Monthly Archives: January 2020

The right time to surge

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders sit next to one another on a stage.

Getty Images news photo

Bernie Sanders appears with the smug snake queen Billary Clinton at a campaign event for Billary in North Carolina in early November 2016. The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — keeping it as a Clintonian Repugnican Lite party or returning it to its progressive roots — is as alive today as it was in the 2016 presidential election cycle, only this time, Bernie — who is surging in the polls right now — is in a stronger position to win the nomination.

There was an attempt by Democrats in name only — including Billary Clinton and Billary Jr. (Elizabeth Warren) — to slimily take down Bernie Sanders right before the Iowa caucuses, but apparently the DINOs’ tactics have backfired; Bernie is only surging in the polls instead.

Attacks from self-serving, center-right, establishment, Repugnican-Lite “Democrats” only make the contrasts between them and the ironically only real Democrat in the race — Bernie — only even more vivid. They are only helping Bernie to make his case even more strongly.

Wikipedia’s average of nationwide poll averages right now puts a slipping Joe Biden at only about 6 percentage points ahead of Bernie nationwide, about 28 percent to 22 percent.

Warren is going nowhere — she’s stuck at No. 3 with about 15 percent nationwide — and billionaire former mayor Michael Bloomberg has overtaken Former Mayor Pete with about 8 percent to Pete’s about 7 percent. (Yes, Pete Buttigieg is now at No. 5 to No. 4 Bloomberg.)

Real Clear Politics’ average of Iowa polls has Biden and Bernie essentially tied in Iowa, around 21 percent each, with Buttigieg at No. 3 around 18 percent, and Warren at No. 4 with 16 percent (no other candidate breaks into the double digits).

RCP’s average of New Hampshire polls has Bernie clearly in the lead, with about 22 percent, Biden at No. 2 with 17 percent, and Buttigieg at No. 3 with about 15 percent. Warren is at No. 4 in New Hampshire, with about 14 percent (and no other candidate breaks into the double digits).

The prediction market right now has Bernie handily winning the first three states of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada — and has Bernie over Biden as becoming the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

While also has “President” Pussygrabber beating Bernie, the match-up polls show the opposite: RCP’s average of match-up polls between Bernie and Pussygrabber shows Bernie ahead of Pussygrabber by 3.2 percentage points.

The only Democratic candidate who does better against Pussygrabber than does Bernie is Biden, but not by much; RCP’s average of match-up polls between Biden and Pussygrabber show Biden ahead of Pussygrabber by 4.3 percentage points. (The incumbent’s advantage, even if that incumbent is the impeached Pussygrabber, is strong and is not easy to overcome.)

Warren beats Pussygrabber by only 1.4 percentage points — yes, let’s talk about electability — and Buttigieg leads Pussygrabber by an insignificant 0.4 percent.

(Bloomberg matches Bernie, also beating Pussygrabber by 3.2 percent, but I don’t see Bloomberg emerging as the nominee; the current political climate is not very friendly to billionaires whose last elected stint was as a Repugnican.)

Again, if all 50 states voted on the same day, Biden, with his 6-point national lead, very likely would win the nomination, but that’s now how it works. Instead, wins in the first two states magnify your status as a winning candidate, while losses in the first two states magnify your status as a losing candidate.

The domino effect (or, as I like to call it, The Sheeple Effect) may not be “fair,” but it is what it is.

If Elizabeth Warren comes in at fourth place in both Iowa and New Hampshire, as she is in the polling in those two states right now, stick a fucking fork in her, because she’ll be quite done.

Conversely, I’ll confidently predict that if Bernie wins Iowa, he then definitely wins New Hampshire, where he already leads significantly, and that if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then No. 3 Nevada will fall into line. (RCP right now has the average of Nevada polls with Biden leading Bernie by about 6 percentage points — which will evaporate if Bernie wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, I am confident.)

I’m sure that many if not even most deluded DINOs (redundant) still believe that No. 4 South Carolina still could save Biden’s ass if Bernie won the first three states, but I disagree wholeheartedly.

After South Carolina is Super Tuesday on March 3, and Super Tuesday will include the blue behemoth California, where RCP’s average of polls has Biden and Sanders essentially tied around 23.5 percent. So they’re essentially tied in California right now, but if Bernie wins Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, he’ll shoot up in the Golden State. ( has Bernie winning California handily, by the way.)

Don’t get me wrong; of course Joe Biden still could win the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination; the race is now between Bernie and Biden.*

But the current polling, which shows Bernie surging at exactly the right time, certainly lays waste to any claim that Bernie can’t win the nomination. He can, and, again, I believe that Bernie winning Iowa probably would slingshot him to the nomination.

Further, should Bernie come in at No. 2 in Iowa, I think he’d still win New Hampshire, but it probably would be more of a slog to the nomination that it would have been had Bernie won Iowa.

(Note that in 2016, Billary barely “won” Iowa — “by the closest margin in the history of the state’s Democratic caucus,” per Wikipediaunder a cloud of suspicious irregularities. In 2016 Bernie won New Hampshire, but it was a long slog to the nomination after that.**)

Still, if I had to put money on it, I’d say that Bernie wins Iowa on February 3 — he is benefiting from the fact that as the No. 2 Democratic Party presidential primary contest winner in 2016**, he’s well-placed now, and from the fact that he is riding the sociopolitical zeitgeist of finally returning the Democratic Party to its progressive roots.

Bernie also is the mirror opposite of “President” Pussygrabber: both are anti-establishment candidates in a time when anti-establishment candidates do well, and both are populists — only, again, they are mirror opposites: Bernie’s democratic socialism is diametrically opposed to Pussygrabber’s rank fascism.

Bernie is the good kind of populist, and hopefully in November 2020 the voters will put the right kind of populist into the White House this time.

P.S. Note that while Bernie appeared at numerous campaign events for Billary after she “won” the nomination in 2016 — oh, he probably had to take an anti-emetic and hold his nose to be able to do it, but he did it — “All About Unity” Billary has said that she doesn’t know if she will be able even to endorse Bernie should he win the nomination.

As many pundits have pointed out correctly, to the DINOs, “unity” means only that those who are left of center should fall in line with the center-right — never vice-versa. It’s entirely one way with the corporate-ass-licking DINOs.

Of course, as I’ve already noted, Billary campaigning for Bernie this year probably would do him more harm that good, since only about a third of Americans like Billary while the overwhelming majority despise her sorry baby-boomer ass.

Billary needs to remain in the shadows, where she belongs, while the rest of us rebuild the nation that she and her husband (and, to be fair, Barack Obama) helped the Repugnican Party to destroy.

*As I wrote back in March of last year:

The most likely scenario for 2020, I think, is that Biden runs and that it’s essentially a repeat of 2016: the establishmentarian, corporate-friendly, center-right, Barack-Obama-linked “Democrat” against actual Democrat (ironic!) Bernie Sanders — the dead hand of the past vs. the future.

Only this time, I think, Bernie will dispatch his party-hack opponent more quickly than it took Queen Billary, with her bots within the Democratic National Committee and elsewhere with the national Democratic Party power structure, to dispatch Bernie.

It was, after all, Bernie’s first rodeo. Not so this time.

**People forget (if they ever knew…) how well Bernie did against Billary in 2016. Bernie won 22 states and won 46 percent of the pledged (the actually democratically earned) delegates. No fringe fucking candidate does that well.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The bitch is back, which is probably a net good for Bernie’s campaign

Still pathetically blaming everyone but herself for her loss in November 2016, the undead Democrat in name only Billary Clinton still wants to keep the Democratic Party in the hands of traitors who sell the American people out to the highest corporate bidders while pretending to be on the side of the people, which is what Clintonism is all about.

The Iowa caucuses are only 13 days away, so of course the old, dead hand of the past — Billary Clinton’s — has emerged from its moldy grave to try to fuck shit up, just in the nick of time.

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician,” Billary has said of Bernie Sanders, adding, “It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” 

Wow. So much to unpack…

“Nobody likes him.”

OK, so in December 2017, Gallup reported, “Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating at New Low”:

Hillary Clinton’s image has declined since June [2017] and is now the worst Gallup has measured for her to date. Her favorable rating has fallen five percentage points since June [2017] to a new low of 36 percent, while her unfavorable rating has hit a new high of 61 percent.

In September 2018, Gallup did a follow-up titled, “Hillary Clinton’s Favorable Rating Still Low”:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s favorability with U.S. adults is unchanged from last November — remaining at a record low (36 percent).

These results, from a September 4-12 [2018] Gallup poll, confirm that Clinton’s image remains in a rut nearly two years after she lost the presidential contest in 2016. Her favorable rating is down seven percentage points from where it stood on the eve of the election.

From what I can tell, Gallup stopped polling on Billary after September 2018, probably because she’s pretty fucking irrelevant and thus not worth the resources.

Billary and Pussygrabber, in fact, were the least-liked and most-despised Democratic and Repugnican presidential candidates of all fucking time.

How is Bernie doing in the court of public opinion? The voters of Vermont make Bernie the nation’s most popular U.S. senator. (The voters of Massachusetts make Billary protege Elizabeth Warren rank in the bottom 10.)

And a recent Morning Consult poll of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters showed that Bernie has the highest favorability rating of all of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates — 76 percent, with Joe Biden coming in at No. 2, with 71 percent, and Warren third, at 65 percent.

Yet here we now have Billary, queen of the serpents, emerging from her snake hole to proclaim that no one likes Bernie Sanders — who is, career politician Billary says, a career politician!

Oh, and it’s all about sexism, too! Those “Bernie bros!” (Of course, a right-wing, misogynist male is going to be a Repugnican, but we love the myth of the “Bernie bro,” don’t we?)

Billary didn’t run a shitty campaign, neglecting to have campaigned enough in the critical, must-win Rust-Belt states that she simply took for granted but lost, and it’s not that the majority of the American people just don’t fucking like her (even though they don’t).

Billary’s loss in November 2016 has nothing to do with such things as Billary’s glaring character defects such as her rank hypocrisy, such as stating that no one likes someone else when the fact is that no one fucking likes her, and that anyone else is a “career politician.”

I could go on about Billary’s corruption, lying, self-serving and double-dealing and her pathetic, sickening baby-boomerian refusal to get out of the fucking spotlight and off of the fucking stage, since the curtains closed on her sorry ass long ago like the deranged Nora Desmond — and while Billary says that Bernie hasn’t accomplished anything, Clintonism brought us such wonderful things as NAFTA, “welfare reform,” mass incarceration, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, just allowing the genocide in Rwanda, and the Vietraq War that Billary so wisely voted for in October 2002.

Indeed, Clintonism — a perversion of the Democratic Party into a Repugnican Lite Party, a husk of its former progressive self — has only perpetuated the steady unraveling of the middle and working class that began under Ronald Reagan, the selling out of the American people to corporate overlords.

Only Clintonism is even worse than Repugnicanism, I think, because while we know that the Repugnicans are the enemy, the Clintonites pretend to be our friends, and, as Snake Queen Billary might put it herself, “It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” 

Indeed, what we dogged Berners still are trying to do — and there are legions of Bernie sisters with us “Bernie bros” (including endorsements from such progressive, actually Democratic politicians as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who, while Billary is our failed past, are the hope for our future) — is to rid ourselves, finally, of the toxic, corrosive, corrupt, Democratic-in-name-only politics of the Clinton-Obama years.

So for Billary the harpy-gorgon to emerge from her hole to show her pinched face again now probably only will help Bernie Sanders’ campaign — it is a stark reminder to all of us Berners of what evil we still are up against.

What’s left of Billary’s hard-core support already will vote for a center-right sellout like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar or even Elizabeth Warren.

We Berners are fiercely loyal to our candidate, and the Billarybots never were going to support Bernie Sanders anyway, so Billary the political zombie popping up from her political grave right now can only further help Bernie by making Billary — and everything that she and her DINO associates stand for — look even worse than they already do, thus strengthening our Berners’ resolve to finally fucking end this bullshit once and for all.

P.S. Indeed, again, look at what attacking Bernie has done for Billary Jr., a.k.a. Elizabeth Warren:

Again, this graph is from Wikipedia’s page on the nationwide polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, and you see that Warren, represented by the red line, has taken a downward turn, while Bernie, represented by the green line, has taken an upward turn since Warren thought that it was so fucking smart to try to use the bullshit “sexism” card against Bernie.

A political attack always can backfire, especially when the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are smart enough to see right through the bullshit of those who want to keep the Democratic Party a corporate-ass-licking party — lamely trying to use false claims of victimization and toxic identity politics, such as false claims of “sexism,” in order to try to get away with it.

P.P.S. Billary also says that she may not endorse Bernie if he wins the presidential nomination, although Bernie supposedly was the self-centered spoilsport in 2016.

Thing is, Billary is so toxic that her endorsement could do Bernie more harm than good; her stamp of approval is like the kiss of political death.


Filed under Uncategorized

RVS endorses Bernie Sanders

Above is the graphic that The New York Times used with its editorial board’s interview of Bernie Sanders before it ultimately glibly and cynically dismissed his entire candidacy and endorsed instead two candidates who probably would go down in defeat in November 2020. Below, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and other candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination march arm-in-arm today in the Martin Luther King Jr. Day march in Columbia, South Carolina, but the “progressive”-come-lately Warren still is dead to me after the “sexism” bullshit that she pulled last week, starting with leaking a fake “Bernie Sanders is a sexist” “news story” to CNN, which CNN then shamelessly, grossly unfairly weaponized against Bernie in the debate that it co-sponsored the very next day.

Democratic presidential rivals Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders link arms during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day march, Jan. 20, 2020, in Columbia, South Carolina.

That headline is mostly a joke.

I mean, Robert’s Virtual Soapbox does endorse Bernie Sanders for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, but you knew that for years.

I am responding to The New York Times’ “woke,” cowardly, ivory-tower “endorsement” of two of the weaker contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Apparently the “woke” elites of the Times — who concluded their endorsement editorial with the “woke” line “May the best woman win” after lecturing the rest of us on the perils of divisiveness — were responding to the “woke” Woman Power! tag-teaming that Warren and Klobuchar did in last week’s primary debate; it was well-organized, ironically sexist tag-teaming that only could have been planned beforehand, like the misandrist hit job that it was — and even worse, it was with the help of the corporate media whores of CNN, including the shamelessly partial and unethical “debate moderator” whose clearly premeditated “questions” regarding Bernie Sanders brazenly just assumed that he is guilty as charged of having told Warren during a private, one-on-one meeting in 2018 witnessed by no one else that a woman couldn’t be president. So fucking much for being fair and balanced!

On that note, that apparently is what the “woke” eggheads of the Times were focused on while determining whom to endorse for president: not wanting to be unfairly smeared, like Bernie Sanders has been, for being “sexist” — by endorsing yet another white guy for president.

But the Times’ stated reasons for endorsing Warren and Klobuchar are nonsensical, except that you can’t expect a corporately owned and controlled media giant — like CNN or The New York Times — to advocate for a politician who, if elected, might actually do something about corporate over-privilege and corporate abuse. The corporations (including, of course, CNN and the Times) feel quite safe with the likes of Klobuchar and Warren (and, to be fair, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg).

The Times glibly dismissed Bernie Sanders right before endorsing Warren thusly:

… Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern.

Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive.

He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda.

Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.

Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left. …

Wow. Warren would be 71 years old if she became president (which she won’t). There is such a huge difference between 71 and 79!

And according to the “woke” elites who regularly lecture us commoners from upon high, we are to be “woke” in every other way, but hey, ageism is A-OK!

As heart attacks are quite treatable these days, no one with two brain cells to rub together actually is seriously worried about Bernie’s health right now — except the Times, which is throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick to Bernie.

(On the heart-attack “issue,” the American Heart Association, which might know something about this, states that “After a first heart attack, most people go on to live a long, productive life.” The Times could have just Googled that fact, like I just did, but that would have gotten in the way of their agenda.)

And Bernie is wait for it — divisive! Ooooo! Can’t have that! No, we want our “Democrats” to be “nice” and “polite” and quiet and inoffensive and thus utterly ineffectual in pushing through a political agenda — you know, just like the Repugnicans are!

We want our “Democrats” to be weak and to be “above” the fray and to give the store away to the Repugnicans (when these namby-pamby, apologizing-for-their-own-existence “Democrats” even can win office in the first place, that is).

The Times tries to finish Bernie off with this pronouncement from upon high: “Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.”

Ooooo — comparing Bernie to Pussygrabber! Oh, sick burn! Oh, you sure got us “Bernie bros,” New York Times! You found that magic silver bullet; you drove that wooden stake right into our cold, misogynist hearts!

After the elites of the Times in their “woke” little circle jerk have, in their minds, polished Bernie off by quite falsely having compared him to Pussygrabber, as so many politically fucktarded others have done, they then inform us that it’s “Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.”

Oh, thank the Lord! Elizabeth Warren is here to swoop down and swoop in and save us!

Thing is, the electorate doesn’t think nearly as highly as Warren (or Klobuchar) as the Times does.

After the last man-hating debacle of a debate that inspired the Times to endorse Warren (and Klobuchar), Warren’s nationwide polling has gone down while Bernie’s and Biden’s have gone up:

That graphic is from Wikipedia’s page on the nationwide polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

You’ll see in the graphic that while Biden (the blue line) and Bernie (the green line) have veered upward in the nationwide polling, Warren’s nationwide polling, represented by the red line, has veered downward. I’d say that her toxic-identity-politics stunt at last week’s debate has backfired if her goal was to help herself, as it apparently was.

Wikipedia’s average of the nationwide polls right now puts Biden at No. 1, with 27.1 percent, Bernie at No. 2, with 19.8 percent, Warren at No. 3, with 15.7 percent, and, to show you how much further in touch with the electorate the Times is, Klobuchar nationally is at seventh place, with a whopping 3.2 percent!

Iowa is looking pretty tight right now, but Warren does appear to be in fourth place there nonetheless, with Biden and Bernie jockeying for No. 1.

In New Hampshire, Bernie sustains his small lead over Biden. (I think that Bernie will win New Hampshire, but it’s probably best for the Berners in New Hampshire not to assume that he’ll win, but to cast their ballots for him religiously.)

Biden’s lead right now in the third state to weigh in, Nevada, is about 6 percentage points ahead of No.-2 Bernie — not insurmountable for Bernie should he pull a blowout win of both Iowa and New Hampshire, which of course is possible, according to the polling.

As I’ve noted before, if Bernie manages to win the first three states, I don’t see No. 4 South Carolina saving Biden’s ass.

Why do I endorse Bernie and not the “pragmatists” who are so beloved by the corporately owned and controlled “news” media?

It’s pretty simple, really:

In power politics, you always go for more than you expect to actually get. You know that you’re unlikely to get all that you want, but if you are smart, you know to push for more than you think you’ll get.

If your starting-off point is to defend the status quo, or to promise to only maybe very slightly improve the sociopolitical landscape — you know, in such a non-threatening, almost-meaningless way as to avoid offending as many people as possible — then you are going to get rolled by the Repugnicans. Sensing (correctly) that they’re ready, willing and able to roll over and play dead at the drop of the hat, the Repugnicans eat these “sensible” “moderate” “Democrats” for breakfast, lunch and dinner (and in-between-meal snacks).

Elizabeth Warren is “a standard-bearer for the Democratic left”? Really, New York Times? Let’s see:

Warren was a Repugnican until 1996. (“She does not talk about her Republican past in either of her books or as part of the biography she recounts in her stump speech,” notes Politico, adding that “the information often comes as a surprise even to Beltway politicos and longtime Warren allies.” Yes, unlike her affiliation with Native Americans, Warren’s affiliation with the Repugnican Party was quite real.)

Warren defends the indefensible socioeconomic system that is capitalism. That alone, in my progressive book, is reason to not vote for her.

But there’s more: The former Repugnican and the currently capitalist Warren is a calculating party creature, a fucking cowardly and craven party hack, having dared not to step on Queen Billary’s royal cape by having run for president in 2016. She’ll gladly try to fuck it up for Bernie Sanders now, though, because she’s a true progressive, and if she cannot have the White House, then Bernie cannot have it, either! Bwaaa ha haa haaa haaaa haaaaa haaaaaa!

Three strikes (former Repugnican, apologist for capitalism, and self-serving Democratic Party hack); Liz is out.

I don’t even need to say anything at all about non-factor, polling-in-the-low-single-digits Amy Klobuchar, The New York Times’ co-endorsee, but I will.

Thing is, Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are famous for not turning out to vote unless they are particularly jazzed. Someone coma-inducing like centrist-on-crack Amy Klobuchar is not going to generate nearly enough excitement among the Democratic-voting electorate to ensure a win against the rabid cultists who would crawl naked through miles of broken glass and fire ants in order to cast their vote for Pussygrabber’s “re”-election in November 2020 (or before, if they vote early).

Much is said about the corporate media’s disconnect with the American people.

Again, the polls bear this out. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are the choice of some elites at The New York Times. They (especially Klobuchar) are not the choice of the people. They are not now, and they aren’t going to be.

Bernie Sanders is like “President” Pussygrabber only in that both of them do have hordes of loyal supporters; both of them are popular among considerable swaths of the American electorate.

You know, though, political excitement and political energy in and of itself is not bad or evil. It’s how you use that energy that matters, and how “President” Pussygrabber uses the energy and excitement that he generates and how President Sanders would use the energy and excitement that he generates are as night and day.

No political energy among the populace at all benefits our corporate overlords (like CNN and even The New York Times) because it maintains the socioeconomic status quo, so fully expect them to support political candidates who don’t meaningfully threaten the corporately owned and controlled status quo by bringing a wave of (yes, populist) political energy with them into office.

Again, populism in and of itself isn’t evil; Adolf Hitler was a populist. But so was Jesus Christ.

All that the Bernie-bashing, if ultimately successful, could achieve is that Joe Biden would become the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominee. (Maybe, given her fealty to the Democratic Party establishment, Warren actually is trying to help Biden out by trying to cripple Bernie? Maybe for the veep spot should Biden win the nomination? I wouldn’t rule that out.)

If you truly don’t want to see “President” Pussygrabber “re”-elected in November 2020, then Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate should scare the shit out of you.

The people — the “experts,” you know, like those who work at CNN and at The New York Times — who were so smugly certain that Billary Clinton would beat Pussygrabber in November 2016 are the very same people who today are so smugly certain that perpetual blast from the past Joe “No Malarkey” Biden can beat Pussygrabber in November 2020.

What possibly could go wrong?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I believe Bernie


UPI/Newscom news photo

Democratic Party presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders shook hands before last night’s debate but declined to do so afterward during an apparent little tiff. If it’s a fight that Warren wants, I say: Bring it!

I think it’s as likely that Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private that a woman cannot be elected as president as that he let out a war whoop while giving her a tomahawk chop with his hand over her claim to possess significant Native American ancestry.

Warren stands by her conveniently timed account, whereas Bernie has said that he only told Warren in that private meeting “that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could.” That’s absolutely true.

Warren forces us to believe her or to believe Bernie.

I believe Bernie.

Thing is, Warren’s track record on truthfulness and embellishment is not great. No, falsely claiming Native American heritage is not the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, but it’s not nothing, either.

And when we’re forced to look at character and history, as Warren now has forced us to do, we are reminded that until 1996, Warren was a registered Repugnican. Bernie never has been a Repugnican and has been a progressive his entire time in elected office, which began in 1981. Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist; Warren is still quite in bed with capitalism, which she still somehow defends.

Warren’s probably false claim — false because she’s flat-out lying or false because her memory differs from what actually occurred — that Bernie told her during a private, one-on-one meeting in 2018 that a woman couldn’t win the presidency is just way too convenient of a springboard for her to have pointed out in last night’s Democratic Party presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa, that none of the male candidates on the stage had defeated a Repugnican incumbent in the last 30 years. (She neglected to tell us during the debate that she herself was a registered Repugnican within the last 25 years…)

Indeed, at the debate last night, Warren, tag-teaming with the insufferable centrist Amy Klobuchar, was on a castrating roll.

To me, to be feminist means to promote the equality of the sexesnot to assert that one sex is better than the other, which women have stated, correctly, has been the problem for centuries: men (and plenty of women, too) believing that men are superior to women at least in some areas, such as to be the commander in chief.

Misandryman-hating, which we saw in Billary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and which an apparently desperate Warren has resurrected just in time for the Iowa caucuses — is not the antidote to misogyny. The equality of the sexes means the equality of the sexes.

That said, I do not believe that Elizabeth Warren could beat “President” Pussygrabber in November 2020. I mean, she might, but if I had to put money on it, I’d bet on her loss to Pussygrabber.

Yes, there are plenty of voters who don’t believe that a woman should be commander in chief — I do not at all share that view (and I could make the argument that a female commander in chief might be less trigger-happy and more mindful of human life and human well-being than a male commander in chief) — but what would sink Warren as the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, I believe, is not that she’s a woman, but that Pussygrabber would paint her, very probably successfully, as just another clueless egghead from Massachusetts, a la Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. (Warren was, after all, a professor at Harvard.) Anti-intellectualism is rampant within the U.S. electorate. It’s not fair or right, but it is what it is.

Don’t take just my word for it; the polls also indicate that Warren very well could lose to Pussygrabber in November. Real Clear Politics’ average of match-up polls between Warren and Pussygrabber right now shows Warren at only 0.4 percent ahead of Pussygrabber — while Bernie beats Pussygrabber by 3 percentage points and Joe Biden beats Pussygrabber by 4 percentage points. (In case you were wondering, Pussygrabber beats Pete Buttigieg by 0.7 percent.)

If you truly want to deny “President” Pussygrabber another term, Warren probably is not your best bet. The polling bears that out.

Everything else aside, is the American electorate too sexist to elect a female as president? Perhaps — and recall that many women (most of them right-wing Repugnicans, of course) wouldn’t vote for a female president.

But let’s not blame Bernie Sanders for lingering sexism in the United States — as convenient a whipping boy and punching bag that he is — and if Elizabeth Warren believes that it’s smart to follow the “Bernie bros” page of the Billary Clinton 2016 Playbook, she’s going to find that it’s going to backfire.

And by forcing the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters to choose between the real, time-tested progressive candidate and the “progressive”-come-lately candidate, Warren will lose.

P.S. In his defense during the debate last night, Bernie said this, in part:

Anybody who knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States.

In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren — [there] was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then did run [for president] afterward.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?

And let me be very clear: If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.

Bernie had stepped aside for Warren — who is too much of a spineless, self-serving party hack to have dared to challenge Queen Billary’s coronation in 2016 — only to have her repay the favor by biting him like the snake in the grass that she is.

Last night’s pre-planned and coordinated-with-CNN “feminist” spectacle during the debate not only damaged Warren’s campaign and reputation, but damaged true feminism by having tried to weaponize it for personal and political gain.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

23 days to Iowa, Bernie leads (oh, and he leads in New Hampshire, too)

Bernie Sanders stands on the Oval Office desk while partying with other potential Cabinet members

A whimsical illustration from a recent Politico piece imagines Bernie Sanders’ first day in the Oval Office. (I don’t know that Elizabeth Warren would be there to celebrate, but hell, she might be.)

With just a bit more than three weeks to go to the Iowa caucuses on February 3, Bernie Sanders is at least slightly leading there in the polls. Real Clear Politics’ average of Iowa polling right now has Bernie at No. 1, with 21.3 percent, Pete Buttigieg at No. 2 with 21 percent, Joe Biden at No. 3 with 17.7 percent, and Elizabeth Warren just behind Biden at No. 4, with 17 percent.

Buttigieg is at No. 2 in RCP’s polling average of Iowa, but he will not be the presidential nominee; nationally, he’s polling at only 7.5 percent, in fourth place. No way could he get the delegates that he’d need to win the nomination.

But if Buttigieg keeps his numbers in Iowa up, he might keep Biden at an embarrassingly weak No. 3 — and if the current polling holds, it’s quite possible for Biden to come in at fourth place in Iowa, behind Bernie, Buttigieg and Warren, which in my belief very well could be the (beginning of the) end of Biden’s campaign, no matter what Biden’s deluded apologists might claim otherwise.

The most recent Iowa poll, and the gold standard of Iowa polls, the Des Moines Register’s, puts Bernie’s lead significantly higher than does RCP’s average of recent Iowa polls. It puts Bernie at No. 1 with 20 percent, Warren at No. 2 with 17 percent, Buttigieg at No. 3 with 16 percent, and Biden at No. 4 with 15 percent.

The Des Moines Register notes of its latest poll, which was conducted from January 2 to January 8:

This poll also brings [Sanders’] highest favorability rating since June — 66 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers have favorable feelings toward him, versus 29 percent with unfavorable feelings. That’s an 11-point increase in net favorability since the November Iowa Poll.

He keeps his locked-in, enthusiastic base of support — a clear advantage over the other leading candidates: 49 percent of his supporters say they’re extremely enthusiastic to caucus for him — 17 percentage points higher than the share for his closest rival, Warren.

And, in what pollster J. Ann Selzer calls his best number of the poll, 59 percent of his supporters say their mind is made up. Warren is once again next, at 48 percent.

“For real, he could win the caucuses,” Selzer said. “His supporters are more committed and more entrenched.”

Bernie also is leading in New Hampshire, which holds its presidential primary election on February 11. Real Clear Politics’ average of recent New Hampshire polling right now has Bernie at No. 1, with 21.5 percent, Biden at No. 2 with 18.8 percent, Buttigieg at No. 3 with 18.3 percent, and Warren at No. 4 with 14.8 percent.

Should Bernie win Iowa, I can’t see him then not winning New Hampshire, and if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then Bernie will be the nominee; no, the center-right-voting “Democratic” voters of the states of the South and other red states will not save Biden’s ass if Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

But let’s continue:

The third state to vote is Nevada, which caucuses on February 22. Nevada isn’t polled much, and the last poll conducted there was by Fox “News” from January 5 through January 8. (The Los Angeles Times reports that Fox “News'” polling outfit actually is reputable and reliable, by the way. [I know!]) That poll puts Biden at No. 1, with 23 percent, Bernie at No. 2, with 17 percent, and Warren at No. 3, with 12 percent.

Should Bernie win Iowa and New Hampshire, I can’t see him then not also winning Nevada; Biden’s lead there is not insurmountable should Bernie win Iowa and New Hampshire.

Winning the first three states definitely would seal the deal for Bernie. People ignore what I think of as The Sheeple Effect: voters in subsequent caucusing and primary-voting states are quite susceptible to being influenced by who won (and lost) the preceding states. No one wants to back a loser; everyone (most everyone, anyway) wants to back a winner.

Yes, nationally, Biden is doing better than is Bernie; Real Clear Politics’ average of nationwide polls right now has Biden at No. 1 with 29.3 percent and Sanders at No. 2 with 20.3 percent (poor Liz is at a fairly distant third, with 14.8 percent). If all 50 states voted on the same day and voted soon, yes, Bernie most likely would come in at second place.

But that’s now how it works; the states vote and caucus in staggered chronological fashion, giving the winners upward momentum and the losers downward momentum, which is why the first states to vote and caucus do matter (again: The Sheeple Effect).

All of that said, now that Bernie is leading in Iowa and in New Hampshire, will he be the target of attacks from the “Democratic” establishment hacks who only continue to sell out the masses to our corporate overlords?

Oh, maybe.

But — setting aside the question of whether it’s too late to try to take Bernie down now — political attacks always can backfire, especially attacks on a candidate with high favorability ratings.

And there’s no way that alienated committed Bernie voters would vote for Joe Biden in November 2020.

No, Joe Biden as the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate would be Billary 2.0 — a centrist, milquetoast, wholly unexciting “Democratic” presidential candidate — and “President” Pussygrabber would be guaranteed a second term.

P.S. The prediction market right now has Bernie winning Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Yup.

Also, I neglected to mention Tuesday’s Democratic Party presidential primary debate, which will be held in Des Moines, Iowa, and is being co-hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register. Six candidates have made it to the debate: Biden, Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Sanders, Tom Steyer and Warren.

In my book neither the nonviable Klobuchar nor the nonviable Steyer belongs on the debate stage, but the rules are the rules.

This is the first debate in which Andrew Yang won’t be included (he was included in last month’s debate with the same six who will be in this month’s debate), but while I like him as a person, I don’t see that he belongs on the debate stage, either. Nationally he’s polling only around 3.5 percent (which is ahead of both Klobuchar and Steyer).

With Iowa only about three weeks away, I don’t want to see any more nonviable candidates on a debate stage. (Again, that includes Klobuchar and Steyer as well as Yang, but it is what it is.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The treasonous chickenhawks must be made to actually suffer this time

Reuters news photo

“President” Bone Spurs cavalierly will start a war (without the constitutionally required approval of Congress) in which he will lose nothing — but possibly will gain “re”-election. Not that that is treason or anything.

The Washington Post reports today:

Baghdad — Iraq’s prime minister urged parliament [today] to take “urgent measures” to force the withdrawal of foreign forces following a U.S. drone strike that killed a senior Iranian commander and key Iraqi militia leader in Baghdad last week.

In an address to the legislature, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi recommended that the government establish a timetable for the departure of foreign troops, including the members of the U.S.-led coalition to fight the Islamic State, “for the sake of our national sovereignty.”

“What happened was a political assassination,” Abdul Mahdi said of the U.S. strike that targeted Iran’s elite Quds Force commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, as he traveled in a convoy near the Baghdad airport.

Lawmakers responded by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end the foreign troop presence in Iraq. The United States and Iraq cooperate under a strategic framework agreement whose cancellation requires binding legislation. Iraq’s caretaker government is not legally authorized to sign such a law, Iraqi legal experts said.

The vote [today] did not immediately imperil the U.S. presence in Iraq, but highlighted the headwinds the Trump administration faces after the strikes, which were seen in Iraq as a violation of sovereignty and as a dangerous escalation by governments across the Middle East. …

Indeed, were it not for its oil resources, the elites of the U.S. would ignore Iraq just as they ignore all other nations from which they want nothing. And just as Americans would not be OK with two other foreign nations fighting their proxy wars on American soil, Iraq should be left the fuck alone; troops from any foreign nation don’t fucking belong there unless they are invited there and asked to remain by a true majority of the nation’s people.

And of course “President” Pussygrabber and his band of fellow treasonous mobsters only have politically calculated that a skirmish or even a full-blown war with Iran would bolster Pussygrabber’s chances of “re”-election in November 2020, just as “President” George W. Bush — who, just like Pussygrabber, also lost the popular vote and thus never legitimately was democratically elected as president — launched the Vietraq War in March 2003 in order to bolster his own chances of being “re”-elected in November 2004.

Apparently the road to an unelected “president” being “elected” again runs right through Iraq.

The anti-Vietraq-War protests (in which I participated) were not enough; they were way too peaceful. They did not strike fear into the cold, dead hearts of the chickenhawk traitors in D.C. who so glibly take us to war, always based upon their treasonous lies, knowing that their precious children won’t be the ones to fight the war that they have started — and that they very most likely won’t suffer the fate that a traitor should face, which is execution.*

I mean, you won’t see Ivanka or Eric or Pussygrabber Jr. going to fight in Iraq, that’s for fucking sure. (I leave out Barron not because he isn’t fair game, but because he’s too young to ship off to Iraq, and I feel a bit sorry for the perpetually ignored Tiffany, so I won’t drag her into this. [But you won’t see her going off to Iraq, either, of course…])

What Pussygrabber did — unilaterally take out one Iranian military official for one dead American contractor, thus risking another world war (a world war started for less) — warrants his removal from office.

Of course, he should have been removed from office already, and would have been were it not for his treasonous enablers within the Repugnican Party, which stands for nothing honorable or even just plain fucking decent.

*Yes, if in your official capacity you tell lies that result in the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops for nothing — and cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths — you should be executed just as you would have been executed at Nuremberg for your war crimes.

I generally am against the death penalty, but for war crimes and other crimes against humanity? You deserve to die. Maybe, then, the next despot will fucking think twice before abysmally abusing his or her power.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Don’t support our stormtroopers

Members of the Sturmabteilung (German for “Storm Detachment”) — Adolf Hitler’s stormtroopers (a.k.a. “Brownshirts”) who were key to his rise to power — march through German streets in the mid-1930s. Yes, this can happen here.

So this happened recently (via The Associated Press):

A police chief in the south Alabama city of Mobile is apologizing for an officer’s social media post appearing to ridicule homeless people that was shared widely over the holidays.

The Facebook post showed two Mobile Police officers, holding what the post called a “homeless quilt” made of cardboard signs that apparently had been confiscated from panhandlers around the city, according to media outlet

“Wanna wish everybody in the 4th precinct a Merry Christmas, especially our captain. Hope you enjoy our homeless quilt! Sincerely, Panhandler patrol,” the post read.

Mobile police chief Lawrence Battiste apologized for the post, calling it an “insensitive gesture.”

“Although we do not condone panhandling and must enforce the city ordinances that limit panhandling, it is never our intent or desire as a police department to make light of those who find themselves in a homeless state,” Battiste said. …

“It is never our intent or desire as a police department to make light of those who find themselves in a homeless state.” Really? Because that is exactly what they did. Here is the aforementioned Facebook post:

They took the time to tape all of those beggars’ signs together and then post a photo of it on Facebook! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Homelessness is funny!

Note the oddly tattered “thin blue line”/”blue lives matter” flag in the background. To me, this symbol is a white-supremacist message hiding behind a supposedly innocent, genuine concern for our cops. The wingnuts would fly the Nazi flag and/or the Confederate flag if they could, but they can’t, so the “thin blue line” flag will have to do as a thinly veiled white-supremacist message.

Is the photo above (literally) the picture of right-wing white-male privilege or what?

Why the “concern” for our cops? It is because their No. 1 function is not to protect and to serve — not us serfs, anyway — but is to uphold the insanely unjust socioeconomic status quo — which is why the right wing dutifully and instinctively gets on its hands and knees for the cops. After all, they would need someone to protect them should there ever be a true revolution of the downtrodden in the United States.

As far as the homeless go, in full disclosure, I hate seeing homeless people, and there are plenty of them in the California city where I live; if I leave my abode for any length of time, I’m going to see a homeless person (several of them, usually, actually).

But what enrages me is not the homeless themselves, but the fact that my working-class tax dollars should go toward helping these people, not toward helping those who don’t need my help, such as businesses and the already rich and/or powerful, including, of course, those of the military-corporate complex (in which I’ll include our wonderful cops, since the line between the cops and the military over time only becomes more and more blurred, as fascism more and more takes root in the United States).

Also, aside from the human suffering that I see pretty much daily, I am bothered by homelessness because I repeatedly am struck by the fact that we call ourselves a “Christian” nation when Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament and in his own quoted words, clearly was a socialistnot a social-Darwinian capitalist, as are the vast majority of Americans who call themselves “Christians.”

And some things never change — just as the Roman soldiers who reportedly crucified Jesus were just following marching orders from the elites above them, today’s cops just follow marching orders from our elitist overlords (such as to persecute the homeless, especially when they infringe upon business).

Today’s cops are authoritarian thugs who don’t think much (if at all), but who just blindly follow orders in order to receive their rewards like Pavlov’s dog; don’t expect much sociopolitical analysis from them.

And while the right has a problem with left-wingers working within the taxpayer-funded government, we’re supposed to wholly ignore the fact that our tax dollars routinely support abject wingnuts in law enforcement and in the military, including the Navy-SEAL murderer whom Der Fuhrer Pussygrabber recently pardoned for his war crimes.

Der Fuhrer Pussygrabber clearly meant to send a message to his white-supremacist supporters (redundant) that whatever the right-wing white men do in the military — or on our increasingly militarized streets here at home — is A-OKas long as they support him and his unelected regime. (They protect him and he’ll protect them — but no quid pro quo, bro!)

We forget at our own peril that Adolf Hitler rose to power only because from early on he had the blind, steadfast support of jackbooted thugs who were perfectly willing to do his bidding because of the rewards they envisioned for themselves.

This “thin blue line” bullshit is just a dipping of the fascist toe into the public waters.

Yes, it can happen here — if we just let it.

P.S. How could I forget our “friends” in the “correctional” field? They’re cut from the same authoritarian, fascist cloth from which those in law enforcement and the military are cut.

Here’s the lovely image of the “correctional” cadets in West Virginia who apparently thought it funny to perform the Nazi salute in a group photo in November:

And we are to entrust the rights and the dignity of the downtrodden (prisoners are among the downtrodden whom Jesus told us to take care of) to these incredibly insensitive individuals who clearly are going to go with whatever the group is doing. (Hey, it’s what Jesus would have wanted!)

Perhaps worse, the “correctional” instructional “leader” for whom the “joke” photo was created said that she saw nothing wrong with it. What possibly could be wrong with a group of would-be public servants giving the Nazi salute?

When I talk about fascism taking root here, this is exactly the kind of shit that I’m talking about: the routine expression of far-right-wing ideology on the public’s dime.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Uncle Joe would give away the store

Getty Images news photo

When he isn’t putting his mouth on his wife’s fingers like an Alzheimer’s patient on the “presidential” campaign trail, Joe Biden is saying shit such as that he’d gladly have a Repugnican running mate. And this addle-brained dinosaur is No. 1 nationally in the polls.

Ongoing shit like this is among the reasons that I left the Democratic Party and became an independent after the Democratic Party establishment fucked over Bernie Sanders in 2016:

The New York Times reported this the other day:

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is accustomed to fielding questions from voters about picking a running mate. But on Monday, he was asked a particularly provocative one: Would he consider choosing a Republican as his vice president?

“The answer is I would, but I can’t think of one now,” Biden said at a town hall-style event in Exeter, New Hampshire, drawing laughter from the crowd.

Biden then elaborated on what he meant. “There’s some really decent Republicans that are out there still, but here’s the problem right now of the well-known ones: They’ve got to step up,” he said.

Biden has emphasized the need for a future Democratic president to work with Republicans, stressing the importance of consensus in order to get things done.

That viewpoint has been criticized by some liberals who see it as an unacceptable embrace of the status quo and think Biden is naïve about trying to work with Republicans.

But choosing a Republican to be his running mate would be a far more grievous act in the eyes of many Democrats, something many party officials and both liberal and moderate activists would oppose. …

Indeed, that Biden has claimed that he even would consider the idea of a Repugnican running mate shows that he should not be the 2020 Democratic candidate for president.

Where to begin?

First and foremost, should Biden die while in the Oval Office — a real possibility, given that he is 77 years old now and would be 78 if he became president — we’d then have a new Repugnican president. A Repugnican president when the voters had elected a Democratic president.

Secondly, this is a risk that the Repugnicans never would take — allowing a Democratic vice president to become president should the Repugnican president die or otherwise have to leave office.

We’re supposed to blindly root for the Democrats even after they have demonstrated, time and time again, that they’ll sell us out to the Repugnicans at the drop of a hat. They’ll vigorously wave that white flag of surrender before the battle has even begun.

Thirdly, Biden was there for Barack Obama’s presidency. Presumably Biden was paying some attention. Did he truly not get how the vastly overconfident Obama’s “Kumbaya” bullshit with the Repugnicans failed miserably? Does Biden truly not understand by now that you don’t negotiate with terrorists, because they do nothing in good faith?

What the fucking fuck?

Biden claiming that he’d be open to the “right” Repugnican as his running mate does not make Biden look magnanimous and wise. It makes him look incredibly politically retarded.

As an apparent function of his apparent cognitive decline, Biden is not living in the political world of today; he’s living in some bipartisan fantasy world of the past, if such a bipartisan fantasy world ever really ever existed at all.

And don’t even get me started on how very apparently Biden is just another comfortable “Democrat” who sees no problem in continuing to sell out the masses to the right wing because hey, his life is comfortable!

The world is changing too rapidly and the multiple dangers to all human beings and to the planet itself are too grave for us to have Mr. Magoo as president. Hell, it’s even worse than Mr. Magoo: Mr. Magoo is literally blind, whereas Uncle Joe just refuses to see.

Come January 2021, I want to see President Sanders in the White House — with a Democratic vice president just in case, thank you very much, and fuck you very much, Joe Biden.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized