ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Republicans In Disarray

[ Posted Friday, February 5th, 2021 – 18:59 UTC ]

This week we were treated to the spectacle of the Republican Party largely voting in support of an advocate of using deadly violence towards her political opponents. How the mighty have fallen -- since this used to be the party that dearly loved to sanctimoniously lecture everyone on how high morals were an absolute necessity in politics, and that even the concept of "moral relativism" was evil. That all went out the window when they nominated the most amoral man imaginable for president, of course, but it's still rather shocking to see this once-publicly-righteous party wallow in the filth of QAnon and flirt with ideas like advocacy for assassinating political opponents.

Next week, we'll be treated to the spectacle of the Republican Party explaining why they'll largely be voting (once again) to support deadly violence towards political opponents, except this time it'll be even more egregious, since the violence in question this time wasn't theoretical but actual -- and since the violence was directed against Congress itself. But not even this will stop Republicans from putting their stamp of approval on it, by voting to acquit the prime instigator of the violence of any responsibility. Republicans also (for younger readers who may never have come across the concept) used to be for "taking personal responsibility" (except when they said it they were always talking about minorities on welfare, unmarried mothers, gay people with AIDS, and others who were, to them, to be considered not only undesirable but morally lacking). Those were the days, eh?

These days morals and the Republican Party have completely parted ways. The two are now utterly separate. Morals simply don't matter a whit to them any more, because they've decided that "anything goes" should be their new motto instead. Anything at all -- even supporting political violence -- is to be considered allowable as long as either one of two conditions applies. Either it must please their Dear Leader Donald Trump, or it must make liberals cry with anguish. As long as at least one of those conditions is met, Republicans simply don't care about anything else -- morals, least of all. This is a sad and sorry state of affairs for a once-respectable American political party, obviously. But it doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.

Democrats should really resurrect a political label from the nineteenth century, and start calling pretty much everyone in the entire party "Radical Republicans." That shoe now undeniably fits, so make them wear it, every chance you get.

Some Democrats are already having fun linking the QAnon insanity to the Republican Party. To give the most amusing example of this, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put out the following snarky note before the House voted to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments, which castigates Kevin McCarthy's weakness as a leader:

After several conversations and literally running away from reporters, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Q-CA) made clear that he is refusing to take action against conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. As a result, the House will continue with a vote to strip Greene of her seat on the esteemed House Committee on Education & Labor and House Committee on Budget. McCarthy's failure to lead his party effectively hands the keys over to Greene – an anti-Semite, QAnon adherent and 9/11 Truther.

McCarthy's cowardly refusal to deal with Greene breaks with calls from Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the Republican Jewish Coalition and several prominent members of the party to take action against Greene.

As No 2. Senate Republican John Thune warned Tuesday, McCarthy has chosen to make House Republicans "the party of conspiracy theories and QAnon" and Rep. Greene is in the driver's seat.

Please note that "Kevin McCarthy (Q-CA)" in there. Others are wondering whether to rebrand the party "GQP" or perhaps "GOPQ." We'll have to see which meme wins out, in a few weeks or so.

Tying the anchor of lunatic conspiracy theories (and the political violence they espouse) to Republicans is pathetically easy for Democrats to do, since the Republicans are indeed terrified of bucking any of Trump's supporters who might sympathize with the QAnon lunacy or Trump's own cupboard of conspiracy theories and Big Lies. This could become a rather defining issue in the 2022 midterms, although it's a few political lifetimes between then and now, so perhaps we'll all have moved on to something else. Nothing is permanent, and that maxim is especially true in the world of politics.

Greene made an 11th-hour pitch to her fellow Republicans not to vote with the Democrats to strip her committee assignments. This non-apology apology actually got her a standing ovation from at least half of the GOP caucus. However, both in the private caucus meeting and on the House floor, while she did disavow (to some extent, her language still left a lot of wiggle room) most of the conspiracy theories she had previously supported, what was glaringly missing was any sort of apology about threatening Democrats like Pelosi with "a bullet in the head."

That is simply unacceptable. Republicans used to know this, but apparently they've now forgotten such a basic political tenet as "calls for assassinating your opponents are always to be condemned."

After she was unceremoniously stripped of her committee assignments, Greene tried to spin it as a positive, because without all that pesky legislating to fill her day, she could do what she really wanted to do, which is toot her own horn and build her own personal brand, apparently:

If I was on a committee, I'd be wasting my time, because my conservative values wouldn't be heard, and neither would my district's. Now, I have a lot of free time on my hands. which means I can talk to a whole lot more people all over this country, and I can talk to more people and make connections and build a huge amount of support.

She ended with an absolutely incomprehensible statement: "I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to say the things that I don't believe and I shouldn't have said in the first place." Say what?

The backlash over the attempted insurrection and the Big Lie that inspired it continues apace, as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Fox News were just sued by elections equipment manufacturer Smartmatic -- to the tune of $2.7 billion.

Trump's own legal team quit en masse this week, because they were tired of trying to explain to Trump that arguing the Big Lie in the Senate trail was a nonstarter. That, and they were tired of not getting paid, as well.

Speaking of quitting, Trump quit the Screen Actors Guild this week with a petulant letter (complete with a fake presidential seal on the top of it). Sad!

And speaking of crazy, Axios has a bonus article to their series on the final days of the Trump administration, all about the "craziest meeting ever" in the Oval Office with Trump. If you want to read the inside story about the lunatics Trump was listening to for advice after the election, this is the definitive read for you.

And finally, a post-mortem election report came out this week that concluded what everyone already instinctively knew anyway -- Donald Trump lost the election because he screwed up the response to the COVID-19 pandemic so badly and so spectacularly. After the voters had a whole year to see Trump attempt to grapple with a crisis he really didn't even ever want to admit was real, they all decided that giving Biden a chance to run things sounded like the better plan. What lefty or "fake news" organization put out this autopsy report? The Trump campaign's own pollster. Ouch.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Before we get to the main award, we have two Honorable Mention awards to hand out.

The first goes to Iowa state representative Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, who was annoyed that the speaker of the Iowa statehouse refused to mandate that masks be worn on the floor of the legislature. So Wessel-Kroeschell decided to make a point, and appeared on the floor wearing new blue jeans. The speaker refused to allow her to speak, since she was breaking the dress code rules by wearing jeans. This elegantly and effectively showed how the speaker did indeed have the power to mandate what was worn inside his chamber, which is why she deserves an Honorable Mention for her rather effective stunt.

House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin pulled a rather amusing stunt of his own -- one which will have bigger consequences, in the end. Raskin sent a letter to Donald Trump essentially defying him to testify at his own impeachment trial. With any normal politician, this wouldn't even be a news story, since they would reject the offer out of hand. But with Trump, you never know -- he might indeed be itching to be the star of his own trial, and showing up and testifying (and being subject to cross-examination) would definitely achieve that. Raskin's move was the equivalent of waving a red cape in front of a charging bull, in other words. But it was still a smart move (and not merely a stunt) because now that Trump's lawyers have declined the offer, the Democrats prosecuting the case can use that fact against him: "He was offered a chance to come here and tell his own story in his own words and he refused."

But this week we've got to hand the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to President Joe Biden once again, for his rather masterful tightrope walk on bipartisanship. Ten Senate Republicans, at the last minute, came up with a plan to head off the Senate Democrats from moving forward with reconciliation, which will allow them to pass Biden's preferred $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package with only 51 votes. The Republicans tried to present their plan as an alternative that could garner 60 votes, and therefore be truly bipartisan.

To put it bluntly, they were trying to trap Biden by his own campaign promises about unity and bipartisanship. What they really wanted to do was just have endless negotiations about the size and scope of the pandemic relief bill, without ever actually coming to a final version that 10 Republicans would indeed vote for. They've pulled this trick too many times to count in the past, including on Barack Obama's first stimulus package back in 2009.

Biden, thankfully, appears to have learned his lesson from 2009. He respectfully invited them to the White House, refused to even consider their paltry offer (which was less than one-third what Biden thought necessary), and then gave a big green light to Chuck Schumer to go right ahead with the reconciliation version.

By doing so, Biden avoided the trap completely, but politely. Biden is much more concerned with what is in the actual bill, and passing a bill as quickly as possible. So if Republicans can support something before the reconciliation bill is voted on, then bipartisanship will be possible -- but since they can't (there's no way 10 Republicans would vote for a $1.9 trillion bill), then they can just stand on the sidelines and watch Democrats get it done.

Bernie Sanders -- who now controls the budget committee in the Senate -- put it quite plainly:

I think the president has been very clear in saying what every Democrat believes. Of course we want Republican support. We want Republican support now and in the future. But the crises facing this country today are so extraordinary, so unprecedented, it is imperative that we move forward boldly and rapidly, right now. And if Republicans want to join us, that's great. If they don't, so be it.

In the last number of years, when Republicans had the majority, they used reconciliation to pass massive tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, used reconciliation to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, used reconciliation to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wilderness Reserve. And all of those proposals were done on a 100 percent partisan basis. I didn't hear a whole lot of talk of bipartisanship then. So right now, yeah, if Republicans want to join us, that's great. But we have a proposal which is what the American people want -- poll after poll shows us that the vast majority of people understand that we have a major pandemic crisis that must be addressed, that we have a major economic crisis that must be addressed, we have a major educational crisis that must be addressed. And that's what we intend to do.

This is a good point, and one the White House has been making too. The bill does indeed have bipartisan support -- with the public. An overwhelming amount of the public, Democrats and Republicans and everyone else, would just like to see some results, fast. Nobody is really going to care at all who votes for it and who doesn't in the Senate. Nobody is going to care that Republicans are having a hissy fit over a parliamentary procedure they've used to the hilt in the past. All people are going to care about is what is in the bill, and whether it works or not.

Joe Biden is smart enough to realize this. And, what's more, he's smart enough to have realized this very early on in his presidency. Which is definitely a very good sign, because it could presage all sorts of other decisive action in the future.

For now, Biden has won yet another Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, for avoiding the endless trap of "bipartisan negotiations" with Republicans who are negotiating in bad faith. So Biden's first year in office could wind up being better than Obama's, but we'll have to wait and see. For now, it's a very good start.

[Congratulate President Joe Biden via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Senator Joe Manchin has become the new Joe Lieberman. He's the most conservative Senate Democrat, and his vote is going to be the critical one, since Chuck Schumer can't afford to lose any. So he's going to toy with Schumer and the rest of the party, making his own demands and watering down every good idea that comes along. Again, Manchin is the new Lieberman.

What's more, everyone knows it. When fellow Democrat Brian Schatz passed Manchin in the hallways this week (within earshot of a reporter), he greeted him by saying: "Your highness." Funny, but it's not going to be so funny when Manchin truly starts throwing his weight around.

And he's already feeling his oats in that regard. Which brings us to why he's this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award winner. Here's the story:

Sen. Joe Manchin has taken aim at fellow Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris over the administration's approach to pushing its Covid-19 relief plan.

The West Virginia moderate, a key swing vote in an evenly divided Senate, blasted Harris' appearance on a local TV station after she spoke about how the proposed relief is a "big issue" to his constituents.

"I saw [the interview], I couldn't believe it. No one called me," Manchin said Friday to WSAZ, the West Virginia station where Harris gave an interview Thursday. "We're going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward, I think we need to do. But we need to work together. That's not a way of working together."

Harris appeared on WSAZ to speak about the massive relief package, saying: "To your point in West Virginia, one in seven families is describing their household as being hungry, one in six can't pay their rent, and one in four small businesses are closing permanently or have already closed, so it's a big issue in West Virginia and across the country."

Manchin needs to understand that Kamala Harris is vice president for all 50 states and President Joe Biden can send her wherever he likes without asking anyone's permission beforehand. Harris went to West Virginia and Arizona, where the other wavering centrist Senate Democrat hails from, to use the presidential bully pulpit to speak directly to the people and to make the administration's case for why we need to go big on pandemic relief right now.

In fact, Manchin's hissy fit actually became the story -- he would have been far better off politically to just have ignored the whole thing or dealt with it by complaining to the White House in private. He chose another route, and he wound up looking nothing short of petty. Which is why Joe Manchin is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 605 (2/5/21)

Before we get to the talking points, we did have to agree with a rather astute tweet by Ezra Klein: "After four years of 'senior White House official says the president has lost his min[d],' it is sort of nice to fire up Twitter and the uproar is 'former senior White House official says the rescue package exceeds the size of the output gap, possibly raising inflationary pressures.'"

Moving right along... so far, Democrats are doing an admirable job of painting the entire Republican Party with the crazy QAnon brush, which they all fully deserve for not ridding their own ranks of such dangerous nonsense. This needs to continue -- Republicans must be seen as extremists, subversives, and radicals to fully expose how far they all have gone down the rabbit hole. So a lot of this week's talking points try to address this one key goal.

 

1
   It does have bipartisan support

The White House came up with this particular spin, and it is downright brilliant.

"Republicans in the Senate are bemoaning the fact that the Democrats' pandemic relief bill will not be a bipartisan effort, but just because Republican politicians in Congress aren't willing to vote for it doesn't mean the effort doesn't have wide and deep bipartisan support. Just ask the people in the states these senators and representatives come from. Because even in red states, the people overwhelmingly support doing something big and doing something fast. Joe Biden can't be responsible for the fact that the Republicans in the Senate are ignoring the will of their own voters, but to say that this bill doesn't have wide bipartisan support is just false."

 

2
   Officer Brian Sicknick

His name should be on every Democrat's lips, all next week.

"This week, the remains of the brave and heroic Officer Brian Sicknick lay in honor in the U.S. Capitol -- the building he died defending. This federal officer was murdered by a mob of Trump supporters one month ago. Let us never forget Brian Sicknick's name, because he gave his life to defend the very same Republicans who will dishonor his memory by allowing the man who raised and incited this mob to a murderous rage to escape scot-free. Republicans have been saying ever since his death that we all should just 'move on,' and 'put it behind us.' I'd like to see just one of them try to tell Officer Brian Sicknick's family to just move on and forgive and forget. The very suggestion is both dishonorable and disgusting."

 

3
   Be consistent, Mitch

We wrote about the next two talking points yesterday, in more detail, in case anyone's interested.

Mitch McConnell and a handful of other Republicans actually came out and denounced Marjorie Taylor Greene's crazy beliefs in conspiracy theories. McConnell warned that the embrace of 'loony lies and conspiracy theories' were 'a cancer for the Republican Party.' But you know what? I won't believe he's being sincere until he denounces the dozens of conspiracy theories spouted by Donald Trump over the past five years. Because Trump is the one who led the Republican Party down this path, not Greene. She's merely a follower of the king of conspiracy theories himself. So until any Republican can bring themselves to consistently denounce all those in their party who promote baseless and dangerous conspiracy theories, their sanctimonious words now are entirely meaningless and should not be taken at face value at all."

 

4
   What about the Big Lie?

As we wrote yesterday, we would dearly love to hear this question asked of any Republican appearing in any television interview anywhere for approximately the next six months (at least).

"If the Republican Party is against baseless conspiracy theories, then each and every one of them needs to publicly answer whether they think Joe Biden was freely and fairly elected president. Because that was Trump's Big Lie, that the election had been stolen. This was never true, there was no evidence at all, so Republicans can't just condemn Marjorie Taylor Greene for believing 9/11 was a hoax without also stating their own disavowal of the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. Until they all publicly admit that Joe Biden is the legitimate president who won in a free and fair election, then each and every one of them is just as deranged and deluded as Greene, period."

 

5
   Radical Republicans

Time to dust this one off.

"Back in the buildup to the Civil War, there was a political faction who were adamantly anti-slavery and wanted to see it ended immediately and permanently. Because other Republicans -- including Abraham Lincoln -- were not so extreme in their viewpoints, these people became known as Radical Republicans. And you know what? We need to revive that label now, because the members of the Republican Party who traffic in conspiracy theories and refuse to admit reality and excuse and condone violence to achieve political goals are nothing short of radicals. So from now on, I will be calling each and every one of the Republicans who voted to support either Donald Trump or Marjorie Taylor Greene a Radical Republican. After all, if the shoe fits...."

 

6
   GQP? Or GOPQ?

Or you could go a different route.

"I think we need to give Republicans a new nickname, because they are now either the 'Grand QAnon Party' or maybe the 'Grand Old Party of QAnon.' So which do you think rolls off the tongue better, 'GQP' or 'GOPQ'?"

 

7
   Trump fails, again

Once again, the facts prove what an utter and complete failure Trump truly was.

"Donald Trump ran for president promising farmers and everyone else that he knew exactly what to do with countries like China to make our trade deficit disappear. He started slapping tariffs on everything under the sun, in his misguided effort to achieve this goal. Well, the final numbers are in. Over the four years he was president, the U.S. trade deficit soared to record heights. In 2016, before he took office, the trade deficit was $481 billion. In 2020, it had climbed to $679 billion. Which means that -- like just about everything else Trump falsely promised -- he actually had no idea what he was talking about and made the problem even worse. That's about par for the course, for Trump."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

83 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Republicans In Disarray”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obviously, I have not yet had time to read the FTP column yet but, I just heard that conservatives (what does that term even mean, anymore?) are getting their collective shirt in a knot over Biden saying that he doesn't think it's a good idea to be giving the former president intel briefings.

    What is up with that!?

    Why would they want to keep giving him intel briefings? Do they not see the sheer idiocy inherent in that?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Democrats should really resurrect a political label from the nineteenth century, and start calling pretty much everyone in the entire party "Radical Republicans." That shoe now undeniably fits, so make them wear it, every chance you get.

    You don't think there needs to be a slightly more powerful label from the last century that cuts closer to the truth?

    How about the Proto-Fascist Party?

    I feel the need to explain that I am not saying that the GOP is a fascist party. I am saying that they sure do appear to be heading in that particular direction, hence 'proto'.

    Maybe if everybody who recognizes these malevolent leanings would start calling a spade a spade it might spark some change for the better.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent choice for MIDOTW!

    I predict that, when all is said and done, Biden will be right up there with president Obama in having the highest number of these awards!

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In fact, Manchin's hissy fit actually became the story -- he would have been far better off politically to just have ignored the whole thing or dealt with it by complaining to the White House in private. [my emphasis]

    Very good choice for MDDOTW, too!

    And, that is very good advice, just generally speaking ... for ALL of us. Heh.

  5. [5] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I loved the Axios report on the meeting from hell. Along with the image of Trump watching his advisors savage each other as if it were a TV show being played for his entertainment, this was my favorite bit, below. It occurs in the discussion between the hired gun outsiders (Byrne) vs. the White House staff (Herschmann) about using federal police forces to simply seize state ballots and recount them the right way:

    Then Byrne chimed in: "There are guys with big guns and badges who can get these things." Herschmann couldn't believe it. "What are you, three years old?" he asked.

    As for the Talking Points, I really don't get [5]. To start with, a vanishingly small fraction of Americans know what the historical term Radical Republicans refers to. So if you're going to call today's Republicans by the same name, don't try to gussy it up with absurd historicisms. Just call them the Radical Republicans and see if it flies.

    And think it through. In the 1860s, the Radical Republicans advocated black emancipation, black citizenship, black voting, and black landownership at the expense of the treasonous Southern white elite landowning and slaveholding class. They achieved three of the four, and their failure to get the fourth led directly to Jim Crow and another century of fatal oppression and enserfdom of southern blacks. In other words, the Radical Republicans were civil rights white liberals a century (or two) before their time.

    Now, which of these positions are we mocking today, as opposed to how politically impractical they were back then? Do we really want to say, even if almost no one understands the reference, that today's neo-Confederate Republicans are in any way akin to the heroically liberal and woke Radical Republicans of the Civil War and Reconstruction era?

    For [6], I read today another commentator proposing the acronym MAGA-Qs for the evolving Trumpublican Party. It's pronounced "Maggots".

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I just wanted to mention here, in case there are any newcomers listening in that it does take a little bit of time for your first comment to be posted. But, once that happens, future comments will post immediately. Sometimes, twice! :)

    Also, the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party can be found here on these Friday Talking Points columns ... every Sunday evening, of course, when we push all political commentary to the wayside for a few glorious hours each week and focus on the music, political or otherwise. And, there is even a link on the main page to all of the FTP columns for easy reference!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For [6], I read today another commentator proposing the acronym MAGA-Qs for the evolving Trumpublican Party. It's pronounced "Maggots".

    I sure do hope that sort of juvenile language doesn't find any currency around here.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Moving right along... so far, Democrats are doing an admirable job of painting the entire Republican Party with the crazy QAnon brush...

    I wish they would rather spend their time painting the entire Republican party as the Republican cult of economic failure.

    They should start pointing out what should be obvious by now. That there is a decades long record of Republican administrations leaving 'Augean Stables-esque' economic messes for Democratic administrations to clean up.

    This shouldn't be hard to communicate. But, we are talking about Democrats, after all. Sigh.

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Friday Talking Points -- Republicans In Disarray

    I like this title... but two-point penalty for reusing it so soon:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/07/23/republicans-in-disarray/
    _________________________________________

    What? Did you think no one noticed these kind of things? ;)
    _________________________________________

    Fortunately, you can remedy this unfortunate turn of events with a tiny edit:

    "Friday Talking Points -- Republiqans In Disarray"

    Crisis averted. ;)

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i like GQP better, because the Q looks a lot like an O

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'd propose creating the Pecan Pie Party, but the acronym PPP is already taken by some polling organization. *hmph*

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This is a sad and sorry state of affairs for a once-respectable American political party, obviously. But it doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.

    And when they are cowards, they let you do it. You can do anything… grab 'em by the... Party.

    QOP: Quivering * Owned * Pussies

    Not fair to kittens, I know... apologies.

  13. [13] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    John M from Ct [5] beat me to it: Radical Republicans for this lot dishonors the true Radical Republicans. Republiqans is good, GQP likewise and Trumpublicans; I like QOP but am not sure it would be immediately recognizable enough. It will be fun trying to come up with really good labels, yes? Qapublicans?

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Democrats should really resurrect a political label from the nineteenth century, and start calling pretty much everyone in the entire party "Radical Republicans."

    My crew has taken to calling them the "Greene Party."

    Republican voters support him still. The party is his; it doesn’t belong to anybody else.

    ~ Marjorie Taylor Greene

    *
    Like I said: OWNED

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: That is simply unacceptable. Republicans used to know this, but apparently they've now forgotten such a basic political tenet as "calls for assassinating your opponents are always to be condemned."

    It's a simple concept: If Republicans aren't going to take out their own trash, Democrats must do it for them. Clean House.

  16. [16] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    For anyone interested in Democrats and the progress they are making:
    https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/joe-biden-cabinet-members-confirmations-list/

  17. [17] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    The Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are actually governing, not obsessing on the Republicans. Sadly, you wouldn't know it from reading any of the FTPs columns since 6 November, 2020.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/04/gop-stimulus-minimum-wage-immigration-465981

  18. [18] 
    italyrusty wrote:
  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John M (5)-
    Sorry. I have to agree with you on the Radical Republican term.

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Calling today's Republikillers radical is an insult to real radicals.

    Face it. Republikillers is the best nickname.

    The only reason it has not caught on here is that it came from me and is paired with the also appropriate Deathocrats.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (8)-
    The problem with your comment is that all the Deathocrats did was clean up the floor where the roof collapsed because the leaks were just patched over until the roof collapsed.

    Then they put up the same flawed roof that leaked and will collapse again.

    It's kind of like the airbag recall just covered on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. It turns out that many of the recalled airbags were replaced with the same defective airbags so all they did was reset the clock for the same outcome.

    There is a decades long record of Deathocrats treating symptoms while doing nothing to address the underlying cause of the problems. (see Obamacare for just one example)

    The episode was titled Killer Airbags.

    That's a perfect name for not only the Republikillers and Deathocrats, but for all those in the media that spew their moosepoop for one "side" or the other of the Deathocrat/Republikiller partnership.

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    italyrusty
    17

    The Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are actually governing, not obsessing on the Republicans.

    A huge facet of governing in America involves "obsessing on" your political opponent. Did you miss the Trump impeachment 2.0 where the entire legislative body in the House of Representatives was required to focus on the actions of the POTUS and make an informed decision therefrom?

    Sadly, you wouldn't know it from reading any of the FTPs columns since 6 November, 2020.

    There will be an impeachment trial next week where multiple members of the House of Representatives who've spent weeks and weeks "obsessing on the Republicans" -- with definite and particular emphasis on their deranged former president/now citizen -- where every member of the Senate without exception has sworn to judge the actions of the Republican.

    You might want to avert your eyes if it'll be too upsetting for you. :)

  23. [23] 
    andygaus wrote:

    GQP is better. It has a better ring, and it makes the point that QAnon is their middle name.

  24. [24] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "I wish they would rather spend their time painting the entire Republican party as the Republican cult of economic failure.

    They should start pointing out what should be obvious by now. That there is a decades long record of Republican administrations leaving 'Augean Stables-esque' economic messes for Democratic administrations to clean up."

    The broad American public is getting there. It just hasn't reached critical mass enough yet to overcome the inherent unfairness of the electoral college.

    Democrats have won the popular vote by wide margins in 7 out of the last 8, and in the last 4 consecutive presidential elections in a row. That hasn't happened since FDR was president in the 1930's.

  25. [25] 
    John M wrote:

    [11] nypoet22 wrote:

    "i'd propose creating the Pecan Pie Party, but the acronym PPP is already taken by some polling organization. *hmph*"

    As alternatives, if I may, I would like to submit:

    the Peanut Butter Pie Party PBPP

    the Mississippi Mud Pie Party MMPP

    the patriotic Boston Cream Pie Party BCPP

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    I miss Tim Geithner. No one exposed the Republican cult of economic failure better than him!

    Democrats win the popular vote by wide margins because of just one state. So, it's not that big a deal.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I still like the Proto-Fascist Party the best.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, after the big game, be sure to stop by the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party - I've got some gems to share. And, don't forget to bring your favourite tunes!

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I still like the Proto-Fascist Party the best.

    Let me re-phrase that.

    The label 'proto-fascist party' is what fits the GOP these days the best.

  30. [30] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It’s QOP instead of GOP... QAnon Obsessed Party.

    QOP just alters the first letter, so it is easier for it to almost seem unintentional.

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    My crew has taken to calling them the "Greene Party."

    I’ve seen people still using “GOP”, but calling it “Greene’s Own Party” or “Greene Owned Party”.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why would you want it seem unintentional? Why change the acronym at all, then?

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sure she would love the names with her name in it. ;)

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why are Democrats so bad at this stuff?

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Not only should Officer Brian Sicknick’s name be constantly mentioned during the impeachment hearings, but the two officers who committed suicide in part because they could not handle the guilt they felt in failing to protect the Capitol, and the hundred plus officers that were injured by the terrorists. Read the names of each officer injured and the injuries they suffered. We should want Republicans to have to choose between Trump and Law Enforcement... because I know who the public will stand with every time!

    I think that we should have to hear former Vice President Pence’s personal account of what he and his family experienced that day... something that I have yet to hear anyone report on. His wife and daughter were in the Capitol with him, running from the crowds chanting “Hang Pence!” Maybe Pence should be asked why he believes the crowd was after him? Why did Pence — who technically was not authorized to order the National Guard into DC — have to order the National Guard into DC? Why didn’t former President Trump do it...as was his job??? Pence is a goldmine of information that has yet to be tapped. Maybe he can be convinced that this is last opportunity he has to be standing up for America instead of bending over for Trump!

    AOC’s video describing how terrified she was running from the crowd, trying to find someplace to hide, and then what it was like hiding behind a restroom door as the office she had sought shelter in was overrun by terrorists made clear the horror that January 6 was for so many involved. AOC should not be called to testify, however, as she is too polarizing of a figure to the Republican base.

    I wish Democrats would start raising the point that they are shocked that Junior isn’t wanting to testify. If Daddy is innocent and you know that to be the truth, wouldn’t a son who truly loves his father do ANYTHING it would take to prove Daddy is innocent? It just seems like either Junior knows Trump isn’t so innocent of the charges, or that Junior does not love the sperm donor that forced him upon the world as much as we thought!

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Why would you want it seem unintentional? Why change the acronym at all, then?

    In Southern Sarcasm, every “unintentional” slight is intentional. It is why we smile kindly at you when we say it to your face. Not nearly as effective online.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I see.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ[35],

    Excellent comment - extremely well said!

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I could have done without the last paragraph, though.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    The episode was titled Killer Airbags. That's a perfect name for not only the Republikillers and Deathocrats, but for all those in the media that spew their moosepoop for one "side" or the other of the Deathocrat/Republikiller partnership.

    Yeah. You know what? That does make some degree of sense, especially that last bit about the media.

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    andygaus
    23

    GQP is better. It has a better ring, and it makes the point that QAnon is their middle name.

    Oh, I like this! andygaus is right on target here. JL is dead on accurate too with his point about the "Q" being a lot like the "O"... one need only add a tail, and there you have it.

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    25

    As alternatives, if I may, I would like to submit:

    the Peanut Butter Pie Party PBPP

    Mmmmmm... peanut butter pie.

    the Mississippi Mud Pie Party MMPP

    Mmmmmm... chocolate pie.

    the patriotic Boston Cream Pie Party BCPP

    Mmmmmm... oh, wait! Blasphemy! That ain't pie; it's cake! :p

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    26

    Democrats win the popular vote by wide margins because of just one state. So, it's not that big a deal.

    And with that nugget, you've disclosed that you've fallen for one of the biggest and utterly nonsensical right-wing rhetorical ruses that it's merely one state that gives Democrats a popular vote advantage. Righties generally claim that it's the State of California and then deduct the Democratic candidates' vote totals from that state as proof of their point... as if the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia don't figure into said totals in any way. They do.

    Using an equally nonsensical calculation, Democrats could claim in similar fashion that "it's not that big a deal" they didn't win a majority of the Electoral College votes "because of just one state"... Texas. Of course, when you do that, you're also discounting the other 49 states and the District of Columbia that absolutely do factor into the Electoral College totals.

    Trump's losing gambit/con in the 2020 presidential election was to lie and attempt to exclude the votes of certain voters in multiple states wherein he definitely lost the popular vote and thereby lost the Electoral College votes of those states to Biden. Since Poor Donald won 232 Electoral College votes, why didn't Trump simply use that California exclusion technique that Righties are famous for and claim that he won the presidency because he won the majority of votes in California and therefore their 55 Electoral College votes? Heck, why stop at 287? Why didn't Trump claim he won in a "landslide" because he also won his (up until recently) home State of New York and a total of 316 ECVs? I mean, if you're going to spew lying rhetoric that you "won in a landslide" and "fraud," why not go for the really big states with lots of people and the corresponding ECVs?

    So to recap: "Democrats win the popular vote by wide margins because of just one state" is as equally ridiculous and nonsensical as Donald Trump's bullshit that he won in a landslide because there was a whole lot of fraud in the states he happened to have lost. Trump might as well claim he won the presidency by conning the Righties and their ilk that he won the presidency because he won California.

    The presidential "popular vote" total is a statistical total only that does not decide the presidency and is determined by a totality of votes including all recorded valid votes regardless of the residential location of the voters. One's vote isn't diminished or discounted as "no big deal" simply because they live in one state versus another.

    You're too smart to fall for that right-wing rhetorical bullshit, EM, but I'll let it slide this time. :)

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    31

    I’ve seen people still using “GOP”, but calling it “Greene’s Own Party” or “Greene Owned Party”.

    Russ! I know, right! Also can't wait to see what this guy has to say about it too:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ8ldD9wKmY

    Heh.

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    35

    Yes, sir... all this!

    There are multiple injuries that have been suffered by approximately 140 additional police officers whom many will now live with these injuries for the remainder of their lives... injuries inflicted by the Trump Terrorists. The most common injuries sustained were concussions and traumatic brain injuries, an officer who has lost an eye, officers with broken ribs, smashed spinal discs, stab wounds from metal fence stakes, and multiple injuries sustained from beatings by the flagpoles from the myriad of Trump Cult flags carried by the American domestic terrorists.

    The Pence angle along with the president's multiple phone calls to Georgia officials illegally seeking to interfere in the 2020 presidential election are the (as yet) most underreported aspects of this entire saga. What Trump asked Mike Pence to do was criminal. The brief by the House of Representatives contains a section regarding Trump explicitly asking Mike Pence to unilaterally discount certain electoral votes:

    C. Vice President Pence Refuses to Overturn the Election Results

    By the time the rally began, President Trump had nearly run out of options. He had only one card left to play: his Vice President. But in an act that President Trump saw as an unforgivable betrayal, Vice President Pence refused to violate his oath and constitutional duty—and, just hours later, had to be rushed from the Senate chamber to escape an armed mob seeking vengeance.

    In the weeks leading up to the rally, President Trump had furiously lobbied Vice President Pence to refuse to count electoral votes for President Biden from any of the swing states.68 These demands ignored the reality that the Vice President has no constitutional or statutory authority to take that step. Over and over again, President Trump publicly declared that if Vice President Pence refused to block the Joint Session from finalizing President Biden’s victory, then the election, the party, and the country would be lost. “I hope Mike Pence comes through for us, I have to tell you,” President Trump said in Georgia on January 4.69 The next day, he tweeted: “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency.”70 President Trump reiterated this demand just hours before the rally: “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”71 On the morning of January 6, President Trump reportedly told Vice President Pence, “You can either go down in history as a patriot, or you can go down in history as a pussy.”72

    Later that day, while President Trump was speaking at his rally, Vice President Pence issued a public letter rejecting President Trump’s threats. “It is my considered judgment,” he wrote, “that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.”73

    This letter sounded the death knell to any peaceful methods of overturning the election outcome. It was well known that the House and Senate were going to count the lawfully certified electoral votes they had received. President Trump’s efforts to coerce election officials, state legislatures, the DOJ, Members of Congress, and his own Vice President had all failed. But he had long made it clear that he would never accept defeat. He would fight until the bitter end. And all that remained for President Trump was the seething crowd before him—known to be poised for violence at his instigation—and the Capitol building just a short march away, where Vice President Pence presided over the final, definitive accounting of President Trump’s electoral loss.

    https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_trial_brief_final.pdf

    *
    The public has yet to learn the extent to which Trump individually and the Trump campaign and its regular criminal lineup of felons like Flynn, Stone, etc. were directly involved in the insurrection... but this is far from over.

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    And with that nugget, you've disclosed that you've fallen for one of the biggest and utterly nonsensical right-wing rhetorical ruses that it's merely one state that gives Democrats a popular vote advantage.

    Actually, no.

    What I said was that, and I quote, "Democrats win the popular vote by wide margins because of just one state." It's right up there at the top of your post! Heh.

    So, to recap:

    Actually, no.

    What I said was that, and I quote, "Democrats win the popular vote by wide margins because of just one state." It's right up there at the top of your post! Heh.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, and, GO CHIEFS!!!

  48. [48] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [43]

    If that's your version of let it slide then I have been wise to never piss off Kick nosiree.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick can sometimes end up over the skis, so to speak. :)

    Will you be coming to the party tonight - after the game, of course?

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, that was fun.

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, now it's time for the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party!

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Been immersing myself in the ecclectic Vancouver music scene of the 60s to 80s and you know what that means!

    First off, here is PRiSM with Ron Tabak and Open Soul Surgery from their first and self-titled studio album:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYoQiI71jc

    Sadly, we lost the soaring voice of Tabak on Christmas Day, 1984 way too soon and unnecessarily. More about that another time.

    But, when bandmate Lindsay Mitchell first heard Axl Rose singing Sweet Child 'O Mine he thought Ron had risen from the grave. It really is wierd watching Rose sing this song but hearing Ron's voice coming out of his mouth!

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, then, Sweet Child 'O Mine, just for fun and comparison ...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w7OgIMMRc4

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I stumbled across this video the other day and remembered that it won some awards and is maybe the most watched music video or so I've heard ... it's Peter Gabriel and Sledgehammer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g93mz_eZ5N4

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, for a very special treat ...

    Recently, I discovered a great music program on Pacific Northwest Radio that I'd like to share with everyone here.

    It's called Green Beans, Mushroom Soup and Strawberry Ice Cream (GBMS&SIC, for short ... heh), a podcast hosted by Marc Gladstone, who is currently PRiSM's keyboardist!

    Marc plays some great classic tunes and new music from new and classic artists along with some great commentary. It's just a lot of great fun!

    Here is a link to his latest show with new music released during the Fall of 2020 from Saga, AC/DC, Paul McCartney and others. He plays two new songs from Taylor Swift, incredibly ... and, like he said, it's surprisingly awesome!

    Enjoy,
    https://gbms-and-sic.captivate.fm/episode/the-cutting-edge-fall-2020?fbclid=IwAR2mx7JGmU6iMSARS5DFeagibTrYjf2yWAmJOYrFM0lxFRIPSrBpqIO7LCo

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, right now, I'd like to make a special dedication ...

    ... the next few tunes are for you, Chris (CW) and, most especially, for Mrs. Chris Weigant. I hope you will both love these tunes as much as I do!

    I could listen to Gary Moore and his guitar all day and night. Before heading into his solo career, he played with Skid Row (the Irish band) and Thin Lizzy...

    But, here is a live performance of Still Got The Blues...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O_YMLDvvnw

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yet another phenomenal musician gone too soon from a heart attack in his sleep (1952-2011).

    Gone but never forgotten, RIP Gary Moore,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN0c6IfMkac&list=RD4O_YMLDvvnw&index=18

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I really love this guy!

    I Love You More Than You'll Ever Know - Live
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvwbtILwNis

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll end this special dedication segment with my current addiction, Fil from Pegasus, analyzing a very rare video of George Harrison, Gary Moore and Ringo playing While My Guitar Gently Weeps ... this is George Harrison's last concert which was not officially recorded. This recording is by the fans!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M9zUQT1QYE&t=0s

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wow. I can't believe I got through all that without mixing up the links! Woot. :)

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One more from Gary Moore who left us 10 years ago this month.

    This video is his last public performance in the United Kingdom ...

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

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Finally, Gary Moore - Live - Belfast 1989

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx-bTxtWdE

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    46

    What I said was that, and I quote, "Democrats win the popular vote by wide margins because of just one state." It's right up there at the top of your post! Heh.

    Yes, Elizabeth, you've absolutely and definitely fallen for that right-wing ruse. You still cannot win the "popular vote by wide margins" without including the voters from the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. It's simply nonsensical rhetoric that you fell hard for, and it's also simple math.

    If you discount/subtract the Democratic candidates' votes made by a million voters from multiple of the other states plus DC, you quite obviously lose your so-called rhetorical ruse "wide-margin win" because of "one state."

    Allow me to demonstrate via science... math to be specific:

    FL.... 5,297,045 Democratic votes becomes 4,297,045
    OH... 2,684,292 Democratic votes becomes 1,684,292
    TX.... 5,259,126 Democratic votes becomes 4,259,126
    IL..... 3,471,915 Democratic votes becomes 2,471,915
    NY.... 5,241,957 Democratic votes becomes 4,241,957
    MA... 2,382,202 Democratic votes becomes 1,382,202
    MD... 1,985,023 Democratic votes becomes 985,023

    As an added bonus, not a single one of these existing voters that I'm excluding/discounting in the above states changes the outcome of the Electoral College count in any way whatsoever because Florida, Ohio and Texas were won by the Republican candidates Trump/Pence, while Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland were won by Biden/Harris with 1,000,000+ voters in excess of the Trump/Pence voters.

    If the wide-margin win existed "because of just one state," there would be nothing I could do in the other states/DC to create a small margin... but I just did. I subtracted 7 million votes for Biden/Harris without changing the outcome of the Electoral College.

    I can also further erode that so called "wide-margin win" "because of just one state" by excluding/subtracting half million chunks of Biden/Harris voters from the District of Columbia, Virginia, etc. and still without changing a single outcome in the Electoral College count... but there's no need.

    Now let's do percentages:

    Biden/Harris..... 81,281,502... 51.3%
    Trump/Pence.... 74,222,593... 46.9%
    All Others............ 2,890,510... 1.8%

    There's your "wide margin" of victory.

    So, to recap: Not rocket science ----> simple math. Your so-called "wide margins" don't come from a single state. Exclude the voters from multiple other states that do not affect the Electoral College totals in any way, and that theory is exposed for the bullshit that it's always been.

    A single state in America does not produce a wide-margin win without including the votes of the other states you're excluding as if they don't matter. The other votes combine to produce it.

    Science... go figure. ;)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Do I have a song for that:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7796-au8U

    Duh.

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You just can't help it, can ya? ;)

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I'll end my portion of the festivities around here with a little something from my favourite rock band of all time, PRiSM - the Ron Tabak Era.

    Also off of their phenomenal debut album, have a listen to Vladivostok... turn it up loud!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87g5Rckyruk

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    47

    Oh, and, GO CHIEFS!!!

    Oh, the Chiefs' offensive line was horrendous today. Still proud of our Patrick, though; he did about as good as he could under the circumstances of getting his ass kicked by Tampa. Win some, lose some.

    Do I have a song for that?

    Sweet Seasons:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfrsYOp9Kk

    You just know Carole King was referring to football seasons, right? ;) *heh*

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Let's look at the four most populous states, shall we, and at the vote totals for Biden and Trump.

    Let's stipulate that Texas and Florida don't really make a hill of beans of difference in the overall vote count margin for Biden over Trump - those states were pretty close in terms of number of votes separating the two candidates.

    Now here is where it gets interesting ...

    In New York and California you see the biggest margin in percentage of votes in favour of Biden - 61% to 38% and 64% to 34%, respectively.

    Are ya following me, so far?

    Excellent!

    Now, let's take a closer look at the big blue state of California. It has the largest population of any state, by a lot! Twice as populous as New York, even.

    Consequently, the difference between each candidate's vote total in one state called Golden is, in a word, humongous. Or, ginormous, to put it another way.

    In California, Biden got in excess of 5 million more votes than Trump. That represents the widest vote margin between the candidates in ANY state or territory or the District of Columbia.

    Now, let us look at the whole country and see how many more votes were cast in Biden's favour than in Trump's ... Biden got about 7 million more votes than Trump.

    What was the vote difference in California, again?

    So, to recap, never mind. Sigh.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry but, I was trying to make that the snarkiest comment ever. Heh.

  71. [71] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    okay, i'll rise to the snark challenge.

    if not for california, biden would have only won the popular vote by 2 million. and if not for having balls, my uncle would be my aunt.

    JL

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, now THAT was funny.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, there is another way of looking at it, too. Which doesn't involve ignoring anybody's vote.

    To illustrate, let's say that in California the votes were divided up a little more evenly, like the situation in Texas or Florida, with similar numbers of votes for each candidate.

    If that were the case, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we? But, it's not, so we are. Heh.

  74. [74] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [71]

    ...and subtracting California's 55 Electoral votes would still leave Joe beating Trump 251-232.

    This despite the preponderance of Red versus Blue states remaining.

  75. [75] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [73]

    Naw, that'd never happen. There's way too many of us Loud and Proud Libtards in all the settled real estate and too few farmers and rednecks out in the deserts and mountains.

  76. [76] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    FYI up here in the mountains -- in ruby Red CA-8 -- I supervised numerous Big Bear elections and learned that registered voters were only 60%-40% Republican over Democratic. I'd expected that ratio to be 75%-25% or more. Therefore there were plenty of Trump voters throughout all California.

    Also, Joe won California's popular vote eleven million to six.

  77. [77] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (Note to Self: read the preceding comments and avoid redundancy.)

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    69

    Let's look at the four most populous states, shall we, and at the vote totals for Biden and Trump.

    Why bother looking at those others states if you're hell-bent on discounting their voters' contribution to the margins of victory in the popular vote total? Yin the last

    Let's stipulate that Texas and Florida don't really make a hill of beans of difference in the overall vote count margin for Biden over Trump - those states were pretty close in terms of number of votes separating the two candidates.

    Now here is where it gets interesting ...

    In New York and California you see the biggest margin in percentage of votes in favour of Biden - 61% to 38% and 64% to 34%, respectively.

    Are ya following me, so far?

    Excellent!

    Now, let's take a closer look at the big blue state of California. It has the largest population of any state, by a lot! Twice as populous as New York, even.

    Consequently, the difference between each candidate's vote total in one state called Golden is, in a word, humongous. Or, ginormous, to put it another way.

    In California, Biden got in excess of 5 million more votes than Trump. That represents the widest vote margin between the candidates in ANY state or territory or the District of Columbia.

    Now, let us look at the whole country and see how many more votes were cast in Biden's favour than in Trump's ... Biden got about 7 million more votes than Trump.

    What was the vote difference in California, again?

    So, to recap, never mind. Sigh.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    HOW DID THAT POST BEFORE I FINISHED IT?

    EDIT BELOW

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    69

    Let's look at the four most populous states, shall we, and at the vote totals for Biden and Trump.

    Why bother even looking at those other states if you're hellbent on discounting their voters' contribution to the margins of victory in the popular vote total over the most recent elections in America's history? You do understand the definition of "total"? Also: Your context was the popular vote total and margins of victory in the most recent elections. Context:

    Democrats have won the popular vote by wide margins in 7 out of the last 8, and in the last 4 consecutive presidential elections in a row. That hasn't happened since FDR was president in the 1930's.

    ~ John M.

    *
    You're talking popular vote totals and trying to discount 49 states and the District of Columbia and their role in contributing to the popular vote totals in 7 out of the last 8 elections, which was the point John M had made.

    Your claim is that California alone produces those wide margins of victory in that context. As if.

    This ain't rocket science, Canada. The State of California alone did not produce wide margin popular vote totals in 7 out of the last 8 elections.

    Let's stipulate that Texas and Florida don't really make a hill of beans of difference in the overall vote count margin for Biden over Trump - those states were pretty close in terms of number of votes separating the two candidates.

    Remember your context, Canada. Also, you're easily proving my point rather than your own. While Florida has been a so-called swing state for the time period John M. was discussing, Texas most definitely has not. It wasn't that long ago when Texas was being lost by huge double digits to Republican presidential candidates. Fast forward to now and it's a swing state where you're determined to discount the gains in Democratic votes to the popular vote margin of victory. California alone isn't producing the gains in the margins of victory in context to the elections you were discussing.

    In New York and California you see the biggest margin in percentage of votes in favour of Biden - 61% to 38% and 64% to 34%, respectively.

    Incorrect. Try DC and Vermont... 92% and 66%.

    Now, let's take a closer look at the big blue state of California. It has the largest population of any state, by a lot! Twice as populous as New York, even.

    Nice try, Canada... but context... and not twice as populous as Texas with approximately 30 million in 2020.

    Want to know why you're proving my point in context?

    California
    2020: 39,368,078
    2010: 37,253,956
    Increase of 5.7%

    Texas
    2020: 29,360,759
    2010: 25,145,561
    Increase of 16.8%

    The population of Texas is increasing exponentially versus that of California... and that's just over the last 2 elections where your context... John M's, of course... is over the last 8 elections.

    I'll let you in on another little (not a) secret. A whole bunch of registered voters have moved from California to Texas, and they're still voting for Democratic candidates. Just because they live in Texas now doesn't mean they're not still contributing to the so-called wide margin vote totals. Quite the contrary, in fact. They're just contributing to the popular vote total while residing in a whole other state.

    Still not rocket science.

    So to recap: If you can't understand this, like I already said, I'm willing to let it slide... but if you're going to keep insisting that California alone produced the wide margins of victory in the context y'all were speaking about, then you are free to own that nonsensical spew. :)

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    70

    Sorry but, I was trying to make that the snarkiest comment ever. Heh.

    You missed the "snark" mark and landed squarely on "clueless."

    Your "snark" doesn't count anyway since Weigantia's well-known "wide margin" of snark can be attributed to only one single person: nypoet22. ;)

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    71

    okay, i'll rise to the snark challenge.

    You needn't bother... ALL the snark is attributed to you and you alone.

    if not for california, biden would have only won the popular vote by 2 million.

    Would we call that a "wide margin"?

    and if not for having balls, my uncle would be my aunt.

    Heh. :)

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    78

    And, there is another way of looking at it, too. Which doesn't involve ignoring anybody's vote.

    Translation: "Weigantia: I have a shovel."

    To illustrate, let's say that in California the votes were divided up a little more evenly, like the situation in Texas or Florida, with similar numbers of votes for each candidate.

    Remember your context being the prior 8 presidential elections, and recognize the fact that Texas hasn't always been "divided up a little more evenly"... and far, far from it.

Comments for this article are closed.