Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 06, 2019

In Texas, former Vice President Joseph Biden has 48 percent to President Trump with 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Quinnipiac reports, "In the Trump-Biden matchup, women back Biden 54 -- 39 percent as men back Trump 50 -- 42 percent. White voters back Trump 60 -- 33 percent. Biden leads 86 -- 7 percent among black voters and 59-33 percent among Hispanic voters."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This.

Get out and vote.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-06-05 09:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

JoBi has no charisma, people aren't showing up to his rallies ...

This won't end well for him ....

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-05 09:49 PM | Reply

Won't matter. Libs are going to nominate some leftist with no chance of winning independents and moderates and then they'll spend two years pointing fingers and blaming everyone else for Trump's 2nd term.

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-06-05 09:54 PM | Reply

Comrade Pinto with his usual wishful thinking.
He also said the blue wave wouldn't happen in 2018, so there is that.

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-06-06 12:32 AM | Reply

#4 Link?

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-06-06 06:21 AM | Reply

Beto proved that Texas is in play. At the very least, Trump has to spend scarce resources trying to shore the place up in 2020. At most, something happens here that causes his fat head to explode.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2019-06-06 09:33 AM | Reply

He also said the blue wave wouldn't happen in 2018

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019

That was one of the big Russian memes oft repeated by people who aren't Russians.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-06-06 09:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yeah, the election is a LONG way away but this has to be very troubling for the Trump team.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 01:30 PM | Reply

A very good sign... and early polls are quite good indicators.

We Analyzed 40 Years Of Primary Polls. Even Early On, They're Fairly Predictive.

fivethirtyeight.com

If TX ever turns blue again, that will be a very good indicator for the country... or a sign of the Apocalypse.

- people aren't showing up to his rallies ...

Yeah, that werked really well for Bernie.... damn, mAndy, have you ever been right about anything? Ever?

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 01:50 PM | Reply

Yea. And Hillary was going to turn Texas blue.

Shut up with the stupid already.

No southern state is going Democratic.

They should be eliminated from the primaries.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 01:51 PM | Reply

this has to be very troubling for the Trump team.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why? If you actually believe polls, Trump is favored to win 2020.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 01:55 PM | Reply

A very good sign... and early polls are quite good indicators.

except when they aren't ...

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-06 01:56 PM | Reply

Beto proved that Texas is in play ~ Zed

It wasn't "Beto", it was the media that hated Cruz that made Texas in play.

On the national level, Clownshack it probably right ... no southern state will go Dem, I wonder how AZ and NM will do being on the border.

#13 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-06 01:58 PM | Reply

I wonder how AZ and NM will do being on the border.

AZ will vote for Trump. NM will vote for the Democratic candidate.

This isn't difficult. There are only 8(?) states that tend to matter in national elections.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 02:03 PM | Reply

- people aren't showing up to his rallies ...
Yeah, that werked really well for Bernie

You still fail to realize that nominating the candidate nobody was excited about in 2016 played a big role in losing the election to a rapist.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:06 PM | Reply

It wasn't "Beto", it was the media that hated Cruz that made Texas in play.

If you think some boring old guy would have fared as well against Cruz as O'Rourke did, you're out of your ------- mind.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#15

Failing to understand that big rock star rallies don't necessarily translate into putting voters into the ballot box appears to be the larger misconception... particularly when it lead to a landslide loss in that primary.

- except when they aren't ...

Um, as 40 years worth of primaries established, usually they are. You are really terrible at this rational thinking thingy, mAndy.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 02:10 PM | Reply

big rock star rallies don't necessarily translate into putting voters into the ballot box

Well we tried the inverse and it didn't work. Are you going to change your strategy or repeat?

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:18 PM | Reply

You still fail to realize that nominating the candidate nobody was excited about in 2016 played a big role in losing the election to a rapist.

#15 | POSTED BY JOE

A few things about comparing Clinton to Biden...

1. She had a LOT more baggage.

2. She had no charisma whatsoever. While Biden is hardly a big charmer, he comes off more likable than Clinton.

3. She had a huge swath of people who despised her, including some on the left. Biden has much less of that.

4. Biden has more cross-party appeal than she did.

I see more differences than similarities between the 2 as candidates.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

i>You still fail to realize that nominating the candidate nobody was excited about in 2016 played a big role in losing the election to a rapist.

#15 | Posted by JOE

You're understating things just a tad.

People weren't just apathetic about Hillary, they were often downright against her. If she was a man she probably would have done even worse as her vagina likely garnered her many votes.

Biden doesn't have that level of distrust and dislike in the middle.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-06-06 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 |

The inverse got the most votes in the more conservative general election; the idea that the more liberal candidate that lost the primary in a 4 million vote landslide would have done better with a more conservative electorate is a half-baked one.

My strategery is to continue to let the primary voters determine who their candidate will be, even if I might personally prefer someone else.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 02:24 PM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And I don't appreciate you people making me agree with El Heffy.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 02:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

1. She had a LOT more baggage.

Biden has plenty of his own, and Trump will hone in on whatever is there and repeat it ad nauseum just like he did with Hillary.

I see more differences than similarities between the 2 as candidates.

That is an astoundingly laughable statement. They are the most obvious 2016-2020 corrolaries that could possibly exist.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:33 PM | Reply

The inverse got the most votes in the more conservative general election

The inverse lost. I'd like to win. You, apparently, don't really care.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:34 PM | Reply

- I'd like to win.

You'd like your preference to win... so would everyone else. Some though, put that aside in favor of the best odds of beating someone like Trump. And in that election, where Bernie had already lost in a landslide in the much more liberal electorate, the idea that he would have won in the much more conservative electorate is still a pipe dream.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 02:39 PM | Reply

You'd like your preference to win

No, my #1 priority really is beating Trump. If it happens o be by a far-left progressive that's a bonus.

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:41 PM | Reply

#26

What makes you think that a liberal who lost big time with the more liberal electorate would have won... or even come within a fraction of a fraction of a percent in the EC or winning as Hillary did, with the much more conservative electorate?

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 02:43 PM | Reply

#27 I'm not even talking solely about Bernie here. I'm talking about nominating the candidate who excites the most people, because i think expanding the Democratic electorate is a better strategy than compromising for a slice of the moiddle. You disagree? Whatever, but stop assigning positions.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 02:47 PM | Reply

Biden has plenty of his own, and Trump will hone in on whatever is there and repeat it ad nauseum just like he did with Hillary.

That's true in every election cycle. By 'baggage' I was referring to the email thingy, the pay-to-play allegations of the Clinton Foundation, etc. Biden has less of that kind of baggage than Hillary did.

I get that you feel there are better Dem candidates than Biden out of this pack of 24. I disagree with you about that, if beating Trump is the #1 goal, but I understand you wanting the candidate most closely aligned with your policy preferences to win the nomination. The point that I, JPW, Corky (sorry about the agreement thing, El Corko) and others are making is: Be careful what you wish for.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#28 Joe,

I think the more moderate candidates are going to get the most votes in the General. Trump is so hated that those toward the farther end of the left-wing spectrum are going to unentheusiastically vote for Biden or other moderate (Buttigieg) in order to vote against Trump.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 02:52 PM | Reply

#30

And those of us who similarly not going to vote for Trump are more likely to vote for a Biden or Buttigeig, even with a progressive VP on the ticket to balance things out, than we would if it was the other way around.

If the Dems really want to beat Trump, the Democratic nominee is going to have to appeal to the Obama Cross-over Voters that gave the Presidency to Trump in 2016.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 02:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- nominating the candidate who excites the most people,

To actually go to the booth and vote is what happens in every primary and every general election.

Hil was a perfect storm of people thinking she had already won, the FBI confirming some biases right before the vote, and some of the far left preferring their ego and Trump to being wrong about who the Dem candidate should have been... and she still almost won.

- stop assigning positions.

Your position: "You still fail to realize that nominating the candidate nobody was excited about in 2016 played a big role in losing the election to a rapist."

Mine": "Failing to understand that big rock star rallies don't necessarily translate into putting voters into the ballot box appears to be the larger misconception... particularly when it lead to a landslide loss in that primary."

I didn't assign any position to you, I pointed out that exciting rallies don't always produce actual voters.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:00 PM | Reply

#31

Well, F you all! Now you having me agreeing with the blog attny for Dulli Mattress, LLC.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

While the Overton Window doesn't technically apply here, the concept is similar: for a Democrat to beat even a disliked incumbent like Trump, the policy positions of the Democratic candidate will probably have to fall firmly in the Acceptable/Sensible/Popular range for moderate voters to ensure a Trump defeat if the economy stays relatively strong.

If the economy goes in the tank, then more radical positions can be taken as potential remedies, but even then they will have to be still on the edge of the Acceptable range.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:04 PM | Reply

All the Trump supporters want Biden.

If that doesn't get you to rethink nominating Biden, I'm not sure what will.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 03:05 PM | Reply

#33

All that means is that you are getting smarter in your old age.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:06 PM | Reply

All the Trump supporters want Biden.

Neither Jeff or I voted from Trump in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020, so we are exactly who the Dems need to appeal to to get rid of Trump.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:08 PM | Reply

I was smart enough to vote for George McGovern the first time I could vote.... and I would never take that landslide loss vote for him and against Tricky Dick back even if I could.

Trump is merely the logical progression in the long tradition of Republican Presidents who were criminals like Nixon, traitors like Reagan, and imbeciles like GW.

He is the Republican Presidential Sweeps tri-fecta of all three traits.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the Dems really want to beat Trump, the Democratic nominee is going to have to appeal to the Obama Cross-over Voters

That's one theory. The other theory is that there are enough Democrats, or people generally aligned with them, who don't bother to vote because they aren't enthused by geriatric centrists, who could swing the election without the need for some phantom voter who might be convinced to peel themselves away from a cult figure like Trump.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#39 | POSTED BY JOE

It's a terrible theory that clearly didn't work in 2016 with the Centrist appeal of Clinton. No surprise our own Ted Cruz suggested it. The question is, does he say it with malicious intent or genuine idiocy?

#40 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-06 03:22 PM | Reply

- who don't bother to vote because they aren't enthused

What a sad theory if true. "They don't make me hard enough, so I think I'll let Trump win."

About the only people like that here are Shemple and Hrat.

Hopefully they aren't representative of the swing vote. And again, enthusiasm doesn't always translate into votes anyway.

Winning the middle is the way it's been done in the past. Obama was able to do both; win the middle and win the youth/indies. That's a tall order to repeat.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:26 PM | Reply

"Neither Jeff or I voted from Trump in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020"

who cares

jiffyj said multiple times he was thrilled with Trumps "conservative" policy's and you have not missed an opportunity to act like a jackass on his behalf

suck it up cupcake. You own this

#42 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-06-06 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"jiffyj said multiple times he was thrilled with Trumps "conservative" policy's"

He's also said he's "proud" to cast the votes to enable Trump.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-06 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What a sad theory if true. "They don't make me hard enough, so I think I'll let Trump win."

I'm sorry reality makes you sad. Among voting-age Americans, only 54% of them turned out in 2016. That leaves 106 million eligible voters who didn't bother. I'll even grant you that at half of them are apolitical. That still leaves over 50 million potential voters. How big is the pot of potential "centrists" compared to that?

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"jiffyj said multiple times he was thrilled with Trumps "conservative" policy's"
He's also said he's "proud" to cast the votes to enable Trump.
#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

But when pressed, JeffJ was "just joking!"

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-06 03:38 PM | Reply

What can I say? I am a proud boy.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 03:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Um.... most of them, as being mostly disinterested/disaffected, vote as centrists when they do vote.

Is this thing even on?

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:39 PM | Reply

#47 link?

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Does anybody honestly believe that a majority of apathetic non-voters are Progressives who stayed home because a sufficiently left-leaning candidate wasn't nominated? This in a country where self-described conservatives nearly double the number of self-described liberals in polling?

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#46 Proud Boof.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-06 03:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#39

To the extent that people who should have voted for Hillary in 2016 but couldn't be bothered, studies have shown that their expectation that she was going to win was just as important a factor as apathy towards her as a candidate.

#40

It's amazing that you even remember to breathe on a regular basis. Shouldn't you be out yelling at passing cars?

#41

Bill Clinton is a more apt comparison this go around, since none of the candidates really have the rock star status that Obama had and still has to this date. You are correct, though, whoever the nominee is will have to take the middle away from Trump.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:41 PM | Reply

I see, so when the disinterested vote, they are usually extreme right or left, you are going with that?

Uh-huh. Use some common sense... and some history.

Winning the middle is the way it's been done in the past. Obama was able to do both; win the middle and win the youth/indies. That's a tall order to repeat.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:42 PM | Reply

#49 |

Damn you, Jeffrey, stfu!

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:43 PM | Reply

#52 Trump didn't win because he's a centrist. Hillary is a centrist and she lost. Trump is an alt-right rapist and he won.

Do the math. This isn't the 1970s anymore.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does anybody honestly believe that a majority of apathetic non-voters are Progressives who stayed home because a sufficiently left-leaning candidate wasn't nominated?

No, but nobody made that argument. The argument is simply that there are more of them who can be activated than there are existing voters who mighe be peeled away from Trump if only Dems were Republican enough.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does anybody honestly believe that a majority of apathetic non-voters are Progressives who stayed home because a sufficiently left-leaning candidate wasn't nominated?

Sure. That's a plausible explanation.

Right leaning candidates do fine.

Where are the threads warning Trump that he's going too far extreme to the right?

Non exist. Because Republicans embrace their base.

Democrats are idiots who will hand Trump a second term. And you couldn't be happier.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Does anybody honestly believe that a majority of apathetic non-voters are Progressives who stayed home because a sufficiently left-leaning candidate wasn't nominated?"

You ever hear a meme "I didn't leave the Democrats, the Democrat party left me?"

Sounds like maybe you have, but you were able to identify it as pro-Trump Russian propaganda. Which is correct. Others, however, not only believe it, they've adopted the idea as one of their own.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-06 03:47 PM | Reply

This isn't the 1970s anymore.
#54 | POSTED BY JOE

Corky speaks for the DNC, Joe. So Pelosi says STFU.

Either get with the program or prepare to be slandered and accused.

You're already sounding Russian.

#58 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 03:48 PM | Reply

- more of them who can be activated

Does activated mean enthused?

Dems don't have to peel voters away from Trump.... they have to present a candidate that appeals to both the Dems, who are about evenly liberal/moderate-conservative and moderates who don't want to vote for Trump.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:48 PM | Reply

"This in a country where self-described conservatives nearly double the number of self-described liberals in polling"

says the creep who claims with regularity that the US educational system, the media, the FBI is run entirely by "Libruuls"
"conservative math" at its best

#60 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-06-06 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats are idiots who will hand Trump a second term. And you couldn't be happier.
#56 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

"Can we get one more lever-pull for Biden on the way out? It just might werk this time"

Thanks,

DNC

#61 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 03:50 PM | Reply

Dems don't have to peel voters away from Trump.... they have to present a candidate that appeals to both the Dems, who are about evenly liberal/moderate-conservative and moderates who don't want to vote for Trump

Corky: "Dems don't have to peel voters away from Trump"

Also Corky: "Dems have to present a candidate that appeals to...moderates who don't want to vote for Trump"

Can you reconcile this?

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Neither Jeff or I voted from Trump in 2016 and won't vote for him in 2020"

who cares
jiffyj said multiple times he was thrilled with Trumps "conservative" policy's and you have not missed an opportunity to act like a jackass on his behalf
suck it up cupcake. You own this
#42 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

"This in a country where self-described conservatives nearly double the number of self-described liberals in polling"
says the creep who claims with regularity that the US educational system, the media, the FBI is run entirely by "Libruuls"
"conservative math" at its best
#60 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Very newsworthy posts, Chief.

No wonder RoC and Jeff have you plonked. You do a good job of throwing their stupidity back in their faces.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 03:52 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY JOE

I see you arguing this point non stop but it is just a BS talking point. Hilary won the popular vote by a massive margin. Trump won because of a few swing states and then just barely in each one. Hilary was a horrible candidate. To say that Biden will experience the same fate just because he is also a centrist is ridiculous. It all depends on voter turnout in swing states.

#64 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-06-06 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#56

Left leaning candidates do just fine as well, depending on the political environment when they run: Carter, Clinton and Obama benefited from GOP fatigue and with the possible exception of Bubba ran further left than the electorate.

Trump didn't win because of his Rtarded base, he won because massive amounts of voters in the middle of America thought they were being ignored by Obama and didn't want a redo with Hillary, so he focused on appealing to issues that were important to them and won.

This is as close a thread as you are going to get on a left leaning blog that "warns" Trump about staying too far right- if Biden/Buttigieg/Sanders/Warren/Harris cede the middle to Trump, he will repeat what he did in 2016.

#65 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:54 PM | Reply

-Can you reconcile this?

English not your first language?

Getting votes from moderate Repubs, many of whom don't approve of Trump *even while they relish in Repub policies... is not the same thing as peeling away extremist rwingers from Trump.

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:55 PM | Reply

You do a good job of throwing their stupidity back in their faces.

Suggested edits to reflect reality.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:55 PM | Reply

#67

Sure sure.

Well done.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 03:58 PM | Reply

#66

Exactly, and whoever the Democratic candidate is will have to appeal to enough of us moderates to win.

I know that reality bothers the low IQ contingent like CocoChief, Abortion and Vizzindy but it is what it is.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 03:58 PM | Reply

#58

Sheeple speaks for Trump. He used to speak for Bernie, but then Bernie b-slapped him for speaking for Trump.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 03:59 PM | Reply

Getting votes from moderate Repubs, many of whom don't approve of Trump *even while they relish in Repub policies... is not the same thing as peeling away extremist rwingers from Trump.

I never talked about peeling away extremist rightwingers. I said "Trump voters," which necessarily includes moderates voting for Trump. Can you post without deliberately misinterpreting my argument?

At the end of the day, you haven't presented a single coherent point against the theory that the pot of people who can be activated by a candidate who generates high enthusiasm is larger than the pot of people who oh so badly wish they didn't have to vote for Trump if only the Dems didn't nominate a leftwing meanie. I'll acknowledge that neither of us have presented a study to back up our position, but you've been intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

#71 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 03:59 PM | Reply

Also Corky: "Dems have to present a candidate that appeals to...moderates who don't want to vote for Trump"
Can you reconcile this?

#62 | POSTED BY JOE

As a moderate that didnt want to vote for either Trump or Clinton I can give my own answer... I voted Johnson. Had there been a better candidate it wouldnt have been such a difficult decision. I would have voted for McCain if he hadnt tagged Palin for VP. If I had been in a swing state where my vote actually amounted to something I probably would have held my nose and selected Hilary. If the dem candidate is too far left I will again vote 3rd party. I am not alone.

#72 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-06-06 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

whoever the Democratic candidate is will have to appeal to enough of us moderates to win.

Yet, Republicans only need to appeal to their dangerously rabid conservative base.

Interesting there's that double standard.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 04:01 PM | Reply

#73 exactly. Republicans are going to nominate an alt-right rapist, again. Why do Dems have to capitulate?

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:03 PM | Reply

- but you've [Corky] been intellectually dishonest throughout this thread.

Coorection: *throughout his entire existence on the DR

#75 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 04:03 PM | Reply

- it is what it is.

Which doesn't mean any of us have to like it... it being the massive amount of people not being responsible enough to vote... usually for policies that they approve of by 70 percent in polls.

Which is what, I assume, leads some on the left to think they will actually vote and vote the way they poll.

Not so, apparently.

I'd rather have FDR-ish policies not matter who the Dem candidate is, but I have no chance at them if the Pres has an R behind his name.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:03 PM | Reply

#72

That was exactly my calculus in voting for Johnson, and as a Californian I will "throw my vote away" if the Democratic candidate is too far left by the time the GE rolls around.

One thing is clear to me: we would be far better off with a moderate Democrat in the WH than Trump, but if the Left wants to put up someone that moderates won't vote for, then we will have four more years of Trump, like it or not.

#77 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dems would rally around Bernie or Warren if nominated.

Certainly, Dems wouldn't elect Trump because of differences to either of their policies.

Biden is a divider. Bernie would unite the left and center-left.

#78 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 04:06 PM | Reply

- you haven't presented a single coherent point against the theory that the pot of people who can be activated by a candidate who generates high enthusiasm is larger than the pot of people

What was demonstrated in the last Dem primary, decisively, was that enthusiasm does not equal votes.

Which point was made early on.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:06 PM | Reply

- intellectually dishonest

Someone needs a hug.

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:07 PM | Reply

#73

Trump's rabidly conservative base didn't get him elected, no matter how many times you repeat that to yourself to make yourself feel better.

#74

Why do Dems have to capitulate?

You don't...unless you want to win.

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 04:08 PM | Reply

Forget Biden. We need a truth seeker.

www.youtube.com

#82 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-06 04:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Dem primary, decisively, was that enthusiasm does not equal votes.
#79 | POSTED BY CORKY

LOL. They tanked him and rigged it for Her Bitterness.

The entire procession was a charade.

#83 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 04:09 PM | Reply

If the dem candidate is too far left I will again vote 3rd party.

That's your choice to make.

But, neither party is left leaning.

Having to choose between two candidates you don't support falls on liberals shoulders, and we're weary of doing so.

Hillary won the popular vote mainly due to her huge wins in California and New York.

All other states were much closer in results.

#84 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bernie would unite the left and center-left.

But you are forgetting about the middle and center-right, which a candidate needs to win in a National Election given the reality of the EC. Do you honestly think Bernie can pull that off?

I don't think so.

#85 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 04:10 PM | Reply

Why do Dems have to capitulate?

You don't...unless you want to win.
#81 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Are you this stupid in real life?

#86 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 04:11 PM | Reply

- Bernie would unite the left and center-left

Which he did in the Dem primary.... and lost in a landslide because they are about half the Dem party, the other half being moderates and conservative voters.

This, again, appears to be completely lost on some on the far left who can't see beyond their ego, er, nose. It's political myopia.

#87 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:11 PM | Reply

What was demonstrated in the last Dem primary, decisively, was that enthusiasm does not equal votes.

We're talking about the general, which is something a lot more of the general public pays attention to, not primaries.

But hey, if you want to lose to the alt-right rapist again, be my guest. Free country (for now).

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:11 PM | Reply

You are forgetting about the middle and center-right, which a candidate needs to win in a National Election

Does the converse apply to Republicans? Do they need the middle and the center-left? If so how did Trump win? Or are you just saying that the EC thwarts the will of the people and favors the alt-right?

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- rigged it

It was a wooly Conspiracy!

Even Bernie doesn't believe that. But then, he's a lot smarter than you. Had your ilk listened to him Trump would not be President... but then you would be REALLY sad.

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:13 PM | Reply

- and lost in a landslide #87 | POSTED BY CORKY

Rigged process. Bernie got gassed. and it'll happen again.

Corky and his goon party will give us Trump one more time.

You watch.

#91 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 04:14 PM | Reply

#90 | POSTED BY CORKY : Works for Trump campaign.

#92 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-06 04:15 PM | Reply

- But hey, if you want to lose to the alt-right rapist again, be my guest.

What I love about millennial, and other self-satisfied, leftists.

They have mentally decided to enhance their ego by declaring something to themselves as true that can never be proven:

That Bernie would have definitely beat Trump if only he had been the candidate! Then they base their entire argument for a far left general election candidate being a SURE THING! in a mostly conservative electorate.... on their ego.

Nice werk if you can get it.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:18 PM | Reply

Works for Trump campaign.

#92 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

True comedy. And Bernie's worst nightmare, a pretend supporter who spends his all time defending Trump.... when he had one job JUST ONE JOB! To vote for Hil against Trump, and he F'd that up big time.

#94 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:21 PM | Reply

I saw Sanders very much as I saw Ron Paul.

He generated a ton of excitement on the far left but turned off the middle.

I see it the same way with the other current front-runners except Biden and maybe Buttigieg. Harris could possibly chameleon her way toward the middle in the general, but so far she's chosen just about every extreme left position that most of the others have staked out.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 04:22 PM | Reply

- so far she's chosen just about every extreme left position that most of the others have staked out.

Most of which positions 70 percent of Americans say they agree with... too bad they don't vote that way, mostly because they are fearmongered away from their own best self-interests by social issues like abortion, immigration, and gun control, you know, the GOP GoTo strategery of divide and conquer.

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:26 PM | Reply

#93 There you go again. I'm talking about nominating any enthusiasm-generating candidate this time around, not Bernie. If anyone ITT reeks of smug self-satisfaction, it's absolutely you.

Have you had any ribs removed, by chance?

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:26 PM | Reply

Does the converse apply to Republicans? Do they need the middle and the center-left? If so how did Trump win?

These geniuses will never answer this question.

Also. Note. That all the biggest pushers for Biden (except Corky) are Republicans who are very happy with Trump as our president.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most of which positions 70 percent of Americans say they agree with

Reparations?
Single payer?
"Free" college tuitions?
Eliminate all student debt?
Allowing felons still incarcerated to vote?
No limits on abortion whatsoever?
Green New Deal?
Eliminating the Hyde Amendment?
Unconditional Amnesty?

70% of Americans agree with those positions?

When say extreme left positions, those are the kind that I'm talking about. I am not talking about boilerplate Democratic Party policies.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- I'm talking about nominating any enthusiasm-generating candidate this time around, not Bernie.

A distinction with no difference to my point... being intellectually honest and all as I am.

You should try being the same and addressing the point I made about the semi-delusional belief that any far left candidate, as much as you or I might prefer them, is a SURE THING in the gen election because, well, because you say so and because you've convinced yourself that Bernie, or any other far lefty, would have definitely beat Trump.

If you want to be intellectually honest and all.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That all the biggest pushers for Biden (except Corky) are Republicans who are very happy with Trump as our president.
#98 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

If the election were tomorrow, Biden is the only Dem candidate I can confidently say I would vote for. The only other ones I'd consider are all polling below 1% currently. If tomorrow any of the other candidates who are polling above 1% were the nominee, I'd vote 3rd Party again.

If the election were tomorrow, Biden gets my vote if he's the nominee.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

the semi-delusional belief that any far left candidate, as much as you or I might prefer them, is a SURE THING in the gen election because, well, because you say so

That is not and has never been my position, idiot. My position is:

"The pot of people who can be activated by a candidate who generates high enthusiasm is larger than the pot of people who oh so badly wish they didn't have to vote for Trump if only the Dems didn't nominate a leftwing meanie."

You disagree, which is fine, because this is all political theory and we're both too lazy to start googling.

#102 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- the biggest pushers for Biden (except Corky)

I'm not a huge Biden fan, that might be Rogers.

I'm not really a huge fan of any political personality, as I much prefer policy over personality. I just think that Hil got a lot closer to winning than anyone left of her would have last time... and I don't consider Obama left of her... the way some did and then became SO disappointed as to become rwingers; see, Dulli.

Of course, could he run again, Obama would beat Trump like a rented Sheeple.

Which should inform just about everyone of what it will take to win.

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:36 PM | Reply

If the election were tomorrow, Biden gets my vote if he's the nominee.

Why the "tomorrow" caveat?

What could transpire between tomorrow and November 2020 that would convince you not to vote for Biden?

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:36 PM | Reply

Reparations?
Single payer?
"Free" college tuitions?
Eliminate all student debt?
Allowing felons still incarcerated to vote?
No limits on abortion whatsoever?
Green New Deal?
Eliminating the Hyde Amendment?
Unconditional Amnesty?

When say extreme left positions, those are the kind that I'm talking about.
#99 | POSTED BY JEFFJ


What a sad world when things like providing education, healthcare and amnesty are considered extreme left positions and therefore unimaginable.

Its posts of yours like #99 that further cement my opinion of just what an absolute pos you are Jeff.

Fkkk your worldview.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#102

Your position then is that there are more liberals who actually vote in the gen election than there are conservatives.

If only that were true, but guess what?

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:39 PM | Reply

we would be far better off with a moderate Democrat in the WH than Trump,
#77 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

The lowest of bars. Shoot for the horizon and you'll land among the dirt.

#107 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-06 04:40 PM | Reply

Your position then is that there are more liberals who actually vote in the gen election than there are conservatives.

I'm convinced you either don't know how to read, or don't care to. That has nothing to do with my point.

What a waste of time.

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:42 PM | Reply

Shoot for the stars in a mostly moderate electorate and you'll land in the same place as if you shot for the horizon....in Mar A Lago.

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#109 | POSTED BY CORKY

I don't understand why you think a chance at winning the election with a progressive is worse than a guaranteed loss with a moderate.

#110 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-06 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

a mostly moderate electorate

The same electorate who chose an alt-right rapist?

And before you tell me all about the popular vote, i'll remind you that's not how we choose a president in the US.

#111 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:45 PM | Reply

What could transpire between tomorrow and November 2020 that would convince you not to vote for Biden?

#104 | POSTED BY JOE

If he were to switch gears and try and out-crazy the rest of the field and stay there for the general. The amount of time, from a political standpoint, between now and the Dem Convention is an eternity. A LOT of unforeseen things could happen between now and then that might cause me to change my mind about Biden. That is the only reason for the caveat - to allow for the possibility of something unforeseen changing my tune toward him. One example - if it could be proven that he pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in order to enrich his son - that might get me to change my view of him.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 04:45 PM | Reply

if it could be proven that he pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in order to enrich his son - that might get me to change my view of him.

Lol.

I'm not even gonna respond to that.

You do you, Jeff.

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#108

Perhaps a waste of time, but hey, you're a good kid, so I'll try again. If you can get the kind of enthusiasm that Obama created among both the mods and the left, you might have a shot with a mostly conservative electorate, maybe.

But it's a longer shot now than it once was with Trump as the incumbent, not to mention all the disillusioned far lefties who feel that Obama cheated them and that Bernie was robbed... by The Man.

But good luck with that. If I have to vote for Biden I will, unless Bernie or someone else on the Left can show some Obama-like potential.

And guess who's going to be Biden's biggest promoter on tour? Obama.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#110

www.drudge.com

#115 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:51 PM | Reply

- The same electorate who chose an alt-right rapist?

We werk with the electorate we have, not the electorate you wish we had.

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2019-06-06 04:52 PM | Reply

#114 You jcalled the electorate "mostly moderate" just a few posts ago. Now it's "mostly conservative." When you've figured out which unsubstantiated characterization best suits your argument, feel free to let me know.

#117 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#113

You asked me a question and I provided a hypothetical situation.

Why did you even bother asking the question?

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 05:20 PM | Reply

Who is more racist, Trump or Biden?

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-06 05:23 PM | Reply

We werk with the electorate we have, not the electorate you wish we had.

Who are you, and what have you done with Corky!!!

#120 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 05:25 PM | Reply

Does the converse apply to Republicans? Do they need the middle and the center-left?

Yes it does, W appealed, believe it or not, to center-left and moderates in the 2000 election, as did his Dad in '98.

If so how did Trump win?

As I said above, the middle thought that they were being ignored by Obama and didn't want a redo with Hillary.

Or are you just saying that the EC thwarts the will of the people and favors the alt-right?

Shhhh, it's a Grand Conspiracy by the Bilderbergs to keep you down.

#121 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 05:29 PM | Reply

Why did you even bother asking the question?

To see how many weasel-words were in your response.

I just found it humorous that such a comparatively mild (and possibly already debunked?) event would be enough to sway you.

#122 | Posted by JOE at 2019-06-06 05:45 PM | Reply

#115 | POSTED BY CORKY

How recursive of you.

Jeb! "please clap" Bush surges to lead GOP pack.

#123 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-06 06:32 PM | Reply

#118 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nah, you just peddled blatant right wing lies but (true to character) gave yourself just enough wiggle room to deny having taken a position.

#124 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-06 06:34 PM | Reply

W appealed, believe it or not, to center-left and moderates in the 2000 election,

Translation: "Ignore Florida and Jeb's role in getting BushJr elected."

#125 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 06:42 PM | Reply

I just found it humorous that such a comparatively mild (and possibly already debunked?) event would be enough to sway you.

#122 | POSTED BY JOE

I was providing a hypothetical situation that might sway me, which was consistent with your question.

Based upon what is publicly known right now about that situation would I be swayed tomorrow?

No. Not even close.

Does my gut tell me there is really something there?

Again, no.

I am simply allowing for the possibility that something substantial and unforeseen could occur between now and the General that would change my view(s) toward Biden.

My "if the election were tomorrow" caveat wasn't put out with you in mind. I'd like to think that if I simply said today that I'd vote for Biden if he wins the nominatio0n and then ended up winning and something massive and unexpected happened that caused me to sour enough on him not to vote for him that when asked by you, "What changed?" and I offered my explanation, you would at least understand where I would potentially be coming from.

My caveat is there for all of the jagoffs on this site who solely look for 'gotcha' crap than honest discussion.

"Expect the unexpected." Someone wise said that and it's also why I put out my caveat.

I hope that makes sense and if it doesn't I'll be happy to clarify.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 07:10 PM | Reply

#125

Hardly, but go ahead and cling to that even though it doesn't even address the point that you think you are retorting.

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 07:16 PM | Reply

Jeffyj said "gotcha" and "honest" is the same sentence no less

How can you have an "honest discussion" when all you do is avoid and deny everything you said during the discussion

See, today's "conservative" is Brain Damaged

#128 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-06-06 08:17 PM | Reply

I still can't believe Jeff thinks he has any say so on women's reproductive health care choice.

#129 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-06 08:33 PM | Reply

The Republican Party knows how to cover 4%. They've been doing it one way or the other for decades.

#130 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-06 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#129

I think abortion needs to be legal, at least during the first trimester, Laura.

Any other positions you want to falsely assign to me?

#131 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 09:55 PM | Reply

"I think abortion needs to be legal, at least during the first trimester, Laura."

Some people call me a zealot, but the truth is I don't support unlimited abortion.
I only support abortion until the 3,000th trimester.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-06 09:58 PM | Reply

3,000th?

Dang!

You are a moderate.

I had you pegged as a 5,000th trimester proponent.

#133 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 10:04 PM | Reply

I only support abortion until the 3,000th trimester.

#132 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-06-06 09:58 PM

Does that mean I am still in that window? Hmmmm...

-Snoofy's Mom

#134 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-06 10:05 PM | Reply

I think abortion needs to be legal, at least during the first trimester, Laura.

Any other positions you want to falsely assign to me?

Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 09:55 PM | Reply

So you're for restrictions since you limited your support to the first trimester. Again I still can't believe Jeff has a say in women's reproductive health care choice.

#135 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-06 10:19 PM | Reply

So you're for restrictions since you limited your support to the first trimester. Again I still can't believe Jeff has a say in women's reproductive health care choice.

#135 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Yep and I am where roughly 80% of the rest of our country is at on this.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 10:31 PM | Reply

I am so glad you aren't an abortion provider, Laura.

I could easily see you slamming the aborted fetus on the floor and gleefully stomping on it.

After all, it's not human, according to you. It's just a clump of parasitic cells, right.

#137 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 10:34 PM | Reply

I could easily see you slamming the aborted fetus on the floor and gleefully stomping on it

Rick Santorum took his wife's miscarriage home for his kids and dog to play with.

I'm not sure how much slamming and stomping was going on.

But the dog got a mouthful.

#138 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 10:38 PM | Reply

"Yep and I am where roughly 80% of the rest of our country is at on this."

This seems to be a cause where we're using the popular vote.

#139 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 10:41 PM | Reply

Case*

#140 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-06 10:41 PM | Reply

Yep and I am where roughly 80% of the rest of our country is at on this.

Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 10:31 PM | Reply

BS that is not even factually accurate.

thehill.com

A new poll released Sunday found an increase in American support for abortion rights, despite a number of states passing new bans on the procedure.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 58 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, marking an 8 point increase from a similar poll taken last July.

And 80 percent of respondents said that they support abortion in cases of rape or ------, with even more saying they are in favor of the procedure if the mother's life is in danger.

#141 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-06 10:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am so glad you aren't an abortion provider, Laura.

I could easily see you slamming the aborted fetus on the floor and gleefully stomping on it.

After all, it's not human, according to you. It's just a clump of parasitic cells, right.

Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 10:34 PM | Reply

WOW So much over the top hyperbole it's disgusting.

#142 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-06 10:54 PM | Reply

#141 Laura,

When in the heck did you become so intellectually lazy.

I give your source credit for at least providing a link to its reporting.

What's amazing is that the link it provided totally undercuts the narrative you are trying to peddle.

Fifty-eight percent of U.S. adults said abortion should not be legal when the fetus is older than 20 weeks, while 30% said it should be allowed.

That was from your own source. To be fair, after rereading through this thread I was the one who conflated post-first trimester abortion with late-term abortion. That wasn't intentional and I am sorry for the inaccuracy.

In spite of that I was VERY clear about post-1st trimester support for unrestricted abortion and your "source" substantiates my assertion regarding public opinion. You thought you were proving me wrong and actually succeeded in doing the opposite.

#143 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 10:59 PM | Reply

WOW So much over the top hyperbole it's disgusting.

#142 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

At what point does a fertilized egg become human to you? At what point is personhood achieved?

Given that those 2 questions are not "gotcha", I'll offer you this:

"Personhood" is a philosophical construct and it's been so as far as humans have been in existence. My philosophical belief is that with humans personhood occurs when sperm fertilizes the egg. Birth control - even devout Catholics support the rhythm method as a means of family planning amongst married couples - does not snuff out a person because a person, at least in human terms (AI like HAL9000 is a debate that will probably occur in our lifetime but is a separate issue) doesn't exist without fertilization.

I believe that personhood/humanity occurs upon fertilization. From there, I view abortion as state-sanctioned killing. This is morally wrong. Having said that, I'm a realist. Abortion, at least as it's defined under Roe needs to be legal, at least during the first trimester. That it needs to be legal doesn't change the barbaric nature of what it is.

I think it needs to be legal during the first trimester and under other extreme circumstances after that but I refuse to gloss over how barbaric and inhumane the procedure is.

#144 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 11:16 PM | Reply

WOW So much over the top hyperbole it's disgusting.

#142 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

If I misrepresented your view I apologize. I'm being serious.

My understanding of your position is that a human life isn't worthy of any kind of protection until after it is out of the womb and only in the case where the mother actually wanted it out of the womb (an attempted abortion delivered alive doesn't qualify).

#145 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-06 11:21 PM | Reply

AZ will vote for Trump. NM will vote for the Democratic candidate.

This isn't difficult. There are only 8(?) states that tend to matter in national elections.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack

Trump is -6 underwater in AZ

morningconsult.com

(Hover mouse over states to see his current approval, updated daily)

#146 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-06 11:51 PM | Reply

www.thechristianleftblog.org

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being". Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

In Job 33:4, it states: "The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord."

#147 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-07 12:15 AM | Reply

Does anybody honestly believe that a majority of apathetic non-voters are Progressives who stayed home because a sufficiently left-leaning candidate wasn't nominated? This in a country where self-described conservatives nearly double the number of self-described liberals in polling?

#49 | Posted by JeffJ

Did you catch this?:

The Coming GOP Apocalypse

57 percent of millennials(23-39 yrs old) call themselves consistently liberal or mostly liberal. Only 12 percent call themselves consistently conservative or mostly conservative. This is the most important statistic in American politics right now.

Recent surveys of Generation Z voters (those born after 1996) find that, if anything, they are even more liberal than millennials.

(Old, white, scared, Fox News watchers are dying off)

#148 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-07 12:20 AM | Reply

AU,

The problem with that analysis is the contradictory nature of it.

What I am getting at is that in order for a permanent/long-term GOP apacalypse to occur it would require that identity politics would reign supreme and that intersectionality dictates that all of these loosely allied (but often in direct conflict with each other) can maintain their alliance and narrow majorities whilst increasingly demonizing large swaths of our voters for the sin of being white.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-07 12:29 AM | Reply

... for the sin of being REPUBLICAN.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ

Younger voters have seen Republicans don't give a s*** about anyone without a 7 figure bank balance.

#150 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-07 12:34 AM | Reply

Since we have digressed to another abortion debate, the Bible is not a reliable source of information on anything. The Bible is not the word of God, but if it were, God would be a terrible example of a moral entity. The Bible is the writings of a ruling class of people whose understanding of the world around them was very primitive. The document shares many features with the mythology of hundreds of human cultures and is a tool for managing a large community of people.

There are too many people in this world. But everyone that's already here has or should have an equal right to the pursuit of happiness through self actualization. This includes all women whether 10 year old rape victims or a older women seeking a PhD, whose best interests should supersede fetuses which are not fully developed.

Unfortunately Capitalism seeks infinite growth in a finite globe. Unchecked this will eventually destroy us, while making everything unnecessarily expensive, congested, polluted and competitive, all within a rigged economic system in which everyone connected to a Central Bank will never lose. For this reason die hard Capitalist winners want to make abortion illegal. Such a policy will increase their profits by making the lives of the masses more difficult. The concern for human life or any alleged soul is a false cover story to justify a bad policy.

#151 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-07 07:02 AM | Reply

whilst increasingly demonizing large swaths of our voters for the sin of being white.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ

What a crock. Poor victimized white people!

No one is demonizing you or any other white people for being white. You only demonize yourself. By your words and deeds.

Don't want to be a Demon.

Don't act like one!

#152 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-07 05:45 PM | Reply

"What I am getting at is that in order for a permanent/long-term GOP apacalypse to occur it would require that identity politics would reign supreme"

The current GOP numbers are what happens when identity politics reigns supreme.

It's the white male party.

Take a look at the makeup of the current
e GOP Congress. It's overwhelmingly more white and more male than America.

The term for this is: Identity politics.

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-07 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What I am getting at is that in order for a permanent/long-term GOP apacalypse to occur it would require that identity politics would reign supreme

#149 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I had a whole response planned for this but Snoofy nailed it:

"The current GOP numbers are what happens when identity politics reigns supreme."

#154 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-07 06:03 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort