This is the most interesting statement in the whole thing:
Over time, I think Democratic voters will perceive Warren and Harris as more electable. I also think some Democratic voters will come to understand that they should not say out loud (or tell pollsters) that they view women running for president as unelectable, even if they act on that belief. And the comparisons between Obama and Harris should be viewed with extreme caution. Democrats view Trump as a threat in a way they did not view the potential GOP nominee in 2008 — and they had not just watched a black person lose in 2004. In other words, I think the number of Democrats spooked by Clinton’s defeat in 2016 and are wary of women for that reason may be understated.That's a very compressed statement, and it struck me at first as full of contradictions. So let me open it up.
There's a prediction that Democratic voters will see Warren and Harris as more electable, then a prediction that they — some of them — will learn to shut up about the view that they're not electable. I guess you can connect those 2 statements with the idea that if people stop fussing about their unelectability, the perception will change. But Democrats need to worry about who actually can beat Trump, not about what they, subjectively, perceive. Still, the FiveThirtyEight discussion is about who's on the pathway to getting the nomination, and perception about who can win the general election affects who wins the nomination. It doesn't matter whether the perception is badly distorted.
How does the second part of the statement, about comparing Harris to Obama, relate to perceptions about electability? I think the point is supposed to be that Democratic voters gave Obama the nomination in 2008, and that might predict what they'll do in 2020. But Democrats are more desperate just to win this time, and they were more open to risk in 2008 (because Trump is so much more awful than any of the Republicans who were vying for the nomination in 2008). Also, in 2008, when Democrats sprang for a nominee who isn't a white male, they'd never had the experience of taking that leap and losing. But now, they're "spooked." They saw a woman lose, and that might make them think a woman candidate is too risky. That's not something they will openly talk about it, but if that's what's going on, Biden's front-runner position should hold.
पोस्ट्स
१५३ टिप्पण्या:
Althouse certainly seems wedded to Biden early.
Cool how women and blacks are all fungible generics to these lefties. Makes me think they’re incapable of learning anything. And that they’ll fuck it up again.
D’s will make sure to have a wimmin or a people of color on the ticket somehow. Top or bottom, that is the question.
I wish you would dish your obsession with identity politics, Althouse.
Yeah, it's what the Democrats obsess over. It seems to fascinate you.
It's evil shit. Lead us out of this crazy, evil shit. Don't throw more of it.
It's your blog. I read it less frequently because I don't want to be consumed either by favoring or opposing your identity politics obsession. It gets in the way of sanity and peace of mind.
rehajm: everybody is fungible generics in a free market democratic republic what have you done lately hyper competitive global superpower.
That's a very compressed statement
ohhhhhh......Fuck that noise! It's poorly written. There's no conviction in the statement. It's written by someone trying to stay ahead of the next wave of social justice outrage. It's a salad bowl of talking points.
Alternately, Obama was Apollo 11. Harris is Apollo 13. No one cared by then.
In 2008 the Democratic establishment could run Obama as a front man.
Today the establishment is totally splintered and anarchy reigns.
I think Democratic voters will perceive Warren and Harris as more electable.
I hope voters perceive Warren and Harris as all-out racists who are buying votes with taxpayers' money. Because that's what they are.
Kamala Harris: $100 billion for home ownership except for white people.
Elizabeth Warren: New Rules for Federal Contractors to hire fewer white men. [same wretched article]
Obama was likeable. Harris isn't. She will remind voters of their ex-wife's divorce attorney. Something blitheringly stupid about dredging up one of the most divisive issues to attack Biden. I can see it now. The Kardashian will find someone she sentenced harshly as a sentence reform poster boy. She has no sense of proportion.
Biden is being Biden, he has tried and failed a few times to get the nomination. The collective 'oh I remember now...' is happening.
Which leaves Warren. If she was smart she would find a canny street fighter to run her campaign, because that is what she lacks. But she isn't, so she won't. So she will lose to someone she openly disdains as less than her royal self.
Democrats 'worried about a woman losing' means Democrats 'worried that sexist bumpkins are afraid to elect a woman.'
I watch conservatives go nuts over Sarah Palin and to a lesser degree Nikki Haley, and am convinced the "bumpkins" would happily vote for the right woman. Dems are fearing a caricature of their own creation.
And the lefty pundits definitely don't think Biden can win, and don't want Biden.
If the only thing FiveThirtyEight notices about Harris and Warren is their gender, then they don’t get it. A woman could beat Donald Trump, but not either of these women. Nor any of the other women currently running, nor Biden nor Sanders nor any other Democrat males currently running. When you know why, Althouse, you’ll start to figure out politics.
I wish you would dish your obsession with identity politics, Althouse.
That should be "ditch." Auto-correct wins again!
Have you noticed how frequently auto-correct reverses your intended meaning?
It's a salad bowl of talking points.
With shriveled-up "spinch".
I’m willing to accept the gibberish within the context of these gab sessions FiveThirtyEight puts on. They’re quants so they fumble around with things like the words and stuff.
Electing a woman is just a matter of getting everybody's periods synchronized.
The Democrats are so wrapped up in the superficiality of the package they are forgetting that the voters are more interested in the contents. Identity politics. People are onto to that tired old ploy.
The labeling and pigeon-holeing (if that is even a word) of people based on what they look like or gender instead of their actual accomplishments and philosophies of governing is not a winning strategy.....however voter fraud probably will be.
Obama and Harris: that comparison is based on race or perceptions of race. Just being part Black is not a qualifier to be a leader as we all learned to our dismay with Obama.
Warren and Harris: Sure they have vaginas and are women. How is this even a remotely qualifying aspect of becoming President?
Biden: old white guy and lump him in with the other white guys. Except Bernie who at least does seem to have some core principles. Crazy ones, but we do know what he is supposedly thinking.
The questions that we need to have answered are "Who are these people really. What do they stand for. And I don't mean just today...what are their core principles. What policies do they propose. How do they plan to govern."????
We actually never get those answers because they are all lying and pandering to us.
Neither Harris nor Warren are likable enough.
Sorry lefties, but unlike your SJW base, I remember 2008. You guys hated McCain just as much as Trump. You said he was a mental case, woman-hating, gay-hating racist, just like you do now.
Kamala Harris: $100 billion for home ownership except for white people.
George W. Bush launched a huge initiative to increase minority home ownership, as a form of redress for past sins. The housing market soared for awhile. Then the term "Great Recession" was coined.
Have you noticed how frequently auto-correct reverses your intended meaning?
I guess I married my auto-correct.
I also think some Democratic voters will come to understand that they should not say out loud (or tell pollsters) that they view women running for president as unelectable, even if they act on that belief.
What the Democrats have to be concerned with is “Democrat voters” feeling the same way about voting for Donald Trump.
Hence all the identity politics to keep them on the Democrat Party plantation.
Heels Up Harris and Fauxchantas are electable? LOL. These New Yawkers really live in fantasyland.
how hard is it to notice that Trump was the definition of unelectable? That many (most?) who voted for him did so fully believing he stood no chance of winning?
Electability exists in the minds of the political class who makes money off polling, strategizing, punditry. To the extent the people in the primary process fall for it, they have been spending too much time listening to talking heads instead of the obvious game theory strategy: vote for your interests.
I think the most interesting statement was this:
micah: To me, the “Is Biden the front-runner?” question is really about language/journalism more than the fundamentals of the campaign.
But no one followed up.
Still, the whole idea of electibility is such a hall-of-mirrors, a snake devouring itself, a trip through wonderland. It's the academy award that goes to a picture everyone has heard about and no one has seen.
I don't think democratic voters care. They hate Trump and would vote for a litter box prize.
Blogger Derek Kite said...
Obama was likeable. Harris isn't. She will remind voters of their ex-wife's divorce attorney.
Yes and that is being ignore because she is a POC,
I don't think democraticBase voters care. They hate Trump and would vote for a litter box prize.
True but are there enough of them? I don't think so.
How does the second part of the statement, about comparing Harris to Obama, relate to perceptions about electability?
Like many here I think 538 is comparing Harris to Obama simply as two Black candidates. They don’t really explore electability. Let’s face it, the contest is between two people in the end. Obama got lucky in drawing McCain. The Black won’t be lucky this time and the next Woman will face the same dynamo that out-campaigned the last Woman, running with all the advantages of incumbency. And a good economy. And peace. Silver’s crew doesn’t even tiptoe into this context.
Still hanging on to "Hillary! lost because she's a woman"?
Yeah, that's why she lost.
Allison, not only is electability a stupid concept, by now people should realize that it is measured by things no actual political consultant should ever care about! Hillary Clinton is the definition of unelectable, yet she's been the anointed front-runner for a nomination. Twice! Joe Biden is a paste-eating molester, and Kamala Harris is not just a vapid whore, but a spineless one. Yet we are constantly assured these people are the MOST electable, while the poll shilling against Trump started the second he went down the escalator, and didn't let up until the day AFTER the election.
Competent professionals should say this themselves, and not rely on Internet commenters to educate them.
Open borders, busing, free health care, abortion to the point of crowning, student loan forgiveness, tax increases, illegal aliens before American citizens, etc.
Whether the eventual Democrat nominee has a penis, vagina, dark skin or light, fake Indian heritage, supports trans women getting abortions, or are a dirty commie that honeymoons in the Soviet Union, they need to fall flat on their face this upcoming election.
“Sorry lefties, but unlike your SJW base, I remember 2008. You guys hated McCain just as much as Trump.”
True, but then Trump had the temerity to fight and win, and that has made all the difference.
But Democrats are more desperate just to win this time, and they were more open to risk in 2008 (because Trump is so much more awful than any of the Republicans who were vying for the nomination in 2008).
They may believe this now but it isn't true. Every cycle they are convinced they face a uniquely dangerous GOP candidate. As an example they claimed Mitt Romney was a step to making The HandMaid's Tale our future in America. They claimed first Goldwater and then Reagan desired nuclear war. Creating FUD is the Dem playbook.
So their actions from every other cycle are the best judge of what will happen this cycle.
"I wish you would dish your obsession with identity politics, Althouse. Yeah, it's what the Democrats obsess over. It seems to fascinate you. It's evil shit. Lead us out of this crazy, evil shit. Don't throw more of it. It's your blog. I read it less frequently because I don't want to be consumed either by favoring or opposing your identity politics obsession. It gets in the way of sanity and peace of mind."
So... who has the obsession here? Why don't you "dish" your obsession? Generally, it's best, when you are troubled, to do the things that are within your power to do. But you do you, and apparently that is the guy who obsesses over projected obsessions.
The direct path is to ditch your own obsession.
Derek Kite said...
Obama was likeable. Harris isn't. She will remind voters of their ex-wife's divorce attorney. Something blitheringly stupid about dredging up one of the most divisive issues to attack Biden.
Maybe objectively her focus is stupid but that is irrelevant. Her criticism worked on Democrats. Biden lost about a quarter of his support and most of it went to Harris. And when she does it again she'll get a similar boost. By making this specific argument she has distinguished herself from Booker which means eventually she'll win the overwhelming majority of the black vote. Blacks are only 13% of America but since virtually all vote Dem that's 25% of Dem voters. If unusually motivated to vote blacks could be a third of the Dem primary vote. That's a huge advantage.
There's a prediction that Democratic voters will see Warren and Harris as more electable
I don't think democratic voters care.
-----Pedantic alert!!!-----
DEMOCRAT not Democratic!!!!. Don't let them keep changing the meaning of words to bend your mind and manipulate your emotions. George Orwell: "Orwell said that language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people."
It is all NEWSPEAK To meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc) in Oceania, the ruling Party created Newspeak, a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought — personal identity, self-expression, free will — that threatens the ideology of the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who have criminalized such concepts into thoughtcrime, as contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy
Democratic: is a term that relates to being about and/or supporting the principles of Democracy.
Democrats: are people who adhere to the political party of Democrats as opposed to Republicans
Labeling the fascist leftist in the Democrat Party as being Democratic, is an out and out lie. People want to believe that they are Democratic. It sounds like a good thing to be. Manipulating the meaning of words (Democrat Party vs Democratic voter)is a way to get them to buy into that lie.
Moving the goal posts. Changing the language. Distorting the meanings of words. Labeling men as women and women as men with made up pronouns. All mind control.
Stop and think. Don't let them do it.
----Alert over------
I guess you can connect those 2 statements with the idea that if people stop fussing about their unelectability, the perception will change. But Democrats need to worry about who actually can beat Trump, not about what they, subjectively, perceive.
This goes back to the Dems propensity to create fantasy narratives, their belief that if they can convince themselves an alternate reality is true, they breathe life into it and it becomes reality.
It's why debate with them is so futile, as seen on this very blog. The mistake is our assumption they are posting an assertion because they want to argue it or change our minds. But they are not posting for our benefit, they are posting for their own - affirmations that, if repeated enough, become actualized through the power of positive thinking or somesuch nonsense
As for Harris, I stand by my Disney Theory. Very woke Disney Execs had the choice to cast the MCU Captain Marvel as the original Monica Rambeau, a black female who became the leader of the Avengers. They chose to go with a white chick instead, because they didn't think Americans would take to a black female as a figurehead. Say what you will about Disney, they know their market.
So I think that whatever consumer data they used in deciding against Rambeau is the same that will keep Harris out of the White House.
How does one wonk a debate?
I'm not horribly worried about Trump's reelection, but many of their nutty ideas will become more mainstream in the years before 2024 just from repetition.
I wonder if male black voters will be as supportive of a black female candidate as they would be for a black male candidate.
A look into the near future --
This Epstein mess will sink BJ Clinton totally. Crooked Hillary will divorce him, and then announce to the world: "I'm back". Then, she'll get the nomination and lose bigerly to Trump.
I say "Democratics" with purpose.
They want to be called "Democratics". It sounds ridiculous.
Hi. I'm a democratic.
It’s the Democrat Party. They have nothing to do with democracy at this point. The mask is finally off.
Ann, you "opened up" an empty piece of luggage and did a masterful job of pretending there was something in it.
Democracy is where 51% get to steam-roll over 49%. This is the sweet spot on the left. Power.
We used to have a Constitutional Republic with democratic institutions. True Democracy, stripped down, is a step under tyranny.
This is why leftists "WANT THEIR DEMOCRACY NOW!"
Joe Biden - age 76
Bernie Sanders - age 77
Two old white males who wanna redistribute the wealth. No thanks.
Liz Warren - age 70
Old white woman, who scolds us like a grammar school principle. No thanks.
The Dem elites have settled on Kammy. She's the right age and has the right look for the Dem Party, So, there's much more political kneecapping in store for the 3 ahead of her.
I wonder if male black voters will be as supportive of a black female candidate as they would be for a black male candidate.
Oddly enough, there is a Disney Theory for that too. (NSFW)
Dust Bunny Queen said...
-----Pedantic alert!!!-----
I'd rather see consumer fraud charges filed against the Democratic Party for false advertising.
The question 538 should explore is which of the D candidates has ANY “electability” at all. I’m seeing McGovern redux. The word Landslide comes to mind.
Pollsters, not excited to talk about the polls they have of a general population, make their own poll, take it, and discuss the results of it.
Hey Biden now has a 33% lead in the 538 polls! Hint! Hint!
It won’t be much of a race in 2020. The Dems have already handed it to the Donald.
Here's the advantage Harris has over Warren. Black voters will turn out for her but not so much for Warren. The people who would vote for Warren will turn out for Harris in the same numbers and with the same enthusiasm. The non-white vote will, for the most part, be more enthusiastic about Harris than Warren.....In my view, Harris is more likable than Warren, and I think Warren would visit more harm to the country than Harris. However, there's no way I would vote for either woman. I don't think I represent a negligible part of the electorate although Democrats think I do.
Warren and Harris are both barren, are they not?
Yet, are uniquely qualified to speak to family/children issues simple because they are women, are they not?
Insane, isn't it?
Kerry was chosen because his military service was thought to make him most electable. It turned out that service was "problematic" and might have cost him the election. Femaleness could become a liability if Kamala Toe's sex life comes out like Kavanaugh's did.
Now that the half-Kenyan has come and gone, will American blacks look as favorably on a privileged half-Jamaican?
The Dem elites have settled on Kammy. She's the right age and has the right look for the Dem Party, So, there's much more political kneecapping in store for the 3 ahead of her.
I assumed she was the Big Money choice but she has stumbled rather badly and I sensed some hesitation. Coming out in favor of busing is not exactly the way to pull Trump voters away from him. Meanwhile, he is going after the black vote hammer and tong.
The Epstein thing is liable to blow such a huge hole isn the Establishment that it will overturn politics for years,
I looked at the zero hedge post. This plus Spygate and we might see a while new ballgame.
I don't think it hurts Trump, which seems to be the impetus now,.
Kamala wasn't smart enough to avoid the busing issue, and not brave enough to stick by it. The Democrats can do all the heavy lifting for a vastly unworthy candidate, but a wholly talentless affirmative action candidate is even less likely to succeed after the age of Obama and Hillary.
The direct path is to ditch your own obsession.
Close to 100% of your posts are identity politics bullshit, Althouse.
What a load of crap you just unloaded.
I was briefly involved in men's issues in the 90s. Maybe a year. I got sick and tired of my own side.
Advocating for men was as bad as your feminism. Decent people don't spend their time on this insane sibling rivalry ranting.
"Daddy, it's not fair!" is not a sensible or decent subject for an adult woman, particularly a rich one.
The problem is you, Althouse. It's your BS. As I said, I pay less attention to you because you drag me into this bullshit obsession.
For Christ's sake, you're retired and rich. Why can't you pull your head out of your ass and cease this endless bitchery?
Now, I'll go away and spend my time on something worthwhile. You're a fucking waste of time.
Blogger Michael K said...
The Epstein thing is liable to blow such a huge hole isn the Establishment that it will overturn politics for years,
Which is why it's not going to happen. Minimal charges were brought, and Epstein's lawyers are already negotiating a new plea deal.
Not voting for a liberal woman is misogynistic like not fucking a transgender is homophobic.
I am Laslo.
Dallas News
Ross Perot, self-made billionaire, renowned patriot and two-time independent candidate for U.S. president, has died after a five-month battle with leukemia. He was 89.
A woman could beat Donald Trump, but not either of these women. Nor any of the other women currently running
I don't know... Are you sure Marianne Williamson couldn't beat Trump? Are you really, really, sure? Because I'm not.
Democrats have so many blind spots. They'll pick someone they believe is the second coming of Obama, and then Trump will put a magnifying glass on the flaws that no leftie even noticed.
The Epstein thing is liable to blow such a huge hole in the Establishment that it will overturn politics for years,
The Establishment didn't get to be the Establishment by letting stuff like this get to them. If it can't be used to Get Trump it will disappear down the oubliette.
The Establishment didn't get to be the Establishment by letting stuff like this get to them. If it can't be used to Get Trump it will disappear down the oubliette.
7/9/19, 9:58 AM
Weinstein and Spacey are probably going to escape their own convictions due to a certain blend of judicial malfeasance and extrajudicial intimidation. This won't reduce the likelihood of Epstein escaping consequences: it will motivate some gun-holding Americans to say the Law is Oppression. If suburban spinsters thought black men saying that was scary, wait until they see a society where white men chant it! You wouldn't be going out in public without a male escort, that's for damned sure.
And wikipedia has been deleting any inconvenient reference to Clinton re epstein.
Hillary means women can't win? Yeah most people are idiots. When Al Smith lost in 1928, most idiots thought that meant a Catholic couldn't win, even though Smith would've won in 1932. Of course, a lot of people who were saying that were Protestant Pols who didn't want the competition. Maybe, that's why Biden supporters are floating the idea. "Hey, we'd love a woman, but those sexists 'murians won't go for it - better nominate Biden"
Blacks are only 13% of America but since virtually all vote Dem that's 25% of Dem voters. If unusually motivated to vote blacks could be a third of the Dem primary vote. That's a huge advantage.
And that may change. Next summer Donald Trump and surrogates are going to go into black churches and remind them that Democrats gave their young men midnight basketball, while he got them jobs. And then we will see what the response is. This will change slightly if Harris is the candidate — she gave your young men jail time; I gave them jobs. This story won’t get him 100% of the black vote, nor even 50%. But it doesn’t have to.
Which is why it's not going to happen. Minimal charges were brought, and Epstein's lawyers are already negotiating a new plea deal.
This might be the time. One theory is that Democrats are so frantic to get something on Trump that they are willing to take down Bill Clinton and Menendez. Then it may get out of hand. Maybe not.
One very interesting aspect is that Epstein's fortune is possibly not from his supposed hedge fund but a huge blackmail scheme that involved billionaires who were victims of a sophisticated badger scam. They took underage girls to bedrooms that had cameras.
One name I have seen is Mike Bloomberg.
Also, in 2008, when Democrats sprang for a nominee who isn't a white male, they'd never had the experience of taking that leap and losing. But now, they're "spooked."
Sigh for the times. If you were still teaching, and you used those sentences in THAT arrangement with verbal emphasis on the "spooked" adjacent to an Obama reference you would likely be in BIG trouble. Would we use "jigabooed" in a sentence that followed a sentence referring to Obama? How about "niggardly"? Or even "dark"? You live in Madison, an epicenter of contemporary grievance culture. I suggest you close the shades and see how the week unfolds.
And it's not just me, dear hostess.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spooked
Your use of parentheses is not a good look.
more is leaking out about Epstein's finances.
For all his infamy, there are scant details of how he made his money. Although he’s frequently been called a billionaire, his net worth is hard to ascertain. He ran a money management firm catering to the ultra-rich, primarily for Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner, but its assets were never made public and few on Wall Street have dealt with him as a financier or money manager.
According to his lawyers more than a decade ago, he had a net worth in excess of nine figures. Today, so little is known about Epstein’s current business or clients that the only things that can be valued with any certainty are his properties. The Manhattan mansion is estimated to be worth at least $77 million, according to a federal document submitted in advance of Epstein’s bail hearing.
He also has properties in New Mexico, Paris and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he has a private island, and a Palm Beach estate with an assessed value of more than $12 million. He shuttles between them by private jet and has at least 15 cars, including seven Chevrolet Suburbans, according to federal authorities.
He joined Bear Stearns in 1976 as a lowly junior assistant to a floor trader. In a swift rise, trading options, he made partner four years later, with former Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne praising his skills. He left in 1981 to set up J. Epstein & Co., but one bank executive said he remained close to Cayne and Greenberg and was a client until Bear Stearns’ demise.
This is why they hope this will get Trump. A comment to that LA Times story"
In 2016, a woman who has not been publicly named, had a court date in New York for a civil case seeking damages from her alleged rape at 13, by Trump, at a party Epstein's property. She dropped the court date at the last minute citing death threats that she took seriously. Perhaps now, we will find out the full truth
I don't believe but Inga will.
They should accept that half of America hated Hillary for good reasons having nothing to do. with the fact she was a woman and get over it and go with who they like.
Just my 2¢.
"That's a very compressed statement, and it struck me at first as full of contradictions. So let me open it up."
Let me help you: Nate Silver is an idiot, and a left wing drone.
538 is a bunch of left wing rangers how couldn't find their backsides with both hands and a map.
No one of the Left can make honest statements in public, because the Left no longer tolerates departure from orthodoxy.
Reading public statements about the 2020 election from Leftists is worthless, not because they're hopelessly stupid, but because they're not allowed to honestly discuss the situation
My sense has always been that certain powers-that-be wanted Harris from the start, but most Dem voters didn't believe she was electable for whatever reason. Now that she has effectively attacked Biden, these same voters are slowly changing their opinions.
Beyond that I personally don't have much of an insight into what a typical Dem voter thinks about a woman in general being electable. I can only say what I believe, which is that the majority of American voters would have no problem electing a female president. So to be clear, I believe that most Americans would vote for a woman, but I can't say what most voters (in particullar, Dem voters) believe about their fellow voters. Based on their behavior I have a suspicion that most Dems have a very low opinion of other voters. They probably believe that other voters could never vote for a woman because they're sexist. If I'm right, I think it's a little sad that so many people may have such a low opinion of their fellow Americans.
“Electing a woman is just a matter of getting everybody's periods synchronized.”
Hey! Post menopausal women vote too and don’t you forget it!
“The questions that we need to have answered are "Who are these people really. What do they stand for. And I don't mean just today...what are their core principles. What policies do they propose. How do they plan to govern."????”
Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.
"Post menopausal women vote too and don’t you forget it!"
People with Alzheimer's vote too, and I... wait... Herbert Hoover.
I am Laslo.
“Dems are fearing a caricature of their own creation. “
Yep, drinking too deeply of their own Kool-Aide.
“Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.”
Trump is delivering pretty much what he promised, and where he fails, he still fights. You just don’t like it, but then, your candidate lost.
“DEMOCRAT not Democratic!!!!. Don't let them keep changing the meaning of words to bend your mind and manipulate your emotions. George Orwell: "Orwell said that language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people."”
Um... sorry DBQ, but it’s been “Democratic” far longer than its been “Democrat”, it was you folks who changed it, not us. The use of “Democrat” just happened within the last several years, before that it was “Democratic” for decades.
America didn’t want to eat a shit sandwich in 2016, so they voted for Trump, who might be limburger cheese, but he’s not shit.
“The use of “Democrat” just happened within the last several years”
Reagan used it all the time. I use it because it reminds me of Reagan, and you guys are the ones who rule by judge. The citizenship question, for example, is widely popular.
“Post menopausal women vote too and don’t you forget it!"
People with Alzheimer's vote too, and I... wait... Herbert Hoover.
I am Laslo.”
No people with Alzheimer’s don’t usually vote in massive numbers. There are a humongous number of us postmenopausal women out there and don’t you forget it! We are old women, let us roar!
If only the GOP had put Sarah Palin first on the ticket in 2008, it would have been very interesting,. She was at least as qualified at Harris.
Blogger CJinPA said...
Democrats 'worried about a woman losing' means Democrats 'worried that sexist bumpkins are afraid to elect a woman.'
I watch conservatives go nuts over Sarah Palin and to a lesser degree Nikki Haley, and am convinced the "bumpkins" would happily vote for the right woman. Dems are fearing a caricature of their own creation.
No, Dems are sexist pigs and left-wing bigots. Palin and Haley aren't "real women" because they aren't leftists.
Conservative voters are happy to vote for a Thatcher, a Palin, or anyone else with actual accomplishments and good beliefs. What we won't do is vote for someone because of their genitals.
And that is what makes us different from the leftists
Inga the Hoax Rape Accuser: "The use of “Democrat” just happened within the last several years, before that it was “Democratic” for decades."
LOL
"Hi, I'm a liberal and today I registered as a democratic"...
Filed under: Things no one has ever said, ever.
Blogger Inga...Allie Oop said...
“The questions that we need to have answered are "Who are these people really. What do they stand for. And I don't mean just today...what are their core principles. What policies do they propose. How do they plan to govern."????”
Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.
I did care about it, so I didn't vote for Trump.
But I've watched for the last couple of years, and mostly approved of Trump actions, so I will be voting for him next year.
So quick question: which Democrats running for President in 2020 have actual accomplishments that people who aren't committed leftists would value? What are those accomplishments?
Narrator voice: There are none
The whole point of "front runners" is to give something the media to talk about. It's a meaningless distinction until we get somewhat close to the Iowa caucuses. The only people who are really paying attention at this time are the political wonks, the party activists, and the media.
Puck: "Reagan used it all the time."
It was used long before Reagan as well.
However, Kirkpatrick's "San Francisco Democrats" line has always been one of my favorites.
"Hi, I'm a liberal and today I registered as a democratic"...
Filed under: Things no one has ever said, ever.
Right up there with “Honey, I just felt the fetus kick!"
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
I don't think democratic voters care. They hate Trump and would vote for a litter box prize.
If there were enough "yellow dog Democrat" voters to win the country, Trump wouldn't be President, and the GOP wouldn't control the US Senate.
What the Democrats need to do in order to win is win back a bunch of the Obama - Trump voters. And "free abortions for trans women" isn't going to get those people back
“Hi, I'm a liberal and today I registered as a democratic"...”
Democratic Party, not “Democrat Party”, which is being used as an epithet. But you knew that.
“Democrat Party (epithet)
Read in another language
Watch this page
Edit
Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party in the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While historical and occasional current usage includes non-hostile appearances, the term has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators.[1]”
Wiki
“The questions that we need to have answered are "Who are these people really. What do they stand for. And I don't mean just today...what are their core principles. What policies do they propose. How do they plan to govern."????”
Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.
No kidding.
Make America Great Again, build the wall, Foreign trade deals ripping us off, bring back manufacturing to the U.S., and Jobs....all came out of nowhere after the election.
If only he had held a rally or two and mentioned these things before we voted.
Republic Party, how does that sound? Weird huh?
Why do you say RepubliCAN?
LOL-
Now, there never was a "Democrat Party".
Reminds me of Wikipedia "editing" Epstein's page 26 times by 18 users in 4 hours yesterday.
Let's examine the disconnect between "who will win the primary?" and "who should win the primary?". I get that the stat hounds at 538 are obsesses with the first question, but why? Is it possible to answer that question with any certitude? If it were, would it contribute any value to the process of selecting a nominee?
Consider this scenario: the wonks reach general agreement that Harris has an 80% chance of winning the nomination. Harris goes on to lead in the primaries and caucuses but doesn't win enough delegates to carry the first ballot at the convention. In a subsequent ballot, the superdelegates break swing the nomination to Biden.
Doesn't that "80%" prediction now hurt the Democratic party? That's a pretty solid number, if you don't understand what it means you're likely to think Harris is going to be the winner. But instead you get Biden, and you're thinking...what?
Isn't that exactly what happened with Trump/Clinton in 2016?
I get that the stat hounds are going to hound the stats. But why does anyone else care? Does the prediction add any value to the election process? At all?
Wikipedia. LOL! The real time encyclopedia edit within minutes to meet the needs of the Democrat narrative at any given time! Just like yesterday about 10:00 AM. when the references to Bill Clinton were edited out of Epstein's entry.
But you can say “Republic Party” all you want, it has a nice ring to it. It’s accurate. Unlike “Democratic.”
I never heard "Democrat Party” before Reagan because I was a Democratic, (Happy?) before Reagan, voted for Carter, even voted for Teddy Kennedy in the NYS primary. So my information was heavily curated at the time.
Who the Democrats run is not the big question. They are all shallow, opportunistic assholes with open borders, dead babies, free stuff, etc., platforms.
The big question is: Have the leftmediaswine hit bottom, or can they stoop even lower to get a Democrat elected? Ninety percent negative coverage has concealed Trump’s achievements and branded him falsely to the tune of about 20 points. Their depravity will compel them to pull out all the stops and go for 30 and the win.
Why do so many of you assume that just because Kamala and Fauxchahontas purportedly have vaginas that this simple fact makes them women? I just don't think it's that simple.
/woke
Oh how we comiserated over our beers as we watched the map show the Reagan landslide!
DBQ at 8:54: Hear, hear!
Biden remains the front stumbler.
So quick question: which Democrats running for President in 2020 have actual accomplishments that people who aren't committed leftists would value? What are those accomplishments?
Two big signs of Democrat panic:
1) Steyer becoming a candidate. He was probably funding Harris an is giving up.
2) The Epstein revival. They are desperate to get Trump somehow. Even sacrificing Bill Clinton and Menendez is worth it. Maybe some other big donors. I'm sure they think Cy Vance can keep it under control.
Well, Democrats also had the luxury in 2008 of being the ascendant party by any measure. Republicans had been soundly beaten in the 2006 mid-terms and the Bush presidency was extremely unpopular with a war-weary public. The gamble on Obama was not so risky. The bigger risk would've been to gamble on Hillary, not just because she's a woman, but because she's widely despised and was a supporter of the war in Iraq. (John Edwards also voted for the war in Iraq.) Democrats would've been letting the GOP nominee off the hook too easily. Obama was the most electable and least risky candidate. It was easy and very tempting for people to vote for him while feeling good about themselves. He was exotic and worldly; he wasn't black like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Hillary would've lost in 2008.
Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.
Of course they did. The choice was between people who see business as the enemy and obstructing / limiting it as their primary goal vs someone who didn't.
Advantage: Trump.
We also had the choice of people who would continue to expand the Title IX kangaroo courts on campus and vs someone who wouldn't.
Advantage: Trump.
To summarize we both had and have a choice between people who will continue to make America worse and someone who didn't / won't. Even if he did support some things I disagree with his program was not universally detrimental which makes it a net improvement over Dems.
I can't abide all the praise for Kamala Harris. It's so misplaced, in my opinion. Just listen to her speak, especially when she tries to use terms like "rap sheet" to remind you that she was once a prosecutor, but using it awkwardly or kinda incorrectly like someone who saw a Law & Order episode. She's a political animal who scored various sinecures and patronage positions ("it's not who you know, it's who you blow") until she rose to become a senator.
She's a freaking moron, an empty dress. She will get destroyed in the primaries by the smarter, better, more articulate candidates who are in or near her "lane," like Warren and Mayor Pete. She will do better than Booker though, so there's that.
I don't think he is the front runner any longer, and I judge that just by the polling that is coming out- the anti-Biden faction has taken a solid lead over Biden. When Biden was polling around 35-40%, he could reasonably expect to reach 50% if the match were heads up against the strongest of the remaining candidates, which is what the race was always going to come down to by the middle of next March. However, polling under 30%, I think it very unlikely that he ever reaches even 45% in a heads up match. His erosion after that first debate is significant, and I see no reason at all to expect his performance, both real and perceived, is going to improve in the next round. I think Biden is finished already, though he will stay in until at least New Hampshire.
Do we have Biden meme yet "I could-a-been-a-contender"
Bay Area Guy wrote:
"The Dem elites have settled on Kammy. She's the right age and has the right look for the Dem Party, So, there's much more political kneecapping in store for the 3 ahead of her."
I agree- that debate a couple of weeks ago saved Harris and showed her the path forward, and the media will get behind her from here on out.
Me: The questions that we need to have answered are "Who are these people really. What do they stand for. And I don't mean just today...what are their core principles. What policies do they propose. How do they plan to govern."????”
Inga Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.
Actually, Trump stated quite clearly what he was going to do. QUITE clearly. What he didn't like about how the country was being run. Foreign policy stupidity. How immigration was hurting the country and the economy. How he would deal with our allies in trade. He has delivered on almost everything that he could despite being impeded and road blocked by the Dems and the Republichucks.
Just think what could have been accomplished if Trump hadn't bee bucking a huge headwind.
IT isn't our problem than you can't or won't listen.
He hasn't changed his tune from the early day's either as this interview shows.
1988 Trump on Ophrah
If Kammy gets traction (currently tied for No. 2 according to RCP), I'm waiting for the future tweet by Trump referencing Willie Brown. That will be epic.
Here is the latest national averages at RCP:
Biden 27.3%
Harris 15.0%
Sanders 14.9%
Warren 13.9%
Rest of Field 28.9%
When you finally reach Iowa, Rest of Field won't be 28.9%- it will be 5% or less. The race will be down to just the top 4 candidates. That 28.9% will divide almost all to the three non-Biden candidates, and most likely will settle on the #2 and #3 candidates, no matter who they are at the time- I think it will be Warren and Harris.
In short, the non-Biden candidates have a lot of room to grow, while Biden doesn't given his age, his seeming dementia, and his entire history of gaffing.
"No people with Alzheimer’s don’t usually vote in massive numbers."
This is true. Instead, their votes are harvested.
I used to work a lot with homeless folks and there was a large majority of the other people who did so rounding up as many homeless folks they could find and driving them to the polls. They knew the homeless would vote for the candidate the workers told them too. The fact that they gave them socks, cigarettes, food vouchers and bus tokens had nothing to do with it.
Rest of field there are Buttuvwxyz, O'Rourke, Klobuchar, Booker, Gillibrand, Williamson, etc. Those supporters are not going to take Joe Biden as the secondary choice- no fucking way.
Also, against Biden is this- his polling support is going to include a significantly higher percentage of people who won't actually show up to vote in a caucus/primary- that is the downside to having much higher name recognition- softer support.
1980 Interview.
Core values that haven't really changed. Most of his themes are encapsulated here.
Fake news. Tv influence. Make America respected and 'great' again.
Think of the bullet we dodged when Hillary lost.
We saw this with Jeb Bush in 2016- he polled much higher than people who showed up to vote for him- catastrophically so. Trump was a outlier in this regard, and part of it was that Trump staked out positions that were seen as truly different from the rest of the field- his support turned solid if it was ever just based on name recognition.
Althouse says: Why don't you "dish" your obsession?
Translation: "I know YOU are, but what am I?"
538 is best ignored when it comes to politics, like nearly all other pundits and prognosticators.
Think of them like a bunch of people who have been drinking at a party for several hours — loud, obnoxious, very sure of themselves, but they all sound like idiots when you’re the only sober one there.
"they were more open to risk in 2008"
What risk? Didn't Althouse tell us Barry was the more "pragmatic" candidate?
Anyway, the key similarity between B. Hussein and Heels-Up is that they aren't all that black--BH raised by whites and Indonesians, partly in Indonesia, Harris by her Indian mom, partly in Canada. Her actually black Jamaican dad hasn't been all that impressed by her forays into identity politics.
Smegma said: We are old women, let us roar!
Helen Reddy sang: I am woman, HEAR ME ROAR! She wasn't asking anybody to LET HER do anything.
Who are you beseeching - The Patriarchy?
Only in a land of yahoos and nitwits: a sizable portion of voters loves them some Trump! and the opponents really dig Biden.
The motley of shitty aspirants for office, incumbent and challengers alike, is just more evidence we're in the "decadent" and dying phase of our history.
DBQ: 1980 Interview.
Core values that haven't really changed. Most of his themes are encapsulated here."
Correct.
Very similar to Reagan in terms of the consistency of the Trump message over time.
There are any number of interviews throughout the 80's/90's/00's where Trump has been voicing the same concerns/beliefs/goals.
And as Heritage has pointed out quite conclusively, Trump has delivered more in terms conservative policies than even Reagan.
Robert Cook: "Only in a land of yahoos and nitwits: a sizable portion of voters loves them some Trump! and the opponents really dig Biden."
It is true that we lack lefty dream candidates like Castro or Chavez.
Alas.
On a more serious note, it is healthy for the populace not to grow to respectful of the hired political help, so cookie is ok in that regard.
We just need the Ingas and LLR-lefties to stop worshipping lefty authoritarians.
Oh I see Althouse’s tag says Democratic party, not “Democrat” party.
Hey get with the program Althouse! Sheesh.
Robert Cook said: The motley of shitty aspirants for office, incumbent and challengers alike, is just more evidence we're in the "decadent" and dying phase of our history.
Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
We need a super hero in a cape. Captain Meryl Streep.
“Who are you beseeching - The Patriarchy?”
I see there are people here who are sadly developmentally disabled when it comes to humor.
Not funny!
Let us go to luncheon. I’m not beseeching, I’m inviting.
“Althouse says: Why don't you "dish" your obsession?
Translation: "I know YOU are, but what am I?"”
You’re a dummy, Dougie.
Interesting bit from the latest clown car update: The polls immediately after the debates showed Harris with a big bump and Biden with a big slump. But the latest ABC poll has Biden back at 30%, with Harris back down at 13%. Different screens and samples? Very possibly. But Harris only racked up $10 million in fundraising. That's not going to get it done with Buttigieg, Biden, Warren and Sanders all outraising her.
I don't think he is the front runner any longer, and I judge that just by the polling that is coming out- the anti-Biden faction has taken a solid lead over Biden.
As long as Biden did not know Epstein, which is growing like a snowball rolling downhill.
It strikes me as quite unlikely that Jeffrey Epstein's motive for allegedly inviting powerful figures from the U.S. and Europe aboard the Lolita Express on a trip to Orgy Island was mere fellowship — as if they were playing a round of golf together. My dominant hypothesis is that he was video-recording highly illegal and morally reprehensible rapes for use as blackmail material. It might have been insurance against serious prosecution for his indulging in his own perversion, which would explain why his punishment the first time he was prosecuted was laughably light:
I don't think Cy Vance has a chance of containing this any longer.
But the latest ABC poll has Biden back at 30%, with Harris back down at 13%. Different screens and samples? Very possibly.
I doubt polls in general for a number of reasons. I think the questions they ask are often far too ambiguous and/or leading. I think the sample sizes are far too small. And I suspect that there's a fair amount of massaging and meddling with the data itself in an attempt to favor different outcomes. I believe that polls are used to drive narratives rather than just to report general sentiments.
So when I see a divergence in different polls like what's going on with the Biden and Harris numbers, I can't help but suspect somebody's not getting with the program fast enough. After all, the narrative in the media has been that ever since the first debate Harris has gaining.
Please, please, please nominate Elizabeth Warren.
I just know the voters want a screeching, scolding harpy lecturing them for the next four years.
more cleverness from teh clown college:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/07/08/kill-electoral-college-let-winners-win-force-republicans-change-column/1558858001/
@Lawrence Person,
Thanks for the link -- you have a good political blog there.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Too bad more of you didn’t care about that when it came to voting for Trump.
We did listen.
He said:
1. He would enforce our borders.
2. End stupid wars.
3. Renegotiate globalist trade agreements.
4. Cuts taxes and regulations.
His opponents want:
1. Open borders.
2. More stupid wars.
3. To sell us out to China and Russia and Europe.
4. Higher taxes and more regulations.
We have noticed your reluctance to actually discuss these issues.
Trump is Making America Great Again. 3% growth and growing wages in the working class. All easily foreseeable consequences of his policies. Despite you traitorous fucks.
Please, please, please nominate Elizabeth Warren.
Amen, Brother. I can just imagine how thrilled black and Hispanic voters will be to vote for someone who couldn't be whiter if she did her face with clown makeup, but who got ahead in her career by claiming to be a person of color.
Why do so many of you assume that just because Kamala and Fauxchahontas purportedly have vaginas that this simple fact makes them women?
Emphasis on the purportedly. It brings up an interesting scenario where someone cheats and stands in the express checkout line, so to speak. Perhaps we need a government bureaucrat to conduct an audit?
"OK … that’s two votes in favor of Biden as the front-runner and one vote against him...."
All that statistical analysis is so difficult and tedious, and we've got daily page-views to serve up.
How about we skip all that and just have a discussion among ourselves about what we think the data would tell us?
That's not cheating, it's journalism!
We have noticed your reluctance to actually discuss these issues.
Inga doesn't discuss the issues because her posts are constructed on a careful three-part harmony:
Step 1. No matter the topic, begin by Insulting the commentariat.
You people make me sick!
Step 2. Insult Trump with something that appears topical to distract people from the repetition.
Did you read Trump's tweet? Your God-President is so stupid, he'll probably forget to breathe.
Step 3. Demand the sinners repent. Trump hatred is at its core a religious movement.
You cultists better wake up and admit your mistakes or there will be hell to pay.
That's it. That's the formula for an Inga post.
Oh I see Althouse’s tag says Democratic party, not “Democrat” party.
Hey get with the program Althouse! Sheesh.
Current usage demands we make the change to Democratic Socialist.
That's where the program resides, for now.
Hillary did not lose because she’s a woman.
Hillary lost because she’s Hillary.
I didn’t vote against Hillary because she’s a woman and I didn’t vote against Obama because he’s African-American.
I would’ve voted for Sarah Palin in 2012 but she declined to run. It’s just as well—sitting Presidents are hard to beat.
Trump 2020.
The good news is Kammy won't play too well in Iowa or New Hampshire. She'll be slow outta the gate.
I think a woman, and especially one of color is about the most electable person possible, ... if they were a conservative Republican.
That's it. That's the formula for an Inga post.
Pretty much. Have you no shame? Coupled with Just You Wait Henry Higgens.
I think subconsciously she is ashamed of the Democrat Party and is trying to convince herself that "every else is a hypocrite just like me, so I can't be all that bad..."
Cook: Robert Cook said: The motley of shitty aspirants for office, incumbent and challengers alike, is just more evidence we're in the "decadent" and dying phase of our history.
Because the Establishment Wings of both parties keep picking the finalists. The GOPe tried to do the same thing to Trump that they Dems pulled on Bernie.
Careful, you keep thinking along those lines, you'll be sporting a MAGA hat.
That's it. That's the formula for an Inga post.
Pretty much. Have you no shame? Coupled with Just You Wait Henry Higgens.
I think subconsciously she is ashamed of the Democrat Party and is trying to convince herself that "everyone else is a hypocrite just like me, so I can't be all that bad..."
Her mirror can't accept that she has been running with the Red Guard.
(I really don't understand how anyone is proud to be a Democrat these days)
"A woman candidate" is not too risky; an unpleasant woman candidate is. Hillary was unpleasant. So are Warren and Harris; neither is someone you want to have grating at your eardrums for four years.
he was video-recording highly illegal and morally reprehensible rapes for use as blackmail material
think how effective that would be against someone like Mike Pence!
"Hey Mike! hop on the plane! We've got so Really Hot YOUNG Babes waitin' for ya"
"NO, I am NOT interested; good-bye"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा