A Wonky Diversion
Since we're all going to be busy tonight watching the next round of election returns come in, I'm not even going to attempt any political analysis today. Everything might change in a couple of hours, so why bother? Instead, I'm going to just toss out a wonky diversion for everyone to contemplate while we wait for West Podunk County to get its act together and get the damn numbers in to election central.
Yesterday, I made my predictions of who would win the night, of course. In doing so I made a prediction that if Bernie has a big night tonight, the brighter members of the political media would pounce on a disparity which already exists -- but which will become much more pronounced with a Bernie win in Ohio or Illinois. Here's what I wrote:
But I'll go one step further -- if my predictions do turn out to be correct for Democrats, here's my prediction for the storyline the media is going to start running with, starting Wednesday morning. If Sanders does pick up two or even three states, the narrative is going to quickly shift to: "Clinton having problems winning states outside the South," or, to put it slightly differently: "Clinton winning red states, Sanders winning blue states." When you look at the map of how each state is likely to vote in November -- and, again, if I'm right about even two out of the three states I've called for Bernie -- then it's going to be noticeable which states the two candidates are respectively winning. That's my guess, anyway.
Today, I wondered what the data are already showing, so I looked it up and came up with a few lists. Again, I'm not going to attempt to draw conclusions (there's tomorrow for that), but instead just wanted to provide the data for people to think about.
Here are the state races each candidate has won, together with a measure of how "blue" they are. This is done by counting up how many times in the last six elections the state has gone for the Democratic candidate in the general election. A perfectly blue state -- a member of the "big blue wall" -- scores a six. A perfectly red state scores a zero. A three means equally purple, voting Democratic three times and Republican three times.
Let's take a look at the data for each candidate. The state name is preceded by the number of times it has gone Democratic, and followed by the years in which this happened.
Hillary Clinton
[6] -- Massachusetts -- 12, 08, 04, 00, 96, 92
[5] -- Iowa -- 12, 08, 00, 96, 92
[4] -- Nevada -- 12, 08, 96, 92
[2] -- Arkansas -- 96, 92
[2] -- Louisiana -- 96, 92
[2] -- Tennessee -- 96, 92
[2] -- Virginia -- 12, 08
[1] -- Georgia -- 92
[0] -- Alabama
[0] -- Mississippi
[0] -- South Carolina
[0] -- Texas
Bernie Sanders
[6] -- Maine -- 12, 08, 04, 00, 96, 92
[6] -- Michigan -- 12, 08, 04, 00, 96, 92
[6] -- Minnesota -- 12, 08, 04, 00, 96, 92
[6] -- Vermont -- 12, 08, 04, 00, 96, 92
[5] -- New Hampshire -- 12, 08, 04, 96, 92
[3] -- Colorado -- 12, 08, 92
[0] -- Kansas
[0] -- Nebraska
[0] -- Oklahoma
Voting Today
[6] -- Illinois -- 12, 08, 04, 00, 96, 92
[4] -- Ohio -- 12, 08, 96, 92
[3] -- Florida -- 12, 08, 96
[2] -- Missouri -- 96, 92
[1] -- North Carolina -- 08
A few technical notes are necessary. Nebraska technically had one Electoral College vote for Barack Obama in 2008 (Nebraska and Maine can split their Electoral College votes). Some would say Florida really deserves a [4], with 2000 added in (the Supreme Court, however, disagreed).
The years are important, too, because they show which way the state is trending over time. Some states (Ohio and Nevada, notably) seem to vote shrewdly for the winner, every year. But in other states, there is a marked trend towards either one party or the other. Missouri is trending Republican, having voted for Bill Clinton twice but since gone GOP. Clinton was kind of a special case, because he was a Southerner, so he won states like Louisiana and Tennessee (and his home state of Arkansas) which are likely now beyond reach for Democrats (and for a long time to come). Virginia, however, was lost twice by Clinton but voted for Obama twice, so it is trending in the other direction even though it scores the same [2] as Arkansas or Tennessee.
In tonight's voting, Hillary Clinton is expected to pick up Florida and North Carolina. Now, North Carolina could be trending Democratic, but Obama lost it in 2012. Florida is more solidly leaning Democratic, and is a heavyweight in the Electoral College.
Of the remaining three states which are up for grabs, Missouri is quite likely beyond reach for Democrats in the 2016 general election. It'd take a real landslide to turn Missouri blue, in other words (which, this year, is entirely possible). But the other two are key states for Democrats' hopes this November. Which is why it'll be important to see whether Bernie or Hillary wins in Ohio and Illinois.
If Bernie wins both states, you can see (by the lists above) that he'll be holding a much stronger hand, seen through the lens of the general election. Of the six "big blue wall" states who have already voted or are voting today, Bernie has already won four and Illinois would make it five. If he wins Ohio, he'll have a [3], a [4], and a [5] to go with it.
If Hillary wins Illinois and Ohio, she'll have a much better record, with two [6] states, a [5], two [4] wins, and a [3]. If she loses Ohio and Illinois, however, the contrast between the two candidates is going to be stark, which is why I predicted it'll be all anyone will be talking about Wednesday morning -- "Why can't Hillary win blue states?"
Now, counting past performance does not guarantee future results, of course. Ask any investment banker, they'll tell you. To put this another way, none of this may mean anything in the long run. If Hillary manages to beat Bernie in either Ohio or Illinois, this storyline might not even see the light of day (it will be replaced, instead, with a return to the "Hillary inevitable" theme).
And even that is putting it mildly, in this particular election year. If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, or if there is some party-fracturing Republican national convention this year, then all bets might be off. The size of a Democratic landslide might be so massive that splitting wonky hairs in this fashion might be laughable in retrospect. This year, all the rules have been thrown out -- which is why I'm not trying to predict anything, just thought I'd pass along the data I spent the afternoon collecting.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Today's anecdote: spoke to an early-twenties black man while walking dog -- he'd voted for Bernie. He'd been leaning Hillary initially, but worries about "some of her past votes". Said there's no question he'll vote for Hillary if she beats Bernie, but he'd like Bernie to win. Said there's no possible way he'd vote Republican -- they would turn us back a hundred years.
I thought about asking people their thoughts where I voted today, but it didn't seem comfortable -- not enough privacy. According to the volunteers turnout has been high, at least here in our district. I figure tomorrow will be a new ballgame based on tonight's results so will be interested in people's thoughts after some of this shakes out.
Meanwhile Ben Carson admits he is backing Trump because Trump has promised him a job, and also says even if Trump is a bad President it will only be for 4 years. Hard not to be inspired!
Fl just called for Trump and Clinton. No surprise, except maybe to Marco...
-CW
OH's looking pretty good for Hillary, at least so far...
-CW
rubio is getting heckled during his concession speech. yikes!
JL
NC goes Clinton. Again, no surprise. OH still looking really good for Hillary.
-CW
OH called for Clinton. That was a crucial win for her...
-CW
Kasich takes OH. Favorite son wins day!
:-)
-CW
Bully for kasich!
Hillary wins Ohio -- wow.
I really didn't want Kasich to win because he's seen, erroniously, as "reasonable" -- but for now I'll take him over Trump.
Paula -
The only way Kasich wins is at the convention. He needs 110% of all remaining delegates to get a majority, so that ain't gonna happen...
-CW
Confession time:
TheStig used the Ohio Open Primary Option to vote Kasich. My first vote for the K. man, and almost certainly my last.
Divide and conquer is a two edged sword Monsieur Trump!
I wonder how many other Ohio Dems used this micro nuclear option...and whether reliable estimates can be teased out by pollsters?
nonetheless, kasich is the kind of candidate that i can respect, even if i disagree with his policies and views.
Chris: I know Kasich isn't going to win -- at least, not without some impressive shenanigans, which would be interesting indeed. I just meant it's nice to have denied Trump Ohio, even if the instrument had to be Kasich.
TheStig: I wonder too.
"I wonder how many other Ohio Dems used this micro nuclear option...and whether reliable estimates can be teased out by pollsters?"
I was watching MSLSD earlier this evening and Steve Kornacki was giving exit polling numbers on that. I'm struggling with this time change and I fell asleep. I don't remember the numbers, but they were substantial.
Trump's insane word salad is served.
Trump's having a good night so far. FL, NC, IL, and he's still got a good shot at MO.
Yeah, I've got him yapping on in the background, too...
-CW
" We need the rich in order to make the great, I'm sorry to tell you. "
lol
There's no way I could actually bear to watch a Trump speech, but I'm seeing on TPM that Trump's "Victory Speech" in Palm Beach tonight was big on slamming the media and complaining about negative ads, etc. Anyone see that?
Actually, Paula, his bit on the negative ads was hilarious.
(19) In a good way?
LizM -
I missed that bit, but saw the "disgusting" media riff. Not so funny...
He also trolled them into thinking he'd answer questions again, but then didn't.
Race is razor-thin in MO for Trump. Bernie up, but not by a whole lot. Clinton still has big lead in IL, but slowly shrinking.
-CW
Surprisingly, yes! It was the closest I've seen him come to some pretty funny self-deprecating humour.
He was talking about his big PGA golf tournament and he was taking part in the trophy ceremony and the television cut to a commercial and he was telling everybody "Don't watch, don't watch the TV ... look at the beautiful golf greens here, look how beautiful they are!
And, then it was back to the tournament closing ceremonies but then another break for a commercial and yeah, you guessed it, more negative Trump ads with Trump trying to distract everyone from watching them.
It was pretty funny.
Chris,
I believe you and I have found the media to be pretty darn disgusting, at times, too ... no?
Don't forget about the big part the media has played in enabling Trumpism.
Chris,
He also trolled them into thinking he'd answer questions again, but then didn't.
Well, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed that bit, too. :)
LizM -
Yeah, but I like to think I'm polite enough not to say it to their faces!
Heh.
:-)
-CW
I just wondered if he seemed "statesmanlike" in his speech.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far ... :)
Though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a whole other Trump persona if he actually ends up with the Republican nomination.
Of course, that assumes that his gig so far has been an act.
(29) The impression I'm getting is that Trump's achilles heel is his cherished reputation for "success" -- when he's challenged on that his charm recedes. He clearly has a charisma, but it seems to be at its best when everything goes his way. He is NOT used to being challenged or having to explain himself. He is not capable of taking responsibility for anything other than "success" -- even if the supposed success is illusory.
I think his entire life is an act.
LizM -
You're right -- Trump is going to prove more of a chameleon than anyone expects, that's my guess.
He's actually gotten better as a candidate as time has gone on -- not so much on the stump (that's already working for him just fine), but in interviews over the past 3 months or so.
The general could see a whole different Trump, that's for sure.
-CW
Forgot to update my record.
GOP side, doing pretty well, 4-for-4. Cruz is down only 3K votes in MO, with almost a million votes cast, so I still might pull that last one out.
Not as good on the Dem side, got overly Bernie-optimistic. 2-for-3 so far. Bernie up in MO, but not by a lot, and down in IL by a substantial amount. Over 80% of vote counted in both states, no winners called yet.
I'm going to claim bragging rights for calling MO the closest race of the night, however!
:-)
-CW
Trump doesn't handle challenges from his political opponents very well at all. Consequently, I think he is prone to a meltdown.
Which is why Kasich is going all the way to Cleveland. He's hoping for a surprise or two or more along the way ...
Not as good on the Dem side, got overly Bernie-optimistic.
Feeling the Bern, were you? :)
LizM -
Got Berned in Ohio, so to speak.
Heh.
Hey, I've been overly Clinton-optimistic for the past two go-rounds, so I thought I'd lean Bernie this time just to see what happened. A lot of my predictions come more from the gut than the polling....
:-)
-CW
Speaking of Clinton, she really must stop yelling about how great a night she's had. It's very unbecoming. Especially when she hasn't much of voice left to yell with.
She keeps insisting on reminding me why I don't much like her. :)
I'm listening right now and I think she sounds great! Her voice is tired but I think it just makes her more impressive. But I guess I'm biased for rather than against her.
I thought she sounded like she was thinking: "Can I finally pivot to my general election strategy?!?"
:-)
Campaigning's harder than it looks. Bernie's been a little rough-voiced at times throughout the contest, too.
-CW
Note that I didn't slam her for yelling ... I slammed her for yelling about having such a great night. You know, the whole me, me and me thing ...
"Campaigning's harder than it looks."
Hillary and Bernie had townhalls two nights in a row -- after flying all over and speaking multiple times a day -- they have to be exhausted.
I've heard both Hillary and Bernie sound hoarse. Grueling.
Why should she wait until the general ... she should be practicing that strategy on Bernie when she can.
Particularly with respect to his stance on the Wall Street bailout. You, hone it now during the primaries so it'll be all polished up for the general.
Oh, campaigning is much harder than it looks. And, from my vantage point, it looks pretty damn hard.
I wouldn't be able to do it ... and I'm A LOT younger than most of them. Ahem.
Btw, from the comment totals compared with the actual number of posted comments on the last few pieces, it looks as though several people over at HuffPost may have taken Michale up on his CW.com invites ... the moderator around here better get busy!
They just called IL for Clinton, so I'm 2-for-4 on the Dem side for the night...
sigh...
-CW
You're doing pretty good, considering the inherent chaos of this primary season ... whiskey anyone?
LizM -
Only if it's Jameson's... heh. I mean, that Canuck stuff might be OK in a pinch, but Jameson's goes down smoother...
Heh. Just getting ready for Paddy's Day!
-CW
Well, I'm just gonna have to disregard comment [47] ... right after I wish you a happy Paddy's Day!
Clinton takes the lead in MO... not looking like a good night for either me or Bernie...
:-(
-CW
As me relatives would say (lifting a shot of Jameson's to you...):
May the wind be always at your back,
May the road rise up to meet you,
May your soul be in Heaven
A half-hour before the Devil knows you're dead...
Sláinte!
:-)
-CW
Just remember, if Bernie had his way, we would all still be laboring under the impacts of the Second Great Depression.
A lovely toast, indeed. :)
Looks like 100% of MO is in, a very narrow win for Clinton and Trump -- interestingly enough, with hundreds of thousands of votes tallied (almost a million, on the GOP side), both won by around 1,600 votes...
OK, that's it. I'm going to bed. 2-for-5 on the Dem side, 4-for-5 on the GOP. I've had better nights...
-CW
It's going to be Trump V Clinton in the General..
I had a sneaky hope for Trump V Sanders because that would have made the General a fun election...
But Trump V Clinton is also going to be fun..
Clinton playing by Queensberry rules and Trump chair slamming her over the back of the head.. :D
Even without the FBI recommendation of indictment, I think Trump can take Hillary.. As I have said ad nasuem, this is an insurgency election and Clinton is the Establishment Candidate..
But the Clinton indictment, either by the DOJ or the CPO, will eliminate Clinton as a viable candidate and insure that the White House will flip to the GOP..
Get used to saying PRESIDENT TRUMP, people.. :D
Michale
Anyone notice access to cw.com is especially slow this morning??
Michale
The General Election can be summed up thusly..
HOPE AND CHANGE was a dismal failure..
It's been supplanted by KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES...
:D
Michale
Trump 2016 Kicking female reporter ass by proxy and taking down the names of people to sue for exercising their 1st amendment rights.
Trump 2016 Kicking female reporter ass by proxy and taking down the names of people to sue for exercising their 1st amendment rights.
As opposed to the Left Wingery who assault and destroy property of people for exercising their 1st Amendment rights..
Of the two, it's obvious which you prefer.. :D
Michale
Well, we have Obama's pick for SCOTUS...
But, the GOP will follow The Biden Rule and let the next POTUS pick the nominee..
What could be more bi-partisan than that!??
The GOP following the recommendation of the Democrat VP... :D
Michale
The pundits have been pretty quiet this Wed. AM, probably because they stayed up late last night. To the extent there is a consensus, I would characterize it:
Clinton had a good night,
and
Trump had a good enough night.
The above is pledged delegate driven thinking, but Kasich signals some stomach for a Cleveland floor fight over the soul of the GOP. Possibly a double secret putsch (don't rule this out, 'cause the rules are murky), or failing that, a serious 3rd party effort by Conservative Republicans. Trump could be on his way to winning a hollowed out GOP shell. Seriously people, does anybody actually know who or what owns the Republican trademark, and Stampy the mascot Elephant. Magombo!*
The prediction markets show both Clinton and Trump climbing in terms of winning party nomination (both overwhelming favorites at 90% and 60%, respectively) and winning the presidency (Clinton at a record 70%, Trump 22%, gaining back some lost ground). The generic Democrat: Republican race that hovered for so many months at 60:40 odds has moved into 75:25 territory, Democrat advantage (nice consistency that). As I interpret this, the Markets see Trump as a relatively weak candidate in the General Election even as he claws his way to winning the Republican nomination. Trump does great in the Red Bastions, but he's doubtful in the Purple Belt.
I tend to agree with the markets, but I also think the polls will be increasingly reliable moving forward. Polls have trouble with big fields.
* Stampy's safe word, obscure Simpson's references
Meanwhile, Obama is allegedly about to announce a SCOTUS nominee, on whom the Senate will refuse to advise him, opting instead to refuse to consider any possibility of confirming a justice as long as there's a Democratic president and a Republican majority in the Senate.
They don't have to consent to the appointment of any particular nominee. "Consent" that's mandatory is no consent at all.
But they do have to advise. They have to either substantively consider an individual nominee (and either confirm or report their reasons for rejecting), or provide substantive criteria that a potential nominee would have to meet in order to be considered. Anything less does not fulfill their constitutional duty to provide "advice".
At the same time, the Constitution clearly gives each house of Congress the authority to make its own rules. The Senate can have a 60-vote threshold for confirmation. It just has to do it in a way that allows it to do what the Constitution requires it to do.
I currently think the Senate should adopt some version of "talking filibuster" for nominations. That could simply be the one-track filibuster, where a senator who wants to block a confirmation process can do so only by blocking all Senate business. Or it could be the basic talking filibuster, where a senator must be present on the floor and speaking in order to halt the process of evaluating a nominee. Or it could include a requirement that the speech be germane.
Meanwhile, Obama is allegedly about to announce a SCOTUS nominee, on whom the Senate will refuse to advise him, opting instead to refuse to consider any possibility of confirming a justice as long as there's a Democratic president and a Republican majority in the Senate.
Yea.. The Biden Rule... Except back when Biden made the rule it was a GOP President and a Democrat majority in the Senate... :D
Pretty short-sighted to make the rule then, as proven by the circumstances of the here and now..
And so it goes and so it goes.... :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Get used to saying PRESIDENT TRUMP, people.. :D"
Actually Michale, I think YOU should get used to saying PRESIDENT CLINTON. :-D A lot of people may dislike Hillary, but a lot more people hate Donald, and can't stomach the idea of him, including most of the current Republican establishment, whereas Hillary has no such problem on her side.
I just have to post this link to a Tom Friedman piece because it is that good!
Michale, you will especially like it, I am sure.
It's about what Trans-Pacific trade deal President Trump would negotiate for and ... of course, win!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/opinion/let-trump-make-our-trans-pacific-trade-deal.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region&_r=0
John M [63]
I think you've got it right there. Clinton may not be beloved by Democrats, but as Obama said, she's "likable enough".
Actually, Friedman could write a similar piece about the kind of Iran deal Trump would have won, too.
Of course, comments [65] and [66] assume that Donald Trump has the first clue about what the TPP and JCPOA are about. Which he clearly does not.
whereas Hillary has no such problem on her side.
Shirley you jest..
There are upwards of 20% or more Democrats who can't stomach Hillary and are crossing the aisle to vote for Trump...
You can play the ostrich all you like, but the simple fact is, the general election will be Insurgent vs Establishment.. And the Establishment candidate will lose and lose BIG...
Even *IF* she is not indicted by the DOJ or the CPO.... Which she surely will be....
Put another way... *I* have a better chance of being POTUS than Hillary does...
Also, keep in mind.. Ya'all have been wrong about EVERY Trump prediction to date..
What makes ya think ya'all are right with this prediction??
Michale
Let me rephrase comment [67] ...
Donald Trump has - thus far, at least - not given the slightest indication that he knows anything about the TPP or JCPOA.
Thanks a lot, Michale!!! For messing up my train of thought, that is. :)
Michale,
You can play the ostrich all you like, but the simple fact is, the general election will be Insurgent vs Establishment.. And the Establishment candidate will lose and lose BIG...
Well, there is still a way to go before the general and don't you think it's possible that the voters will start thinking that the establishment isn't so bad, relatively speaking?
Stranger things have already happened.
Liz,
It's about what Trans-Pacific trade deal President Trump would negotiate for and ... of course, win!
One problem with your position...
Hillary Clinton HATES the TPP now...
Of course, she had to "evolve" into that position.. More accurately, she held up her finger to divine which way the political/focus group winds were blowing..
Yea, a POTUS of integrity and conviction.. That's yer Hillary..
Take heart.. It will be HALF right pretty soon...
Hillary WILL be a candidate of conviction...
Or, more accurately... A CONVICTED candidate.. :D
Michale
Well, there is still a way to go before the general and don't you think it's possible that the voters will start thinking that the establishment isn't so bad, relatively speaking?
Stranger things have already happened.
OK... I'll meet you halfway...
IF the American people change their minds about the Establishment, I will grant you that Hillary would win..
Now, can you concede the opposite??
Can you concede that if the attitude of the American people stay the way it is vis a vis The Establishment.... Can YOU concede that Hillary would lose??
:D
Michale
One problem with your position...Hillary Clinton HATES the TPP now...
That's not a problem with my position. That's a problem with Secretary Clinton's distinct position.
Can you concede that if the attitude of the American people stay the way it is vis a vis The Establishment.... Can YOU concede that Hillary would lose??
Are you sure that that is what the numbers predict right now?
Donald Trump has - thus far, at least - not given the slightest indication that he knows anything about the TPP
He knows that it's bad.. Just like every other Democrat that doesn't have an Obama-centric agenda...
Michale
That's crazy, Michale - if he doesn't know anything about the TPP he can't possibly say that it's bad.
What is so bad about it, from Trump's perspective? Do we know. Has he told us what is so bad about it?
Can you concede that if the attitude of the American people stay the way it is vis a vis The Establishment.... Can YOU concede that Hillary would lose??
Are you sure that that is what the numbers predict right now?
I didn't ask what the numbers predict.. As we have seen number predictions mean very little...
I am simply trying to meet you half way..
We are agreed that as of right now, this election is an insurgent election, an anti-establishment election...
And, as such, Hillary cannot win..
Now, I will grant you that American voters are a fickle lot. Their attitudes on the establishment CAN change..
If they do change wholesale and en-masse, then it's likely that Hillary would win... I concede that..
Can YOU concede that, if the attitude DOESN'T change... If the American voter is going to vote wholesale and en-masse for the anti-establishment candidate, then it's likely that Hillary will lose...
Michale
Hillary knows it's a good deal but, she is now taking a different stand because she thinks that this new tack will be beneficial to her campaign for president.
With respect to the TPP, what's worse, what Hillary is doing or what Trump is doing?
Well, Hillary is hardly anti-establishment so, I think you know my answer. I guess, in that case, we will find out what a Republican president will do.
Hey, have you read the Friedman piece yet? Trust me, you'll love it!!!
Hillary knows it's a good deal but, she is now taking a different stand because she thinks that this new tack will be beneficial to her campaign for president.
And it doesn't bother you that Hillary will do that??? Take a position SOLELY because it's beneficial to her campaign??
With respect to the TPP, what's worse, what Hillary is doing or what Trump is doing?
They both hate the TPP..
But, of the two, which one wrote the book on the Art Of The Deal...
Which one has been successful and which one can even translate RESET into Russian???
Well, Hillary is hardly anti-establishment so, I think you know my answer. I guess, in that case, we will find out what a Republican president will do.
I'll assume that means you agree that, as of right now, this is an Establishment vs Anti-Establishment election and, if that holds, then Hillary will lose...
ey, have you read the Friedman piece yet? Trust me, you'll love it!!!
yea, it's cute.. Reminds me of some of JFC posts... Long on sarcasm, short on reality... :D
Michale
Nice convention you've organized.....shame if a riot should happen to it.
With that, Donald Trump becomes Don Trump.
Thanks a lot, Michale!!! For messing up my train of thought, that is. :)
That's what I am here for.. :D
Michale
It's been supplanted by KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES...
that sounds all good and fine when it's used metaphorically, but when it's done literally that means insult people and beat people up, which is substantially less good and less fine.
JL
Nice convention you've organized.....shame if a riot should happen to it.
With that, Donald Trump becomes Don Trump.
As opposed to George Soros and MoveOn saying, "Nice rally you organized... Shame if a riot should happen to it.."
And proceeded to make EXACTLY that happen...
THAT's the point ya'all simply refuse to acknowledge..
The violence and the intimidation is coming from the LEFT Wingery...
Yet ya'all completely ignore it or, even worse, blame TRUMP for it...
Ya'all condone the violence from the Left Wingery...
It's that simple...
Michale
Speaking of "diversion" allow me to share a humorous one from this morning...
As I may have mentioned previously, the wife and I are binge-watching Big Bang Theory.. We started a couple weeks ago and we're mid way thru Season 5 right now..
A day or so ago, there was an episode where they were taking a trip to San Jose for a seminar or something. Sheldon, Leonard, Amy and Penny were in the lead car and Raj, Bridget and Howard were in the follow car...
Sheldon wanted to check in with the follow car so he got on a portable radio and said, "RED LEADER TO RED 5..." :D Star Wars fans get it..
So, anyways, we're driving to work this morning. Me and my son were in a truck hauling a bunch of TVs and parts and my lovely wife and her sister were in the follow car to make sure I didn't drop a nice 60" LED Samsung or something..
So, we're tooling along and I tell my son to TXT to his mother, "RED LEADER TO RED 5"... We're laughing our asses off..
My wife TXTed back with, "GO RED LEADER"... We started laughing even harder...
At the next light, I texted to my wife, "I HAVE NEVER LOVED YOU MORE THAN I DO AT THIS EXACT MOMENT"... :D
Anyways, I thought it was funny enough to share... :D
Michale
that sounds all good and fine when it's used metaphorically, but when it's done literally that means insult people and beat people up, which is substantially less good and less fine.
You mean, like when George Soros and MoveOn organizes a bunch of thugs in Chicago, prints them up their signs and then sends them into a rally SOLELY to disrupt the rally??
Like that???
Yea, I agree..
Less good... Less fine..
Michale
It's becoming clear that "TRUMP ADVOCATES VIOLENCE!!!" is like "TRUMP IS A RACIST!!!"
Everyone makes the claim but no one can provide any actual FACTS to support the claim...
Michale
Does the RNC have a little known Catch-22 that can unbind delegates on the first ballot. It seems to me that they do. It's called Rule 38, and it's beginning to attract press attention.
"RULE NO. 38
Unit Rule
No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A “unit rule” prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its
entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation."
At face value, it would appear delegates are free to vote their conscience. Of course, voting your conscience can carry certain consequences, which might just explain Don Trump's not so veiled riot remarks. By the way Don Trump said, "warned" of riots, not signs. If I don't get elected on the first ballot, there be signs!!! Not very menacing, don't ya think?
what part of "i'd like to punch him in the face" is not advocating violence? after the fact, trump claimed the protester tried to throw a punch, but there's no evidence of any kind that the statement was accurate. there trump is on camera, both lying and directly advocating violence, and not only can't you accept it, you're doubling down on denial while at the same time claiming equivalent violence on the part of folks who weren't at all.
JL
“Our commander-in-chief has to be able to defend our country, not embarrass it.”
Says the woman who's husband had his popsicle serviced while in the Oval Office..
Yea... THAT's not an embarrassment...
CLINTON MEMORIAL
http://paulgolding.us/clinton.jpg
Michale
what part of "i'd like to punch him in the face" is not advocating violence?
"When they bring a knife to a fight, we'll bring a gun.."
-Barack Obama
after the fact, trump claimed the protester tried to throw a punch, but there's no evidence of any kind that the statement was accurate.
There's no evidence that the statement WASN'T accurate...
there trump is on camera, both lying and directly advocating violence, and not only can't you accept it, you're doubling down on denial while at the same time claiming equivalent violence on the part of folks who weren't at all.
That's exactly my point.. There is VIDEO of Trump supporters being assaulted..
There is VIDEO of Professor Click asking for muscle to physically assault a reporter..
BUT YOU DON'T CONDEMN THAT...
You ONLY condemn the "alleged" violence from Trump..
It's TRUMP IS A RACIST all over again..
You condemn "racist" statements from Trump that aren't racist..
But ya'all ignore, equivocate or mitigate BLATANT racist statements from Bill Clinton...
Condemn the violence if you wish.. I'll help..
But condemn ALL the violence.. Not just the alleged violence from the Right...
That's all I am saying...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432796/working-class-whites-have-moral-responsibilities-defense-kevin-williamson
Time for the feelies to grow up - Donald isn't the solution, he is just another hit of Meth.
I've lived in Africa where there is real poverty, and you know what, those people get on with their lives.
As the wounded British soldier Chris Herbert said:
"Get a grip of your lives, hug your family, and get back to work".
A lot of Trump supporters could do with some lessons in reality.
Trump is a bigot.
Trump is also a rabble rouser.
Seldom do these two go together without violence lurking nearby.
Trump, and his apologists, aren't fooling anybody. Including many of his own supporters who are attracted to rallies in the hope of a little argy-bargy.
"When they bring a knife to a fight, we'll bring a gun.."
-Barack Obama
What was the context? Was he actually advocating violence or was it used metaphorically?
But ya'all ignore, equivocate or mitigate BLATANT racist statements from Bill Clinton...
If you continue to use this then the racist statement allegedly by Trump must also stand as both are too far removed from the moment to verify.
The carry the bags comment comes third hand. A friend/associate was told by a reporter who is now dead that he over heard Kennedy and Obama talking...
A friend/associate was told by a reporter who is now dead that he over heard Kennedy and Obama talking...
Yet this evidence is used as rock solid, whereas over 150 years of peer reviewed science explaining climate change is suspect.
The 'feelies' are running amok. Trump is currently feelie #1.
Time for some reality karma.
Bashi,
Clinton was quoted VERBATIM and never denied making the statement...
But you prove my point perfectly...
Democrats get equivocation and mitigation..
Republicans are not afforded that...
Michale
Trump is a bigot.
Trump is also a rabble rouser.
Fine....
But he's NOT a racist...
So, if the Left Wingery is going to BLATANTLY lie about Trump being a racist, then EVERYTHING they say about Trump is suspect...
Michale...
Clinton was quoted VERBATIM and never denied making the statement...
Third hand...
But you prove my point perfectly...
Democrats get equivocation and mitigation..
Republicans are not afforded that...
Bullshit. I say both or neither statement stands. How is that biased? I would say the reverse is true, you want the statement that helps your bias but refuse to consider one that doesn't...
Bullshit. I say both or neither statement stands. How is that biased? I would say the reverse is true, you want the statement that helps your bias but refuse to consider one that doesn't...
Fair enough.
NEITHER statement stands..
Trump is not a racist..
You concede that??
yes or no...
1000 quatloos says NO... Or, more accurately, massive equivocation... :D
Michale
Just to re-iterate...
That's exactly my point.. There is VIDEO of Trump supporters being assaulted..
There is VIDEO of Professor Click asking for muscle to physically assault a reporter..
BUT YOU DON'T CONDEMN THAT...
And the silence is deafening...
Michale
Trump is not a racist..
You concede that??
yes or no...
I have yet to see that Trump is a racist. So, yes.
Though, I don't see why I must concede anything since I did not call him a racist in the first place...
An interesting explanation of the first amendment protections in the FBI vs Apple case.
My wife TXTed back with, "GO RED LEADER"... We started laughing even harder...
Strange coincidence: Drew Henley (the actor who played Red Leader) died today...
I have yet to see that Trump is a racist. So, yes.
Impressive.. I am truly impressed..
"And I don't impress easily... WOW!!!! A BLUE CAR!!!!!"
-Homer Simpson
:D
Michale
Though, I don't see why I must concede anything since I did not call him a racist in the first place...
But you don't correct the record when other people call him a racist..
But you WOULD correct the record when people (me for example) say things that you think are false..
You can understand why I might be confused.. :D
Michale
Strange coincidence: Drew Henley (the actor who played Red Leader) died today...
Eerie....
Michale