Bernie is hanging tough

This recent campaign video inspires me, and I am not easy to inspire.

Bernie Sanders still remains in the top three in the contest to become the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominee. Bernie, along with Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, are the only contenders who poll in the double digits in the averages of nationwide polling.

Bernie’s current average nationwide polling of 15 percent is where he has been before in this presidential primary cycle, so it’s difficult to say how much his heart attack earlier this month might have put a dent in his polling.

My feeling is that we die-hard Berners are sticking with him as long as he’s able to walk and talk, whereas those who have abandoned him over a treatable — and treated — medical event had had only soft support for him anyway.

That Bernie’s next-closest competitor, Boy Scout Pete Buttigieg, is a full 10 percentage points away from Bernie, polling nationally at only at 5 percent on average, demonstrates to me that Bernie remains in the top tier.

I remember when my chosen candidate, John Kerry, rose from the dead in early 2004 when he quite unexpectedly won the Iowa caucuses — the polls had left him for dead — and then he kept on winning, wrapping the whole thing up not long after he won the New Hampshire primary. (Pseudo-progressive Howard Dean had been doing the best in the polling and was widely expected to win the nomination, but instead, he infamously imploded in the snows of Iowa.)

True, Kerry was and is much more establishmentarian than is Bernie, but still, Kerry’s come-from-behind win is an example of how a presidential primary race can change radically, beginning with the Iowa caucuses. Anything can happen, which can delight you or deject you.

Could I vote for Joe Biden in November 2020? No, I could not vote for a Repugnican Lite, and I wouldn’t have to — I live in California, where it is a foregone conclusion that the Democratic Party presidential candidate, whoever it is, will win the most votes in the state and thus will take all of California’s 55 electoral votes, the highest electoral prize in the nation.

We progressives who don’t vote for a DINO hack for president are lectured to by morons who don’t know Civics 101 and apparently believe that the president is elected by the popular vote, in which, indeed, you can argue that every vote matters. The Electoral College is way too complicated for these smug, ignorant finger-waggers to understand.

(In a nutshell: If you live in a deep-blue state, as I do, your vote for president pretty much doesn’t matter; the Democratic presidential candidate very probably is going to win your entire state in the only presidential contest that counts, the Electoral College. Ditto if you live in a deep-red state — the Repugnican presidential candidate very probably is going to win your entire state and thus all of its electoral votes. If you live in a light-blue, light-red [pink] or purple state, then your vote for president matters more in terms of the actual outcome.)

Could I vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020? Maybe. I’m not sure yet. I lean toward not being able to vote for her, because I easily can see her doing The Obama Maneuver — campaign as a progressive but then govern as a status-quo-preserving centrist — but we’ll see.

I am troubled that Warren has shown such fealty to the party establishment, and it blows my mind that she apparently believes that capitalism can be reformed (she is terrified of the “socialist” label, just as she was too terrified to challenge Billary Clinton in 2016), and, as I have noted a million times, she was a Repugnican as late as the 1990s, so I don’t think that it’s unfair to point out that she’s relatively new to the whole progressivism thing, which Bernie has been with his entire fucking life.

On that note, should Bernie go “negative” against Warren? No, if “negative” means mean and nasty (which isn’t his style anyway) — but it’s entirely fair game for Bernie to point out Warren’s weaknesses and the differences between them, such as I just mentioned in the last paragraph. If Warren is going to co-opt Bernie’s message, as she has, then it’s fine for Bernie to point out that compared to him, Warren is some weak tea.

Tuesday’s fourth Democratic Party presidential debate in Ohio might be a turning point for Bernie, post-heart attack. Because 12 candidates have qualified for the debate and the debate won’t be split over two nights, as were the June and July debates — even the Repugnicans’ largest primary debate in the 2016 cycle, widely known as a “clown-car” debate, had “only” 11 candidates — probably all that Bernie will have time to do is demonstrate that his health is OK, that he still has many miles left on his odometer.

In the worst-case scenario, at what point should Bernie drop out of the race if he’s tanking? I don’t think that he’ll tank — probably only a severe, seriously debilitating medical event could derail his campaign entirely — but I think that given his strong, committed base of supporters, he most likely will remain in the double digits in the nationwide polling, and, off of the top of my head, I’d say that as long as he were among the top three winners in Iowa and among the top three winners in New Hampshire in early February, he should continue to campaign at least through Super Tuesday on March 3.

But hopefully, Bernie will pull a Kerry — win Iowa, and thus watch the majority of the rest of the states fall to him like dominoes.

We’ll see.

P.S. The conflict-mongering corporately owned and controlled “news” media of course are going to call any actual campaigning that Bernie does — you know, distinguishing himself from his rivals — as “negative” “attacks,” but that’s how the corporate whores of the media have treated Bernie all along anyway. As president he might threaten their privileged positions, so they must do their best to make sure that he doesn’t become president.

On that note, I love this viral video, which interposes corporate media whores’ smug and glib, self-serving lies about how Bernie appears in pubic with actual footage of how Bernie actually appears in public:

True, “President” Pussygrabber whines incessantly about being “mistreated” by the media, and he’s full of shit — if anything, the media is way too kind to him, given his high crimes against the nation and its Constitution — but not all whining about media mistreatment is unfounded, especially realizing that our mass media are corporately owned and controlled, and thus of course are quite unlikely to tolerate an anti-corporatist who wants to be president of the United States of America.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Will Bernie break our hearts?

Image result for Bernie leaves hospital

In the video grab above, Bernie Sanders leaves a Las Vegas hospital yesterday after what first was reported on Tuesday as “chest discomfort” during a campaign event and then later was confirmed to have been a heart attack. This bad news came after it was reported that Bernie had raised more money than did any other Democratic presidential candidate in the third quarter. Bernie’s campaign says that he is doing well and that he intends to participate in the next primary debate, which will be on October 15.

News of the apparent heart attack that Bernie Sanders had on Tuesday while campaigning his heart out in Nevada predictably raised the question of his age (he is 78 years old now, and if elected, would enter the Oval Office at age 79, making him the oldest president we’ve had).

Two stents were placed in one of Bernie’s coronary arteries, he was released from the hospital yesterday, and his campaign says that he intends to participate in the October 15 debate in Ohio.

Will this sink Bernie?

I don’t think so. It gives those who weren’t supporting him anyway a(nother) “reason” to justify their self-defeating snubbing of the most consistently progressive presidential candidate that we have, but those of us who steadfastly have stood by Bernie will continue to do so.

As long as Bernie does well in his public appearances and has no more significant medical incidents, I expect this to blow over. It’s early October, after all, and the first voting isn’t until February 3, when the Iowa caucuses take place — and this is the United States of Amnesia.

And I think it’s fair to ask the question if it’s OK to stigmatize someone for having had a medical event after which one can, with medical attention, live normally and capably for many years. I know that if I had a heart attack but most likely still had several decent years of life left, I wouldn’t want to be written off.

Good news for Bernie from this past week is that in the third fundraising quarter of this year, he raised more money than did any other Democratic presidential contender — $25.3 million.

Close behind him was Elizabeth Warren, with $24.6 million, and poor Uncle Joe Biden raised only $15.2 million — he was eclipsed even by Boy Scout Pete Buttigieg, who raised $19.1 million. (Unlike Bernie and Warren, the center-right Buttigieg [like Biden] takes contributions from Big Money, though, so don’t take that fundraising figure as grassroots support for him that doesn’t actually exist.)

If fundraising is a measure of excitement for your campaign — and I think that it is for those few who, like Bernie, don’t take money from corporations and lobbyists and other power players — then Biden should be shitting his Depends. (Ah, c’mon; I had to go there…)

On that note, Biden continues to drop in the polls. Right now his nationwide polling average is around 27 percent, and Warren is nipping at his heels, with an average of almost 24 percent.

Bernie is at third place, with 16 percent, and after Bernie, at a rather distant fourth place, is Buttigieg, with around 6 percent. (Poor charisma-free Kamala Harris, who yet has to make a compelling case as to why she should be president, is at fifth place, with around only 5 percent.)

As I’ve noted about a million times before, I expect Biden to tank, as he did when he ran for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 1988 and in 2008, and, as long as Bernie’s health holds up, I expect 2020 to be a race between Bernie and Warren.

It can’t be a direct comparison to the 2016 Bernie-vs.-Billary race, because while Billary only “found” progressivism rather late in the game during the 2016 cycle, this time around, from the get-go, Warren deftly has mimicked Bernie’s progressive angle while at the same time not pissing off the Democratic Party establishment hacks.

Warren, it seems to me, has a very good chance of winning this thing (the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, I mean).

Unfortunately, Warren also has a good chance of losing in November 2020 — I still believe that Warren’s No. 1 weakness is that she so easily can be painted by the Repugnicans as just another clueless, weak egghead from Massachusetts, as was Michael Dukakis in 1988 and John Kerry in 2004.

Perhaps only the increasingly obvious and absolutely undeniable mega-corruption of the unelected Pussygrabber regime (including a copious amount of treason) can overcome this “swiftboating” tactic that has worked pretty well for the Repugnicans in the past.

P.S. With his hectic campaign schedule and his famously impassioned speeches, one might wonder why it took this long for Bernie to have a heart attack. Just sayin’…

I’m thinking that Bernie might want to slow down. He has, I think, built up enough political capital that he can relax just a little, at least for a little while.

Biden should tank, so Bernie probably doesn’t have to worry about Biden, and Team Bernie should, I think, emphasize the fact that he was an avowed progressive decades before Elizabeth Warren, who was a Repugnican as late as the 1990s, decided to join the club.

It’s a fair criticism — it is true, and it is, to me, anyway, at least a bit concerning.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Which Dems will the impeachment inquiry help and which will it harm?


Reuters news photo

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, pictured above at the Democratic Party presidential debate in July, are buddies now, but what if they emerge as the top two candidates, a la Billary and Bernie in 2016?

As I wrote, I fully support the impeachment inquiry of the “president.” He has skated for about three years now and it’s long past due that he be held accountable for his gross corruption and lawlessness. As I noted, right after he’d figured that he’d gotten away with being linked to Russia’s 2016 presidential election meddling — politically, the Mueller report widely stupidly was branded as inconclusive, even though it wasn’t (it’s just that Robert Mueller was too pussy to use the stronger language that he should have) — “President” Pussygrabber figured that the coast was clear to recruit Ukraine to help him “win” “re”-election in November 2020.

If I’d narrowly escaped accountability for a serious crime that I’d committed, I’d cool my jets and certainly wouldn’t commit the same crime again, but we’re talking about Pussygrabber, not a sane, normal individual who has some humility and who learns from his or her fuck-ups.

As the Democratic House’s impeachment inquiry churns on, of course we wonder which of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates it might help and which of them it might harm.

So here goes:

From everything I’ve read from reputable (that is, non-right-wing) sources, there is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegal in regards to his son’s business in Ukraine. (And indeed, for Team Pussygrabber to talk about Biden’s offspring being privileged because his daddy is a top U.S. politico sure is funny.)

The Intercept, which as a progressive website is not a fan website for Joe Biden, recently noted this (the links are The Intercept’s):

President Donald Trump appears increasingly desperate to deflect questions about the flagrant abuse of power he seems to have committed this summer by withholding aid to Ukraine as he pressed that country’s new president to open an investigation into the false claim that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine in 2015.

Since the news broke that Trump repeatedly pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open an investigation into Biden, while delaying $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, the president has urged reporters again and again to look instead at the viral conspiracy theory that the former vice president had admitted on camera that he blackmailed Ukraine’s former president.

In fact, as a detailed review of the evidence conducted by The Intercept in May showed, Biden’s intervention in Ukrainian affairs that year, when he successfully pressed Ukraine’s then-president to dismiss a chief prosecutor who had failed to pursue corruption investigations, was no secret and was widely praised by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists and international donors to the country.

The reason there is footage of Biden boasting about this intervention on stage at a public event in 2018 is that he knew he had nothing to hide.

Put simply, there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani want Ukraine to validate by opening an investigation. Still, it has become an article of faith among Trump supporters that Biden got the chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, dismissed to derail a corruption investigation of a Ukrainian firm his son was paid to advise.

But journalists at leading American news organizations — including CNN, The New York Times, PoliticoABC News, and MSNBC — have helped weaponize this disinformation by repeating the baseless smear over and over, without promptly and accurately conveying that Trump and Giuliani are lying about what the former vice president did in Ukraine. So lies and misinformation have been broadcast nationwide, reaching millions of people who will never read subsequent fact checks debunking them. … [Emphasis mine.]

Indeed, that last sentence is the rub, which is why I surmise that Joe Biden will be hurt by the very apparently false allegations that he did anything illegal in Ukraine in regards to his son.

Team Pussygrabber knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, a good chunk of the American populace will believe it. Even if many voters don’t believe it, it nonetheless will tarnish Biden. False allegations, repeated often enough, at least can plant questions in the electorate’s minds about a candidate.

So Biden, to many if not even most of the lower-information voters and “swing” voters (who pretty much are one and the same…), increasingly will be tarnished.

Even among the better educated voters, including myself, Biden Fatigue sets in. Those of us who are old enough remember the constant controversy surrounding the likes of Bill Clinton and Billary Clinton, and we probably don’t have the appetite now for Clinton-level controversy regarding Joe Biden — even if the “controversy” is fabricated by the right-wing traitors, as it so often is.

Biden is such a milquetoast, status-quo-loving candidate that I ask: Is he worth it to weather the storm with him? My answer: Hell no.

And I find it interesting that Team Pussygrabber would target Biden, who probably would have imploded on his own anyway. (Just give him enough rope…) Team Pussygrabber thus far has chosen the weakest Democratic presidential candidate to try to sink, in my book.

I believe that Biden is toast. His own endless “gaffes” and very apparent cognitive issues aside, now he is being spoken of negatively incessantly — he’s being tainted, which, again, of course is the idea.

This leaves us with the only two other Democratic presidential hopefuls who are hitting the double digits in the nationwide (and early-state) polls: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Many surmise that Warren will benefit the most from the impeachment inquiry, since she successfully has portrayed herself as Mrs. Anti-Corruption and we’ve seen nothing but corruption from Team Pussygrabber since even before Pussygrabber “won” the White House.

Indeed, Warren is doing well in the polls right now. She averages almost 22 percent in the nationwide polls to Biden’s 27 percent. She’s awfully close to him.

Some pundits have Warren already winning this thing, apparently forgetting or ignoring that both Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris both had spikes in their nationwide polling, only to sink back down into the single digits. This kind of movement is normal within presidential primary campaigns, in which you have to look at the forest (many reputable polls over longer periods of time), not at the trees (individual polls within short periods of time).

Bernie is a little behind Warren in the nationwide polls, averaging about 17 percent.

It’s still way too early to write Bernie’s obituary, however. He’s only five percentage points behind Warren right now (emphasis on “right now”) and no other candidate even breaks out of the single digits. (Fourth-place Buttigieg is only at 6 percent, and fifth-place Harris is only at 5 percent.)

When Biden finally is out of the picture, it will be interesting to see which candidate benefits the most, Sanders or Warren.

Warren is formidable. She is a two-fer: One, she’s never bucked the Democratic Party establishment (which is not in my “positive” column) — so the Democratic Party hacks won’t attack her as not being a real Democrat, as they incredibly stupidly have attacked Bernie as such (to me, he’s the only true Democrat [that is, true progressive] in the race). And two, Warren successfully has branded herself as a progressive, even though she was a Repugnican as late as the 1990s, even though she still supports capitalism despite what it has done to the planet and to its peoples (I consider myself to be a democratic socialist), and even though, as The New York Times reported earlier this month, she “raised big money before she denounced big money.” (“Warren wooed wealthy donors for years, stockpiling money from fundraisers, and has used $10.4 million from her 2018 Senate race to underwrite her 2020 bid,” notes the Times.)

The low-info voter doesn’t know and never will know any of these unflattering facts about Warren, which probably is part of her political calculation, which apparently has been to be very careful not to piss off the Democratic Party hacks while trying to pass herself off as a clone of Bernie Sanders in order to dupe enough of his (otherwise) supporters.

My biggest concern about Warren winning the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, however, is that the former Harvard professor easily will be branded by Team Pussygrabber as just another clueless, weak egghead from Massachusetts, as la Michael Dukakis and John Kerry — and therefore she’ll lose the presidential election just like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.

The Democrats have a rather long history of nominating candidates they believe will be a slam dunk in the general election, only to see the Repugnican candidate winning, often in a landslide.

All of that said, should Warren win the nomination, I probably could hold my nose and vote for her in November 2020, hoping that as president she actually would do her best to enact the interminable progressive plans that she has touted. But a President Warren easily could turn out to be another President Obama — paying lip service to progressivism in the campaign but barely touching the status quo once actually in office.

Probably the only thing that could prevent me from voting for Warren in November 2020 would be if her supporters do what Billary Clinton’s supporters did in 2016 — call those of us who have supported Bernie Sanders “sexist” and “misogynist.”

Toxic identity politics don’t shame me; they only make me dig in. It’s just as fucked up to attack men for having been born men as it is to attack women for having been born women. Sexism is sexism, and misandry is not “woke” — it’s rank sexism, and I oppose sexism. (Ditto for the anti-white movement: It’s just racism and racial supremacism wrapping itself in the mantle of “justice.”)

So, in conclusion: I think that Joe Biden is out, that’s it’s only a matter of time. Tick-tock… Biden very probably would have imploded on his own, but the fabricated Ukrainegate should get him out even faster. (I’m not saying that that is fair, but it is what it is.)

This should leave us with a race between Warren and Bernie, which in some ways will be like the 2016 contest between Bernie and Billary, except that Billary didn’t even pretend to be at least somewhat progressive until later in the race, when it became clear that Bernie was doing much better in the primary elections and caucuses than most had thought he would.

Warren has a leg up over Billary, because she’s been at least pretending to be progressive — just like Bernie — all along.

This should be interesting.

P.S. I don’t much see the impeachment inquiry helping or harming Bernie. He has stood outside of the two-party duopoly for some time now, and he very much sticks to his message, and therefore I don’t much see him getting sucked into the impeachment brouhaha, for his benefit or to his detriment.

Of course he supports the impeachment inquiry and I’m sure that if it goes to a vote in the Senate he’ll vote to remove Pussygrabber from the White House, but, again, I don’t see Bernie allowing the impeachment drama to overtake his years-long message on socioeconomic justice.

He is nothing if not consistent, which is in my “plus” column.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Long past due: IMPEACH THE TRAITOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Protesters demand Trump’s impeachment

Associated Press news photo

People protest at the White House in 2018. “President” Pussygrabber has avoided impeachment proceedings thus far, but that officially changed today.

Finally we get to the point where the Democrats decide to do their fucking job to protect the republic, its constitution and the rule of law, and its people.

I’ll paraphrase Winston Churchill: The Democrats always do the right thing — after they have run out of all other options. (That quotation apparently is apocryphal, but I love it anyway…)

Of course, the presidential impeachment inquiry formally announced by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi today is in its infancy, and the Democrats still have plenty of time and opportunity to find a way to fuck it up.

Yes, it’s true that as long as the U.S. Senate is controlled by his fellow Repugnican traitors (redundant), “President” Pussygrabber won’t be removed from office because of his treason and other serious crimes. As Pussygrabber might tell you himself, he could eat a newborn baby alive on live television — bite right into its little head like a large, juicy apple — and his Repugnican co-conspirators wouldn’t make a peep.

But regardless of what the slimy, spineless Repugnicans in the U.S. Senate do, the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are mandated by the U.S. Constitution to do their job of investigating the U.S. president for serious crimes of his that come to light. (No, lying about having received a blowjob in the Oral — er, Oval — Office would not rise to the level of a serious crime. Pressuring a foreign government to sink your potential rival in the next election that would.)

Nor is it a consideration as to whether or not impeaching Pussygrabber might actually help him politically.*

When Bill Clinton was impeached (but not removed from office) in late 1998 and early 1999, it politically helped him and his party — but that was because the impeachment, because it was over a “crime” that didn’t amount to treason or anything else that serious, clearly was a purely partisan, vindictive exercise and a waste of the nation’s time and attention (and taxpayers’ dollars). The case of Pussygrabber is quite different. He’s guilty of treason and other high crimes and he must go.

Pussygrabber apparently was so emboldened by the fact that thus far he’s gotten away with his collusion with Russia to help him “win” the 2016 presidential election that he decided to try to induce a foreign actor to fix the 2020 presidential election for him, too.

This level of presidential malfeasance cannot, must not, be allowed to pass if we, the people, wish to keep the republic that was formed 243 years ago. Otherwise, we turn into just another failed, backwater banana republic (if we’re not already there).

The likes of Pussygrabber doesn’t learn, is not humbled by his mistakes. Pussygrabber is a shameless fucking sociopath, and when he gets away with something, it only makes him want to commit even more high crimes.

Worse for the Democrats than any possibility of an impeachment proceeding actually helping Pussygrabber would be giving Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters the strong message that the Democrats won’t fucking fight for us, the people. Why the fuck should anyone vote Democratic in November 2020 if the Democratic Party refuses to confront one of the greatest evils that ever occupied the White House?

“President” Pussygrabber must be impeached. The U.S. House of Representatives can and must do so.

If the U.S. Senate refuses to do its constitutional duty and remove the traitor in the Oval Office, then we must do our best to get these treasonous co-conspirators out of fucking office as well as take back the presidency — the presidency that never legitimately was Pussygrabber’s in the first place.

*With an approval rating still averaging no more than in the low 40s, and with the polarized political environment, methinks that Pussygrabber already has all of the support that he’s going to have for November 2020.

I don’t see backlash from an impeachment proceeding helping Pussygrabber nearly enough to help him “win” “re”-election. (Um, if you didn’t win the popular vote, you’re not the legitimate president, in my eyes.)

I do see an impeachment proceeding firing up Democratic voters perhaps like they haven’t been fired up in a long time — not out of partisan acrimony, but out of the sheer ecstasy of the Democratic Party finally living up to its supposed principles in our lifetime.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Biden sinking but still on top

Reuters photo

Maybe “Uncle Joe” can blame his cognitive problems on a brain freeze… Anyway, Biden continues to slip in the nationwide polls, now coming in at under 30 percent on average when at one point he was over 40 percent on average. At No. 2 and No. 3 are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, around 17 percent each, with Kamala Harris behind both of them by about 10 percentage points.

When I saw the recent Monmouth University poll that put Joe Biden at only 19 percent and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both at 20 percent, I was a little giddy — but only for a moment.

I quickly reminded myself that it was only one poll and the only poll showing such numbers. And then I looked at the sample size: only 298 respondents, giving the poll a margin of error of a whopping plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Even the Monmouth University pollsters — after the mainstream “news” media widely announced a huge shake-up in the Democratic Party presidential race, which has been rather stagnant for some time now — released a statement declaring what we already knew: that the poll was (still is…) an “outlier.” (“Outlier” is putting it quite gently…)

Still, Biden appears to be slipping gradually, and both Bernie and Warren appear to be gaining gradually.

As I type this sentence, Real Clear Politics’ average of the nationwide polls puts Biden at only 28.9 percent (at one point he’d hit the low 40s), Bernie at 17.1 percent, Warren at 16.5 percent — and Kamala Harris at a distant fourth, with 7 percent, and Pete Buttigieg at fifth place with 4.6 percent.

Of course, Biden, Bernie and Warren have been in the top three for a long time now, and Harris and Buttigieg have rounded out the top five for a long time now (this New York Times headline might make you think that this is new).

But with candidates dropping like flies — including, as of late, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Seth Moulton “Who?” and the insufferable Kirsten Gillibrand — it will be interesting to see where their support goes (not that those four had much support, even combined, but still…).

Thankfully, next month there should be only one debate night (instead of two debate nights in a row, as was the case in June and July) because only 10 candidates have qualified, via fundraising and via polling, to appear in next month’s debate via the Democratic National Committee’s rules.

Per Politico:

The 10 candidates whose spots on the debate stage in Houston [on September 12] are assured are (from top-to-bottom of their unofficial DNC polling average): [Joe] Biden (37 percent), Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (21 percent), [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren [of Massachusetts] (20 percent), [Sen. Kamala] Harris [of California] (17 percent), South Bend [Indiana] Mayor Pete Buttigieg (7 percent), Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey (3 percent), Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (3 percent), entrepreneur Andrew Yang (3 percent), former HUD Secretary Julián Castro (3 percent) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas (3 percent).

The September debate will be the first in which all five front-runners will share the stage at the same time. Might be interesting, and I’ll probably watch this one; truth be told, I watched only portions of the first two debates, because with an overcrowded field, it was too much; I think I wanted those with a snowball’s chance in hell to melt first before I invested my time into a long debate.

Seriously, though, to have had the likes of John Delaney, Tim Ryan and Eric Swalwell (and even Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, who both have a rather small but rather devoted cult following) on the same debate stage with the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (and even Joe Biden) was too painful for me to watch, kind of like watching a junior-high-school flag-football team play against an NFL team…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

No, you DON’T have to settle for Joe

Image result for settle for hillary

Team Biden’s message in 2020 is a carbon copy of Team Billary’s message in 2016: We must settle for Biden because he’s the only one who can beat Pussygrabber. That’s entirely untrue, and because it’s untrue, it’s a campaign centerpiece that probably will doom Biden’s quest for the presidency for the third time.

In January 2016, two pranksters attended a Billary for president campaign event at which they wore T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “Settle for Hillary” (see the wonderful video grab above).

The jokesters apparently were responding to the fact that although Queen Billary widely stupidly was viewed as the front-runner and the only Democratic Party candidate who could win the White House, no one seemed to be excited about her — but was settling for her.

Today, we have Jill Biden publicly saying this about her husband’s third presidential campaign:

“You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win. … Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election. And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I sort of personally like so-and-so better.’ But your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“Swallow it for Joe” — should that be on the next T-shirt?

“As the Democratic primary campaign trundles on, Biden is winning polite applause from audiences that respect him but clearly are not as fired up by his presence as are crowds for other candidates,” notes The Washington Post, adding, “He has made verbal miscues nearly daily as his more disciplined opponents hew closely to their chosen messages.”

Reports The New York Times today (links are the Times’):

PROLE, Iowa — Joseph R. Biden Jr. is coasting in the national polls. Surveys show him ahead of his Democratic rivals in hypothetical match-ups against President Trump. He has maintained a lead in Iowa all summer, despite facing months of controversies over his record and his campaign missteps.

But less than two weeks before Labor Day, when presidential campaigns traditionally kick into high gear, there are signs of a disconnect between his relatively rosy poll numbers and excitement for his campaign on the ground here, in the state that begins the presidential nominating process.

In conversations with county chairs, party strategists and dozens of voters this week at Biden’s events, many Democrats in Iowa described a case for Biden, the former vice president, that reflected shades of the one his wife, Jill Biden, bluntly sketched out on Monday. “You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win,” she said, citing Biden’s consistent lead in early surveys.

The first ad of Biden’s campaign, released this week in Iowa, flashed some of his positive poll results against Trump on screen, and voter after voter cited those numbers in outlining their support for him, saying that defeating the president was their most urgent priority. …

So hold your nose and vote for Joe Biden (out of the fear that he’s the best that we can do to rid ourselves of Pussygrabber). Not exactly a compelling campaign message, any more than was Settle for Billary. And we see how it turned out in November 2016 when we were told that the level of enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidate somehow didn’t fucking matter.

And no, Joe Biden is not the only candidate who can beat “President” Pussygrabber. Despite such lies as that Bernie Sanders can’t win non-white votes — he currently is Latino voters’ No. 1 choice and is black voters’ second choice (Kamala Harris is their third choice) — and that the “s” word (socialism) is fatal within the general electorate, most recent (and reputable) nationwide match-up polls show Bernie beating Pussygrabber by anywhere from 5 percentage points to 9 percentage points (not one shows him losing to Pussygrabber).

So Team Biden’s “argument” that he’s the only one who can beat Pussygrabber holds as much water as the old “argument” that only Billary could beat Pussygrabber. (Indeed, match-up polls at the time had Bernie beating Pussygrabber by a significantly larger margin than Billary did.)

No, you are not stuck with the centrist, corporatist sellout Joe Biden. Only if you’re not paying attention and easily can be duped would you believe that to be the case.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Marianne, we hardly knew ye

Candidate author Marianne Williamson blows a kiss before the first night of the second 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential debate in Detroit, Michigan, July 30, 2019. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Reuters photo

We probably can kiss Marianne Williamson’s presidential campaign good-bye, which sucks but which is what it is. In the meantime, my position is becoming that Elizabeth Warren is splitting the progressive vote, which is only helping centrist, corporatist sellout Joe Biden and taking us further away from the possibility of having a progressive president come January 2021.

So it looks like Marianne Williamson will not make it into September’s Democratic Party presidential debate. Indeed, because it’s harder to get into the September debate than it was the June and July debates, because of the stricter September debate requirements, the Democratic presidential field will be winnowed significantly.

Williamson’s campaign has reported that she has met the required number of individual donors to her campaign in order to participate in the September debate, but she has only one week from today to make it to 2 percent in at least four qualifying polls, and I haven’t seen even one poll in which she has exceeded 1 percent.

I just don’t see it happening for her.

Not that Williamson has accomplished nothing; she got her message out there.

The moral of the story, I think, is that you really need to have been at least vice president, a U.S. senator or the governor of a state before you run for president if you want a snowball’s chance. (“President” Pussygrabber is the first “president” since Dwight D. Eisenhower [in 1952] who had not first been vice president, a U.S. senator or the governor of a state before ascending to the White House.)

That said, my No. 1 choice for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination remains U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. I see him as the candidate most likely to actually enact a progressive agenda should he make it to the Oval Office.

Why Bernie over Elizabeth Warren? Because, as I have noted, as late as the 1990s she was a registered Repugnican, she apparently believes that capitalism can be redeemed (it cannot), and because she’s much more of a Democratic Party establishment suck-up than Bernie ever could imagine being. (Bernie’s independence and distancing of himself from the “Democratic” sellouts for me always has been a huge plus, not a minus.)

I’ve indicated that I’m not mad at Liz for splitting the progressive vote, but that’s starting to change. She was too pussy to take on DINO Queen Billary in 2016 but now apparently is A-OK with splitting the progressive vote for 2020. (Yes, on this my view is evolving…)

Right now the nationwide polls show Addle-brained Biden with an average of around 29 percent and both Bernie and Warren with an average of 15-to-16-point-something percent each. It seems to me that if Warren weren’t running, it would be Bernie vs. Biden, much like it was Bernie vs. Billary in 2016.

Still, as I’ve noted, I’m loathe to state that someone shouldn’t run for office or should drop out of a race. But I’m still becoming less happy with Warren over time. Again, she cowardly sat out 2016 but now apparently doesn’t care if she fucks it up for Bernie, our best shot at having an actually progressive president.

At any rate, the 2020 Democratic presidential field needs thinning, and while I’m sad to see Williamson go (without her being able to participate in future debates, I just don’t see her campaign succeeding*), I’ll be happy when the likes of Cory Booker, Julian Castro, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Verrated, Tom Steyer and Tim Ryan finally drop out. (We’re just not that into you, guys! Take a hint!)

Unfortunately, we’re likely to continue to be plagued by centrist, corporatist sellouts Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris for a while, since their national polling averages right now are about 5 percent and 8 percent respectively, keeping them in the top five, and it still seems to me that Harris has a good shot at the veep slot if she’ll accept it.

*If Williamson hangs in there and manages to get 2 percent in at least four qualifying polls — perhaps because she gains the support of the supporters of those candidates who drop out — then she can make it into the October debate, but that would be a tough job, a job made tougher by her absence from the September debate.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized