie Sanders lack of support in the South meant that the opposition research file on him never had to be deployed since the Democratic primary was never even close. The Republicans have a video of Bernie Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die," while their President Daniel Ortega was busy condemning "state terrorism" by the United States and Americans. Bernie looks into the camera and describes his supporting the Sandinistas as "patriotic." The Republicans have at least four other seriously damning videos. No, I won't tell what they contain.

    Could Sanders still win? Sure. Trump won, didn't he? But it wasn't because of some bigger turnout Trump inspired in 2016 versus the GOP turnout in 2012. Nope. Liberals put Trump in the White House by staying home in enough of the key states... less than 80,000 votes... and the rest is history. :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/01/27/black-swan-versus-black-swan/#comment-152480

    *****

    [30] John M wrote:

    I agree. This completely points out the heart of the matter. The Democratic candidate and winner in the general election will be the one who inspires the support of and can turn out in large numbers, minority voters in the way and the same coalition that Obama did. This is especially true of Michigan and the Milwaukee urban area of Wisconsin, as well the area around Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

    It's also why, outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigeg, and Elizabeth Warren have not gained any traction. It also explains why Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and the rest have fallen by the wayside. None of them has ever gotten sustained minority support yet.

    The ONLY one to garner such support so far has been Joe Biden. That, along with his white working class support, goes a long way to explain Trump's and the Republican panic focus of trying to portray Biden and his son Hunter as somehow corrupt in a big scandal. It's their obsession with destroying Hillary Clinton all over again writ large. That's what makes Biden the perceived threat, in other words, Biden as the heir to the Obama legacy and coalition.

    Unless minority support suddenly switches to someone else who looks like they can win, other than Joe Biden, it's the tortoise and not the hare who will win this race and the nomination.

    [31] For Bernie to win the nomination, he would not only have to win Iowa and New Hampshire in a blow out. He would also have to start picking up SIGNIFICANT African American support, and start winning states in the South like Kick said on Super Tuesday, like Virginia, Texas and Alabama. This would also mean that Biden's support would have to collapse among minority voters, who would no longer see him as the "winning" candidate.

    *****

    [67] ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M & Kick

    Spot on!

    I know Liz won’t agree with this, but I feel almost 99.9% sure that Stacy Abrams is going to be his VP choice. It’s been tossed out as a possibility in the press I know, but people back in Georgia are much more certain that it is going to happen. Abrams has not backed any candidate, thus far, but I am guessing that she will be making that announcement prior to the primary votes in Southern states. She is the “yang” to Biden’s “ying” as far as a well-rounded ticket is concerned.

    So the South has spoken... and y'all can't say you weren't warned, either.

  169. [169] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    144

    Heh.

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    146

    Not only did Biden sweep the African American vote, he swept the suburbs in areas like North Carolina and Virginia. He's putting back together the Obama coalition and the coalition of suburban voters who swept the Democrats to power in the 2018 midterms.

    That's exactly right. The South has spoken.

    The "establishment" would have happily thrown Biden under the bus if it suited their purpose. Ordinary voters chose Biden. The establishment had nothing to do with either stopping Bernie or promoting an alternative.

    Exactly right, JM. And what stopped Bernie from getting any of those endorsements from candidates who had no path to the Democratic nomination when they exited the race? I mean, besides the fact that Bernie had demonized them all and proclaimed them unpure and pure evil?

    Biden currently has a 50 delegate lead on Bernie, with even more friendly Biden states coming, like Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida.

    Wait, you mean if Bernie still cannot win over the South after years of having that opportunity, he very likely can't win the nomination of the Democratic Party? Well, who knew? ;)

    A brokered convention is looking less and less likely. More likely Biden walks away with it.

    Biden comes in like a herd of turtles... slow and steady wins the race... and -- full disclosure -- it doesn't hurt to have the entire South behind your ass, either. ;)

    So Bernie dropped a commercial today featuring Barack Obama appearing to endorse Bernie when, in fact, it is footage of that day Bernie was notified by President Obama that he would be endorsing Bernie's opponent. Nice commercial, though, seems a bit hypocritical under all the circumstances, wouldn't you say?

  171. [171] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [168]

    My, my, my....you did indeed see this coming! You are definitely on a streak!

    And I still believe Abrams will be the VP pick for the Dems, regardless of who gets the nomination. We’ve got two older white males who are left in this race —Tracy is the perfect “ying” to their “yang”

  172. [172] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    171

    My, my, my....you did indeed see this coming! You are definitely on a streak!

    *We blush* You and me and JM gave fair warning too.

    And I still believe Abrams will be the VP pick for the Dems, regardless of who gets the nomination. We’ve got two older white males who are left in this race —Tracy is the perfect “ying” to their “yang.”

    Oh, I totally agree. How long have we been discussing the VP picks?

    * Stacey Abrams
    * Kamala Harris
    * Elizabeth Warren

    In that order, we've been guessing for a long time. EM thinks we're crazy, but that's okay too. Stacey Abrams is a great pick because that is a pick that could flip Georgia. Remember when they said Virginia wouldn't flip? They say that about Georgia. ;)

  173. [173] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there's no G in yin

Comments for this article are closed.