ChrisWeigant.com

Predicting Mini-Super-Tuesday

[ Posted Tuesday, March 10th, 2020 – 15:39 UTC ]

Nobody, it seems, has come up with a name for today's round of primaries that is catchy enough so that everyone starts universally using it. Some call it Mini Tuesday, some call it Super Tuesday II, but no matter what you call it, the time has come once again to toss our darts at the wall in an effort to try to predict the outcome of the six races being run today in the 2020 Democratic primary race.

But, as always, before we look forward we must first look back. Heading in to Super Tuesday, my record was close to three right out of every four guesses (13 for 18). As it almost always does, Super Tuesday has humbled me once again. Last week, I called 16 races, however one of them has not finished yet (Democrats Abroad) and while today will be the cutoff for expatriate Democrats to cast their ballot, we still may not know the results of this far-flung primary contest for days, yet.

This leaves 15 races I did call. And my crystal ball had a big crack in it. Or, to be less poetic, I gave Bernie Sanders far more credit than he was due. Now, I hasten to point out that I certainly wasn't the only one to do so last week -- Bernie looked like the predominant candidate right up to the point when the returns started coming in. The only real argument the pundits were having back then was whether he would totally wrap up the nomination by winning an outright majority of the convention delegates, or whether he'd fall slightly short and we'd have a big convention fight.

What a difference a week makes, eh?

When the final results were in, I had called the four states that Bernie won correctly. I also called five states correctly for Biden. But I also called five states for Sanders that wound up going for Biden: Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, and Virginia. I certainly wasn't the only one to get these wrong (especially the first four of them), which is small consolation, but at this point I'm going to take what I can get. I called for Bernie to win ten states and Biden to win five, and almost the exact opposite happened.

My one real point of pride is that I alone in the punditocracy (from what I can tell, at any rate) called American Samoa right. It went for Michael Bloomberg, as I predicted. So it'll remain a booby prize for both me and Bloomberg, when all is said and done. I also correctly predicted that Elizabeth Warren wouldn't even win her home state.

Still, things could have been worse. I did wind up with 10 out of 15 right, so it won't drag my average down too precipitously. Here is my running score, after the Super Tuesday dust settled:

Total correct 2020 primary picks so far: 23 for 33 -- 70%.

Seven-in-ten still isn't all that bad for this stage of the game, when you consider how topsy-turvy the race has proven to be so far. And I've still got one outstanding prediction (Democrats Abroad for Bernie) to come in, so things could even get slightly better in the end.

Other things I got right last week included the prediction that we'd now be in a two-man race. Bloomberg dropped out immediately, then Elizabeth Warren followed him to the exits. I got the delegate math wrong, of course -- Biden is now the delegate leader, not Bernie.

Looking ahead to tonight, I fear I'm about to make the mistake the Pentagon often makes, called by its proper title: "fighting the last war." I leaned heavily for Bernie last week and got burned (Berned?), so this time around I'm leaning much more towards Biden being the surprising one. There are no guarantees, of course, but that does seem to be the way the wind is blowing now. So let's dive in and start throwing those darts at the wall for the six states that are voting today.

 

Idaho

Three of the states voting today are voting in new ways. This is part of a wholesale change within the Democratic Party where states have moved away from the caucus idea to holding primaries (which are simpler and much easier to manage all around). Idaho, North Dakota, and Washington state will all be voting in primaries this year instead of the caucuses they held four years ago.

Bernie Sanders, incidentally, won all three of these states the last time around. Overwhelmingly, in two of them. But that was almost certainly due to his understanding of how to win caucus states (something Barack Obama also exploited to good effect in 2008). Idaho went for Bernie in a big way last time, but this time around he is likely to lose it. Idaho is a state which prides itself on the independent nature of its citizens, so an upset is always possible here, but it is also a rather conservative state in general, which is almost sure to give Biden the edge.

There hasn't been a lot of polling, but what there is shows Biden with a clear lead. So it's pretty easy to predict that Biden's going to have a pretty good night in Idaho tonight.

 

Michigan

As the biggest prize tonight (both in delegates and in bragging rights), many have noted that Michigan is now a make-or-break state for Bernie Sanders. Four years ago, Michigan was Bernie's saving grace. He had lost Super Tuesday and was polling 20 points or more behind Hillary Clinton in the Wolverine State, but he won a surprising upset victory which kept him in the race (for better or worse).

This time around, things are similar. Bernie lost Super Tuesday and is polling 20 points or more behind Joe Biden in Michigan. But somehow I don't think history is going to repeat itself this time around. Hillary's unfavorable rating was a lot higher than Biden's, meaning there aren't as many people who will be voting against Biden, rather than for Bernie. Bernie also had strong Union support, as Hillary Clinton was seen as more than a little unreliable when it came to taking Labor seriously. The same simply cannot be said for Biden. Sanders has tried to make much out of Biden's past support for free-trade agreements like NAFTA, but Biden is much more well-liked among the rank-and-file Union members than Hillary ever was, so it's likely that Bernie's going to lose a lot of votes that helped him out last time.

Even if Bernie does pull out another surprise victory tonight in Michigan, it will likely be a close one and not a blowout. This will mean he won't catch up much in the race for delegates here, even if he manages a win. But I'm going to put my faith in the polls this time and say that Joe Biden takes Michigan, and that it probably won't even be all that close.

 

Mississippi

Even though there is little polling, this one is pretty easy to call due to the high population of African-American votes here. Bernie has ignored the state all week, even cancelling a planned rally to spend more time in Michigan. That's not going to win him any Mississippi votes, but it was probably the right move since even if he had shown up it might not have budged the needle much. Biden will score a clean win here, and the state will probably be called by the networks within seconds of the polls closing.

 

Missouri

Missouri isn't as clear-cut as Mississippi, but it still doesn't even look close. Joe Biden has dominated what polling has been done here, and it would take an absolute miracle for Bernie Sanders to win the state. The Show-Me State will show Joe Biden a big win, and will also be called immediately after the polls close.

 

North Dakota

North Dakota is a mystery, since polling is almost non-existent. Last time around, Bernie Sanders won a big margin here, but then again last time around two things were very different. First, North Dakota was a caucus state in 2016, and second, it voted extremely late in the calendar (almost at the very end). Neither one is true in 2020.

My hunch is that Bernie's call to ban fracking is going to kill him in North Dakota, which has seen an incredible economic boom from fracking over the past decade or so. But we'll likely never fully know the answer, because North Dakota barely exists on pundits' radars, one way or the other. But whatever the underlying reason turns out to be, Biden will score a big win here tonight.

 

Washington

And, due to the alphabetic throw of the dice, the hardest state to call is the last one in line. It is also geographically and chronologically the last in line, which might shape the media storyline late tonight and tomorrow, as well (as happened last week with California, where the returns came in so late the East Coast had gone to bed and Bernie's big win was barely even mentioned the next morning).

Four years ago, Washington had a bizarre system where they held both a caucus and then (weeks later) a non-binding primary. Why anyone would bother to vote twice is a mystery to me, but that's how they did it. The caucus was what determined the apportionment of delegates, which Bernie won. But then later, Hillary Clinton edged him out in the primary vote. This time around, Washington will only vote once, in a binding primary. One thing worth noting is that Washington is now a mail-in-only state, where all ballots are mailed out in advance to the voters. So "polling places" today are nothing more than a spot to drop off your already-filled-in ballot. This may delay the final results, if the vote turns out to be a close one.

The polling here is indeed very close -- the margins are in the low single digits -- but most show Biden with a very slight edge. But I'm going on a gut feeling instead and predicting that Bernie Sanders will pull out a win here, although it may be so close that even West Coast election-watchers won't know the result until very late tonight, or even tomorrow. Perhaps the state being the focus of the coronavirus outbreak will cause voters to think a lot more seriously of how universal health care might just be a good thing to have, or perhaps it's just Left Coast liberals, but I think Bernie is going to make his last stand here tonight by winning Washington.

 

Conclusions

Of course, even if I do turn out to be completely right, even winning Washington (but only Washington) is going to be a rather sad result for Bernie Sanders, since he'll have lost the other five states and will begin falling so far behind in delegates that it'll be clear his chances of winning the nomination are rapidly dwindling.

Joe Biden exited Super Tuesday in a dominant position, and this will only increase tonight. In fact, if Biden does clean up tonight, he will almost certainly become the Democratic nominee to take on Donald Trump in November. There is really only one thing which could stop the Biden train from rolling down the this track -- which would be a spectacularly bad debate performance right before next Tuesday's primaries. If Biden has some sort of meltdown (insisting he's running for Senate or something equally out of touch with reality), then Bernie could by default become seen by the voters as the best chance Democrats will have. Team Trump is already beating the "Biden's senile!" drums, so this would just feed into that perception. But at this point, it would have to be an epically spectacular gaffe for this to happen.

What is much more likely is that Biden will start being spoken of as the inevitable nominee, and the focus of the political world will shift to the Biden-versus-Trump matchup. Bernie will become an afterthought in the media, and the calls for him to exit the race will become deafening. My guess, though, is that even if he loses all six states tonight (which is a clear possibility), Bernie Sanders will not end his campaign for at least another week. "What's one week in the grand scheme of things?" he will think, and he'll probably be right.

The other thing which could change all of this would be for Bernie to surprise everyone (me included) and have a great night tonight. If Bernie wins Michigan and Washington, and even comes close in Missouri, then his campaign will get a new lease on life. The fight will move to Florida and Illinois if this happens, but at this point this scenario has to be seen as a longshot. The much more likely outcome is that Joe Biden has another great night and starts looking like the inevitable Democratic nominee.

 

[Previous states' picks:]

[AL] [American Samoa] [AR] [CA] [CO] [Democrats Abroad] [IA] [ME] [MA] [MN] [NH] [NV] [NC] [OK] [TN] [TX] [SC] [UT] [VT] [VA]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

83 Comments on “Predicting Mini-Super-Tuesday”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    Nice summary, CW!

    And now for the bad news:

    Idaho......................... Biden
    Michigan................... Biden
    Mississippi................ Biden... the South has spoken
    Missouri.................... Biden
    North Dakota............ Biden
    Washington............... Biden
    Democrats Abroad.... Bernie... probably Biden, though ;)

    The race was essentially over on Super Tuesday... just like 2016 when Bernie also failed to win the South.

    Florida in 1 week from now will be a literal blowout no matter what happens in the debate in Phoenix on the Ides of March. :)

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [1] -

    Have you taken into account that next Tuesday is St. Paddy's Day? Irishmen will be too drunk to cast a ballot.

    Heh. Couldn't resist...

    :-)

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    LOL

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    And... CNN calls MS for Biden already.

    Haven't seen anyone else do so, but it's really no surprise.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Washington Post just also called MO for Biden. Again, no surprise.

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i predict that not a single state will vote for pie, even though over 90% of the country likes pie better than politicians.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Biden up 9% or 29K votes in MI so far...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    So you're saying it'll have to remain pie in the sky?

    Heh.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just got back from a short break and they've called MI for Biden.

    Looks like the end of the road for Bernie -- hate to say it, but I just don't see any way forward for him at this point. The only question left now seems to be when he'll drop out...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The end of the road for Bernie. The end of the road for Dems in 2020.

    So now that we know voters (and non-voters) did not find the current Bernie to be inspiring enough, we should consider whether or not the small donor only Bernie may have done better and whether a small donor Biden would be believable enough to do better than current Biden against Trump in the general election.

    Of course, there is a way forward for small donor only Bernie that you may not have considered.

    That's the other question left you seem to have overlooked which is how far he will drop out.

    What might happen if small donor Bernie decided this time to go to a third party?

    That sounds like a great speculation article to shake things up and put pressure on Biden to move to a small donor only commitment to prevent it.

    You fucked the pooch on small donor Bernie in the primaries and helped Trump move closer to a second term.

    If Biden ends up the nominee you had better not fuck that up too by only offering the current Biden and that means pressuring Biden to be a small donor candidate and it needs to start now.

    As the returns come in and Trump is re-elected current Biden will be too little Biden and it will be too late Bi-den to do anything about it.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Listening to the establishment tonight and a chorus of pundits, I have to say that it is infinitely amusing to see how many people are scratching their heads in utter befuddlement (okay, that is a bit strong) over what Biden has done in the last few weeks … make that days.

    But, it's going to keep a smile on my face for a long and satisfying while …

    And, I'll bet their surprise doesn't end tonight. Heh.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Andrew Yang knows Biden, though. He's obviously a fast learner and I hope he has a place in the general campaign for Biden and beyond.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've heard that Senator Sanders will not be speaking tonight. I'm wondering if Bernie has already spoken with Biden … it's just so unusual for him not to speak ...

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    WA is looking pretty close. 67% of the vote, over 650K votes in, and Bernie's still ahead. OK, only by 1700 votes, but still, closer than any of the other states.

    He's technically up in ND, too, but only with 10% in, so that's pretty meaningless so far...

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Bernie's likely waiting for WA results. Biden cobbled together a way to give a speech (to his gathered aides) so he could make a statement, but Bernie didn't bother. That's really all it is, I think.

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bernie has no path to victory.

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    The same-day votes will come in later in Washington State, and Sanders isn't far enough ahead to stop what's coming.

    Bernie already has no path to victory even before his future lopsided loss in Florida.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, Bernie has made great contributions to the country and to this Democratic campaign.

    I wish I could take back [18].

    And, if there is a debate on Sunday, I hope Biden has figured out how to persuade Bernie to understand that his vote for the AUMF in Iraq was a vote to avoid war, not go to war.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I mean [17]! Heh.

  20. [20] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    OK, Don,

    I’ll bandy a little. I’ve previously commented on OD, so I don’t feel any need to visit that again. My main concern with your push is the vast chasm between what you view as possible, while I would consider just some of it conceivable at best.

    We’re talking here about two populations here: eligible, registered voters and eligible, non-registered voters.

    • Do we have any idea how many eligible, non-registered voters there are? Nope, because we don’t have a way to count them.
    • Do we know why they aren’t registered? Nope and I bet we could come up with a hundred reasons why, like not knowing they are eligible, not knowing how to register, their state making it difficult to register, etc., all the way to there’s too darn much big money in politics.
    • The population of eligible, registered voters can be broken down into non-voters, occasional voters, sometimes voters, frequent voters, and diehards. Do we have a handle on this breakdown? Nope.
    • Do we know why some eligible registered voters don’t vote much or at all? Again, there are probably easily a hundred reasons why, like being a member of a group, like minor students who don’t live in the same jurisdiction as their parent(s)/guardian(s) do, that some states are working mightily to disenfranchise; living in a portion of a county that the powers-that-be have decided doesn’t need close, convenient, well-equipped, and well-staffed polls; transportation or time-off issues in a state that restricts early voting or eligibility for absentee ballots, etc., all the way to there’s too darn much big money in politics.
    • How many single-issue voters are there among either population who would vote at all or more if there weren’t so much darn money in politics? Again, we haven’t a clue.

    Now, let’s talk money.

    • Do we believe that candidates will take on the additional cost to set up and manage the bookkeeping to notify donors whose contributions have reached $200 to stop their monthly automatic contributions? Will they absorb the cost of returning the checks of those whose cumulative contributions exceed $200?
    • Will our heroes eschew county, state, or national party money?
    • Can our heroes stop the Bloombergs or dark money groups out there from focusing “non-affiliated” election spending on them?
    • Once those who regularly contribute more than $200 to a single candidate have dutifully reduced their donations to a cumulative maximum of $200 per candidate and the candidate has renounced PAC money, on what basis do we believe that shortfall will be more than made up by those who have never given a dime or as much as $200 to a single candidate?

    Finally, let’s talk outreach.

    • Do we think there is a sizeable group of engaged, informed non-voters just waiting to hear of a candidate willing to go the hero route?
    • Do we think there’s a sizeable group of voters who will vote for that hero regardless of the candidate’s stances on matters of concern to that voter?
    • After a hero gets elected, what are the chances that hero can make enough significant change in a swamp still filled with big money to get re-elected? Who needs a “do-nothing” hero?
    • How does one reach non-engaged and/or non-informed voters?

    So, there’s my starter set of concerns. I don’t like big money in politics, but to paraphrase a total scumbag, Donald Rumsfeld, I go to the election with the candidates running. I don’t feel yours is a viable path to getting money out of politics. There’s too much at stake to let the perfect be the enemy of good. Now that we’ve had a load of the current President and Senate Leader, we need to get out the vote and make those votes matter.

    I personally think you should consider joining one or more of the many other entities exploring different avenues of getting big money out of politics.

  21. [21] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Darn. What's the point of previewing a submission when the posted comment strips just about everything off?

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What?

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I mean I wish I could take back my comment [16]. Heh.

    I guess I'm a bit excited this evening … or something.

    Over and out.

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    And Idaho gets called for Biden...

    Jury still out on ND and WA... Bernie leads in both, for now...

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MyVoice -

    Not sure what you're talking about. I checked behind the scenes, and your post [20] shows up here exactly as it is in the database, nothing was stripped off. It's a pretty long post, at least on my screen. Maybe it's the browser you're using or something?

    I do admit that Preview sucks rocks. It has never worked the way it was supposed to, even though I tried about eleven different ways to code it. It has always sucked, and I probably should just get rid of it because it's so broken. So I do apologize if it screwed part of your comment up.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    No, your [16] was right, pretty much. It wasn't overly snotty or anything, at least to my eyes.

    My point is that Bernie's human just like anyone, and both he and Hillary stayed in it to the bitter end last time.

    My guess is he'll stick around for one more week, do the last debate, and then get buried in either Florida or Florida AND Illinois next week. Then it will become painfully obvious, and he'll drop out and announce his support for Biden.

    This is his last crack at a presidential run (due to his age), so I don't begrudge him an extra week. And I bet the media will (1) heap enormous amounts of pressure on him during this week, and (2) praise him to the skies when he drops out and calls for party unity.

    I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it playing out. When they called Michigan, I knew it was all over for Bernie, personally.

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    That should be "the last two times" for Hillary in '08 and Bernie in '16...

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bernie has more than earned some space and time to make decisions on his own terms without people like me saying he has no path to victory.

  29. [29] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Thanks, Chris,

    The preview showed all of my bullet lists with bullets and nice spacing, so the post didn't look like a bit of Proust. The fact that I can see half a closing tag in the post, though, means I messed up with my tags somehow. Darn.

  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MyVoice -

    I think you're the first person to ever try to put an unordered list into a comment, I have to say.

    I went in and tried to restore the tags where it seemed like they should go. It kinda worked, but on my screen they now show up in strange boxes (each list item). Other than that, though, it seems to work.

    Like I said, I think this is the first time anyone's tried it, so I have no idea what went wrong, but I think it looks something like you intended now, at least...

    -CW

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I may have been too pessimistic towards ND. Seems Bernie's still holding an edge there, with 46% in. WA seems to have crawled to a halt, though...

    -CW

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listening to the establishment tonight and a chorus of pundits, I have to say that it is infinitely amusing to see how many people are scratching their heads in utter befuddlement (okay, that is a bit strong) over what Biden has done in the last few weeks … make that days.

    It's not surprising..

    The Empire Strikes Back..

    In this case, it's the Establishment..

    Bernie Bros are not going to be happy...

    Nov 2020 is looking like Nov 2016 redux...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Bernie has no path to victory.

    Nor do Democrats... But I am sure that won't stop them from trying.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    Russ,

    Trump called the coronavirus “the Democrats’ new hoax”. He called it a hoax! You are still wrong!

    Boo how hoo... we own you!

    Snopes, JL and now Dan, PLUS the FACTS all say you are full of shit..

    Deal with it, Russ..

    You weren’t in PUBLIC SAFETY for 25 years! You are an honor whore: wanting people to believe you have served when you have not!

    And yet, you have not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to back that bullshit claim up..

    Why is that???

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    DSWS,

    But I don't think he actually meant hoax.

    According to Snopes (which ya'all lefties routinely swear to...) President Trump did not call the coronavirus a hoax..

    People like Russ et al live in a dream world where President Trump is guilty of Russia Collusion and was removed from office in the faux impeachment coup..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    Victoria my dear..

    I reiterate: Context.

    What you call "context" is nothing but spin...

    Snopes (which you regularly quote when it says what you want to hear) states:

    Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/

    Again, with all DUE respect.. You are wrong on this one.. Just like you were wrong when you claimed a report I posted did not mention the HIV pandemic...

    I understand that your brain is not wired to concede you are wrong.. That's not an insult.. A mere statement of fact..

    I acknowledge that you can't concede the point even though I and many others have pointed the facts out to you..

    We're still friends.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dr. Drew Pinsky: Coronavirus Panic Must Stop, Press Needs to Be Held Accountable for Hurting People
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/10/dr_drew_pinsky_coronavirus_panic_must_stop_press_needs_to_be_held_accountable_for_hurting_people.html

    When Coronavirus goes the way of Ebola and Y2K and all the other end-of-the-world scenarios that the media pushes, ya'all are going to have a LOT of egg on ya'all's faces.. :D

    But hell... Between 2016 and all the times ya'all have predicted President Trump's demise and been wrong...

    Egg-on-face is pretty much ya'all standard state of being, eh? :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You weren’t in PUBLIC SAFETY for 25 years! You are an honor whore: wanting people to believe you have served when you have not!

    I am also constrained to point out that my military, LEO, FSO and security bona fides are well established here in Weigantia and have even been acknowledged by the Grand Poobah hisself, when he needed assistance with the concept of military logistics...

    But, by all means.. Continue to assault this deceased equine..

    It simply shows the utter futility of you being here... :D

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Dr. Drew Pinsky?!!? Love Line’s Dr. Drew? God, it’s pathetic how far down the list of qualified medical experts you’d have to go for Dr. Drew to be the person you are quoting to defend Trump! Was Dr. Dre not available?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dr. Drew Pinsky?!!? Love Line’s Dr. Drew? God, it’s pathetic how far down the list of qualified medical experts you’d have to go for Dr. Drew to be the person you are quoting to defend Trump! Was Dr. Dre not available?

    No.. What's pathetic is your insistence that ANYONE who doesn't toe your hate and bigotry filled line is not an expert in anything and is, in fact, not even fit to live..

    You are totally and unequivocally a political animal totally and completely driven by your hatred and bigotry..

    You have not a SINGLE solitary objective cell in yer body...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have not a SINGLE solitary objective cell in yer body...

    How do we know this for a fact??

    Because it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to say, "Yunno.. I have to admit.. All politics aside, President Trump did a good thing with xxx.."

    If you were to say something like that, yer tongue would turn it fire...

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that my military, LEO, FSO and security bona fides are well established here in Weigantia and have even been acknowledged by the Grand Poobah hisself, when he needed assistance with the concept of military logistics...

    And I am constrained to point out that you have been lying about your work history in law enforcement this whole time...and that is based on your own confessions that you lied. So now you were lying about lying, is that it? Your criminal record — do we need to repost it in order to jog your memory — makes your claims of being in law enforcement utter rubbish!

    Your “bona fides” are nothing but the fact that you successfully conned everyone here... congrats! Heck, I admit that I accepted your claims of having worked in law enforcement at first, because I didn’t see why would you want to lie about that. And it was YOU who offered up the info that you had never worked in law enforcement outside of when you were an MP while in the service. You lie so often that you could not keep your stories straight!

    And now you add “FSO” and “security” to your work history without bothering to identify in what capacity these terms are related to law enforcement... like I said earlier, you being on the Federal Sex Offenders list is done in the interest of public safety...it doesn’t mean you have a career in Public Safety!

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I am constrained to point out that you have been lying about your work history in law enforcement this whole time...and that is based on your own confessions that you lied.

    Again with the same old bullshit claims.

    And again, absolutely NO FACTS to support the claims..

    Your criminal record — do we need to repost it in order to jog your memory — makes your claims of being in law enforcement utter rubbish!

    The fact that you even have what you claim you have is VERY reflective of your obsessive tendencies..

    Seriously, dood.. Why do you feel the need to HAVE my alleged criminal record if one even exists..??

    Why did you feel you HAD to scour the Internet for personal and private information on me??

    Were you SO UTTERLY decimated by my intellectually bitch slapping you down on a DAILY basis you felt you had NO CHOICE but to stalk me and my family??

    You DO realize that makes you look really sick and pathetic, right???

    Your “bona fides” are nothing but the fact that you successfully conned everyone here... congrats!

    So, NOW you are accusing everyone of being conned.. Even CW???

    Wow.. You really must have a low opinion of their intelligence, eh??

    And it was YOU who offered up the info that you had never worked in law enforcement outside of when you were an MP while in the service.

    Again with the claim.. And AGAIN... Absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim..

    And now you add “FSO” and “security” to your work history

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Son, I have had FSO and security attached to my resume since I first started with CW back in 2006..

    The FACT that you claim I am just now adding them shows how utterly stoopid and moronic you really are..

    without bothering to identify in what capacity these terms are related to law enforcement...

    I honestly didn't think I *HAD* to identify how they relate.. I figured ya'all had at LEAST 2 brain cells to rub together..

    I guess, in your case, I over estimated your intelligence...

    When you have FACTS to support all yer bullshit claims, come on back.. I'll be here.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Well, let's see.. Almost three decades in the security and law enforcement career fields, spanning two different branches of the US Armed Forces, plus the civilian sector. I was a police officer (SPI/OSI) with the USAF and did extensive service in the Far East.. During the first Gulf War, I was an Army LT (MI) and did significant liaison with NATO and Israeli military and civilian intelligence. I have served as an FSO and have had postings and assignments all over the world.
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2007/10/01/the-day-after-we-bomb-iran/

    Notice the date of that link.. Oct of 2007...

    That was the first mention of my being an FSO that I can find. I am sure a more diligent search will turn up earlier referrals..

    Once again... Retarded and hysterical bullshit from Russ..

    Stone cold solid FACTS from me.. :D

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my prediction was accurate, not a single bleeping vote for pie. and i will continue to use the word bleep for as long as it takes to get bleeping pie on the ballot. the time for civility is done, now is the time for bleeping. and pie. and bleeping pie. eat bleeping pie for bleep's sake.

    JL

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My Voice-
    An impressive waste of time.

    Let's recap.

    You made a comment that I answered and then I asked you to answer my questions.

    You responded by not answering my questions, asking yourself questions and answering them and asked me more questions that I have previously answered.

    Deflection. Not bandying.

    That's all that is ever offered here besides stupid pie jokes.

    Stop being a fucking wuss and answer MY questions.

    You act (and you are not alone here, you just happen to be the one that is pulling the SOP bullshit here at the moment that I have reached the point of fed up) as if you know everything and need to instruct poor disillusioned me on how things are, yet you can't even answer my simple questions.

    "He's just trying to tell you the way things are."
    -Hedda Hopper
    "Maybe I don't like the way things are."
    -Kirk Douglas
    Trumbo

    Grow up. Get Real.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (8)-
    Fuck you.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's obvious that Bernie doesn't want it enough to get down into the mud and fight Biden for it..

    Which will leave Joe Biden wholly and completely unprepared for mud fighting..

    Biden doesn't stand a chance..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH re: #47

    Easy there, buckwheat...

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (47 continued)-
    How dare you gleefully joke about ignoring One Demand for all these years and revel in your knowledge that it will remain unknown for another election cycle thanks in part to your inaction.

    You are so proud of yourself for keeping it out of the public discourse so that your failed approach doesn't have compete with the idea.

    It must really worry you that it would be successful, which is the only reason that someone would ignore it and then be so happy that they have succeeded in keeping the public uninformed about it.

    Imagine that. A member of the media that is reveling in their ability to keep the public UNINFORMED.

    A member of the media that avoids addressing issues
    instead of exploring them.

    Pitiful. Pathetic.

    GET FUCKING REAL.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Sorry, but it is still MILD compared to the interactions between you and Kick.

    And when the carrot doesn't work it's time to use the stick.

    CW put himself in the position to receive the comment and in my opinion without question deserves it.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but it is still MILD compared to the interactions between you and Kick.

    You are absolutely correct..

    But you are also absolutely comparing apples and eskimos..

    If I were a "guest" in Victoria's "home", my interactions would be completely different than they are right now..

    In other words, if we were in Victoriaville instead of Weigantia, I would treat Victoria with as much respect as I treat CW...

    And when the carrot doesn't work it's time to use the stick.

    Yes.. But shoving the stick up your host's ass is bad form..

    I don't begrudge you your opinion.. I think you are simply ignoring your "guest" status in CW's "home" and are failing to act accordingly..

    With other guests, lines are meant to be crossed..

    With your host?? There are lines that should NEVER be crossed...

    Just my opinion..

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just as a politician has to earn my vote, a host has to earn my respect.

    When your host ignores respectful behavior, puts you in a closet during the dinner conversation then opens the door when the conversation is over and jokes about how you missed the conversation again that is not respectful behavior by the host.

    And when the dinner conversation that I am left out of concerns MY HOME, our country and democracy, the precedent set by the host of not being respectful opens the door for the same from the guest.

    Of course, the host can ask the guest to leave.

    But the host could also recognize that they should extend the respect they expect from guests to guests and be the host with the most instead of just a host with a boast.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just as a politician has to earn my vote, a host has to earn my respect.

    I disagree.. Simply by virtue of hosting, the host deserves respect..

    When your host ignores respectful behavior, puts you in a closet during the dinner conversation then opens the door when the conversation is over and jokes about how you missed the conversation again that is not respectful behavior by the host.

    And if that's how you feel you have been treated, you are free to leave..

    Let's face reality.. You have no "rights" here whatsoever sans one..

    The right NOT to be here..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Police shooting leads to tension, protests in N. Carolina
    https://apnews.com/aac1f7284dee6d7d9174aa2a583409e6

    The commonality in MANY police shootings??

    SUBJECTs running from cops..

    If yer innocent of any crimes, there is no need to run...

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I have the right while I am here to stay here until the host asks me to leave.

    So while I am always free to to leave, after being invited in I have the right to stay until asked to leave.

    And the part you are missing about the host deserves respect for hosting is that when a host gets the respect and returns it by not being respectful the initial respect the host deserves for hosting no longer applies and the respect then has to be earned.

    The host has a choice to create a respectful environment. They can choose to respect their guests, not respect their guests and ask their guests to leave or let them stay.

    They can even allow some guests to not be respectful to other guests and join in.

    They can even get mad when a guest complains about it or returns it and ask them to leave or stop.

    They don't even have to be justified in doing any of that.

    But until they ask a guest to leave a guest can behave as the guest deems appropriate under the precedents set by the behavior of the other guests and host.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have the right while I am here to stay here until the host asks me to leave.

    I dunno if I would call that a "right".. But u obviously have "permission" of a sort.. :D

    So while I am always free to to leave, after being invited in I have the right to stay until asked to leave.

    To the best of my knowledge, only 3 of us here today were actually "invited". But why quibble...

    The host has a choice to create a respectful environment.

    You have it backwards. It's up to the guests to be respectful.. Not the other way around..

    But until they ask a guest to leave a guest can behave as the guest deems appropriate under the precedents set by the behavior of the other guests and host.

    Agree to disagree...

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We can agree to disagree with each other, but I think we both agree that it doesn't matter as much as whether we agree with CW on this. :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    We can agree to disagree with each other, but I think we both agree that it doesn't matter as much as whether we agree with CW on this. :D

    Indubitably....

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But let's (while I'm still here before CW wakes up :D) see how respectful behavior is reciprocated.

    Assuming that Biden is the nominee (which may be premature, see- Trump is toast predictions), could Biden by making the small donor only commitment for the general election get 3-5% of presidential election cycle voters (of which around 25% are registered Dems) to contribute an average of 100 dollars in contributions of 200 dollars or less from any one donor raising 500-800 million to run the campaign?

    If not, why not?

    Why couldn't the Dem nominee get one in five loyal Dems to contribute an average of 100 dollars?

    Could this get one in ten non-voter that would not vote for current Biden to vote for the Dem nominee in November adding 6% of the vote to what the Dem nominee would already get?

    I have provided information on the trends and from the Knight Report that suggests it could.

    Would any of those that would vote for the current Biden not vote for Biden if he made this commitment?

    Would it be more than the non-voters that would vote for small donor only Biden?

    These are all reasonable questions to ask anyone that supports Biden or claims that beating Trump is the most important thing as it is asking how to make the Dem nominee the best candidate to beat Trump.

    They have been asked in a respectful manner.

    The guests and the host have a choice as to which comments they respond to and how they respond.

    This concludes the test of our emergency broadcast system.

    Unless anyone wants to respectfully respond to those reasonable questions.

  61. [61] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Wow, Chris, thanks!

    Yes, I saw those boxes in preview as well, but figured they'd drop off. I agree they look odd, but the whole post is more readable and I appreciate your edits.

  62. [62] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    DH,

    My response was indeed to your questions. Your assumptions and numbers are not based on any supportable foundation. Dust in the wind.

  63. [63] 
    John M wrote:

    [2] Chris Weigant wrote:

    "Have you taken into account that next Tuesday is St. Paddy's Day? Irishmen will be too drunk to cast a ballot."

    Actually, St. Patrick's Day parades have been cancelled now because of the coronavirus, in Ireland, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, Philadelphia, etc.

    Also, Mulvaney was fired as White House Chief of Staff. This marks the fourth turnover (Incoming Mark Meadows now being number 4), unprecedented in times of a crisis and something that has never historically happened before to go thru so many in such a short amount of time.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now Democrats want to shut the Primary down NOW..

    Call the rest of it off and anoint the old white guy Biden as the chosen one..

    Howz THAT for democracy, eh?? :eyeroll:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, Mulvaney was fired as White House Chief of Staff. This marks the fourth turnover (Incoming Mark Meadows now being number 4), unprecedented in times of a crisis and something that has never historically happened before to go thru so many in such a short amount of time.

    And.....?????

  66. [66] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale

    I would also not gloat about Trump being a great leader on anything....

    While the Stock Market might have briefly rallied for one day, guess what....

    Today, so far, it continues downward by 1200 points so far

  67. [67] 
    John M wrote:

    [65] Michale wrote:

    "And.....?????"

    Just more signs of Trump's chaos, incompetence, and lack of leadership

    People are actually praising Mike Pence in comparison to Trump

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just more signs of Trump's chaos, incompetence, and lack of leadership

    Yea... That's what a hater and a bigot would say..

    A person who KNOWS about leadership and what it entails would know that it's a sign of President Trump's high standards and that not many people can live up to them..

    Today, so far, it continues downward by 1200 points so far

    According to YOU, President Trump has nothing to do with the Stock Market..

    So, you shoot down your own argument... :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    So, what's yer take on Democrats wanting to shut the Democrat primary down and anoint Joe Biden???

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My Voice-
    Ah, the unsupported accusation of unsupported numbers and assumptions.

    Just because you don't accept the Knight Report does not mean it is not valid.

    It's not the first time that someone avoided addressing the questions and made false claims and suggested I help people do the wrong thing instead of trying to get people to do the right thing.

    One thing is certain. Voting for big money candidates will not get the big money out of politics.

    But you will keep pretending that decades of proof does not exist.

    It is not a purity or perfection issue.

    If your spouse punches, bites, scratches and kicks you it is better than if your spouse hits you with a baseball bat.

    But wanting a spouse that does not punch, bite, scratch, kick or hit you with a baseball bat is not asking for perfection- it is asking for adequate.

    "Answering" my questions with your questions to answer and other questions with unsubstantiated foundations that you leave unanswered is not answering my questions.

    You have provided a perfect example of a feeble attempt to baffle with bullshit because you have no rational argument to dazzle with brilliance.

    It did not work.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    SCOTUS rules Trump admin's 'Remain in Mexico' asylum policy can continue amid ongoing litigation

    Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing 'remain in Mexico' policy to continue
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-trump-temporary-win-on-remain-in-mexico-policy

    And ONCE AGAIN.... President Trump and his leadership and his policies WIN in the courts..

    Seriously, people.. Don't ya'all GET the futility of trying to push ya'all's radical and anti/hate America agenda???

    Ya'all will ***NEVER*** win..

    It's really THAT simple... :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww com'on...

    No one wants to debate how President Trump wins again??? :D

    Jeeezus, it's gonna be a graveyard around here come 4 Nov... :D

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    To put things in perspective..

    Coronavirus has killed a couple thousand people total and people are hysterically panicked..

    Heart Disease kills almost half a million people every year and KFC creates a doughnut chicken sandwich..

    :eyeroll:

  74. [74] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    Don,
    Oddly, the Knight Report does not substantiate your numbers or assumptions.
    You generally start with 80% of people wanting the big money out of politics. The report itself has only the following reference to money or campaign financing: In response to the question, “Why do you lack confidence in the electoral system?”, both voters and non-voters scored that as contributing 20% to their lack of confidence (out of the 8 options offered); it was not the largest concern in this question for either group. Is 40% a huge number? Yes. Is it 80%? No, so if you’re basing your starting point on that, you are off a bit.
    The report has zero support for the assumption that removing big money from campaign financing will open people’s pockets. As a proxy, it asked respondents about their charitable donations. Here is the introduction to the results chart: “Non-voters are less likely to contribute money to a charitable organization regularly versus active voters. Of non-voters, 22% report charitable giving at a monthly or higher frequency, whereas 30% of active voters report doing so. About 23% of non-voters say they never make charitable donations, while only 15% of active voters say the same. This number rose to 31% for non-voters who had a high school education or less, as compared with only 16% for those with a college degree or higher.”
    Nothing whatsoever in the above can be interpreted as relating to how either voting or giving patterns might change if big money were to be removed. Another thing the report doesn’t have is a section on what to do about engaging non-voters. So, pretty thin gruel for underpinning your assumptions.
    It is a shame that you casually dismiss as evasive SOP anything other than agreement and buy-in. Listening – or even discussing – might help you gain some insight as to why this is such an uphill slog here, at your website, and, presumably, elsewhere you’ve put your idea out.
    By the by, I won't respond further to anything that isn't civil. Rudeness doesn't lend itself to a useful exchange of ideas.

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MyVoice,

    Great assessment of the flawed logic that is Don Harris’ dream of being seen as the genius who came up with One Demand. He rests his entire argument on “COULD it happen”, knowing that the answer is “Yes, it COULD occur” and then challenging us with “If it COULD be possible, should we not attempt it?”

    He fails to realize that his idea COULD also result in setting into motion a chain of events that leads to global nuclear war and the end of mankind! Shouldn’t we avoid it at all costs if this COULD be the result?!?

    He wants CW to devote an article addressing his political non-movement without doing any real work to actually put his idea into action — that’s CW’s job, apparently.

  76. [76] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Again you did not answer my questions.

    80% is a well known number of people wanting the money out of politics from many polls over many years.

    In the Knight Report
    20% of non-voters said influence of big money
    27% of non-voters said system is rigged corrupt
    8% said influence of special interests

    All those non-voters have the potential to feel differently about a small donor only candidate.

    And we don't need to get them all, just one out of ten of all non-voters. And just because it is not the most important issue doesn't mean that it is not also important to the non-voters and could still inspire them to vote for a small donor only candidate.

    When citizens see an opportunity for possible change or even just send a message, it does inspire many non-voters to vote. see Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Barack Obama and even Bernie and Trump.

    The section on charitable contributions has nothing to do with political contributions.

    And I didn't ask if non-voters would contribute to small donor only Bernie/Biden. I asked if loyal Dem voters would contribute.

    The trends have shown that small donors are giving more with each election cycle and respond to things like the Collins Fund and small contribution campaigns such as Bernie's which are half measures compared to a small donor only pledge.

    Think of it like a frozen dinner at the supermarket.

    Some people will buy it a regular price of say $4.29.
    Some more people will buy it if it is on sale for 30 cents off.
    But even more people will buy it if it is 2 for 6 dollars but will never buy it at the other prices.

    So the Knight Report and trends both can be interpreted that things are moving in the direction that this is possible now.

    It is not definitive proof it can work. The only way to find out and obtain the proof is to try it.

    We have tried decades of voting for big money candidates and it has NOT WORKED. Trump is the culmination and proof of that failure.

    It does not make sense (or it is not pragmatic) to keep repeating a proven failure that will not and cannot work while not trying something that has a chance to work and is in line with current trends.

    It seems to me you are the one making assumptions that people will not respond given the opportunity as they have with other things mentioned here.

    I consider evasive "answers" to be rude. :D

  77. [77] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Putting up with your bullshit isn't work? :D

    And continuing the same failed approach that has led us to Trump and where we are today is what will lead to our demise.

    Yes, I am honest enough to admit that it only could happen. But it is based on empircal evidence that you pretend does not exist.

    And it is undeniably possible or democracy is not possible. Must be why no one here will answer my questions.

    You ridicule me for saying we should try something that could work but you say we continue to do something that has been proven to not work and can't work.

    This is part of the work I do. Working on people that are in the media to get coverage for One Demand.

    Or is that just supposed to happen by magic as it has for all the other things and ideas that are covered by the media?

    Does CW get the inspiration and information for his articles through spells, dreams, visions or reading the entrails of sheep?

    And people don't join/start up with an organization from hearing about it in the media. There is just suddenly a mass realization that an idea can work and millions of people sign up within a few hours of this mass realization and that is the only way an idea goes from nothing to something. Nonsense.

    Answer the questions before acting so high and mighty when you have nothing more than a tiny speck to rest your laurels of failure on.

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    36

    Victoria my dear..

    In your dreams, Trump trash.

    I understand that your brain is not wired to concede you are wrong.. That's not an insult.. A mere statement of fact..

    You understand how to lie, how to make up fake quotes, how to plagiarize the work product of others, and how to bleat back a right-wing talking point like a useful idiot. That's about it.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    39

    *laughing so hard it hurts* :)

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    49

    Easy there, buckwheat...

    Not to defend Don Harris and his regular BS in any way, but you lecturing him considering some of the comments you've posted just reeks with the stench of entitlement.

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    50

    A member of the media that avoids addressing issues
    instead of exploring them.

    Oh, get over yourself too. Your shit doesn't qualify as an "issue"... just your pathetic obsession.

    GET FUCKING REAL.

    You've been turned down for multiple years now. It doesn't get any more real than that... so why don't you get real and allow that to sink in.

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    51

    Sorry, but it is still MILD compared to the interactions between you and Kick.

    I agree Mike is a hypocrite, but keep my fake name out of your damn mouth.

    And when the carrot doesn't work it's time to use the stick.

    I agree with that too; hopefully CW will use the stick on your entitled ass because he owes you nothing.

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Notice the date of that link.. Oct of 2007...

    That was the first mention of my being an FSO that I can find. I am sure a more diligent search will turn up earlier referrals..

    I stand corrected... that was before my time... but it is odd that you didn’t bring these job positions up until you were busted lying about denying that you had claimed that you had been in law enforcement for almost 25 years. You suddenly started saying that you worked in public safety for 25 years...but we were discussing law enforcement — no one ever mentioned “public safety” — when you claimed to have worked in law enforcement for almost two and a half decades!

    But I am glad you found this post, because it shows just how long you’ve been lying about your resume!

    Well, let's see.. Almost three decades in the security and law enforcement career fields, spanning two different branches of the US Armed Forces, plus the civilian sector.

    You denied saying you had been in law enforcement for almost 25 years a few months back, but back in 2007 you were claiming almost 30 years in the field! You just cannot keep up with your own lies, can you???

    Also....Notice in your post that you claim the only law enforcement experience you had was during your time in the military!

Comments for this article are closed.