ChrisWeigant.com

Electoral Math -- It's That Time Again...

[ Posted Monday, July 13th, 2020 – 18:58 UTC ]

Welcome to the first 2020 installment of our quadrennial series tracking the electoral math in the presidential race. We've done this three times previously, and (like pretty much everyone else in the political prediction game) failed miserably the last time around. Hey, two out of three ain't bad, right?

Sigh. As I explained a few weeks ago, polling will always have its shortcomings (especially at the state level), but it's really the only thing we've got other than collecting anecdotal evidence on our own. Which is impossible on the scale the Electoral College operates on. Flawed though it may be, state-level polling is still important to keep an eye on, which is precisely what this series intends to do.

The intent of the series is the same as it always has been: to chart the probable Electoral College vote over time. After all, this is the way we elect presidents, but for some reason the political media world loves to focus instead on national polls. As Hillary Clinton (and Al Gore before her) proved, national polling is next to meaningless, because the national popular vote is also next to meaningless. Democrats have won seven out of the last eight presidential popular votes (Bush's second term is the only popular vote the Republicans won), but it didn't stop George W. Bush or Donald Trump from winning the Electoral College.

Some pundits pay more attention to just the battleground states -- which is much smarter -- but doing so without taking into account the rest of the states presents an incomplete picture. The Electoral College vote totals are what is truly important, and unless you take the final step of adding in the battlegrounds to the rest of the country, you're not providing this big picture view.

I've always been kind of astonished that so few other people online track these things, which is why I created this series in the first place, way back in 2008. Since then, more sites have begun providing this information, which is an improvement.

A few words about methodology and data are necessary before we dig into things. All our data comes from the incomparable Electoral-Vote.com site, which was the first I found to provide such granular data. Since then other sites have begun to provide this level of detail, but I still find the Electoral-Vote.com site to be the easiest to read and the easiest to cull data from, so I encourage everyone else to use it as well.

But the site only provides a daily snapshot, which is why I've taken it one step further and graphed the whole state-level picture over time. This way, you can see the ups and downs throughout the campaign fairly clearly.

One note about today's charts -- when I began updating the spreadsheet with the 2020 data, I could not find my file from 2016. So I used the file I had from 2012 and just created a new data set. This means I won't have some of the bells and whistles I used the last time around, but this should improve over time. After I crunched all the numbers, I did indeed find the 2016 chart (I had mislabelled it "2020 data" for some unfathomable reason), but by then it was too late to go back and start all over. By the next column in this series, hopefully I will have done so.

OK, with all of that having been said, let's take a look at how things stand here at the start of the general election race. The first chart, as always, is the "big picture" overview. If you assume all the state-level polling is correct (even the close ones), how close to a winning percentage of Electoral Votes (EV) is either candidate? Joe Biden, in blue, starts from the bottom of the chart. Donald Trump, in red, starts at the top of the chart. States which are tied are the white area in between. If the blue is above the halfway line, Biden will win. If the red is below the line, Trump will win. Here's the initial chart for 2020:

Electoral Math By Percent

[Click on any of theses graphs to see larger-scale versions.]

I should point out that while you can't see it (due to the slope and thickness of the lines), on the last day of data (today), the "tied" section reappeared, with 11 Electoral Votes, as a new poll from Arizona put the race at dead even. So Biden's total isn't quite as impressive as it looks -- but it's still pretty impressive. Joe Biden has over 73 percent of the total EV, while Donald Trump is just below 25 percent. If the election were held today and these polls were accurate, the word "landslide" would be hard to avoid.

Now let's take a closer look at each candidate. These charts show the breakdown of total EV measured by the margins from the polls. A gap of 10 points or better counts as "Strong," a gap of between 5 and 10 points is "Weak," and anything below 5 percent falls into "Barely." The chart is stacked so you can see (from the bottom up) lines for "Strong only," "Strong plus Weak," and then the total for all three.

Biden Electoral Math

That's a pretty happy chart, obviously, for Team Biden. Strong Biden is at 233 EV, only 37 short of the finish line (270, as marked on the graph). Weak Biden adds 69 EV, putting Biden easily over the top with 302 EV just in these two categories. But the real boost comes from the 93 EV in the "Barely" category, which puts his total at a whopping 395 EV. This is deceptive, though, which I'll explain in a moment.

First, I have to point out that the total 395 EV Biden just charted is higher than any point reached by either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the past three contests (click the links to see the final charts for these three contests). In 2008, Obama hit a high of 375, but 2012 was closer as he only managed 347 on his best day. Clinton managed to hit 368 EV in 2016, but only for a single day.

But, as I said, this is deceptive. The biggest reason for this jaw-dropping total for Biden -- only five EV short of 400 -- is that the last poll out of Texas put Biden very slightly up in the state. Texas has 38 EV, so that's a real boost. However, the likelihood that Biden will actually win Texas is still very much up in the air. The fact that he's this close is noteworthy, but the heft of 38 EV is why Biden's numbers today are so much better than any from the past three cycles.

The line I pay the most attention to on these graphs is the one in the middle -- the total of "Strong plus Weak," though. Right now, Biden is at a comfortable 302 EV, far more than he needs to win. At this point in the last three contests, Barack Obama was at 239 EV in 2008 and 250 EV in 2012. Clinton's numbers were not available until after the convention, which happened later in July, but the first number she posted (on July 25) in Strong plus Weak was 235 EV. So you can see Biden's not just doing well, but doing a lot better than the Democrat in the last three races.

Which brings us to the flip side of this coin. Let's take a look at how Donald Trump is doing so far.

Trump Electoral Math

That's pretty dismal, you've got to admit. Again, compare it to the charts from the last three contests for context.

Donald Trump has only 90 EV in the Strong column, an additional 11 EV in the Weak, and 31 more in the Barely category. This adds up to only 101 EV in Strong plus Weak (which is only just breaking into three digits), and a paltry 132 EV total.

Again, we had no data from this early in 2016, but the very first numbers Trump posted were much more positive for him. He started off with 103 EV in Strong -- two higher than his current Strong plus Weak. He had a respectable 71 EV in Weak, putting his 2016 Strong plus Weak at 174 EV. Add in his 23 Barely and he was scraping 200 in his overall total (197 EV).

Looking even further back, the other two Republican candidates were roughly on a par with Trump's 2016 numbers. In 2008, John McCain was at 204 EV overall, with 181 EV in Strong plus Weak. In 2012, Mitt Romney was at 241 EV overall with 191 EV in Strong plus Weak. So historically, Trump is not just looking bad right now but really bad.

Of course, the same caveat applies to him -- if Texas were even in his Barely column, Trump's numbers would look a lot more respectable right now. In fact, that chart is deceptive because it looks like Trump still holds onto Texas (which he did yesterday). From the middle of June onwards, Texas has been flipping from Barely Trump to Tied, which shows up clearly on Trump's chart. Today it flipped to Biden's column, but I expect there will be lots and lots of polling done in Texas in the coming weeks, so it'll probably continue to move around a bit. Even it Biden does pull off a miracle and win the state, it'll almost certainly be very close so I seriously doubt Texas will ever poll even at the "Weak Biden" level.

 

My Picks

This is the part of the program where I take the raw numbers and then apply a whole lot of gut feeling to them to sort them into my own categories. I've put different labels on them to differentiate them from the Electoral-Vote.com groupings. For each candidate I will call states as "Safe," "Probable," or "Leaning." The final category is "Too Close To Call," where I can't even make an educated guess what the result will be.

As always, I will be providing data at the end to show which state lands in which category for each column. At the very bottom is a rather important set of data as well: the states which have not been polled in a while (right now this is defined as "before June") and those that have not been polled at all. For the most part, these are such deep blue or red states that the outcome is all but guaranteed, but then again you never can tell about these things. Over time, these lists usually shrink. If you want to really take a deep dive into the data for each state, click on the "Graphs of all polls" button on the front page of Electoral-Vote.com to see individual graphs for each state (where it is obvious how long it has been since a poll has been conducted in each state).

 

Likely States -- Biden

Safe Biden (17 states, 200 EV)
Since this is the first of these columns, I'm basically just going to start the Safe Biden category with the states on the Electoral-Vote.com site that are polling at 10 points or better for Joe Biden. I've only got two changes to make, both subtractions. Pennsylvania polling currently shows Biden 10 points ahead, and Virginia shows Biden up by 12 points, but I'd like to see some further polling from both before I list them as safe for Team Biden.

Again, the full list of states is at the end (there are too many to list here), complete with the number of EV each has. When you add them all up, it gives Biden 200 EV safely in his pocket right now.

One final technical note here -- since Maine and Nebraska can split their votes by House district, there is a single EV in both states that may flip from who wins the state overall. But I'm not going to pay attention to them, because they tend to cancel each other out.

Probable Biden (4 states, 47 EV)
My initial picks for the states Biden will probably win: Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Eventually some of these will likely move up into the Safe Biden category, but since we're just beginning, I'm being rather conservative.

 

Likely States -- Trump

Safe Trump (14 states, 87 EV)
Again, this list is pretty close to what the Electoral-Vote.com site shows, with one exception. I had to move Montana down to only Probable Trump, because he's been weaker here than expected. This could be the effect of the Senate race, where a very popular Democratic governor has a real shot at unseating a Republican. Whatever the reason, for now I can't see it as totally safe for Trump. This only gives Trump 87 EV that can be considered locked in right now.

Probable Trump (2 states, 14 EV)
I've only got two states in the Probable Trump category, the aforementioned Montana and Tennessee. The last poll from the Volunteer State showed Trump only up 9 points, but this was over a month ago. It's quite likely that both these states will firm up for Trump over time, though.

 

Tossup States

Lean Biden (4 states, 61 EV)
Since this is the first column of the series, there are a whole lot of states in all the Tossup categories. Over time (hopefully) these will show stronger trends for one candidate or the other. Starting with states only leaning towards Biden, we have the following four: Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

Florida is probably the biggest surprise in this category, but Biden has been polling rather well in the Sunshine State, at times even hitting a double-digit lead over Trump. So far, Florida looks more than just competitive -- it looks like it should really belong in the Probable Biden category. However, since Florida is such a volatile state politically, for now we're only going to say it is leaning towards Biden.

Michigan has been even stronger for Biden so far than Florida, so I expect this one will move up into Probable Biden soon as well. Nevada has been slowly turning blue over the past two decades, but so far there has only been one poll out, and it was taken back in February. So until some more recent polling appears, it has to be considered only a leaner for Biden. Wisconsin is going to be a hard-fought battleground state, so it wouldn't come as any surprise if it stayed in one of the Tossup categories for the whole race.

Lean Trump (4 states, 25 EV)
There are also four states currently only leaning towards Trump: Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, and Utah. All four are rather surprising, to one degree or another. Alaska will almost certainly go for Trump in the end, but the most recent poll only has him up by 3 points. Arkansas is the same story -- it really should be a lot more solid red, but the only poll to date showed Trump with a tiny margin of only 2 points. Missouri is similar, with the latest poll showing Trump only up 4 points. Utah seemed close back in 2016 but it eventually went for Trump and probably will this time around too. However, Mitt Romney has emerged as the strongest anti-Trump voice in the Senate and he is well-loved in Utah, so who knows what will happen? A Utah poll taken mere days ago only showed Trump up 3 points.

Too Close To Call (6 states, 104 EV)
And here's the part where I just punt. There are six states where things are too close (or even flipping back and forth) to accurately predict much of anything right now.

Arizona looked fairly good for Biden up until today, when a new poll showed the state evenly tied. Georgia is going to be a hard-fought state no matter who wins in the end, and has already flipped between the candidates twice. Iowa has not totally flipped (Trump is slightly up), but one poll did show a perfect tie there. North Carolina may actually see the most money spent on ads (well, with the possible exception of Florida) because everyone sees it as so close and there's also a very close Senate race there as well. So far, Biden appears to have the edge, but it's a very small edge. Ohio is perennially (quadrennially?) a battleground state, and this year will be no different. And finally -- and most surprisingly -- Texas has to be considered Too Close To Call at this point, with multiple polls showing either a flat tie or Biden very slightly up (to be fair, Trump has had polls showing an equally-slim lead as well).

 

Final Tally

It's pretty clear, when all the data has been sifted and considered, that Joe Biden is in a much happier place right now than Donald Trump. If the election were held tomorrow, Biden would be the overwhelming favorite to win. The best indicator of this is how many various routes he's got to reach the magic 270 EV threshold. He could lose any of his close states right now and still pick up enough Electoral College votes to beat Trump.

Trump, on the other hand, has to pretty much run the table. If the election were held tomorrow and Trump won all his safe and probable states as well as every tossup state (even the ones currently leaning towards Biden), he would win but his victory would be a smaller one than the one he eked out in 2016 (which, by historical standards was a close election no matter how many time Trump tries to claim he won "in a landslide.") Even if Trump did manage to win all the tossup states, he'd still have just over 290 votes in the Electoral College. And to do that he'd have to completely sweep the table. That's Trump's current high mark, in other words, which is why it's pretty obvious that Team Biden is feeling much more comfortable about the race than Team Trump.

Joe Biden has a total of 21 states either safe or probable right now, with an impressive 237 EV. Meanwhile, Donald Trump only has 16 states he can count on, with only 101 EV between them. That is a stunning deficit of 136 EV. Biden has to win only 23 more Electoral College votes from the tossups, while Trump has to pull in a whopping 169 EV to win.

Donald Trump was a lot more competitive before the pandemic began (to be fair, at this point Biden hadn't wrapped up the Democratic nomination yet). But after watching Trump flail around and continue to deny that the crisis even exists, more and more voters are deciding that they'd rather have a competent adult in charge of things rather than what they see now. This is reflected both in the national polling and (increasingly) at the state level as well. Just look at the lists of states that usually vote ruby red that Trump is in danger of losing right now -- that's perhaps the biggest indicator of the trouble Trump's campaign is in, here at the start. I mean, only leading by two points in Arkansas? That's astonishing.

Of course, things can always change and they can change very quickly. We should all be fully aware of that by now. This is only our first look at the state-level polling, so this is only the baseline we're starting from. Over the next 100-plus days, we'll be returning to the charts and numbers on a regular basis to see how things are shaping up out there. But for now, things are looking pretty copacetic for Joe Biden's chance of becoming our next president.

 

[Full Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state, for a total of 51.)

Joe Biden Likely Easy Wins -- 21 States -- 247 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 17 States -- 200 Electoral Votes
California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)

Probable States -- 4 States -- 47 Electoral Votes
Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13)

 

Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 16 States -- 101 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 14 States -- 87 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 2 States -- 14 Electoral Votes
Montana (3), Tennessee (11)

 

Tossup States -- 14 States -- 190 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Biden -- 4 States -- 61 Electoral Votes
Florida (29), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), Wisconsin (10)

Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 4 States -- 25 Electoral Votes
Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Missouri (10), Utah (6)

Too Close To Call -- 6 States -- 104 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Georgia (16), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Texas (38)

 

Polling data gaps:

Polled, but no recent polling data -- 17 States
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of June, with the dates of their last poll in parenthesis.)

California (5/26), Connecticut (5/4), Delaware (1/19), Indiana (5/23), Nevada (2/21), New Jersey (5/4), North Dakota (3/5), Maryland (5/23), Massachusetts (5/6), Minnesota (5/20), Mississippi (2/28), Missouri (5/27), South Carolina (5/26), Tennessee (5/22), Utah (5/15), Virginia (5/16), Washington (5/20)

No polling data at all, yet -- 12 States
(States which have not been polled so far this year.)

Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Wyoming

 

136 Comments on “Electoral Math -- It's That Time Again...”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whew ... I was getting worried.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I have a question for loyal readers. As I upgrade back to the 2016 file, I was thinking maybe the larger charts (the ones you get when you click on the small ones here) could be bigger.

    What do you think? Any other changes to suggest? Let me know...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wow, Chris, you deserve a big THANK-YOU for this comprehensive analysis.

    So, things are going well for Biden. But, it's hardly going to be smooth sailing from here so I'll be navigating away from the rough waters this time around and relying solely on these electoral math pieces as my guide to how the race is going.

    Thanks again for all of your hard work ... and the truly beautiful graphs. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For my limited purposes, the big graphs seem large enough to me.

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Thanks for the kind words!

    I kept thinking "I've got to get the EM series going again" but then when I checked, it started later in the year than I thought. The one thing about comparing the charts (from earlier years) is that the starting point is slightly different in each one.

    Anyway, I promise the graphics will get better as time goes by in this year's series...

    :-)

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    That should read "...previous years EM series (serieses?) started later in the year..."

    Just to clear that up.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Clear as mud.

    No, seriously, the serieses are all cleared up now.

    :-)

    I predict that soon I will be suffering from a bad case of the MEGO effect ... or is that, affect. In any event, mine eyes WILL glaze over, indubitably.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    we can only hope. but we also know from experience that donald is at his most dangerous when he's being counted out. the guy has a knack for figuring out how to turn seemingly impossible situations in his favor. and that should keep every biden supporter up nights.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ain't THAT the horrible truth. :(

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Woot! Off to the comments section!

    [3]

    Elizabeth Miller et al,

    Everyone is saying, "But Trump in 2016...you can never count him out."

    I say: Trump has always been a known quantity (he ran as a New York douchebag** and has mis governed accordingly.)

    But the only thing that we can count on besides Trump the Constant is that 3 out of 8 'Muricans (37.5%) will vote "Satan and All His Works," hence Trump, BEFORE they'd EVER vote Dimocrat. It's the Independents, White Soccor Moms and All Color Urban Moms who're defecting so madly from Greed Over Patriotism.

    Be ye afraid as ye may, but this one is Joe's to lose.

    **Sorry, nypoet22 but I did no5 invent the phrase. Present company excepted and all.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And the interwebs say "series" is both singular AND plural, you thilly wabbits

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I don't know that at pushing two years dwelling in Weigantia that I would quite yet qualify as a "loyal reader," as The Artist Formerly Known as Michale would probably contest such madness, but whatever.

    I have upgraded from a dynamically cracked Moto e5 to a pristine e6. Please effing please make each comments number e.g. "[57]" much larger, to aid us poor Android stuck in one bar BFE Mountain Paradise consumers.

    There, I've said it.

    And...If I were King...
    I'd effing BAN "National Polls" until we junk the Electoral College that gave us two stinker Repug President's in a row.

    State by State
    Makes one great

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    No Matter Who
    Ya Just vote Blue

    and stuff.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I can get behind that.

  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Whoa.

    Nellie.

    Somebody just handed me a a pipe with some black stuff in it. Wha looked kinda gooey but whothehell whothehell**...Ah shmoked it.

    And now…

    And nowwww…

    Ah finds myself channelling The Artist Formerly Known as Michale...

    "Where is everybody? Have I scared ya'all OFF? Nobody ever contradicts my [Faux News/OAN/QAnon] FACTS so I must PWN everybody - yippee! I know ya'all constantly check in just to see how I PWN them - yippee!"

    "Officer, somebody said sumptin' bout "Black Tar" but other than day, I dunno nuthin'."

    **Gratuitous Archie a Mehitable
    reference

  16. [16] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Damn you "Black Tar."

    Damn you The Artist Formerly Known as Michale.

    Archie and Mehitable. Sheesh.

  17. [17] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    But there's more channelling of The Artist Formerly Known as Michale...

    C'mon MC! Where's yer ballz? I'll raise the black vote for Trump bet as follows:

    Black vote (BV) for Trump over 50% MC pays CW $200
    BV over 40% MC pays $150
    BV over 33% MC pays $100
    BV over 25% MC pays $50

    BV UNDER 25% Michale pays $50
    BV under 20% Michale pays $100
    BV under 15% Michale pays $150
    BV under 8%** Michale pays $200.

    It is agreed that we shall use the average of the following News organizations "exit polls" as per your standing offer from a fellow Weigantian:

    As pointed out by C.W. ONLY EXIT POLLING gives that kind of racial breakdown. So if you accept it based on an average of exit polling data by all networks: NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC then you have a DEAL.

    Well c'mon, MtnCaddy!?!

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    **What Donald "What the hell do you have to lose?" Trump got in 2016, foole!

  19. [19] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    C'mon man...where are you, MtnCaddy?

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (I'ma telling you, I could get used to feeling this evil.)

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yeppers. Somebody offers you something called "black tar" I'd recommend ya give it a whirl - woot!

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [We now return you to your
    regula--
    regular--
    regularly.
    Scheduled.
    Programming]

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Beetlejuice

  24. [24] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [21]

    . . . if only.

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [11] -

    So I also thought, until I reflected tonight on seeing Jeopardy! -- is "serial" the singular of "series"? I'm too lazy to look it up, I fully admit...

    And it's "pipes," not "interwebs" -- but I would have to look that cite up, too...

    Heh.

    [13] -

    "Vote blue, no matter who" might be the slogan of the year... we'll soon find out...

    [17] -

    I finally figured out where M was coming from -- there are internal Trump polls which apparently show African-American support as high as 40%.

    "BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!" is what I have to say to those "internal polls," but at least it has some sort of basis in (fantastical, self-reinforcing) reality.

    If Trump tops 5% of the Black vote, that would downright STUN me, at this point.

    Heh.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    PSA:

    "Oh yeah. Don't do drugs."
    - Eminem
    The Slim Shady LP

    And...
    0059 7/14
    3,363,056 + 204,873 Deaths: 135,605 + 1,828
    ...in ~2.5 days

    Winning!

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [23]

    Pleeze, Señor, to esplain "Beetlejuice" commentario.

  28. [28] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It does seem like a good shorthand for conjuring up trolls.

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    CW --

    Thanks for yer kind words for my sloganeering. I sold Real Estate for years in Big Bear and I always prided myself on writing good ad copy. I got a million of them! Plus, as I said in the job interview that launched my career, "I give good phone!"

    But enough about me -- back to the issues!

    Naw, I think that there are enough Conservative/Christofacist black voters plus a percentage of garden variety black rubes that Trump will give his own 2016 8% black Red Wall a run for the money haha

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [24]

    Um, JFC...

    It can be arranged. Helluva Election Party...stone guaranteed

  31. [31] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Wait a minute!

    Beetlejuice
    plus
    Weigantia
    or Interwebs
    or Pipes
    equals
    Troll bait?

  32. [32] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's been so long and it's my fave.

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And here I thought it was The Artist Formerly Known as Michaleeee...Come out to plaaay!

    Silly me.

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [32]

    Wait a second! I'm confused. Are you referring to "Black Tar" or "Beetlejuice?" Or maybe both? Together, you say?

    Signed-
    Curious in Country-Cali

    Remember...NO shoelaces!

  35. [35] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [25]

    I finally figured out where M was coming from -- there are internal Trump polls which apparently show African-American support as high as 40%.

    Yes, but The Artist Formerly Known as Michale linked to a Rasmussen poll that is a year old. He gave no indication that he relied on "internal polling."

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    A little clunky, but,

    Trump. Why no one capitalizes "president" anymore.

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    So I wonder, CW. D'ya think The Artist Formerly Known as Michale got so butthurt over the absolute evisceration** he got the other day? I really though the foole had a thicker skin than that. Not as thick as Don "One Trick Pony" Harris's skin, but still.

    **Shout out to my Homegirl Kick: I don't care if yer a girl I want you on my side in the next barfight I get into! A barfight over politics, natch. I focuses my mayhem nowadays

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [25]

    (also too lazy to look it up)

    Off the top of my head:

    A "serial" killer commits a "series" of killings, and...

    Er, I forgot...

  39. [39] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And Don Harris:

    I'm too new here to have heard how One Demand - even if it did raise a billion "the right way" - would overcome the ocean of PAC (and other dark money sources?

    Pleeze to Donsplain, Señor

  40. [40] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Ack. My two doggies Betty & Buddy are going to wake my butt up in four hours, so I gotta crash.

    You Leastcoast folks get the lead out and give me something fresh to read once I've finished my AM injection of black coffee!

    (thinking)

    There's that word "black," again. I 'spose that's why they say it never goes out of style yuk

  41. [41] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    No polling data at all, yet -- 12 States
    (States which have not been polled so far this year.)

    Looks like these will split six and six.

  42. [42] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Refined slightly:

    Make it Great
    State by State

    No Matter Who
    Vote Blue

  43. [43] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Whoops!

    No Matter Who
    Ya Just Vote Blue!

  44. [44] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Jeopardy Answer:
    Donald Trump

    Jeopardy Question:
    Why doesn't anyone capitalize "president" anymore?

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [34]

    hash

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    LIz (14)-
    "I think I can get it IN THE behind FROM that."

    There. Fixed it for you.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And that is both singular from individual candidates and plural from the whole party. :D

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just vote blue
    no matter who
    then a chance you blew
    to not get screwed.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just vote blue
    no matter who
    big money wins
    the blame's on you.

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just vote blue
    no matter who
    a choice that means
    our country's through.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just vote blue
    no matter who
    a dumb false choice
    you know it's true.

  52. [52] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just vote blue
    no matter who
    a children's book
    like Dr. Seuss.

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just vote blue
    no matter who
    just a pile
    of Horton's poo.

  54. [54] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    It looks like Biden may actually intend to seriously go after Texas, as he's already begun buying TV ad space here. If I actually watched broadcast television anymore, I'd be looking forward to seeing his ads!

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, you're one funny single-issue guy. :)

  56. [56] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Big Orange just revealed that Obama (and Biden) stopped testing and he is doing more testing than anyone ever in the known universe.

    Now I'm worried about November.

  57. [57] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [55]

    Just hilarious.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You haven't been to one of Don's backyard shindigs, I'm guessing ... or, have you? :)

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They always put a smile on my face for the rest of the day.

  60. [60] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [39]

    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And, Don Harris...

    I'm too new here to have heard how One Demand - even if it did raise a billion "the right way" - would overcome the ocean of PAC (and other dark) money sources?

    Pleeze to Donsplain, Señor

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Vote blue no matter who is one issue voting.

    The one issue being Trump is so bad it doesn't matter how inadequate the Dems are.

  62. [62] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    You are not new enough that you haven't used that before.

    While there is nothing to stop outside groups from running ads they would not be effective in electing big money candidates if One Demand raised a billion dollars in small contributions.

    In order for One Demand to raise a billion dollars there would be much more than a billion dollars raised by small donor only candidates.

    The participants in One Demand would be sending the majority of their contributions directly to the candidates, not through One Demand and will only send enough to One Demand to keep it going.

    So One Demand raising a billion dollars would mean a majority of citizens were participating and not voting for big money candidates.

    Then the outside groups would not have big money candidates to run ads for because they would not be able to win in the primaries and would not be on the general election ballot.

  63. [63] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Drumpf has now outsourced his Fauci smear project to Stephen Moore! He has nicknamed Fauci "Dr Wrong". Holy cow, Fat Donny is incompetent. It hard to imagine a person who's wronger or douchebaggier than Moore.

  64. [64] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    Don Harris [62]

    I'm seeing a pretty monumental flaw in your OD plan. You essentially seem to require a majority of the citizens to simultaneously go on strike against non-OD candidates in favor of a single OD-friendly candidate in order for it to work. That's simply unrealistic.

    First you'd have to find a candidate who agreed to OD's principles and who is popular enough to get the financial support of such a huge segment of the population that they could out-raise the major party candidates. That alone is simply not possible to do all in one go. No candidate of sufficient popularity would willing risk handicapping themselves so monumentally with the rules as they stand.

    Even if you could find such a candidate though, how are you expecting to get so many small donors that they could keep up with the current fund raising system? How are you going to convince them that their donations wouldn't be in vain, that the candidate they're supporting would have a realistic chance of beating someone entrenched in the current system? Most people aren't willing to throw money at causes they don't believe have a chance.

    So I ask you, what is the workable plan of action you are proposing? Ideals and concepts are great, but unless you have a way to put them into practice, they won't get you far.

  65. [65] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    THIS from a POLITICO article on Trump's Trade War Victim's Compensation Fund:

    The trade bailout has now spanned three years and surpassed $23 billion, even though it was never appropriated by Congress. Instead, the money was funneled through USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation, a Depression-era agency that can borrow from the U.S. Treasury to stabilize the farm economy.

    “The administration picked these trade fights promising agriculture that this would lead to some better world at some point,” Hamilton said. “Rather than suffering any consequence for the ill-conceived strategy, they just said, ‘Hey, let’s tap the bank. We’ll buy our way out of this.’”

    And I betcha Trump insisted on having his signature on the darn checks.

  66. [66] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [46]

    Don Harris wrote:
    LIz (14)-
    "I think I can get it IN THE behind FROM that."

    There. Fixed it for you.

    Haha, Dude you need to get your butt into comedy!

    I think you'd be way more happy and successful at comedy than you are at flogging One Demand in these pages.

    I'm afraid that Bleyd's reply needs to be addressed. Also, would OD be an organization, with a budget and financial requirements? Good luck getting folks to contribute above and beyond directly to an OD candidate.

  67. [67] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    The Artist Formerly Known as Michale wrote:

    C'mon, MtnCaddy! Doesn't anyone around here have the cajones to put your money where your mouth is? For some real money? Trump indisputably has 40% black support in 'Murica!

    I guess ya'all are just TIRED of being PWNed by me and my indisputable FACTS.

  68. [68] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (dusting off hands)

    There. I've PWNed* the Trolls for the morning.

    Now I can spend some serious quality time with POLITICO, The Atlantic, 538, The Young Turks and Ring of Fire, The Guardian (them Brits are merciless!) et al.

    *BTW, whothehell does "PWN" mean?

    Signed-
    Struggling to Stay
    Relevant at 61 Years Old

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    Ohhhh, Michale is very much like the HIV virus... he may be undetectable for a while, but that does not mean that he still doesn’t infect this site and can return at any moment. Enjoy the good days while you can!

  70. [70] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Ah, yes...but I'm just having too much fun in the meanwhile.

    Heh.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bleyd-
    Then you are seeing something that is not there.

    62 was in response to Mtn Caddy proposing a what if One Demand raised a billion dollars.

    I have always said One Demand would take more than one election cycle to be fully effective. Just because it can't be fully effective in one go is not a reason to not do it. It is in fact more of reason to start now.

    There are plenty of candidates that could easily raise enough money if they made the commitment.

    I have explained enough times that Joe Biden can raise a billion dollars from just three in ten registered Dems.

    But Biden will not do it on his own. That is one purpose of citizens registering on the website that they will only vote for small donor only candidates. Another purpose is to show other citizens how you intend to vote so they will know other citizens are working together with them.

    It does not require a majority for this to be effective on Biden. As little as 1% of voters (10-13 million people) making this commitment and demand could make Biden run a small donor only campaign to get their votes if a few million of those people were in key states for the electoral vote.

    It is unlikely any vote blue no matter who voters would abandon Biden if Biden made the small donor only commitment so Biden making the commitment could only increase his vote totals.

    And if Biden does not make the commitment and loses because he did not get those votes then candidates will make the commitment in future elections if they are capable of learning from mistakes.

    The real question is how are you going to convince voters that their votes are not in vain when there are DECADES of the Dems NOT DELIVERING on their promises?

    How is voting for that better than demanding they take action now to earn our votes rather than voting for more empty promises?

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy [69],

    likening any human being to HIV would require that they be a pretty evil person. troll or no, michale is part of this community, and has tried to adhere to whatever rules CW lays down for him. i don't think your comment about him was was fair or necessary.

    JL

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn caddy (66,68,69)-
    What trolls did you take care of?

    Flogging?

    As usual you have it backwards. The participants contribute directly to the candidates before they go above and beyond to contribute to One Demand.

    And if you think Bleyd's comment was rational you are also delusional.

    This site is severely infected with the big money two party bullshit virus.

    But the infected to refuse to take the cure.

  74. [74] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LWYH [69],

    Very nice. It posts some of the most vile, dehumanizing slime about other people imaginable. I don't buy into that faither concept of "evil", but if I did, I'd find it super appropriate.

  75. [75] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Caddy [68],

    pwn started as a typo, I believe. P & O are right next to each other on the keyboard. I think it's a gamer thing. I'm an old geezer, so I could be completely wrong about it though.

  76. [76] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [72]

    Twasn't my comment.

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    oh, pardon. the post was addressed to you, not written by you. my mistake.

    bad form russ.

  78. [78] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Aha! I get it:

    Someone wanted to type "own" and typed "pwn."

    Back in the days of auto correct I suppose.

  79. [79] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Mayhaps in these times of communicable diseases we should chill on the "The Artist Formerly Known as Michale is like HIV" stuff, eh?

    Then again, maybe not.

  80. [80] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Gah.

    Back in the days before auto correct.

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22

    likening any human being to HIV would require that they be a pretty evil person

    Sorry, I don’t consider a virus as being capable of decision making based on their moral convictions, so assigning the concepts of “good” or “evil” to Michale was not the point I was attempting to make. I will say that I was comparing him to something no one necessarily wants to have, and that Michale is impossible to get rid of (unless you get a bone marrow transplant...and who has the time or money to do that?). So, I am sorry that I offended you with my comment...that was never my intent.

  82. [82] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If CW had auto correct maybe his car wouldn't break so often. :D

  83. [83] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [73]

    And if you think Bleyd's comment was rational you are also delusional.

    This site is severely infected with the big money two party bullshit virus.

    But the infected to refuse to take the cure.

    This is unnecessary.

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: However, the likelihood that Biden will actually win Texas is still very much up in the air.

    Texas is generally a nonvoting state, and that's exactly how the GOP wants to keep it by making it as hard as possible for people to vote by not allowing mail-in ballots, forcing citizens to stand in long lines to vote in person unless they are 65 or older, and forcing in-person voting during a pandemic. It's a crazy year.

    I still expect TX-23 will be flipped in 2020 if the GOTV work is put in like the 2018 midterms and there is no outright chicanery. I can see Texas flipping in 2020, but it's not going to be an easy lift, going to take a lot of targeted work... but it's underway.

    Texas: It's not a matter of "if" she will flip; it's only a matter of "when" it's going to happen. The GOP as we now know it will be over without Texas, and they know that. :)

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Today is a voting day in Texas so I voted today.

    Hope I don't pay for it with my life. :)

  86. [86] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    With Trump running for reelection "success over multiple election cycles" is simply not an option.

    The Democrats are juiced like rarely, fundraising without OD is through the roof. Biden would be insane to hand in four Kings for a chance to draw a Royal flush. It would be political malpractice, and such an idiot move to please the "purists" such as yourself would cast serious doubt i
    about Biden's intelligence and play to the only "anti-Biden" campaign Trump can run.

    And do you think Big Money is just going to just lie down in the face of even a billionaire OD candidate?

    Sheesh, Dawg - give it a rest. You cannot insult your way to any "converts," duh.

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Starting with states only leaning towards Biden, we have the following four: Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

    To date, the Trump campaign has all but written off a repeat win in Michigan... for almost a year now. Could this change? Unlikely, but there's still time.

    Without winning Florida, Trump has almost no path to winning the presidency. Without Florida and Michigan... it's not impossible but highly unlikely.

    Without Ohio, no Republican has ever won the presidency.

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    2

    I have a question for loyal readers. As I upgrade back to the 2016 file, I was thinking maybe the larger charts (the ones you get when you click on the small ones here) could be bigger.

    They look great to me. :)

  89. [89] 
    MyVoice wrote:

    To your continued health, Kick.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    25

    I finally figured out where M was coming from -- there are internal Trump polls which apparently show African-American support as high as 40%.

    Seriously? Fire them now; that's positively insane.

    After the events of the prior year, etc., etc. and Trump still attempting to kill Obamacare/ACA in the SCOTUS, I cannot fathom Trump even receiving the 8% he polled in 2016... more likely somewhere in the 5% to 7% range at best, with Biden more likely to receive around 93% to 94% of the "black American" vote in 2020.

    We'll see. Like you've said before, it's an exit polling number anyway. :)

    "BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!"

    Yep... exactly this! :)

  91. [91] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [79]

    Uh, ditto, Kick haha

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    37

    **Shout out to my Homegirl Kick: I don't care if yer a girl I want you on my side in the next barfight I get into! A barfight over politics, natch. I focuses my mayhem nowadays

    That could be arranged. ;)

  93. [93] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bleyd
    54

    It looks like Biden may actually intend to seriously go after Texas, as he's already begun buying TV ad space here.

    I know, right!? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It doesn't matter if Biden wins Texas or not... make the Trumpublicans fight for it because they're finished if they lose it. Winning Texas in 2020 would just be icing on the cake. She'll be flipping sooner or later. :)

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    JFC
    63

    Drumpf has now outsourced his Fauci smear project to Stephen Moore! He has nicknamed Fauci "Dr Wrong". Holy cow, Fat Donny is incompetent. It hard to imagine a person who's wronger or douchebaggier than Moore.

    I accept your douchebag challenge and submit the following for your consideration:

    Stephen Miller

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/11/12/stephen-millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails

    And now, it's off to the shower to clean the stench off me for just mentioning the little SOB.

  95. [95] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [92]

    Kick wrote:
    MtnCaddy
    37

    **Shout out to my Homegirl Kick: I don't care if yer a girl I want you on my side in the next barfight I get into! A barfight over politics, natch. I focuses my mayhem nowadays

    That could be arranged. ;)

    Day-yam! I likes that! As we chanted, "A strong man ain't afraid of no strong woman" when I marched for the ERA with 100,000 hard core Libtards in Chicago.

    And you Texas Gals shore tawk sexy, too!

    (singing)

    I got...no exes
    Down in Texas
    Ain't been...no exes
    For MC

    But if...I had
    Exes in Texas
    I'd live in Mother Russia,
    Yessiree!

  96. [96] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    In '79, recalls Former Hippie.

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    72

    likening any human being to HIV would require that they be a pretty evil person.

    Not really, JL. The comment was most definitely about HIV and it being undetectable in its host and then returning. Viruses have no evil human characteristics like people do.

    It's not like Russ requested that anybody kill themselves or anything.

  98. [98] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "With Trump running for re-election success over multiple election cycles is not an option."

    Actually it is an option. Maybe not an option you would choose, but to people that realize that Trump is in office now because the Dems keep offering a false alternative and electing Biden will lead to another Trump that could be even worse after Biden it is a better option than voting for Biden which will mean there will be the same poor options in future elections.

    And that is why many here wants to keep citizens that might agree that it is the better option from finding out about it because then those here could not make the same you have no other choice argument that gave us Trump and the mishandling of the pandemic we are suffering from in the first place.

    It is political malpractice to not run a small donor only campaign when it can be done. Unless you are saying that three out of ten registered Dems could not make contributions of 200 dollars or less or that they would not do this if Biden made the commitment.

    It would not matter what the big money interests did if Biden raised 1 billion in small contributions.

    Your giving up four kings to try for a royal flush is nonsense. Biden would not get less money or votes, he would get more of both.

    The bullshit arguments constantly repeated are an insult to me and to rational discussion.

    And insults seem to be the norm here originating from many others.

    When in Rome....

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    81

    So, I am sorry that I offended you with my comment...that was never my intent.

    Your comment was clear to me and obviously to others. Since I don't recall an instance where JL ever took issue with his friend's delusional repeated requests for the suicide of other "members of the community," I'd say you've nothing whatsoever to worry about in that department. Just saying.

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    83

    This is unnecessary.

    As well as ignorant and duplicitous.

    Told you it could be arranged. :)

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Holy Hell, y'all. I just saw a presidential ad running in Texas. That has not happened in a long, long time.

    Go Joe! Make them work their asses off for Texas. What could it hurt? ;)

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    MyVoice
    89

    To your continued health, Kick.

    Thank you, sincerely, MV. I will take all the well wishes I can get, and I won't go down without a fight, that is for dang sure. I hope everyone in Texas feels the same way or November could be wonky. People should be allowed to vote in this country without fear of bodily harm regardless of whom they support.

    :)

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    There is a definite and distinct streak of mean spiritedness that can tend to run through this place. And, it ain't Michale.

    That HIV comparison is just a symptom of it.

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    98

    And that is why many here wants to keep citizens that might agree that it is the better option from finding out about it because then those here could not make the same you have no other choice argument that gave us Trump and the mishandling of the pandemic we are suffering from in the first place.

    No one on this blog is stopping you except yourself. You've been given great advice about starting your own blog and allowing people to find out about your crusade. TYA.

    The bullshit arguments constantly repeated are an insult to me and to rational discussion.

    You are an insult to yourself because you're still here flogging the same #*%$)* and whining about the "arguments constantly repeated" yet somehow expecting a different result. It's asinine.

    And insults seem to be the norm here originating from many others.

    If you inspire insults from so many people, that's on you.

  105. [105] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    103

    There is a definite and distinct streak of mean spiritedness that can tend to run through this place. And, it ain't Michale.

    Good look fooling everyone else; you've obviously got yourself covered. The board is archived, you know.

    That HIV comparison is just a symptom of it.

    Anyone twisting his words into something he never meant is much more indicative of a problem on their part. He's not the first you've done it to while you feel quite free to dump on whomever you please.

  106. [106] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If I had been given great advice I would follow it.

    I have provided great advice that the Dems and no one here has followed which has resulted in Trump being elected and the current mishandling of the pandemic.

    When me giving people good advice is returned with insults to distract and deflect it is not on me.

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    106

    If I had been given great advice I would follow it.

    You were given great advice by the author of the blog. No one can help you if you don't recognize great advice when you see it.

    I have provided great advice that the Dems and no one here has followed which has resulted in Trump being elected and the current mishandling of the pandemic.

    Your inability to sell your idea is on you and no one else.

    When me giving people good advice is returned with insults to distract and deflect it is not on me.

    I don't think anyone is attempting to distract or deflect. Your idea has been flogged and discussed to death, and you've been given ample time and space to sell it. Your failure in selling it is definitely on you and no one else.

  108. [108] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    So, show me my archived mean-spiritedness.

    Projection, I won't be fooled by projection
    Projection, you thought you could put something over me

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    108

    So, show me my archived mean-spiritedness.

    Not interested. It wouldn't solve anything to dredge up your repeated hounding of multiple posters who didn't meet with definition of "common decency" while you turned a blind eye to the toxic spew of your friend.

    When I said the board was archived, I was referring to the following: There is a definite and distinct streak of mean spiritedness that can tend to run through this place. And, it ain't Michale.

    That's a ridiculous statement on its face considering this board is archived with the toxic spew and precisely why I referred to you as his "preeminent enabler."

    Anyone want to twist Russ's words while simultaneously defending some of the most vile toxic spew I've ever seen posted on the Internet on any blog; you've either lost your perspective to judge or you've lost your memory... or both.

    End of discussion.

  110. [110] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Kick ... are you a James Bond fan?

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You can't find anything in the archive here where I defend toxic vile spew from anyone. And, you know it! :)

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously, though, are you a 007 fan?

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We're all friends here, Kick ... aren't we?

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you strong enough to admit when you're wrong?

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Are you out there, somewhere. Hoping you and the family are well.

    I've got a great idea for the next CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party!

    I noticed you were once again absent from the festivities this past Sunday. Is everything okay?

  116. [116] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [114]

    Kick need not admit she's wrong. She's not.

    [111]

    You did exactly that [103]. You've gone as far as telling me that it's not a troll which is downright bizarre and obviously incorrect. Are you strong enough to admit when you're incorrect?

  117. [117] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Beetlejuice.

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All I'm trying to do is make this a kinder and gentler place.

    Far from enabling the crudest parts of this place, I'm trying to change it and failing that, ignore it.

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I won't give up because, I like this place too much.

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, you make a good point, you make a very good point. Maybe I will give up.

  121. [121] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [118]

    Good for you. Good luck with that, but implying that the problem emanates from somewhere other than that troll won't get you there.

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    111

    You can't find anything in the archive here where I defend toxic vile spew from anyone. And, you know it! :)

    You have no idea what I know because if you had an iota or inkling of what I know, then you'd obviously already know you were wrong.

    You seriously want to take on my memory and my absolute honesty in calling things exactly the way they are? Fine.

    [33] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, one more thing Kick,

    I hope you continue to post my capitalized foul language post as it stands as the model and high water mark for what should be allowed around here.

    I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/04/15/first-quarter-democratic-fundraising-numbers-are-in/#comment-133479

    *
    Above you will find what you claimed didn't exist. It is you defending your own foul language and highlights perfectly your personal sense of entitlement to say whatever you wish while admonishing everyone else and turning a blind eye to trolls.

    Are there more examples of that? You bet your ass there are... so get off Russ's. What he is being accused of saying and what he actually said are two entirely different things. Your sense of entitlement to judge everyone else while you regularly turn a blind eye to the toxic troll... again duly noted.

  123. [123] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    There was absolutely nothing mean-spirited about what Russ said.

    I happen to think that the comment section has been decidedly better recently even when somebody gets cranky. Scrolling through miles and miles of troll diarrhea and reactions to that diarrhea is hard to stomach and that's the troll's objective *. I've seen no evidence of redeeming qualities in your buddy. They say that Trump is charming in person (barf). Who knows? Maybe he even likes Star Trek. Sociopaths are good at stuff like that.

    I'll always say what I've got to say, but I'm much more likely to actually interact with others here when the comment section isn't polluted with troll.

    * To be clear, I'm not referring to Don. I used to like him, but now I think he's just boring and counter-productive.

  124. [124] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    BTW - Kick and I may seem quite blunt and critical here, but I'd like to point out that the list of attendees at your kumbaya party on Sunday is as follows:

    John From Censornati
    Kick
    nypoet22

  125. [125] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [123]

    ...you and me, ooochk...

  126. [126] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    'Nuff of this bullshit - Don, you and yer "game but lame" constant non- responsiveness to anyone's raised issues makes you
    worthless and weak - drop and give me TWENTY! Shithead.

    Enjoy the next few, precious hours cuz upon my return tomorrow AM I'ma RETIRE your intellectually lame ass from bothering Sentient Beings on CW.com. Fucker.

  127. [127] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    You suck...and the next sensation you'll feel is a telephone pole a'riding up your [otherwise comedically "ready for primetime"] ass to wherever fuckheads go...

    [Sorry CM I just got all pissed off as did "so-and-so" blah blah...blah BLAH blah a month ago...]

    But. We kewell.

  128. [128] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,
    i appreciate your sensitivity on the issue.

    @kick (and to a lesser extent JFC),

    my comment wasn't about michale as much as it was about AIDS. when you guys get into it with each other you both cross the line as a matter of course; that's just part of the game you and he like to play. i accept that russ didn't mean it the way i read it, but the point where anyone else is concerned is to try not to be the one who turns it back into a flame war.

    JL

  129. [129] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    we all have our moments; i think the main thing that keeps CW from having to step in is for us to be conscious of our own fallibility and apologetic when it's called for.

    JL

  130. [130] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    when you guys get into it with each other you both cross the line as a matter of course; that's just part of the game you and he like to play.

    I don't play with it at all. I don't even read its dreck except in other poster's responses to it which I'd prefer for everyone to just stop doing. And like I said, I don't consider it to be "evil", malignant is a much better fit.

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/malignant

  131. [131] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i know what malignant means, and i respectfully disagree.

  132. [132] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Well, guess what? I know that you disagree but you'll never convince me that it's anything else.

    In addition, I do not accuse LizM (or you) of enabling it. There's just one enabler and it's CW. He gets to make that call because he owns the place and he's explained himself more than once. I can't understand how it's worth it to host so much hideous shit, but I have certainly never asked him to end it.

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    128

    @kick (and to a lesser extent JFC),

    my comment wasn't about michale as much as it was about AIDS.

    You needn't explain yourself to me. You were perfectly clear in your opinion as was Russ. Enough said.

    when you guys get into it with each other you both cross the line as a matter of course; that's just part of the game you and he like to play.

    You're mistaken.

    i accept that russ didn't mean it the way i read it, but the point where anyone else is concerned is to try not to be the one who turns it back into a flame war.

    Your opinion. I'm not going to rehash even one of the instances of the troll's malignancy, but you can take it to the bank if I tell you it's there that it's there. I have no reason to invent it nor would I ever.

    End of discussion.

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I'd like to discuss further ...

    I'm kidding!

  135. [135] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    End of discussion.

    agreed.

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Me, too.

    There'll be a new column up!

Comments for this article are closed.