ChrisWeigant.com

99 Days And Counting

[ Posted Monday, July 27th, 2020 – 16:03 UTC ]

In less than 100 days, America will vote. In other words, there is finally a light at the end of this long and dark tunnel we've all been going through. And unless things drastically change for the worse, that light might shine very bright indeed.

Pretty much every poll under the sun now shows Democrats with the upper hand in the campaign. Joe Biden is doing better -- at both the national level and the state level -- than either of Barack Obama's winning years, as well being better positioned than Hillary Clinton was the last time around. In fact, Biden's poll numbers across the Electoral College are now higher than Obama or Clinton ever reached at any point in their respective campaigns. Public opinion of the coronavirus and President Donald Trump's pitifully inadequate reaction to it has hardened like cement. No wonder he's trying a new tactic ("OK, I'll pretend like I care about it for a week, how's that?") and reversing course on his disastrously self-centered plan for his big convention speech. And it's now looking like he won't be able to hold any rallies at all for the foreseeable future, especially when you consider that the hardest-hit areas of the country right now are either solidly Republican or the battleground states Trump's going to need. No rallies means depriving Trump's massive ego of the attention it so desperately craves.

But Trump isn't the only Republican in bad shape. Nonpartisan election analysts are now saying that it is more likely than not that Democrats will win back control of the Senate in November, too. And it even looks like Democrats might pick up some more suburban seats in the House, which will further widen their majority. In short, Trump is taking a whole lot of people down with him -- and it is far too late for any of them to attempt any sort of "I'm independent from Trump" campaign strategy.

Congressional Republicans seem to want to assist Trump's self-inflicted destruction as well. They're busy arguing about how chintzy to make their next pandemic relief bill. Every economist with a brain is telling them that if they cut back unemployment benefits, it is going to mean the loss of millions more jobs. This means the GOP plan would all but guarantee a second downward economic slump -- right before the election. This is an act of political suicide, but they don't seem to understand this.

Perhaps Democrats will save Republicans from themselves. Nancy Pelosi certainly has gotten the lion's share of everything she wanted out of all the other budget showdowns she's had with the Trump White House, so why should this time be any different? The GOP is so badly fractured that there will likely only be lukewarm support for even their own draft bill -- support so tepid it is doubtful Mitch McConnell could even pass it through the Republican Senate, at this point. This leaves them in a very weak bargaining position, and it means the final bill will almost certainly pass with mostly-Democratic votes. A few Republicans in both chambers will vote for it in an act of political desperation, but large numbers of them will also likely oppose it. To their electoral peril, because this will definitely be a big campaign issue.

Even with a mostly-Democratic bill passed, the coming economic slump may be inevitable at this point. Up until now, the economy went into free fall, tens of millions filed for unemployment, and then slowly over time they started returning to work. But there are still tens of millions unemployed, and last week for the first time the numbers went in the wrong direction once again as more people filed for unemployment than in the previous week. This is no doubt because of the new wave of the pandemic causing states to either pause or pull back from their reopening schedule. As bars and restaurants are shuttered once again, it means lots of people out of work for a second time. Which could lead -- even with the new stimulus bill -- to a "W-shaped recovery," where we would right now be at the exact middle of the letter "W" -- after a small rise, we may be about to head right back down again.

This likely won't be evident in the monthly unemployment number which will be reported at the beginning of next month -- July's unemployment rate may improve over June's -- since the data is all collected in the first two weeks of the month. But August's number may clearly show this reversal. And Trump bet his re-election on forcing the states to reopen early, in the hopes of seeing a "V-shaped" recovery. If that proves to be as disastrous a decision as it now seems, then Joe Biden may be headed for a landslide victory.

Biden's message on the pandemic has been very simple: Donald Trump is incompetent, period. He declared it was just like a war, and then almost immediately he waved the white flag of surrender and beat a full retreat. He quite obviously just does not care that almost 150,000 Americans have died -- many as a result of his incompetence and abdication of national leadership. Not only would Joe Biden have done a much better job, but in fact anyone with a shred of empathy and competence would have done a much better job. That's a pretty easy message to understand, and it's also a pretty easy idea to sell to the voters because it is already how most of them feel anyway.

Of course, 99 days is still a long time even in a normal political situation. In Trump-time, it is approximately two or three years. Meaning anything could happen, and probably will. Who knows what applecart Trump will kick over in an increasingly-desperate attempt to distract people from the growing coronavirus death toll? There are certainly plenty to choose from. Trump's only real chance is that Joe Biden has some sort of spectacular meltdown and the public recoils in horror, but the likelihood of that happening isn't anywhere near as high as Team Trump believes it is.

The only big gamechanger Biden is in charge of is his vice-presidential selection. Speculation is running rampant right now, mostly because political pundits have nothing better to do, but the consensus seems to be that Team Biden is following one golden rule with their pick: "do no harm." Now, "do no harm" means different things to different Democrats, obviously, but the attitude in the Biden camp is that they are not only winning but doing so in spectacular fashion as Trump self-immolates before everyone's eyes. So why change things up all that much? This could mean a vice-presidential choice that does little to inspire the voters. But it may not matter, and it usually doesn't. The choice of running mate is always overhyped by the chattering classes, since most voters don't vote for the second spot on the ticket.

The real danger is overconfidence and complacency. This more than anything else is likely what did in Hillary Clinton the last time around. But there appears to be little danger of this, as while Trump likes to brag about how his voter-enthusiasm numbers are higher than Biden's what he doesn't mention is that enthusiasm levels for voters who will cast a vote specifically against Trump are also through the roof. We've all seen what happens when too many people think: "It's in the bag, I don't really need to bother voting." So weak Biden turnout likely won't be a problem at all, because a Biden vote cast against Trump counts just as much as a Biden vote specifically for Biden.

So with just less than 100 days to go, Joe Biden and the congressional Democrats down the ballot both look like they're in the best shape the party has been in for the last 20 years. Biden is doing better than Obama was doing in 2008 right now. And all the trendlines are sharply bending away from both Donald Trump and all his fellow Republicans too. When the 2020 dust settles, Democrats may have control of not only the Oval Office but also the Senate and a bigger majority in the House. Things are looking about as good as can be imagined for Biden and all the down-ballot Democrats at this point, so hopefully we'll all emerge from the dark tunnel into the brightness of a new day, come November.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

210 Comments on “99 Days And Counting”

  1. [1] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I always thought those coattails might become shackles...

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Biden's message on the pandemic has been very simple: Donald Trump is incompetent, period. He declared it was just like a war, and then almost immediately he waved the white flag of surrender and beat a full retreat.

    Did Biden really say 'white flag of surrender'? :)

    You know, that reminds of a long ago vice presidential debate when Palin whined that he was raising the white flag of surrender.

    Well, you know what they say ... :)

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, how long do you think the shortened baseball season will last?

    The season can't be short enough if you're a Blue Jays fan. Ahem.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, the NBA is a whole other story! Go Raptors!!!

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Whew! With Republicans in disarray, it’s a relief to know that I don’t personally need any relief from Moscow Mitch’s Find-Something-New Trump Virus Welfare Act. It probably should be called an Inact instead since he might get around to it in three weeks or so. Or maybe it can wait ‘til October. Or after the election. Or never.

    You don’t have to live in Kentucky to vote against him. Ditch Mitch.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The real danger is overconfidence and complacency.

    Agreed. If Big Money Joe is going to lure little kids to his porch with ice cream, torture, and eat them, then he really should just go ahead and put it out there like an orange pussy-grabber hugging a sex-trafficker on 5th Avenue. Fat Donny is transparent about his sexual perversions and his connections to sexual deviancy, so Joe has to take this issue off the table. Donald likes to project so this is not going to go away.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kick,

    Maybe Kim Kardashian.

    Too busy helping her own presidential candidate. ;)

    I am not at all convinced that Kanye & Kim Kardashian’s campaign is anything other than a Trump-branded publicity stunt for his new album. It would hardly be surprising if mentally-disturbed Donald “Wile E Coyote” Drumpf cooked up an ill-advised stunt for a mentally-disturbed Red Hat reality TV rapper to act out during Season 2 because he knows that next to no real Black people will vote for an orange Confederate statue. So, maybe they’ll vote for some other reality TV narcissist?

    He’ll be lucky if they buy his music.

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [245]

    FPC

    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Even though you are a confessed troll, I have decided to reinstate the wager for you and JM...

    I have done this after careful consultations and decided that it would be a boon to help out CW and Weigantia.. The Grand Poobah will be thrilled to receive such monetary funding for Weigantia..

    And I'll be thrilled that it's provided by morons who actually thought President Trump would lose when ALL the facts prove otherwise.. :D

    Excellent, Brother Michale! I knew you'd agree that NOBODY really "loses" this wager, as the winnings go to CW.com, yea verily!

    As offered previously, terms:

    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

    Wager shall be determined as follows (as posted by John M)

    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.

    Please confirm our wager by noting this comment's number and copying & pasting:

    MtnCaddy you better start saving up your money, foole!
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    You give every indication that you sincerely believe that Trump has 40% support among black 'Muricans. In turn, I'm certain that Trump's support is in single digits at best. Let the games begin! Wait -- "the games" don't start until 3 November 2020. So...let the trash talking begin, you fellow Alpha Male, you!

    BTW for the record I am NOT "a confessed troll." I said that I trolled you (verb, describing a single action.) I did not say that I am a troll (noun, indicating a state of being/lifestyle choice.)

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    **The Black support that Trump won in 2016

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Who's Joe gonna pick for Veep? From the artical in POLITICO.

    My preferred choices, in order:

    (1) Elizabeth Mil- er, Warren;)

    (2) Susan Rice

    (3)Tammy Duckworth

    (4) Gretchen Whitmer (cuz I'm from Meee-chee-gan)

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [3]

    Elizabeth Miller wrote,

    So, how long do you think the shortened baseball season will last?

    The season can't be short enough if you're a Blue Jays fan. Ahem.

    Ya gotta keep the faith, Sister. I'd LOVE for the season to be over as of last night. My Detroit Tigers (47-114 last season) are 2-1 and as such would be in baseball's expanded playoffs.

    It's a long (okay, medium) season. If your Jays put together a short winning streak and they'll be back in it.

  12. [12] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    As much as I'm looking forward to a Democratic landslide that gives Biden the Senate and a chance to pass a whole raft of progressive legislation, I am not convinced that the sun will come out tomorrow on January 21.

    Just as, had Sec. Clinton won in 2016, she would have been impeached by mid-spring of 2017 and every initiative of hers fought tooth and nail as treasonous by the GOP majorities in Congress, so will (now projected) Pres. Biden face an infinitely poisonous if weakened opposition from the Republicans. Led by ex-Pres Trump, and boosted by the Fox News/OANN/QAnon Republican media no longer embarrassed by an incompetent-criminal president of their own party, the conservatives will do their best to foment more chaos and prevent any real sense of national healing.

    Will they succeed, against the undeniable relief of a proven majority of the nation's electorate that sanity has apparently been restored to our constitutional system? A lot depends on Biden and Congress' leaders, of course. But a lot more depends on the media.

    If the mainstream media and their commentariat echo chambers decide, in the interest of generating more 'even-handed' conflicts between the Dems and the 'loyal opposition' Republicans, that all Republican sabotage of regular legislation, ethical governance, and house-clearing of Trump's incompetent or corrupt appointees and toadies in the bureaucracy is simply "politics" - if they promote the Republicans' certain cry that the indictments that Trump and his associates will face in 2017 are simply unAmerican 'political prosecutions of the losers' - then we are in for four more years of living hell in the realm of national politics.

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    It depends on whether or not Joe makes the same mistake as did Obama when he reached office, namely, will he be hung up on reaching across the aisle to try to "meet the Repugs halfway?"

    Compromise/bipartisanship hasn't been acceptable to the GOP since evil Newt Gingrich back in the early 90s.

    I say frak the Repugs. Joe needs to do what he needs to do without much concern about what the 35% think. These folks would vote Repug even if Jesus was a Democrat.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    I hadn't thought of it before your post, but yes, Joe is likely to run into the same Repug headwind as did Barry O.

    Flashback to '09:

    America is reeling from W's Great Recession. Barry O is the new president, so economic meltdown be damned, #MoscowMitch said, "Our #1 goal is to make Obama a one term President." Thanks, Mitch. Glad to hear that you're putting America first, not.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Where is the light that might shine very bright?

    It can't be the Deathocrat control of the House and Senate. If Pelosi has already got pretty much every thing she wanted as you said there isn't much to look forward to there.

    Biden's message on more than just the pandemic is that Trump is incompetent. Biden never addresses where Biden is deficient.

    https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-nothing-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/

    There is more than just his VP pick that could be a game changer and it is doubtful his VP pick will be a big game changer.

    Joe Biden making the commitment to run a small donor only campaign in the general election would be a HUUUUGE game changer.

    But citizens have to demand it or Biden will keep thinking he needs the big money donors (as he is quoted saying in the article) and he can get them at no cost of any votes.

    Overconfidence and complacency are manifested in Biden taking big money and promising the big money donors he will work for them instead of us (also quoted in the article).

    The only light at the end of the tunnel that big money Biden or big money Deathocrats will provide is an oncoming train to mow us down.

    Wake up. Wise up. Rise up.
    Get Real.

    Shame on you, CW, for continuing to promote the lie.

    Maybe you should adopt the do on harm outlook.

    Then you would have to stop promoting the lie.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That should be do no harm.

    Promoting the lie is do on harm. Doing harm on our citizens, country and democracy.

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    In less than 100 days, America will vote.

    In about 55 days, some states will begin early voting, and in 70 days, a whole lot of voters will be able to vote early by mail and/or in person. Donald Trump has installed a "friend" at the head of the USPS that has instituted policies that are slowing down the delivery of mail.

    Cut to the chase: If you are voting by mail, vote early. If you can deliver your mail-in ballot in person, do it. If you are voting in person are are able, vote early. Many people are being purged off the voter rolls; check that you are registered to vote at your earliest convenience. The attempted disenfranchisement of voters if fully underway across America.

    Rant over.

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Every economist with a brain is telling them that if they cut back unemployment benefits, it is going to mean the loss of millions more jobs. This means the GOP plan would all but guarantee a second downward economic slump -- right before the election. This is an act of political suicide, but they don't seem to understand this.

    People with less money have less money to spend; less money being spent means greater job losses. It's certainly not rocket science, but Republicans appear to believe that they need to take away all the pandemic rescue funds from Americans and force them out into the labor market, which they seem to believe will thereafter boost the economy... a dumb theory if millions of Americans have less/no money to spend and with the job market being such as it is because of the pandemic.

    Lindsey Graham offers the following explanation regarding the state of apathy of the GOP:

    Half the Republicans are going to vote "no" to any Phase 4 package; that's just a fact. And a lot of Democrats are going to insist on 3 trillion, which would be way too much; it would be wasted money.

    ~ Lindsey Graham

    *
    If Miss Lindsey is correct, half of the GOP aren't going to give a dime to Americans because they don't give a damn... so Trump will need Democrats to pass it, and that gives them quite a lot of leverage.

    If the Democrats wished to sabotage Trump in the manner he keeps claiming, all they'd need do is get out of the way of the GOP and allow them to give Americans the middle finger they're offering and let the GOP be hoisted by their own petard... but the Democrats won't because somebody has to take their oaths to serve the People seriously and actually govern accordingly.

  19. [19] 
    andygaus wrote:

    I think the second spot on the ticket will be more important than usual, because Biden is definitely an old man, and people will want to be certain that the vice president could really be a competent president if it came to that. To put it another way, I think a lot of people voted AGAINST the second spot on the ticket when old John McCain ran for president with what's-her-name as his vice.

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I'm trying to dig through the OVER 600 COMMENTS from Friday, and I had to call one out (113? something like that).

    LizM -

    Thanks for the Lighthouse link. Is this the same group that Roger Dean designed an album cover for? He's the guy that did most of the Yes covers. Inquiring minds want to know... this is the first time I've ever actually heard them play...

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sigh.

    About 150 or so comments in, and I have another metacomment to issue:

    Michale -

    Cut it out with the profanity and vicious name-calling. I'm being fair here -- I called out Don for it, and I'm calling you out. I'm not pulling the yellow card out (yet) but I'm checking my pocket to see if it's available, if you know what I mean (and I know that you do).

    Everyone -

    Stop it with the playground profanity. Just stop it.

    Exception -

    Who was it -- Don? -- who used (in a satirical way) "fucking bitch" in a comment, complete with quotes. That passes muster.

    [pause for audience gasping]

    The reason it does so is: (1) it is relevant to the article, (2) it is a direct quote (of a direct quote) of a national politician. When such persons say such things, I break my own rules and include what they said verbatim, mostly to express my disappointment and disapproval. So while he for-sure knew full well he was baiting and taunting me, Don's quote passes muster. He was only quoting a congressman who was quoted in the article itself, after all - a VERY rare occasion where such profanity is allowed.

    All other instances -- cut it the [expletive deleted] out. Got it, everyone?

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hmmmph.

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [10, above] -

    Aha! A Mitchy Gander!

    I'm a native, myself, but haven't lived there since I was two...

    :-)

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [13] -

    Got it in one. I used to have large qualms about getting rid of the filibuster, but at this point I am on board, because it will be the only way ANYthing will ever get done by ANY Congress ever again. So I say the Dems should go for it -- drop that final nuke.

    And while they're at it, try to top Trump's record of jamming through judicial appointments. Good enough for the goose, right?

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    andygaus [19] -

    That's a good point. But at this point, I think the people who are going to vote against Trump would vote for Biden even if he named a ficus tree as his veep (hat tip to Michael Moore, of course).

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I have gone through the first (!) 250 or so comments from Friday, and have a few things to say.

    First, here is a reminder for us all. This has been our bedrock policy from day one here:

    We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

    For any reason.

    And for any comment we don't like.

     

    Advice for keeping on the good side of our editorial board:

    • Don't threaten other commenters,
    • Definitely don't threaten the editorial board ourselves,
    • Don't engage in ad hominem attacks on people -- feel free to attack ideas (in other words), but be warned when you attack people you may reap our wrath,
    • Don't engage in blatant racism, sexism, or any other "-ism" to the extent that your comments are deemed offensive by a huge majority of the American public,
    • And don't engage in "comment spam."

     

    Your basic rule of thumb should be: Would you say the same thing in front of your mother?

    If it can't pass that simple test, then don't post it here -- or you risk having your posting privileges revoked.

    And if it's patently offensive, and you would say it in front of your mother, then we retain the right to refuse service to her, too. Tough luck, Mom.

    For the time being (unless it gets unruly), once you first register and sign in, your initial post will be held for authentication and approval (this may take hours... or even days... it should be noted, and we do apologize for any undue delay); but once you are approved, your subsequent comments should appear automatically, from that point onward. If this privilege is abused (please note), this policy will change in the future -- without notification.

     

    You all have been warned:

    Play nice.

     

    Once again, for emphasis:

    We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

    For any reason.

    And for any comment we don't like.

     

    Deal with it.

     

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    That was the full text of our Comment Policy page, which has remained unchanged for nigh on thirteen years now.

    As you can see, it has not been adhered to. So this week, I'm going to make a special effort and screen comments extra-closely. This is a whole bunch of extra work, but at this point it seems necessary.

    Any comment I see which falls afoul of the above policies will be deleted and "[Removed by Editor for content reasons]" put in its place. There will be no individual warnings. Cutesy "look how I'm bending the rules but not breaking them" comments will also likely get removed, just because I feel like it at this point.

    So we'll see how it goes.

    Deal with it. And try to play nice -- remember that good idea?

    (Sigh)

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [27]

    At last, adult supervision.

    Signed--

    One of the Offenders

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    CW,

    Things calmed down at around 380 or so.

  30. [30] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Please:
    1. If you are eligible to vote by mail in your state, apply or verify at the earliest date, even if you normally vote in person. Just in case.

    2. Find out early where you phone or email if your voting papers don't arrive when they should and follow up if you need to. Immediately.

    3. If you are voting by mail, do your homework early (including those bottom-of-the-ballot offices) and vote as early as you can, whether in person or by mail. Again, just in case. Including: in case of further pandemic outbreaks, serious overloads in the postal system, serious overloads in state or local election offices and any other natural or human disasters.

    (Got an email reminder yesterday and checked my registration today.)

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    If we do post something that violates your policies and it gets pulled, are you gonna tell us what the offending comment was? I recently got my account revoked on the Democratic Underground site and I still have no idea what I could have said that was a violation of their TOS. They say that you can appeal their decision and if you can offer a defense for why your comment shouldn’t get you kicked off, they will consider it. Only problem is that did not bother to tell me what I had said in order for me to offer a defense. I had posted a dozen comments that day, some pretty lengthy, but without being able to pull them up I could not start to offer a defense.

    I did think it was pretty funny that they claim that after they carefully consider your appeal, if after 7 days you still haven’t gotten a response from them that means they are not going to reverse their decision. I mean, it surely was not that they never bothered to open the appeal because it went straight into their junk email folder!

  32. [32] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Joe Biden making the commitment to run a small donor only campaign in the general election would be a HUUUUGE game changer.

    OK...tell us how this would be “a HUUUUGE game changer”??? Do you have any evidence to suggest that Biden’s support on issues would change if his campaign only accepted small donations? Any at all? No? Well, I cannot wait to hear about the huge changes to the game that this would cause, nonetheless.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pretty much every poll under the sun now shows Democrats with the upper hand in the campaign. Joe Biden is doing better -- at both the national level and the state level -- than either of Barack Obama's winning years, as well being better positioned than Hillary Clinton was the last time around.

    As I said.. ALL ya'all have going for ya'all are polls..

    NOTHING ELSE about this election is going the Democrat Party way.. :D

    And it's a PROVEN fact that polls don't mean squat.. :D

    But, like I said.. Cling to those polls.. Cling hard and fast.. Let them drag ya'all to new heights of WE GOT THIS MADE!!..

    It'll just be that much more funny when ya'all plunge to the ground. :D

    Things are looking about as good as can be imagined for Biden and all the down-ballot Democrats at this point, so hopefully we'll all emerge from the dark tunnel into the brightness of a new day, come November.

    Keep dreaming.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrr

    Reposted for Clarity...

    Pretty much every poll under the sun now shows Democrats with the upper hand in the campaign. Joe Biden is doing better -- at both the national level and the state level -- than either of Barack Obama's winning years, as well being better positioned than Hillary Clinton was the last time around.

    As I said.. ALL ya'all have going for ya'all are polls..

    NOTHING ELSE about this election is going the Democrat Party way.. :D

    And it's a PROVEN fact that polls don't mean squat.. :D

    But, like I said.. Cling to those polls.. Cling hard and fast.. Let them drag ya'all to new heights of WE GOT THIS MADE!!..

    It'll just be that much more funny when ya'all plunge to the ground. :D

    Things are looking about as good as can be imagined for Biden and all the down-ballot Democrats at this point, so hopefully we'll all emerge from the dark tunnel into the brightness of a new day, come November.

    Keep dreaming.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Cut it out with the profanity and vicious name-calling. I'm being fair here -- I called out Don for it, and I'm calling you out. I'm not pulling the yellow card out (yet) but I'm checking my pocket to see if it's available, if you know what I mean (and I know that you do).

    No, you are not being fair about it..

    What about Vick's disgusting and vicious name calling on my wife, my children and my grand children??

    If you WERE being fair about it, you would slap her down because she is ***ALWAYS*** the one that starts the name-calling..

    So, by all means..

    Let's see you be fair about it..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    FRAK!!!!

    CW,

    Cut it out with the profanity and vicious name-calling. I'm being fair here -- I called out Don for it, and I'm calling you out. I'm not pulling the yellow card out (yet) but I'm checking my pocket to see if it's available, if you know what I mean (and I know that you do).

    No, you are not being fair about it..

    What about Vick's disgusting and vicious name calling on my WIFE (whom I believe you know), my children and my grand children??

    If you WERE being fair about it, you would slap her down because she is ***ALWAYS*** the one that starts the name-calling..

    So, by all means..

    Let's see you be fair about it..

    I'll stand by....

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Post removed by Editor for foul language]

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    As you can see, it has not been adhered to. So this week, I'm going to make a special effort and screen comments extra-closely. This is a whole bunch of extra work, but at this point it seems necessary.

    Any comment I see which falls afoul of the above policies will be deleted and "[Removed by Editor for content reasons]" put in its place. There will be no individual warnings. Cutesy "look how I'm bending the rules but not breaking them" comments will also likely get removed, just because I feel like it at this point.

    As long as it's done FAIRLY and not based on Party/Ideological membership, I welcome this.. It's what I have wanted to see here every since Vick and the rest have shown up here soley because of a 'name-calling contest' :^/

    I mean, honestly... If ya hold a name-calling contest, you get people who show up who love name-calling...

    "Simple Logic"
    -Admiral Kirk, STAR TREK, THE VOYAGE HOME

    But, as I said.. As long as it's done fairly without regard to political leanings or popularity, it would be a welcome addition to Weigantia...

    I must, in all honesty, point out that yer not starting out very well..

    But I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can Trump still win? Why it’s foolish to count the president out

    But a cautionary note, despite the polls and the punditry: I remember when there was plenty of media speculation about who would be tapped in the Dukakis administration. And in the Hillary administration.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/can-trump-still-win-why-its-foolish-to-count-the-president-out

    I would think that what would be uppermost in ya'all's minds is the FACT that history is replete with examples of heady Democrat campaigns 3 months before elections then a huge drop to reality come election day..

    Jimmy Carter
    John Kerry
    Michael Dukakis
    Hillary Clinton

    The list goes on and on....

    I mean, com'on people.. We're simply 4 short years from when ya'all were RIDING the waves of euphoria over a Hillary Clinton win..

    And HOW did that end up again?? :D

    Ya'all are making all the same mistakes ya'all made last time..

    Apparently, the concept of ONCE BITTEN has nothing on ya'all, eh? :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Post removed by Editor for foul language]

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, analyzing the chances of Basement Biden actually WINNING would be incomplete without a complete assessment of Basement Biden's roll in the Democrat's infamous Russia Collusion Delusion..

    Meet the Steele Dossier's 'Primary Subsource': Fabulist Russian From Democrat Think Tank Whose Boozy Past the FBI Ignored

    The mysterious “Primary Subsource” that Christopher Steele has long hidden behind to defend his discredited Trump-Russia dossier is a former Brookings Institution analyst -- Igor “Iggy” Danchenko, a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele, according to congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Agents continued to use the dossier as grounds to investigate President Trump and put his advisers under counter-espionage surveillance.

    The 42-year-old Danchenko, who was hired by Steele in 2016 to deploy a network of sources to dig up dirt on Trump and Russia for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was arrested, jailed and convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according to criminal records.
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/24/meet_steele_dossiers_primary_subsource_fabulist_russian_at_us_think_tank_whose_boozy_past_the_fbi_ignored_124601.html

    This is shaping up to a blossoming October Surprise-esque revelation that will put a huge dent in Basement Biden's popularity...

    Personally, I think President Trump has something far more damaging on Basement Biden waiting in the wings..

    But in the meantime, the revelations of Obama's and Biden's complicity in using federal resources to spy on an opposing Party's presidential campaign will be damning and entertaining..

    Damning for Basement Biden and entertaining for those who DON'T hate President Trump or America.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:
  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Back to politics..

    After Defunding the Police, Seattle Now Wants to Close All Jails
    https://trendingpolitics.com/after-defunding-the-police-seattle-now-wants-to-close-all-jails/

    Seriously, JL... Do you HONESTLY believe that sane patriotic everyday Americans are going to be blase about this and not care how utterly decimating this will be to law and order??

  44. [44] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-17

    Your post reminded me to check my voter status - just to be on the safe side. What with voter purges and all. All systems go. I'm leaning towards the early-voting-in-person-at-the-board--of-election. No lines, and I can hit my favorite coffee shop on the way home...which also serves craft beer. Outdoors on the balcony. There is usually one rainless day during Early Voting.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Four years ago, the race between Trump and Hillary Clinton came down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump narrowly won all three. This time around, Biden is leading in each of the same three states by anywhere from 6 to 8 points, the RealClearPolitics average of polls shows.

    If that sounds familiar, it may be because state surveys also showed Clinton topping Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania ahead of the election. In Pennsylvania alone, seven different state polls taken in the first two weeks of October 2016 showed Clinton beating Trump by no fewer than 4 percentage points and by as many as 9. She wound up losing the state by about a point.

    We have gone thru all of this before..

    And when the VOTES were counted, President Trump emerged victorious...

    And lets face reality..

    Basement Biden is tons worse of a candidate than Hillary Clinton.. Sure, Hillary liked to pass out a lot.. But at least she was out there..

    I am betting Basement Biden handlers get on their knees daily and thank the Pandemic gods for sending down this pandemic that has killed almost 10,000 Americans, just so they can keep Biden in his basement..

    Anyone who thinks Biden can actually win is simply deluding themselves or is over-mediating..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s not clear that state polling this time around is any better. “You certainly see state polls appearing today that clearly are not reflecting the educational distribution in the states they’re polling,” said Franklin, who took part in a postelection polling study conducted by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. “That’s a bit of a puzzlement.”

    Kellyanne Conway, a former pollster and a current counselor to the president who served as Trump’s campaign manager in the 2016 race, argues that nothing has been fixed. “The same problems surround the polls this time because many of the people running the polls then are running the polls now. There’s been no course correction whatsoever,” Conway told me. “If polling were run like a business, the C-suite would have been cleaned out, the shareholders would have revolted, the customers would have walked away.”

    That's a good point..

    One of the things that struck me when we were watching all the aftermath of the 2016 election videos, they kept going on and on about how the polling failed.. Over and over again, they kept saying that there must be changes made in polling to avoid the mistakes of 2016..

    And NONE of the polling has changed.. It's all the EXACT same polling it was in 2016..

    And yet, ya'all SWEAR by it.. AGAIN...

    I mean, com'on.. The very definition of insanity.. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result..

    Biden will lose.. That much is sure.. If the three remaining Weigantia Founders agree on that point, that really says something..

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Did I post a Lighthouse link? I thought I just dreamt that.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Post removed by Editor for foul language]

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did I post a Lighthouse link? I thought I just dreamt that.

    You dream of posing in Wiegantia?? :D hehehe

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, do I ... :O

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whoa, Daddy!

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's my lifelong dream, actually.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, it's times just like these when the last thing we need around here is an edit function, no? Hehehehehehehehehehe

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, here is something that merits repeating because when to use profanity is so poorly understood by most around here:

    Chris explains,

    Who was it -- Don? -- who used (in a satirical way) "fucking bitch" in a comment, complete with quotes. That passes muster.

    [pause for audience gasping]

    The reason it does so is: (1) it is relevant to the article, (2) it is a direct quote (of a direct quote) of a national politician. When such persons say such things, I break my own rules and include what they said verbatim, mostly to express my disappointment and disapproval. So while he for-sure knew full well he was baiting and taunting me, Don's quote passes muster. He was only quoting a congressman who was quoted in the article itself, after all - a VERY rare occasion where such profanity is allowed.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do I need to repeat that, again!? Hopefully, not.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sadly, I don't know how to post pics. :)

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okayh, laughed so much I feel like I just ran a marathon. Thanks for that.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I laughed so hard, I cried.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do I need to repeat that, again!? Hopefully, not.

    No, I get it..

    Posting profanity in favor of a Democrat politician or against Republican politicians and their supporters is perfectly acceptable...

    I'll muddle my way thru... Doesn't mean I have to like it..

    If this edict stops the name-calling and personal attacks, I am all for it.. I have suggested such a rule on MANY occasions most recently the moratorium that no one wanted to adhere too...

    But I also have a feeling it's going to be one-sided as well..

    Time will tell...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sadly, I don't know how to post pics. :)

    Only the grand poobah can post inline pics..

    For anyone else, the most you can do is put a link to the pic...

    IE

    http://sjfm.us/blm.jpg

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, do I ... :O

    Uh..... hmmm... er... uh....

    Never mind... :D

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Everything in moderation, I always say.

    Besides, I'm guessing that you won't have to do it forever. :)

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm still laughing. :)

    Do you need to re-read your [49]? Hehehehehehehe

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you need to re-read your [49]? Hehehehehehehe

    hehehehehe Hokay now you got me laughing like crazy!!!! :D

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dAb_TyzAj8

    It's going to be a poolside without the pool kind of day today! :)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner compares voting for Biden to eating 'bowl of shit'
    Cornel West called Biden a 'a mediocre, milquetoast, neoliberal centrist'

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nina-turner-biden-voting-eating-bowl-sh

    Well, there is one black American who will de-facto vote for President Trump in no uncertain terms.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dAb_TyzAj8

    It's going to be a poolside without the pool kind of day today! :)

    Liz!!! I didn't know!!!! :D

    http://sjfm.us/pics/liz.jpg

    :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    https: youtube.com/watch?v=5dAb_TyzAj8

    It's going to be a poolside without the pool kind of day today! :)

    Liz!!! I didn't know!!!! :D

    http://sjfm.us/pics/liz.jpg

    :D

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (31)-
    I had a similar outcome with Facebook.

    Quite a few years ago there was a new group I wanted to contact and the only way to contact them was through Facebook, Twitter or snail mail.

    So I signed up for Facebook because Twitter has the word twit right in it.

    When I posted that I was not happy that I had to sign up for Facebook and people should have a way to contact them through email or a contact form my Facebook was shut down.

    The appeal process was to fill out the appeal form.

    The appeal form required putting in the email attached to the account. But when I put in the email attached to the account a message came up that I could not use that email because it was attached to a suspended account. So I could not fill out and submit the appeal form.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I actually used profanity in an acceptable manner?

    Well, I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.:D

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, you actually do get it. Forget the clock thing!

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don[69],

    I had a similar experience with Twitter - I signed up just so that I could follow Joe Cirincione, my go-to guy for missile defense, you know.

    So, anyway, after about a week or two, I get a message that my account has been suspended. Suspended! I was upset for a minute or two before I realized that it had 'twit' in it and that was the last I ever heard of my twitter account. :)

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I had a similar thing happen with facebook. I just signed up because HuffPost all of sudden changed its comment platform and you had to use Facebook to comment. So, I broke down and got an account. But, it never really worked so I deleted it.

    Then, very recently, I was chatting with a favourite musician which could only be done through Facebook so I broke down and got an account.

    After about a week or so, I open facebook and I get a message saying that my account is closed for violating the rules. Violating the rules!!!??? It turns out, they just wanted me to give them my cell phone number. I did because I hardly use my little non-smart flip phone. And, now I'm back in good standing. ;)

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    After about a week or so, I open facebook and I get a message saying that my account is closed for violating the rules. Violating the rules!!!???

    It's a pain to be arbitrarily penalized, eh?? ;D

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris and MtnCaddy,

    I'm of two minds on the filibuster. On the one hand, since the GOP has sunk so low, getting rid of the filibuster may be the only way to get anything done for a long time. That's okay so long as you are in agreement with what's getting done.

    On the other hand, having the filibuster should force compromise and good legislation that works for almost everyone. But, unfortunately, that only applies in theory and rarely, if ever, in practice these days.

    So, I guess the best option, for now, is to "drop that final nuke" and hope it doesn't blowback in all of your faces. Ahem.

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What would you know about that, Michale? :)

    I'm still laughing. :)

    BTW, I think it was quite unfair to single you out in the penalization, for what it's worth.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I guess the best option, for now, is to "drop that final nuke" and hope it doesn't blowback in all of your faces. Ahem.

    Factually, speaking, the Democrat Party does NOT have any good experiences with dropping nukes.

    It ALWAYS blows back in their faces...

    But I am with you.. I don't think the Democrat Party has learned from it's mistakes..

    As evidenced by all the Left Wing euphoria over polls while shithole Democrat run cities burn...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, I think it was quite unfair to single you out in the penalization, for what it's worth.

    Thank you..

    That is worth more to me than I can ever put into words...

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    :-)

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm still laughing. :)

    Me too... The mental picture just cracks me up.. :D

    In a good way.. :D

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Better be in a good way!!!

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It'll be cracking me up all day long. I'll be sitting by myself on the bus going back to work next week and I'll still be laughing.

    We don't need no edit function around here! What, and take away all this fun!?

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    One picture says it all...

    http://sjfm.us/pics/fun.jpg

    How anyone can actually believe that any sane patriotic American will vote Democrat..

    That's just beyond me...

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    It'll be cracking me up all day long. I'll be sitting by myself on the bus going back to work next week and I'll still be laughing.

    We don't need no edit function around here! What, and take away all this fun!?

    Good point.. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we need to add another rule to Weigantian..

    No user shall obtain oppo research on another commenter and attempt to use that research for the basis of personal attacks and/or to coerce or extort commenter to change their commenting habits..

    I know, I know..

    It's completely ridiculous that we NEED such a rule..

    But it's undeniable that we DO need it..

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Be careful, my friend.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The season can't be short enough if you're a Blue Jays fan. Ahem.

    Oh, I kid the Blue Jays. It's just that, these days, I'm not familiar with ANY of the players. I remember one of the coaches but, that's it. :(

  89. [89] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [36] -

    If you WERE being fair about it, you would slap her down because she is ***ALWAYS*** the one that starts the name-calling..

    Facts not supported by evidence. Read Friday's comments from the top. YOU are the one who started it, therefore YOU got called out first. Deal with it.

    -CW

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts not supported by evidence. Read Friday's comments from the top. YOU are the one who started it, therefore YOU got called out first. Deal with it.

    That is simply not factually accurate as can be attested by others who were there...

    But, since I have no choice but to deal with it..

    I shall...

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday's comments were simply a continuation of this

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/07/23/republicans-in-disarray/#comment-165138

    It's clear and factual that I *NEVER* start the name calling...

    Vick does that and I merely respond..

  92. [92] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Today, the score stands at you getting comments removed, and nobody else.

    Deal with it.

    As for this arbitrary policy, there will be no appeal because once I delete the text of an offending comment, it is gone forever from my database. It is (re-read that comments policy) at my sole discretion, period. After all, it's my blog.

    Once again: deal with it.

    -CW

  93. [93] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [15]

    [15]

    Shame on you, CW, for continuing to promote the lie.

    Maybe you should adopt the do on harm outlook.

    Then you would have to stop promoting the lie.

    C'mon, man! So you're saying that anyone who's not 100% in on OD is "promoting the lie?" That's silly!

    It is NOT CW's job to promote OD, (or anything else, whatsoever,) period. It's his bleeping blog -- go start up your own blog!

    You act as though OD is so fundamentally flawed that you need another man's space to push it for you. WHY do you keep bleating out the #SSDD day after day when it should be obvious after all this time that this approach hasn't gotten you anywhere?

  94. [94] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Pestering the man WILL NEVER WORK, hello?

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Foul language??? :D

    Hokay... Let's see if that is fairly enforced... Or if it's just the America/President Trump supporter who is penalized...

    This is gonna be a hoot.. :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Be careful, my friend.

    These ARE my "careful" comments.. :D

  97. [97] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    What you are saying, in essence, is: "The polls were wrong once, therefore every poll is always wrong forever." This fits in nicely with your: "Any news organization -- including Fox News -- that ever says anything critical about our Dear Leader is fake news!" attitude.

    I hasten to remind you that you went down this rabbit hole previously. Remember the phrase "skewed polls"? And "unskewed polls"? When was that -- when Romney lost or when McCain lost? I forget...

    We all had a big laugh watching Karl Rove have a meltdown on Fox News on election night that year, insisting that reality could not possibly contradict the fantasy he had built up in his own mind...

    Or if that's too long ago, how about 2018 midterms?

    Ahhh... those were the days, weren't they? I mean, the polls HAD to be wrong, and there was NO WAY that Nancy Pelosi was ever going to be Speaker once again, right?

    I'm just sayin', don't take it too hard this time around if we have a repeat of that.

    :-)

    -CW

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    What you are saying, in essence, is: "The polls were wrong once, therefore every poll is always wrong forever."

    The same factors that were in play when those polls were wrong are the same factors that are in play today..

    That's a fact that you refuse to see...

    Remember the phrase "skewed polls"? And "unskewed polls"? When was that -- when Romney lost or when McCain lost? I forget..

    Which has no bearing on the here and now..

    Or if that's too long ago, how about 2018 midterms?

    Again, not relevant to the here and now because President Trump was not on the ballot.. And the ONLY reason Dims won was when they ran as GOP lite..

    This is also fact..

    Can you give me ONE FACT that supports the polls are going to be any different than 2016??

    No, you cannot.. Because no such fact exists..

    I'm just sayin', don't take it too hard this time around if we have a repeat of that.

    Considering how things are going here, I might not have much of a choice, now will I...

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    [Removed by Editor for unattributed and uncited copying. If you post a VERY SHORT excerpt from anyone else's writing, please post in full the "permission" you have obtained for reposting it.]

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    These incidents did not spread significantly to other communities. If that pattern had been followed this year after the release of the nauseating video of a policeman effectively strangling George Floyd

    Let's face reality here..

    First off, what we witnessed was not "nauseating", it was police work.. Police work is like sausage being made.. It's ugly to watch, but it's necessary... Floyd did not die by strangulation.. He died because he was obese, had a bad heart, ingested Meth and Fentynal and he decided to fight the law.. The law won..

    Those who say otherwise are simply judging Floyd by the color of his skin and not his actions or his (lack of) character...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Point of clarification..

    You said actual quotes from people that contain profanity are permissible..

    Does that include movie/TV quotes???

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Black Lives Matter's anti-police brutality crusade obscures violent, Marxist agenda

    Beyond Black Lives Matter’s drive to eliminate police brutality is a far more extensive leftist ideology that would upend American economic and social life, according to an examination of BLM leaders’ writings and interviews.

    BLM’s principal founders have sought guidance from Karl Marx, Mao Zedong and Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro. One talks of the “psychosis of whiteness.”

    BLM leaders say they want capitalism abolished. Sixty years since the civil rights era began, America is still a place where the state routinely oppresses Blacks, as the world seeks their “demise,” the group alleges.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/27/black-lives-matter-anti-police-brutality-crusade-o/

    There is simply NO WAY on this planet that ANY sane patriotic American is going to vote for Basement Biden when people like ^^^^ that will be the ones who are given power..

    It simply will not come to pass..

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can Joe Biden keep it together?

    There is a dreadful possibility, a whispered doubt that lurks at every Biden appearance.

    Some Democrats are eager to predict a Biden victory in November.

    Biden has been running a decent campaign, adhering to a steady stream of virtual appearances, speeches and campaign ads that showcase his experience and close relationship with uber-popular former President Barack Obama.

    Yet there is a dreadful possibility, a whispered doubt that lurks at every Biden appearance. It is forming shadows across some worried brows — mine for sure.

    Can Biden keep it together?

    Throughout the fierce Democratic nominating campaign, there was a steady undercurrent of questions about his age, stamina and intellectual capacity.

    I watched, and sometimes cringed, at his performances in debates and other public appearances. Biden stumbled over and mangled names, facts and concepts. At times, he seemed confused.

    If elected, Biden, 77, would be the oldest first-term president in the nation’s history. Some question whether he can handle the rigors of the brutal campaign ahead.
    https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/7/26/21337555/joe-biden-dementia-cognitive-ability-laura-washington

    We'll find out on 29 Sep 2020... :D

  104. [104] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [100] -

    Cutesy "look how I'm bending the rules but not breaking them" comments will also likely get removed, just because I feel like it at this point.

    That answer your question?

    -CW

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [98] -

    Which has no bearing on the here and now..

    Oh, but it does. Back then, the GOP line was "pollsters oversample Democrats, therefore we're going to do our own math and fix the problem. Read OUR polls where Obama is losing badly, and feel better!"

    Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY what the White House is now saying about any poll they don't agree with... which is all of them. Including Fox News polls. Can't wait to see Karl Rove in November... although maybe he's learned his lesson...

    Hillary was up in the national popular vote by 3 or 4 points. She won by almost exactly the margin predicted. That, my friend, is a fact.

    Cue the: "But millions of illegals voted, although I have zero evidence of that even after forming a commission to prove this falsehood that had to disband after they found no evidence of it." whining...

    Sigh.

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I'm in a nasty mood this morning (obviously) but I have some advice for you Michale...

    Quit posting "this makes me feel better" clips from everywhere under the sun. Nobody reads them, and it doesn't advance your own argument.

    You are fully capable of making the argument on your own -- don't use the crutch of cut-n-paste. Say: "This is what I think and here's why," and then post a link at the end with "and here's someone who agrees with me" WITHOUT posting eight paragraphs of some other article.

    It's tedious and just makes people scroll past what you are trying to say. C'mon, man, you are better than a parrot, aren't you?

    Sigh.

    -CW

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary was up in the national popular vote by 3 or 4 points. She won by almost exactly the margin predicted. That, my friend, is a fact.

    And the Vanity Vote has absolutely NO BEARING on ANYTHING..

    It's like the luser team crying, "But!!! But!!! We got more field goals than the other team!!!"

    The polls were completely and utterly wrong..

    98% chance that Hillary would be POTUS.

    96% chance that Hillary would be POTUS.

    75% chance that Hillary would be POTUS..

    "There is simply NO WAY that Donald Trump is going to win this election.."

    Does ANY of that sound familiar??? :D

    Ya'all can gloat about polls til the cows come home..

    But 2 facts still remain..

    1. POLLS are *ALL* ya'all have going for ya'all..

    and

    2. POLLS are *PROVEN* to be carp when it come to President Trump..

    These 2 facts PROVE that Basement Biden is going to lose..

    But hay... If yer so sure, why not let's make a little wager??? :D

    Cutesy "look how I'm bending the rules but not breaking them" comments will also likely get removed, just because I feel like it at this point.

    That answer your question?

    Not really but it will have to suffice, I guess...

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are fully capable of making the argument on your own -- don't use the crutch of cut-n-paste.

    And yet, I am ***ALWAYS*** accused of not having any support for my arguments..

    Ergo, I have gotten into the habit of providing that support for my arguments..

    On the other hand, I am at your mercy.. If you order me to stop providing support for my arguments I will, of course, abide by your rules..

    In return, I expect the same rules to be applied to everyone else...

  109. [109] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    It is my opinion that what CW is promoting is a lie. The Deathocrats are false opposition.

    Whether or not anyone agrees that OD can be a solution or part of a solution has no bearing on whether promoting a false opposition is a lie.

    Whether or not CW wants to discuss OD or I have my own blog has no beating on whether I can post my opinion here that he should address OD and inform citizens about the opportunity or at least explain why he will not.

    He explains why he disagrees with Michale, Trump and sometimes even Deathocrats.

    I do not need or want CW to do what I believe he should do because I think OD is fundamentally flawed. I need him to do what I think he should do because that is how people find out about things and how people with ideas get those ideas to people.

    I am simply asking the same question you ask of me- how can CW keep (in your words) bleating out the SSDD when it should be obvious after all this time (DECADES) that this approach has got where we are now which is worse than not getting anywhere?

    It is being persistent- not pestering.

    When I have commented nicer (not that my comment was an attack of any kind though you may choose to see it that way) it is ignored.

  110. [110] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [107] -

    Um, yeah -- the folks at Fox News are part of the grand liberal conspiracy. They skew their own polls to show Biden far out in the lead because they REALLY want him to win.

    Do you even see how ridiculous that sounds?

    Those would be the same Fox News pollsters that Karl Rove had to go yell at when reality didn't match the fiction in his head on election night, if you'll recall. And guess what? They were right, and he was wrong.

    As for percent chances that someone will win, those are not polls, sorry. That is Nate Silver playing with numbers, which is a totally different thing (and something I have never personally bought into, even back then).

    I'm surprised you haven't taken up the Dear Leader's paranoia by arguing "if Biden wins it means the whole thing was RIGGED!" by now.

    Oh well, there's plenty of time for that, I guess.

    -CW

  111. [111] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [109] -

    You know why I ignore you? Because you are not realistic. Not even close.

    You say you want to get big money out of politics, but when any politician actually does something game-changing in that regard, it is simply never enough for you. Case in point: Bernie Sanders.

    To you, Bernie raising money from small donors was somehow not pure enough for you, even though he proved that doing so could raise just as much money as Hillary Clinton with her big donors. Instead of encouraging this as a GIGANTIC step in the right direction, you sneered that he was just as bad as all the others because he didn't accept your arbitrary definition of what acceptable "small money" was.

    That's pretty much when I decided you were having too much fun tilting at windmills and had no intention of ever actually supporting anyone who tried to change things for the better.

    It's a classic example of rejecting the good because it is not perfect (according to you).

    No politician will EVER be pure enough for your standards, which is why your idea will never actually become reality.

    Sorry, but you asked, so that's how I really feel about your proposal.

    -CW

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Um, yeah -- the folks at Fox News are part of the grand liberal conspiracy. They skew their own polls to show Biden far out in the lead because they REALLY want him to win.

    The fact that you are using Fox News indicates how ridiculous your argument is.. :D

    Polls are carp.. I don't care if they are WaPoop, Polls NY Grime Polls or FoxNews Polls..

    Polls that indicate President Trump's support (or lack of) are carp..

    This is a PROVEN fact...

    As for percent chances that someone will win, those are not polls, sorry. That is Nate Silver playing with numbers, which is a totally different thing (and something I have never personally bought into, even back then).

    And yet, the FACTS (as I posted in the videos a few days ago) *PROVE* otherwise..

    I get it.. The facts are upsetting to you... I understand that the *ONLY* think you people have to hang your hats on are polls.

    So, of course, you'll ignore any facts that prove those polls are carp...

    But you ignoring the facts do not make them any less factual....

    Your arguments today are nearly identical to your arguments in 2016..

    And THOSE arguments were all 1000% **WRONG**..

    And yet.. *THIS* time you are going to right, right?? :D

    And will I get any concession from ya'all when ya'all ARE proven wrong??

    Doubtful... It's going to be the same old Trump/America hate day in and day out..

    I'm surprised you haven't taken up the Dear Leader's paranoia by arguing "if Biden wins it means the whole thing was RIGGED!" by now.

    Yea, it's as ridiculous and moronic as ya'all's argument that President Trump will refuse to leave office..

    Utter speculative bull**** (almost didn't catch that one!! :D) that has no basis in fact or reality...

    But you love yours and despise Trumps... :D

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did somebody get up on the wrong side of the bed today, hello?

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (32)-
    I posted a link where Biden says he needs the big money donors and will keep his promise to them that nothing will fundamentally change.

    We have decades of evidence he has kept those promises in the past or they would not continue to give him big money contributions. He can do this because voters keep voting for him even though he does not keep the campaign promises that he makes to voters as he can't keep conflicting promises.

    So we have decades of evidence of Biden keeping promises to people he thinks he needs.

    So if citizens tell Biden they will not vote for him if he takes big money and Biden feels he needs those voters more than he needs the big money donors there is good chance he will keep his promises to the voters. Basic democracy in action.

    There is no guarantee it will work but the evidence clearly suggests it is the only approach that has a chance of working. Not making the demand guarantees Biden will be keeping promises to the big money interests.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    All animosity aside..

    It's great that you are participating here, CW... While I am not blaming you, it's a bona-fide fact that people behave more politely (myself included) when you are around..

    Your presence alone will do a lot more to clean things up than all the threats of censorship could ever hope to accomplish..

    I'm just sayin'....

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did somebody get up on the wrong side of the bed today, hello?

    Don't jinx it!!! :D

    I am willing to put up with some unfair abuse if it cleans things up here in Weigantia... :D

    It's the least I can do.. :D

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    I'm afraid that you have fully misinterpreted what Biden said to the wealthy donors. Biden should enlist Tim Geithner - someone who spoke clearly if not loudly about what the big donors need to do. So, there!

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, Michale, I just meant that we haven't heard as from him all year as we have in one day!

    I'm not complaining, though ... :)

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    I suggested a 10 day moratorium on name-calling and personal attacks..

    I never dreamed that it could actually happen in spades...

    So, I am thrilled to death about things here.. :D

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale, I just meant that we haven't heard as from him all year as we have in one day!

    I'm not complaining, though ... :)

    Agreed.. :D

    This is EXACTLY what I was hoping for.. :D

  121. [121] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    It's a start.

    In 2016 I did support and voted for Bernie in the primaries and contributed to his campaign.

    I acknowledged the progress he made in 2016 and believe that he should have moved forward from that accomplished goal to run a small donor only campaign in 2020.

    It is NOT a purity argument. It is an adequacy argument.

    No different than not supporting/voting for someone that does nOt believe in the War on Habitat.

    It even forgives (as individual participants, not as an organization as the organization does not endorse any candidates) previous bad behavior from politicians that do the right thing now.

    Unlike the "Purity" of the Me Too movement that never forgives.

    It is not rejecting the good because it is not perfect. It is rejecting the false choice of not as bad over the worse choice and demanding an adequate choice.

    The whole point is that if people work together and demand that politicians take this action there will be politicians that will meet the standard to get the votes. Basic democracy.

    And if it did work (unless you think democracy can't work)wouldn't it be a good thing?

    It will take some time and will not be perfect, but you don't want to be not supporting someone that is trying to change things for the better or be the enemy of the possible good because it is not perfect- do you? :D

    I seem to remember a lot of people saying Bernie was tilting at windmills in 2016.

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I understand exactly what Biden said and meant and does.

    I am afraid that your reading of Biden's remarks are the equivalent of being a War on Habitat denier.

    Love is blind? :D

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Agreed.. :D

    This is EXACTLY what I was hoping for.. :D

    Granted, I wish it could have been done a bit more fairly.. But I understand that the Grand Poobah must maintain his standing amongst those who hate President Trump...

    Once I saw the wisdom of what he did and the fact that he laid down the exact same things I wanted with the moratorium, I was a lot happier about how things are right now..

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now that I have been assured that my comments will be accepted as factual without question w/o all the factual support I used to provide...???

    Well, I couldn't have chosen such a good outcome if I had made the rules myself.. :D

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    And GOOD NEWS!!!

    Pzifer and other medical companies are in final testing for the TRUMP Vaccine that will cure the covid pandemic!!!!

    Only thru President Trump's awesome leadership was this made possible..

    And all with thousands less casualties than under Odumbo's questionable leadership during the OBAMA virus pandemic...

    President Trump has got this election in the bag!!! :D

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting..

    Some hispanic scumbag ran down a guy on a motorcycle simply because they guy was white..

    Funny how there are no protests to support this blatant example of Left Wing racism and terrorism..

    https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/07/27/will-no-marches-commemorate-death-phillip-thiessen/

    As is proven by facts, the only Party that is racist is the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party...

  127. [127] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I got up early to watch Bill Barr lie his face off to Congress...

    Which he's doing right now.

    -CW

  128. [128] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    One quick comment. Here's how the rest of us see it:

    [Michale presented with a fact]: "The sky is blue."

    [Michale's response]: "That comes from a news organization or reality-based operation that I do not agree with, therefore it is not a fact. Here is a deranged rant from some guy online PROVING that the sky is, in fact, purple with green polka dots. FACT! I capitalized the word and everything, therefore I have won the argument and you all must now agree that it is a FACT that the sky is purple with green polka dots. I win! Everyone else is wrong, including every respected authority under the sun.

    Which will rise in the west tomorrow morning -- just you watch!

    Sigh. Really, dude, that's how you sound.

    -CW

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sigh. Really, dude, that's how you sound.

    I am sure that to those who hate President Trump and this country, I am sure that is EXACTLY what I sound like..

    And THAT is exactly what you said I sounded like at this time in 2016...

    And yet, EXACTLY what I sounded like is EXACTLY what went down...

    So, I have the track record and the credibility behind me..

    Ya'all do not...

    It's simple history...

    Now you can bring up irrelevancies like McCain, Romney, 2018 and the tooth fairy..

    But none of that will change TWO simple facts..

    1. Ya'all are making the same poll-based arguments ya'all made in 2016..

    2. Ya'all had ya'all's collective asses handed to ya'all by yours truly in Nov of 2016...

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

    :D

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    I got up early to watch Bill Barr lie his face off to Congress...

    Which he's doing right now.

    For example....?????

  131. [131] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Broken clock wRong Paul opposed Bunker Boy's big beautiful wall because, when the economical collapse arrived, he would be unable to dig up his silver dimes from the back yard and flee like a patriot. Despite the spectacular failure of the Trump Wall of Hate to be built, a virtual Trump Virus Wall has been built and it's keeping us in. Mexico is certainly not paying for it. We are.

    99 bottles of beer on the wall.

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    6|7

    Heh.

    I am not at all convinced that Kanye & Kim Kardashian’s campaign is anything other than a Trump-branded publicity stunt for his new album.

    Something like that, for sure. Whatever the intent, he's already missed ballot access for 2020 in multiple states (including Michigan, Florida, and Texas) that total around 127 of the 538 available electoral votes... womp, womp. He is, to date, on the ballot in Oklahoma totaling 7 electoral votes... far short of the 270 required to become president elect. I believe he's filed in Illinois and Missouri and possibly New Jersey today.

    It would hardly be surprising if mentally-disturbed Donald “Wile E Coyote” Drumpf cooked up an ill-advised stunt for a mentally-disturbed Red Hat reality TV rapper to act out during Season 2 because he knows that next to no real Black people will vote for an orange Confederate statue. So, maybe they’ll vote for some other reality TV narcissist?

    It appears that Season 2 is doubly loaded with unscripted nut jobs.

    He’ll be lucky if they buy his music.

    Then I think he'll be lucky in at least one respect... even if his Birthday Party is a predictable dud. Better luck in 2024. Party on, dude! ;)

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party's "peaceful" protests...

    David Dorn shooting: Arrest, murder charge announced in killing of retired St. Louis police captain
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/david-dorn-shooting-arrest-murder-charge-announced-in-killing-of-retired-st-louis-police-captain

    Anyone who believes that sane patriotic Americans are going to vote for this???

    Well, it appears that their beliefs are delusional in the extreme.

    The facts allow for no other conclusion..

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    13

    Yes, sir. Looking back, I'll give the Obama-Biden administration an "E" for effort, but at this point in time under the circumstances such as they are, you nailed it. Good form. :)

  135. [135] 
    TheStig wrote:

    BASHI- see comment 617 regarding your comment 314 in previous FTP.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, this is great.. No name-calling or personal attacks is EXACTLY what I had hoped it would be.. :D

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    FOLLOW LIVE: Barr calls out party leaders for not condemning 'mob violence' in attacks on fed property
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-house-judiciary-committee-live

    That is what is going to lose the election for the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party..

    Their wholesale and complete support for the riots, the cop-killings and the looting and the destruction...

    I mean, if the Left can't even condemn BLM when they torture innocent toddlers???

    How the hell will sane patrtiotic Americans vote for that???

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    andygaus
    19

    This! Exactly this. It is imperative that Biden choose his VP candidate wisely. For multiple reasons I won't enumerate, I believe his best two choices at the current time are:

    Kamala Harris
    Elizabeth Warren

    Of course, they've both been on my list for over a year and long before Biden had announced he would choose a female VP for the Democratic ticket:

    If Biden survives all this BS and piling on and wins the nomination, his choice for VP should be one of the following, and in this order:

    1. Stacey Abrams
    2. Kamala Harris
    3. Elizabeth Warren

    I believe I said this before, and I am correct about this so... no argument from you. ;)

    Seriously, though, do some research and tell me how long it's been seen the Democratic ticket was 2 white guys. Oh, nevermind, it was 2004... 16 years when 2020 rolls in... so that ship has sailed. :)

    [Friday, June 21st, 2019 at 20:55 UTC]

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/06/20/bidens-bad-week/#comment-137834

    *
    So here we are over a year later, and I still like Stacey Abrams, but as history has played out since mid 2019, she's a little further down my list.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Biden should form a tag team of the capable men and women that ran for the presidency with him in order to remove the incompetent three-ring circus... and full steam ahead. :)

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    It Is Resistance, Not Trump, That Needs To Learn To Accept Election Results

    Given what they've put the country through since November 2016, the groups that need to be asked if they will accept an election loss in November 2020 are the media, Democratic politicians, and other Resistance activists.
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/28/it-is-resistance-not-trump-that-needs-to-learn-to-accept-election-results/

    This is EXACTLY the facts of the here and now..

    It's been the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party that has a HISTORY of not accepting the fact that Donald Trump kicked their asses...

    That's why claims that President Trump won't accept the results of the election are LAUGHABLE and ridiculous..

    Because it's been the Trump/America haters who refused to accept the results of the election..

    This is evidenced by the FACT of the Russia Collusion delusion, which ya'all lost..

    This is also evidenced by the FACT of the faux impeachment coup where Dumbocrats had to MAKE UP crimes... and ya'all STILL lost!! :D

    I mean, let's face the facts here people.. The history of the last 4 years is replete with fact after fact after fact of ya'all being completely an utterly WRONG on *EVERY* occasion..

    Oh, but THIS time, ya'all are going to get it right?? :D

    Hehehehehe I look forward to the mass exodus when, once again, I am proven dead on ballz accurate about President Trump.. :D

  140. [140] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [109]


    I am simply asking the same question you ask of me- how can CW keep (in your words) bleating out the SSDD when it should be obvious after all this time (DECADES) that this approach has got where we are now which is worse than not getting anywhere?

    It is being persistent- not pestering.

    When I have commented nicer (not that my comment was an attack of any kind though you may choose to see it that way) it is ignored.

    First, CW produces a blog that varies from day to day. Don Harris bleats out the #SSDD without variation, unless it's to call someone a name when you get frustrated that you've got ZERO traction here.

    Second, it is pestering. When are you going to get a clue and abandon your utterly failed approach? How many more years, Dawg? Doing the same thing over and over will get you the same result, ZERO.

    Third, OD is being ignored because it's of no interest. You simply haven't made the case for OD.

    And just because you can't make the case for OD doesn't make it CW's duty to make the arguments for you. It's not his effing job, so give it up already!

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I'm surprised you haven't taken up the Dear Leader's paranoia by arguing "if Biden wins it means the whole thing was RIGGED!" by now.

    You mean, like the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party rigged the 2016 AND 2020 Dem primary??

    You mean like THAT "rigged"..???

    Let's face the facts, my friend..

    The Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party is NO STRANGER to rigging elections to achieve their desired outcome...

    This is well documented...

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even though I have complete permission to use this article in it's entirety (which satisfies the requirement by Grand Poobah) in the interests of Weigantian amity, I'll forgo. Since it's documented that I DO have source to back up every one of my opinions...

    Only a Trump Administration Can Restore Law and Order

    As long as we stand united behind the founding principles that have guided our nation for generations, we will prevail against this latest assault upon our most basic values.
    https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/27/only-a-trump-administration-can-restore-law-and-order/

    This is fact. The Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party has made it clear that they have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the toddler torturing, cop killings, lootings and destruction that is being committed on a DAILY basis by so-called "peaceful" protesters...

    Given this FACT, the American people who are sick and tired of all the violence committed under the auspices of the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party and will vote accordingly on 3 Nov 2020..

    End Result: President Trump re-elected in a landslide.. :D

    I am willing to entertain any wagers to show I have complete faith in my facts.. :D

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I watched Bill Barr for about five minutes and just couldn't take it anymore. The Raptors are on now ...

  144. [144] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    21

    Got it, everyone?

    Got it. :)

    ___________________

    On a completely unrelated note, I was doing some routine research, and I have a question to ask you:

    Chris, did you know your name is included in one of the Wikileaks dumps prior to the 2016 election?

  145. [145] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is imperative that Biden choose his VP candidate wisely.

    Right, obviously. Which is why it won't be Harris or Warren. Ha!

    They each didn't do themselves any favours, whatsoever, in this regard, of course, not that they were ever in the running. Ahem.

  146. [146] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wish he would just pick her already and get it over with.

  147. [147] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    That's not how reality TV works.

  148. [148] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    25

    That's a good point. But at this point, I think the people who are going to vote against Trump would vote for Biden even if he named a ficus tree as his veep (hat tip to Michael Moore, of course).

    I like the ficus tree idea, but if Biden is naming a non-person as a running mate, I'm already on record for a ham sandwich... but on second thought would much prefer -- y'all know what's coming right?:

    Pie... but absolutely no nuts!

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mezzomamma
    30

    This! Exactly and this cannot be reiterated enough.
    Thank you. :)

  150. [150] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Try to keep up.

    CW said OD was being ignored because he felt it was unrealistic. he based this determination on faulty information as I pointed out in my response.

    While CW may write about different aspects from day to day, there is a constant theme of Trump is bad you have no other choice.

    There is nothing wrong with taking a principle or statement that CW makes and applying that principle to OD to make my case why CW should address it. That is the purpose of comments sections.

    And I have made many points that bolster my case.

    Yet you do not address those. You just make a false claim that I have not done so despite the ample evidence.

    When are you going to get a clue that your nonsensical claims are not going to get me to stop posting my opinion that it is CW's job to address OD?

    When will you stop deflecting and actually provide counter arguments?

  151. [151] 
    Kick wrote:

    As long as it's done FAIRLY and not based on Party/Ideological membership, I welcome this.. It's what I have wanted to see here every since Vick and the rest have shown up here soley because of a 'name-calling contest' :^/

    I kindly object to the posting of incorrect information regarding my motivations. I will say, though, that I am a complex human being and therefore rarely and almost never -- but most likely and probably never -- have a sole or single motivation for anything that I accomplish and/or endeavor to do. :)

  152. [152] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [37]

    Really, Michale? I understand your wanting to chicken out but can't you come up with better excuses? You know, at least try not to insult my intelligence?

    Let's take this apart:

    Michale wrote:

    ...That won't work.. Exit polling was notoriously ineffective and flat out wrong in 2016..

    That's news to me. Please provide a link so I can confirm that for myself.

    People are not going to voluntarily admit that they voted for President Trump when such an admission would get them beat up or even killed by the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party.

    First off, has this ever happened? Please provide the link so I can verify.

    Second, if it has indeed happened, does it happen as frequently as the "voter fraud" problem you Repugs are always crying about? You know, the maybe one fraudulent ballot for every 100,000 ballots cast problem?

    Third, I thought you Repugs were "98% armed" etc etc. So why are all you tough guys afraid? Are you, Michale, personally afraid to admit that your a Trumpanzie?

    Fourth, MAGA swag (and not wearing a mask) self identifies Trumpanzies. None of y'all seem all cowed with fear -- heck, y'all seem every bit as Loud & Proud as ever.

    If I am still here on election day...then there will be data available on the racial makeup of the election eventually.

    Where will that data come from if not from exit polls? Do you know of an alternative method to get that data? Please provide the link so I might educate myself.

    [107]

    Michale wrote,

    These 2 facts PROVE that Basement Biden is going to lose..

    But hay... If yer so sure, why not let's make a little wager??? :D

    That's what I'm trying to do. It's up to you to put up or shut up.

  153. [153] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Only a Trump Administration Can Restore Law and Order

    They did not prevent it from happening, so why would anyone think they could restore it? Trump has not come up with any ideas that don’t violate our Constitution because he thinks he’s an authoritarian, not our President. He used the military to police the southern border. He has used DHS personnel as his own personal Gestapo forces in Portland. This all happened under Trump’s watch... no one buys your attempts to place the blame on the Party not associated with the President!

    It’ll be like when he declared war on the Coronavirus — when Trump cannot magically make it all go away, he’ll surrender while claiming a total victory!

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    TheStig
    44

    Your post reminded me to check my voter status - just to be on the safe side. What with voter purges and all. All systems go.

    Good form. Because I know that you know how important your vote is, particularly in your home state. It will very likely be you and yours and a key few other states who go a long way in determining who sits in the Oval in January 2021. Tell your friends. Get them all registered.

    I'm leaning towards the early-voting-in-person-at-the-board--of-election. No lines, and I can hit my favorite coffee shop on the way home...which also serves craft beer.

    I have respect for beer! That's a good plan. Make it a Party party.

    Outdoors on the balcony. There is usually one rainless day during Early Voting.

    I can picture it. Stay safe, though. :)

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    And NONE of the polling has changed.. It's all the EXACT same polling it was in 2016..

    This is incorrect and demonstrably false information. Polling criteria routinely changes as the makeup of the electorate changes... always has and always will. :)

  156. [156] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [142]

    Michale once again wrote,

    End Result: President Trump re-elected in a landslide.. :D

    I am willing to entertain any wagers to show I have complete faith in my facts.. :D

    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

    **The black support Trump won in 2016

  157. [157] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Pie would absolutely be a game changer

  158. [158] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Victory is sweet, but so is defeat.

    Pie 2020

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    I kindly object to the posting of incorrect information regarding my motivations. I will say, though, that I am a complex human being and therefore rarely and almost never -- but most likely and probably never -- have a sole or single motivation for anything that I accomplish and/or endeavor to do. :)

    I call the facts as I see them.. You yourself stated that the only reason you are here was because of the name-calling contest.

    Facts are facts.. Even inconvenient ones.. :D

    Have a happy... :D

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    That's news to me. Please provide a link so I can confirm that for myself.

    Yer kidding, right?? You think that polling in 2016 was accurate?? :D

    Please provide a link to such a ludicrous and outlandishly false claim.. :D

    First off, has this ever happened? Please provide the link so I can verify.

    First your word that you will acknowledge and concede the point..

    That's what I'm trying to do. It's up to you to put up or shut up.

    No, you are wagering on black American support for President Trump..

    You don't have the courage of your convictions to wager that Biden will be POTUS... :D

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    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

    **The black support Trump won in 2016

    Which has nothing to do with a wager as to the fact that President Trump will win re-election.. :D

    This is fact...

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    111

    Wow. Awesome! Very well said, sir. :)

  163. [163] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (162)-
    Yeah. If you like conclusions based on inaccurate information and faulty interpretations. see comment 121

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    131

    Broken clock wRong Paul opposed Bunker Boy's big beautiful wall because, when the economical collapse arrived, he would be unable to dig up his silver dimes from the back yard and flee like a patriot.

    Well, that particular letter carrier blows hot and cold, for sure:

    Rand Paul delivers letter from Trump to Putin

    Despite the spectacular failure of the Trump Wall of Hate to be built, a virtual Trump Virus Wall has been built and it's keeping us in. Mexico is certainly not paying for it. We are.

    Have you seen the new wall going up outside the White House?
    Bunker Boy needs cover:

    The Bunker Boy Song Parody

    99 bottles of beer on the wall.

    Oh, allow me the honor, please, sir:

    99 bottles of beer
    Take 1 down, pass it around
    98 bottles of beer on the wall.

    98 days... but who's counting? ;)

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some Wisconsin police departments back out of DNC security agreements

    The use of tear gas and other police tactics have come under heavy scrutiny amid nationwide protests against police brutality
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-police-departments-dnc-security-agreements

    Cops want nothing to do with the Democrat/AntiFa/BlackLiesMatter Party...

  166. [166] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yeah. If you like conclusions based on inaccurate information and faulty interpretations, see comment 121.

    fify. all it took was a comma.

  167. [167] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    153

    This!

    It’ll be like when he declared war on the Coronavirus — when Trump cannot magically make it all go away, he’ll surrender while claiming a total victory!

    Wait, what! You mean you don't believe coronavirus is going to just disappear on its own without a vaccine?

    I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests. This is going to go away without a vaccine.

    ~ Donald Trump, May 8, 2020

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uLJkpH__os

    *
    Heh. Then we are still like peas. :)
    XOXOXO

  168. [168] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    We have decades of evidence he has kept those promises in the past or they would not continue to give him big money contributions.

    What promises? You have yet to produce any evidence that all donations over whatever fricking arbitrary amount you declare is allowed come with promises attached to them! The biggest jokes are that you think our politicians are being bought anytime they receive a donation of $300 -$2800 and that someone who donates $25 could not have expectations attached to their donations!

    He can do this because voters keep voting for him even though he does not keep the campaign promises that he makes to voters as he can't keep conflicting promises.

    According to who? And what vague ”campaign promises” are you referring to? A presidential candidate can say he supports changing a law, but they are not able to introduce legislation to actually make it happen. They can say they want to bring about change, but no one person can bring about change on their own in our form of government.

    Why would people continue to vote and to donate to a candidate that they were unhappy with? In one breath you claim that the only reason someone continues to support a candidate is because the candidate continues to keep their promises, but that is only for people who give more than your purity limit...for those who gave less, the candidate has screwed them over every time! Declaring in the next breath that all politicians have worked against us at every turn — but then why am I very happy with those representing me in Congress? Is it because you think everyone but you is too stupid to realize that they are being played?

    Every politician who takes more than your purity limit is evil and not working for their constituents who do not donate to their campaigns. Granted, you have nothing but conjecture to back this idea up, but it sounds reasonable to anyone who doesn’t think about it too hard, so you run with it!

    And every donor who gives more than you allow is always pushing for legislation that hurts the rest of us. I never realized my grandmother giving $500 to Obama was so he would do her bidding! It’s amazing how much of a difference a few dollars can make in how you view people’s motivation.

    It would easier to get behind your group if it didn’t think $2800 donations were just as bad as the millions of dollars in dark money that corporations can pump into PACS.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it's that time again.. Gonna finish the last 2 episodes of THE AMERICANS.. Here's hoping the KGB gets theirs..

    ON a personal note, I am glad to see my idea of no name-calling and no personal attacks has worked so well...

    If only people had agreed to it when it was suggested instead of having it to be imposed.

    Oh well. See ya'all in the AM... :D

  170. [170] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    $121.1 billion.

    That’s how much more money the United States spends on its military than 144 other countries combined, according to the latest update to available data on military expenditures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). That’s not to mention the number by which the United States also outspends the next 7 largest military budgets combined: $40.1 billion.

    https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2019/07/18/us-spends-more-its-military-176-countries-combined/

    Yet more and more military families have to sign up for SNAP every year in order to feed their families! Our soldiers have to worry about feeding their families while praying they aren’t killed by a terrorist who gets paid big bucks as a reward from Russia! You never hear about this in those Army recruitment ads!

    “Putin paid so you would have a widowed wife,
    With what you were paid your fam already had a fKd up life
    In the Arm-y!”

  171. [171] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kick,

    Well, that particular letter carrier blows hot and cold, for sure

    I was referring to wRong Paul, not Rant.

  172. [172] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Defund the Pentagon!

  173. [173] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Ahhhh - The sweet sound of an editorial board knocking knuckle heads.

  174. [174] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Joe Biden in his own words is the evidence. The big money interests continuing to give money to Biden is evidence.

    While it may not be enough for you, it is enough for me and the 80% of citizens that want the big money out of politics or they would not want the big money out of politics.

    Everyone has expectations attached to their contributions and votes. You are delusional in thinking that I think they do not.

    Why WOULD people keep voting for politicians that do not keep their promises? Maybe they are just not aware there are other approaches because they keep getting fed the lie that there is no other choices.

    The limit I set is a common limit for determining small donors and contributions. As Biden could raise over 1 billion dollars in these contributions from just three in ten Deathocrats there is no reason he needs to take anything more.

    People do not want to admit they have been played and will do anything they can to rationalize their delusions as you do in your comments.

    Using One Demand your grandmother could have supported more than just Obama with her 500 dollars making it possible for more small donor only candidates to win and making it possible for more things to benefit ordinary citizens to get done as it takes more than one person to do anything in our government.

    Again it is not that 2800 dollars is as bad as dark PAC big money. That is another of delusions that I claim that. They are both bad to different degrees.

    One Demand is not perfect, but it is better than either.

  175. [175] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    159

    I call the facts as I see them..

    Yes... "as you see them"... and I would wager everyone on the forum is fully aware of the frequent propensity of yours to spin words that are posted on this forum into your own misinterpreted opinion or outright lies... which you then incorrectly refer to as "facts"... nothing new. For example:

    As long as it's done FAIRLY and not based on Party/Ideological membership, I welcome this.. It's what I have wanted to see here every since Vick and the rest have shown up here soley because of a 'name-calling contest' :^/

    ~ Michale

    As I posted above, and I'll say again: That is incorrect. I have no idea to whom you are referring are "the rest" who "have shown up soley [sic] because of a 'name-calling contest'."

    Speaking for myself, this is incorrect. As I explained, I rarely do anything for a sole reason. Full stop. And I won't attempt to discern whom else you're accusing of this, but my first post here was to suggest the name "Benedict Donald":

    My first post on these boards was to suggest the name "Benedict Donald" for Trump because that's how I've always seen Trump... always... as an opportunist like "Been a Dick"... a turncoat who'd sell out his country for his own interests. That was a year ago, and just look how history is playing out now.

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

    And JL ^^^^^ CLICK, CLICK ^^^^^ not kidding here, you simply must check out the post underneath my post... my first day here... and discover who actually posted regarding Trump and a "fascist dictator."

    Read that and weep... from laughter... all part of a conspiracy, no doubt. ;)

    If only people would pay attention to details... really see things as they are... pay attention to what's staring them right in their faces... they'd see what's actually there versus what they want to see. Because those who either can't or won't pay attention to history are doomed to be conned and appear uneducated... oh, I meant to say... doomed to repeat it. :)

    [Thursday, May 4th, 2017 at 06:46 UTC]

    I wanted the name "Benedict Donald" out there on the Internet because it wasn't at the time, and I hoped it would catch on. I also suggested it with multiple veterans organizations, and I have recently seen it repeated and used in political ads. So then, mission accomplished.

    Facts are facts.. Even inconvenient ones.. :D

    And lies are lies... no matter how many times they are posted in repetitive fashion.

    Have a happy... :D

    I always do, Mike. :)

  176. [176] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    163

    Yeah. If you like conclusions based on inaccurate information and faulty interpretations. see comment 121

    I respond to comments as I read them... oftentimes only to discover that someone else has responded in a similar manner as myself. I would be shocked -- once more for effect: shocked, I tell you -- if anyone else has not failed to notice that you appear to be saying your comment at 121 contains "conclusions based on inaccurate information and faulty interpretations."

    Good form, sir. I quite agree with you on that, and I make this observation without even reading the content of your comment at 121.

    Thus, I continue... moving on down the page. :)

  177. [177] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris

    Yeah. If you like conclusions based on inaccurate information and faulty interpretations, see comment 121.

    fify. all it took was a comma. ~ nypoet22

    *
    Now that's exactly what I'm talking about! Easy as pie. :)

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    May I say that I LOVE LOVE LOVE the new Weigantia! It is actually a pleasure to read all the comments. I'm in seventh heaven ... :)

  179. [179] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I've heard that Biden will make the big announcement by next, perhaps even before next week!

  180. [180] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    157|158

    Pie would absolutely be a game changer

    Victory is sweet, but so is defeat.

    Heads I win; tails you lose... but pie? We all win!

    Pie 2020

    I like this pie idea. There should be more written about it here. What do Joe Biden and pie have in common? Neither of them have ever lost in a general election!

    If Biden should die
    We'll be served with pie! :)

  181. [181] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perish that last thought!

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When Biden wins, it'll be ice cream pie for all!

  183. [183] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    171

    I was referring to wRong Paul, not Rant.

    Oh, I see that now! I get those two idiots mixed up... Rant is such a chip off the old Eastern Bloc. :)

  184. [184] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Nonsense. It is clear that I am referring to CW's comments being based on faulty information and it is comment 121 that explains that.

    That you did not read comment 121 does not seem to matter as you don't even seem to be able or pretend not to be able to comprehend the comments you do read.

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  186. [186] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    The new Weigantia still carries a lot of deflection and false claims and arguments. It's a start, but there is quite a way to go.

  187. [187] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    181

    Perish that last thought!

    Oh, I do... and if I did not think Biden was the correct candidate to run against Donald Trump and run these United States, I would have voted for someone else in the primaries, and I wouldn't have worked so hard to deliver Texas for Biden on Super Tuesday... but he is human, so we'll need the proper running mate should anything happen to him.

    He'll be fine, EM! :)

  188. [188] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, just don't put Biden and die in the same sentence again, ever again, okay?

  189. [189] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    182

    When Biden wins, it'll be ice cream pie for all!

    And drinks, EM... you mustn't forget drinks. This reminds me of Super Tuesday when we drank every time Biden notched a state. Needless to say, we were hammered. :)

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's a good start, Don!

  191. [191] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    184

    No. Just no.

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's to getting properly hammered again!

  193. [193] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    188

    Well, just don't put Biden and die in the same sentence again, ever again, okay?

    You mean like ^^^^^ that?

    Besdies, his last name is one of those words where all I would need do is accdientally transpose some letters and you got Bdien. It's built in there and quite beyond my control. ;)

  194. [194] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    192

    Here's to getting properly hammered again!

    We have the tools to make that happen... I'm in!

  195. [195] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We'll check back on November 3 with happy hour going strong all evening ...

  196. [196] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  197. [197] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [144] -

    Do tell! Got a link? Or a quote?

    I may have seen this before, I think I'm listed with a bunch of other HuffPost pundits. But I could be wrong, that memory is hazy at best.

    -CW

  198. [198] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [145] -

    Who do you think Biden's going to pick? Just curious.

    I'd love for it to be Warren, but I think Biden will be too cautious for that -- not for her strength or views, but because for a limited amount of time the MA governor will be able to name her replacement. Then they'll have a special election, which will probably put the seat back in Dem hands, but what happens if it turns out to be the pivotal seat for Senate control? That's why I think Biden will play it cautious, personally.

    But I could be wrong. I think Duckworth is being overlooked by many, at this point, but I really have no idea who he'll pick.

    -CW

  199. [199] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [150] -

    Faulty information? Hardly. I well remember you heaping scorn on Bernie for accepting anything over 200 bucks. You didn't give him an inch, because he simply was not pure enough. Or was that some other Don Harris who just resembles you on the internet?

    -CW

  200. [200] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [161] -

    There are no "facts" from the future, sorry. Your statement about who will win an election are speculation, not fact -- just like all my articles are (and are clearly identified as being).

    Look the two words up, because I do not think that word means what you think it means (forgot what movie reference that is, sorry).

    -CW

  201. [201] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    CW,

    "The Princess Bride"

  202. [202] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    199

    This one's for you, Chris:

    [11] Don Harris wrote:

    And the answer to the question about should Bernie forego the hundreds of million of big money dollars that he needs to compete is:

    YES.

    First, as demonstrated in comment 9, he doesn't need that money.

    Second, taking that money IS THE PROBLEM. Foregoing that money in favor of small donor money is the solution.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/02/24/who-will-quit-and-when/#comment-154221

    *
    Chris, I got your 6. ;)

  203. [203] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick [202] -

    Thanks! I didn't think I had just dreamed that stuff... as I recall, it went on for quite some time...

    MtnCaddy [201] -

    Thanks! I knew it was a movie quote from somewhere...

    :-)

    -CW

  204. [204] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Did you miss the part in 121 where I contributed and voted for Bernie in 2016?

    Yes, in 2019 and 2020 I did not support Bernie because (once again) he did not move forward from the progress made in 2016. You ignored me long before that.

    You can spin it to say he was not pure enough for me but that is not accurate.

    For me he is not adequate if he takes big money. We can all set our own standards for the candidates we support.

    So Bernie or Biden that both could have or can raise enough money from small donors only do not meet my standard.

    While no one here may agree with my standard, there are people that do agree. You once asked for just one person that agreed and I provided a comment on a Ralph Nader article at Commondreams that got 7 likes and/or positive comments and one negative comment that was the same deflection/arguing against what One Demand isn't nonsense that often appears here.

    And I am not forcing anyone to accept my standard, just offering it as a starting point for people that may agree with me.

    But hey, as long as we are discussing nonsensical purity claims we don't have to discuss the inadequacy of the big money politicians.

    We can just ignore that Biden could raise enough from small donors only.

    And as long as people that might agree with me don't find out about One Demand the you have no other choice deception will again prevail.

    If you are so confident that One Demand can't work or no one will think it is a good idea or at least worth trying or considering then why not inform people about it and find out?

    I'm sure if you tried you could present an accurate portrayal of what I am proposing and explain what you think is right and/or wrong with it without the dodges like purity claims.

    Even if it is not perfect as is, getting it into the public discourse could be part of the process to make improvements if needed. That is how ideas are developed.

    I don't think any idea has ever been perfect from the start.

    Voting for inadequate candidates because the only other choice is worse has not worked yet. And it has been getting worse with each election for decades. (see President Trump, the pandemic as examples of it's failures)

  205. [205] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    In that article from June 2019, Biden tells his donors that he won’t demonize the rich and that no one’s standard of living would be changed if he is elected. That is your evidence??? Unlike you, Biden realizes that demonizing people simply because they are wealthy does nothing but create division. Biden also made it clear that those wealthy donors knew that them paying more in taxes would not change their quality of life. Being worth $50 million is not a drastic lifestyle changer if you had been worth $60 million previously.

    Again, your evidence failed to demonstrate what you claimed it did.

    Why WOULD people keep voting for politicians that do not keep their promises? Maybe they are just not aware there are other approaches because they keep getting fed the lie that there is no other choices.

    I do not think that they WOULD vote for a politician that they did not believe that they could trust to work for them. This is part of the problem with your argument...you keep claiming that the public is voting for candidates that they do not want to vote for. Many Trump voters say they voted for him because they could not stand voting for Clinton — but they could have just not voted if they did not want to vote for either candidate.

    Using One Demand your grandmother could have supported more than just Obama with her 500 dollars making it possible for more small donor only candidates to win and making it possible for more things to benefit ordinary citizens to get done as it takes more than one person to do anything in our government.

    Prove it. My grandmother lived outside of Mobile, Alabama in 2008. First off, she’d tell you to go suck her tailpipe for thinking she was corrupting the system for wanting to give $500 of her money to the candidate of her choice. Then she’d laugh in your face when you could not provide the name of a single small donation candidate who wasn’t also running under the White Nationalist platform. See, she would not have given her money to a candidate backed by the KKK... even if he was the only candidate running a “small donation only campaign” in her area. But that WOULD be the only person who qualified under OneDemand’s criteria. And since it is “OneDemand” and not “A Few Demands”, what would justify you not recommending that she should help the Nazi’s campaign?

    Again, this is the problem with your delusional claim that OneDamnMan offers people a choice they were not previously aware even existed. You do not offer ANYTHING!

    As Biden could raise over 1 billion dollars in these contributions from just three in ten Deathocrats there is no reason he needs to take anything more.

    And Biden could raise 2 billion dollars if he got 100 million people to give his campaign just $20. So it would appear that my idea is twice as good as your idea. (Especially if you think insulting the Party voters support will win people over to OneDemand!)

    So until you have actual flesh and blood candidates running “small donation only” campaigns, you have NOTHING to offer voters!

  206. [206] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen-
    Biden was talking about the big money donors quality of life if they had to pay more taxes? That is hilarious. The only way that might be true is if he meant that with nothing fundamentally changing that their increase in wealth would more than make up for any increase in taxes.

    Yes, citizens could have just not voted if they didn't like Clinton or Trump. Many did just that.

    But those that voted for Clinton or Trump because it was not as bad a choice as the other (not everyone that voted for them just so you don't make that false claim to deflect) and those that did not vote did nothing to change the conditions that once again left them with those bad choices.

    However people particpating in One Demand will be registering a vote that they want better choices in future elections which is better than doing nothing.

    Prove your grandmother could have helped more than Obama with the 500 dollars?

    Easy. 500 less 200 is 300. 200 to Obama. 200 to another candidate and 100 to another candidate. Or 100 to five candidates.

    Again with KKK nonsense. That has been explained many times before. If you cannot retain information then stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You don't. That nonsense is TROLLING!!!!!

    The demand for candidates from citizens precedes the candidates. Your claim that the candidates must be available before citizens can demand them is ridiculous nonsense that qualifies as more TROLLING!!!!!

    No, your 100 million people giving 20 dollars is not better. It is possible but much less achievable than three in ten Deathocrats which is easily achievable.

    I offer voters more than the Deathocrats. The Deathcorats offer more of same that put us where we are now. I offer a path to make things better.

  207. [207] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [206] -

    The big problem with your idea is that it would require a massive popular movement behind it, almost by definition (if you need lotsa donors to run a campaign, then there better be lotsa people making their one demand, no?).

    So... let's check in and see how the movement is going. How long have you been advocating it?

    How many people have you convinced? Would you call it a "massive popular movement"?

    Without that widespread and vocal support, it just wouldn't work. Which is why I consider the entire thing pretty impractical, while people like Bernie have changed the fundraising paradigm already.

    You didn't come up with the idea, neither did Bernie. The first I remember to attempt it was Jerry Brown, with his 1-800 number (this was before the internet was much of anything). He swore he'd only take up to $100 from any donor -- twice as pure as you!

    But you'll notice he didn't win and he didn't get the nomination. Others who also tried this also were disappointed, because there just wasn't enough of a movement.

    Bernie came closer than anyone else, and he proved the basic soundness of the idea. He achieved fundraising parity with Hillary Clinton, the biggest party machine politician around (at the time). That was stunning. And it's still reverberating.

    So if anything even close to one demand ever happens, the way I see it is that it's going to have a politician leading the movement. Maybe the next Bernie will actually win the primaries, and then will run a small-dollar donation in the general election.

    But without such a leader, any effort to create a grassroots movement to drastically change campaign funding seems extraordinarily likely to fail. That's how I see it.

    Again, how long have you been doing this, and how many people have you convinced?

    The sneaky secret -- much like Dorothy's shoes -- is that you already HAVE used my platform to get your ideas out (ad nauseam). It's been with you all along. And you don't seem to have convinced a single person here.

    -CW

  208. [208] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Actually Trump did very well with under $200 donations in 2016. It's one of many reasons why I'm a bit dubious about one demand...

  209. [209] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    205

    Yes, yes, yes. This! All of it. :)

  210. [210] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    207

    The sneaky secret -- much like Dorothy's shoes -- is that you already HAVE used my platform to get your ideas out (ad nauseam). It's been with you all along. And you don't seem to have convinced a single person here.

    Yes, sir... very well said. I thought you gave him a "bigly" hint when you informed him your blog is "dedicated to 'reality-based politics,' not Utopia or some fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and the pixies frolic in the meadow."

    Huge honking clue right there. ;)

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]