Tag Archives: Nevada

We are at the beginning of the end of our long national nightmare

Updated below (on Wednesday, November 7, 2018)

As I type this sentence, Politico reports that the Democrats are projected to take back the U.S. House of Representatives.

That is the one and only thing that I really, really wanted to happen in today’s elections, if nothing else good happened.

If a Democratic U.S. House and a Repugnican U.S. Senate results in gridlock for at least the next two years, then so fucking be it. The Repugnicans stymied President Barack Obama when they took back the House in November 2010 and held it for the rest of his presidency. (Not that Obama was an ambitious progressive anyway, but still…) Payback is a bitch.

Just as the unelected, illegitimate “President” Pussygrabber ramps up his fascism, including sending troops to the southern border to “protect” us from impoverished, desperate human beings (just like Jesus would do!), talking about shooting any rock-throwing immigrants (er, “illegals”), and talking about unilaterally altering the U.S. Constitution by executive order, it’s time to rein in his sorry, orange, tinpot-dictator ass.

The American system works. It takes time, but it works.

We are on a course correction, and we are at the beginning of the end of our long national nightmare.

Update (Wednesday, November 7, 2018): Other good news from last night includes Democrat Tony Evers’ victory over piece-of-shit Repugnican (redundant) Scott Walker for the governorship of Wisconsin. Woo hoo!

Also, I’m delighted that Democrat Jacky Rosen beat incumbent Repugnican Dean Heller for the U.S. Senate seat in Nevada, the state in which I plan to retire. Also, the Democratic candidate also won the state’s governorship, so as of January, Nevada will, like California, have two Democratic U.S. senators and a Democratic governor. I hope that Nevada keeps getting bluer before I finally move there.

And in neighboring Arizona, the race between Democrat Kyrsten Sinema and Repugnican Martha McSally for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Jeff Flake is too close to call, The Arizona Republic’s website reports right now.

Arizona is still pretty fucking red, but I hope that it, too, becomes more and more blue over the years, and I’m thinking that Democratic powerhouse California is having a blue-ing effect on its neighbors.

My biggest disappointment from yesterday’s election is that actual Democrat Kevin de León did not beat DINO Dianne “Cryptkeeper” Feinstein for the U.S. Senate seat for my great state of California, but thus far in the initial returns, De León has done better than the polls had suggested he would. Polls had Cryptkeeper ahead by double digits, but as I type this sentence, Cryptkeeper is ahead of De León by 8.8 percentage points, 54.4 percent to 45.6 percent.

A lot of Californians obviously want progressive change, but I don’t expect the crusty Cryptkeeper to be humbled by the fact that for an very-long-term incumbent she didn’t do nearly as well as she should have.

I’m also disappointed that Andrew Gillum didn’t win the governorship of Florida, but it was damned close (49.7 percent to 49 percent as of right now, per The New York Times).

I’m thinking and hoping that those progressives who did well but didn’t win yesterday, such as Gillum and De León — and such as gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, to whom I also gave a donation (but it’s Georgia) — will run again and will win next time.

P.S. Oops. Apparently Stacey Abrams still might pull out a win, despite the fact that her Repugnican opponent, Brian Kemp, is Georgia’s chief elections official who won’t recuse himself from overseeing the election in which he’s the Repugnican candidate for governor.

The votes in Georgia have yet to be finalized, and should Kemp’s final total fall below 50.0 percent, a runoff would be required in December, as for the governorship in Georgia, the winner must garner at least a simple majority, not just a plurality.

I hope that a runoff happens.

Finally, The Arizona Republic right now reports that the race between Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally still is too close to call and might take days or longer to be settled. Shit, for red Arizona, it’s good news even that the race is too close to call.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie has nothing to apologize for

Corrected and updated below (on Wednesday, May 18, 2016)

In a Saturday, May 14, 2016 photo, supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders react as U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., speaks during the Nevada State Democratic Party’s 2016 State Convention at the Paris hotel-casino in Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic Convention turned into an unruly and unpredictable event, after tension with organizers led to some Bernie Sanders supporters throwing chairs and to security clearing the room, organizers said. (Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP) LOCAL TELEVISION OUT; LOCAL INTERNET OUT; LAS VEGAS SUN OUT Photo: Chase Stevens, AP / Las Vegas Review-Journal

Associated Press photo

Thuggish supporters of thug-in-chief Bernie Sanders thuggishly display their displeasure at the Nevada Democratic Party convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. They were supposed to take their railroading by the pro-Billary Clinton Democratic Party establishment silently and meekly, like a good Democrat caves in to evil, you see.

Billarybots, frustrated that Bernie Sanders won’t drop out of the race like he’s supposed to do, are trying to make a big deal of the reported fracas in Las Vegas on Saturday. (So much for what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas…)

No one has been hurt, mind you, but the Billarybots are going to maximize the charge that “Bernie bros” are thugs and that they are poor, civilized, wholly innocent victims. I mean, their candidate is a treasonous Repugnican-Lite sellout who is disliked more than she is liked by the American electorate by double digits in most polls, whereas the opposite is true of Bernie, who is beloved by millions, so what else do they have?

Reports The Associated Press today:

Under pressure from Democratic Party leaders to denounce ugly tactics by his supporters, Sen. Bernie Sanders instead struck back with a defiant statement [today] that dismissed complaints from Nevada Democrats as “nonsense” and asserted that his backers were not being treated with “fairness and respect.”

It followed chaos at the Nevada Democratic Party convention Saturday night, where Sanders’ supporters threw chairs, shouted down speakers and later harassed the state party chair [Roberta Lange] with death threats.

Gravely alarmed, Democrats pressed Sanders to forcefully denounce it. The dispute stands as the most public rift yet between the Sanders camp and other Democrats, and may undermine the party’s attempt to maintain a unified front as frustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.

“Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals,” Sanders said.

But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night, something Democratic officials deny. “The Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place,” he said.

Sanders issued his statement moments after speaking with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who told reporters that Sanders had condemned the violence in Las Vegas. “This is a test of leadership as we all know, and I’m hopeful and very confident Sen. Sanders will do the right thing,” said Reid, D-Nev.

The head of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., also condemned the events in Las Vegas. “There is no excuse for what happened in Nevada, and it is incumbent upon all of us in positions of leadership to speak out,” she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who was booed when she spoke at the convention, told reporters [today] that she’d feared for her safety and said Sanders should give a “major speech” calling on his supporters to reject violence and opt for unity. …

Gee, what to say? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another DINO shill for Billary who has been instrumental, as head of the Democratic National Committee, in ensuring that Billary be crowned, the democratic process be damned, and also on Team Billary are the ineffectual and uninspiring center-right Harry Reid, who should have stepped down as Democratic “leader” of the Senate years ago, and Barbara Boxer, who used to be a progressive years ago but who over the past several years has become worthless (I’m quite happy that she decided not to run for re-election this year; had she run, I would not have voted for her over her support for Repugnican Lite Billary alone; no true progressive could support Billary Clinton).

So of course all of these DINO assholes on Team Billary are going to trump up the Las Vegas fracas. They have a horse’s ass in this race.

Let’s unpack that Vegas fracas: Chairs were thrown. Horrors! OK. One probably shouldn’t throw a chair at a public gathering, but no one was injured by any flying furniture. Speakers were shouted down. Oh, boo fucking hoo! It sucks to be shouted down, but it doesn’t put you in the hospital.

Count three: Death threats! Hmmm. Until and unless any of the alleged “death threats” is investigated by law enforcement, I wouldn’t rule out that a Billary supporter or supporters did it or even that the supposed recipient(s) of any death threat(s) fabricated it. There is no proof that any supporter of Bernie Sanders issued a single death threat to anyone. We have only allegations.

As far as death threats go, let law enforcement handle any alleged death threats, and in the meantime, if there is a claim of a death threat in the midst of a heated political campaign, take it with a grain of salt until and unless it’s investigated by law enforcement and proven to be actual.

I wasn’t there, but the Vegas fracas sure looks trumped-up to me — trumped-up for political purposes by the Billarybots exasperated by the fact that not all of us have given up, sold our souls to Satan, and settled for Billary.

What’s funny, I think, is that as a U.S. senator in October 2002, Billary voted for the Vietraq War, in which more than 4,000 of our troops died for the unelected Bush regime’s lies for Big Oil and for the war profiteers (including Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, with its no-bid contracts with the federal government in Iraq), and in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died.

Bernie, as a U.S. representative in October 2002, voted against the Vietraq War, but the Billarybots actually would have everyone believe that war hawk Billary Clinton, whose talons are dripping with blood, is the candidate of peace while Bernie Sanders, democratic socialist of Vermont, is the ruthless, evil leader of murderous hordes!

This is some fucking bullshit.

Bernie Sanders has nothing to apologize for. He wasn’t even fucking there in Las Vegas on Saturday. He didn’t throw any chair. He didn’t shout anyone down. He didn’t issue any death threat (although it can’t be long before a crazy, lying Billarybot alleges that he has).

Nor can Bernie Sanders be held responsible for anything and everything that anyone claiming to support him does or says. Bernie can’t control millions of people, and we are responsible for our own words and actions.

At the Bernie Sanders rally that I attended here in Sacramento last week, at which at least 15,000 people attended and where I was for several hours, I didn’t see even a verbal altercation. Not one. I saw nothing but peaceniks, so there’s no fucking way in hell that I’m going to sit back while the Billarybots try to paint us supporters of Bernie Sanders as thugs. (Unlike the typical effete Democratic Party hack, I believe in fighting back.)

But, of course, this isn’t even about what happened in Vegas (that certainly wasn’t going to stay in Vegas).

No, what this really is about is the Democratic Party hacks/the Billarybots trying to bring Bernie Sanders and his supporters to heel — you know, the way Billary said that “super-predators” must be brought to heel.

These are the last gaps of the obsolete, irrelevant, self-serving Democratic Party establishment — the corrupt-beyond-belief Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the worthless Harry Reid, yes, even the now-pathetic Barbara Boxer, et. al., et. al. — who want to claim victimhood even while they’ve hardly been nice themselves, but have used the Democratic Party as a vehicle to their personal enrichment while the Democratic Party, year after year, more and more serves the moneyed elite at the expense of the rest of us, the commoners, the rabble.

These Democrats in name only are not nice people. Oh, they don’t throw chairs or even shout (that would be “uncivilized”!), but the damage that they have caused to millions of Americans (and to millions throughout the world) through their cowardly caving in to the Repugnican Tea Party and to their corporate sugar daddies over and over and over again and their craven selfishness and their having dragged the once-venerable Democratic Party so far right that with each passing year the two duopolistic parties are more difficult to distinguish, is much, much, much worse than is an airborne chair.

The smooth-talking weasel in the business suit is much more harmful and much more dangerous than is the person who tosses a chair or shouts. Don’t be fooled by the fine garb and the “polite” behavior. Underneath lurks the rabid wolf.

Bernie Sanders is correct to point out how much the Billarybots have disrespected the democratic process throughout the entire presidential primary season. He would be guilty of dereliction of duty to democracy if he did not. Every opportunity to unfairly and unjustly boost Billary over Bernie, the Billarybots have taken. This is the context in which the events unfolded in Las Vegas on Saturday, context that the guilty Billarybots of course don’t want to discuss.

Even the Associated Press news story isn’t neutral and unbiased. Look at the word choices: “ugly tactics.” I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism. In a news story you can describe events, but you don’t judge them, such as with the adjective “ugly.” A “defiant statement.” (Bernie Sanders is defiant!) “Gravely alarmed.” Hyperbolic much?

“[F]rustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.” Is the AP writer’s opinion that Sanders should shut down his campaign? (Or is the writer supposedly merely reporting the facts?) Why should Sanders shut down his campaign when Billary hasn’t secured the 2,383 delegates necessary for the nomination?

Sanders’ statement on the Las Vegas drama proclaimed: “Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.”

But that wasn’t enough for the AP writer, who notes, “But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night…”

Why should Bernie Sanders apologize for something that he did not do? Why does the AP writer have a stake in the Democratic Party hacks’ assertion that Bernie should apologize for something that he did not do?

Why would Bernie’s condemnation of “any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals” not be enough for anyone?

Why should Bernie not reiterate the grievances of his supporters in Nevada? (Because the rabid Billarybots want him to act like a castrated man; they’re to lie and to attack and he’s to just stand there and take their hypocritically sex-based abuse, lest they call him a misogynist for defending himself. This, my friends, is neo-feminism.)

This bullshit is enough to make me want to shout and throw a chair.

Because I’m a “Bernie bro” and that’s all that we’re about, right?

It’s fine, though. The Billarybots/Democratic Party hacks do themselves no long-term favors by attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Fact is, the ranks of independent voters, disgusted by the treasonously self-serving D.C. elite and their Coke Party and Pepsi Party, are growing while the ranks of the party hacks, both of the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party, are dwindling.

The Democratic Party hacks don’t have enough numbers to win a presidential election on their own. If they make Billary their nominee, there is a good chance that they’ll see startling evidence of this on Election Day in November.

And we progressives are patient. The Billarybots are just trying to shove their widely despised candidate into the White House, even if they must cheat to do it (they have no conscience, so cheating comes easily to them). They think in the short term, because their lemming-like brains are incapable of long-term thought.

By continuing to alienate us progressives — who are Berners now because he’s our champion right now, but who will remain progressives long after this presidential election has come and gone — the DINO dinosaurs only speed up their own inescapable extinction.

P.S. Here’s an Associated Press photo of Bernie supporters protesting in Las Vegas on Saturday:

Do they look as dangerous to you as they do to me?

P.P.S. You should read the AP story in its entirety. It’s a wonderful piece of “unbiased” “news” reportage. It includes these humdingers, too:

… It [Las Vegasgate] comes as Donald Trump is wrapping up the nomination on the Republican side, yet Democrats remain divided and now some Democrats fear that Sanders’ supporters are starting to mimic backers of Trump in their sexist and aggressive behavior.

Democrats also fear that the unrest in Nevada could be a taste of what is to come at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia this summer.

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, an influential political committee devoted to electing women that is backing Clinton, said in a statement: “These disgraceful attacks are straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, and Bernie Sanders is the only person who can put a stop to them. Sanders needs to both forcefully denounce and apologize for his supporters’ unacceptable behavior — not walk away.”

… The Nevada Democratic Party sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee accusing Sanders supporters of having a “penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting.”

Sanders dismissed that as “nonsense.” “Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence,” he said.

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics,” he said. …

Yup. The Democratic Party troglodytes ignore the changing political landscape at their own political peril.

Slanderously comparing Bernie Sanders’ supporters to Donald Trump’s supporters (replete with “sexist and aggressive behavior”) is complete and utter bullshit, the epitome of unfairness and untruthfulness — there have been no documented cases of any violence at any Sanders rally — and Billarybots Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the head of EMILY’s List, which is a blatantly sexist organization that endorses Billary even though she’s never met a war criminal she didn’t love (including Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, who is buddy-buddy with Donald Trump, too) it’s enough for the sexists of EMILY’s List that Billary is a woman, you seehardly are unbiased sources for this “news” story.

Correction and update (Wednesday, May 18, 2016): Rachel Maddow’s coverage of this “controversy” is fairly enlightening. Las Vegas political “journalist” Jon Ralston apparently has shilled Team Billary’s version of events without having even bothered to talk to Bernie’s supporters, which is typical of a pro-establishment/establishment “journalist,” and very apparently there is no video of any chair actually having been thrown — only video of one individual raising one chair off the ground and then putting it down again.

So that (along with yelling) constitutes the “violence” that the Billarybots claim happened in Vegas on Saturday. Fucking liars.

Rachel Maddow — who (along with all of MSNBC) as of late has been slanted toward Billary but who still can do real journalism, unlike Ralston — interviews a Nevadan delegate for Bernie named Angie Morelli who is quite well-spoken and who gives us a lot more context to the events in that convention hall in Vegas on Saturday — again, context that the Billarybots don’t want mentioned, because it weakens their self-servingly exaggerated narrative of events.

Reportedly one or more supporters of Bernie Sanders publicly released the phone number and other personal contact information of the state’s Democratic Party chair, and nasty messages were left for her. “Death threats” some of them have been called, but I’ve only heard one voice message proclaiming that for her crimes against democracy she should be publicly “hung” (sic), not a direct death threat as in “I am going to kill you.”

If the voice message about public hanging isn’t a false flag, yes, of course that would be intimidation, but, again, there is zero proof that any Bernie supporter did it, indeed, no proof that any of the nasty messages was left by a Bernie supporter. Some, most or all of these messages were created by Billary supporters trying to tarnish Team Bernie with a false-flag campaign, for all that anyone knows.

That said, one or more Bernie supporters might be guilty of verbal intimidation, but that would be a tiny minority of Bernie supporters (and, again, Bernie Sanders can’t control and can’t be blamed for the words and actions of millions of people).

And verbal intimidation is a form of violence if you use a broad definition of the term “violence,” but most people’s own personal definition of “violence” includes physical violence, of which there was none perpetrated by a supporter of Bernie Sanders in Las Vegas on Saturday — none of which there is any evidence, anyway. (Morelli claims that the only act of violence at the convention that she is aware of is that a Billary supporter intentionally shoved her.)

So when the Billarybots claim that we “Bernie bros” have become “violent,” they’re not just exaggerating — they knowingly are lying, slandering and libeling for attempted political gain.

As I just wrote earlier today:

With Billary only around 3 percent to 5 percent ahead of Trump in the match-up polls right now — and this is because the nation’s electorate apparently hates Billary just a little less than the nation’s electorate hates Trump — you’d think that the Billarybots would be a lot nicer to us Berners instead of painting pretty much all of us as sexist, misogynist, violent animals who are just like Trump’s supporters.

But no.

The Lemmings for Billary are determined to go right off of that looming cliff that is in plain, clear view.

P.S. Yet another update: Rolling Stone claims to have verified that at least three male supporters of Bernie Sanders left nasty messages for the chairwoman of Nevada’s Democratic Party.

Rolling Stone actually contacted these three individuals, of whom it reports:

… None of them were [sic] present at the convention, or even live in Nevada. They watched from their homes in Texas, Georgia and Utah, and felt the brazen theft they saw validated their actions. All of the men we spoke to reject the idea that their words could be interpreted as threats or harassment. And all of them were concerned about the media contorting their words. So, in their words — edited only for length and clarity — here is what they had to say for themselves. …

I read what the three young men had to say for themselves, and overall I’d say that they are young and socioeconomically struggling and thus frustrated (which is a fairly redundant way to describe our young people here in the U. S. of A.), fairly new to paying attention to politics and therefore passionate, and more or less contrite that their passion gripped them to the point that they sent nasty messages to the head of Nevada’s Dem Party. (I’d say more, such as about testosterone and how it can make a young man behave, but I’ll stop here.)

Even if these weren’t three socioeconomically frustrated young men who let their political passion get the best of them, even if they were just three flat-out evil men, three people, or even 3,000 people, aren’t representative of a movement of millions, yet the Billarybots gleefully are pretending that this is the case, as happens in political dogfights.

As far as intimidation goes, anyone who is demonstrated to have broken a law (or even terms of service) should be dealt with accordingly, but if we’re going to define the term “violence” broadly, let’s also include the act of not just exaggerating, but quite intentionally lying in order to try to disempower an entire group of people based upon the words and actions of only a tiny fraction of them.

It is a lie that supporters of Bernie Sanders were physically violent in Las Vegas on Saturday. No one was physically stricken by a Sanders supporter or even physically harmed.

It is a lie that even a sizable chunk of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are prone to violence or even to intimidation, so it’s even a much bigger lie to assert that “Bernie bros” (itself a sexist term) are just like Donald Trump’s worst supporters.

In any group of millions of people, a small number are going to act like juveniles or otherwise utter words and/or commit actions that could be used by the group’s opponents to try to embarrass and disempower the entire group. That is no lie.

P.P.S. For the record, I don’t represent Bernie Sanders. I represent myself. I always have and I always will. I am an American citizen, not a campaign worker (paid or even volunteer), so I’ll say whatever the fuck I wish, as the First Amendment gives me the right to do.

The term “Bernie bro” is funny to someone like me, a gay man, but whatever; its widespread use only shortens the political survival of both the pseudo-feminists (themselves spiteful, mean-spirited, man-hating sexists) who use it and the Democratic Party that stopped representing the interests of the people many years ago.

Finally, there are many forms of violence if we want to define the term broadly. Limiting the number of debates, as corrupt national party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blatantly did (apparently the promised 10th debate between Billary and Bernie this month isn’t going to take place, by the way) is a form of violence. Party operatives (from Wasserman Schultz on down) doing everything in their power to give their preferred candidate an advantage (a.k.a. cheating and rigging the game), as has happened in Nevada and throughout the nation, is a form of violence.

The people who perpetrate this anti-democratic bullshit aren’t “nice.” They’re perpetrators of violence. It’s that their violence is indirect and passive-aggressive and widely socially considered (incorrectly) to be acceptable, but it causes as much harm as textbook violence, if not even more.

When these passive-aggressive perpetrators of violence finally evoke a response in their victims, they then hypocritically accuse their victims of being the violent ones.

This is textbook bullshit. Worse, it’s pretty much PSYOP.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Still Bernie or bust for me (also: Live-blogging the 7th Dem debate tomorrow)

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is hugged as he arrives to speak at a campaign rally in Warren, Michigan

Reuters photo

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a progressive U.S. senator for Vermont, is hugged before a rally today in Warren, Michigan. Today Bernie handily won the caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska, while Billary Clinton picked up yet another state of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging denizens in the South (Louisiana). Tomorrow night Bernie debates Billary Clinton in Flint, Michigan. Michigan holds its primary election on Tuesday; if Bernie takes the state, gone (at least until Billary’s next win) should be the bullshit talk of Billary’s “inevitability.”

Today Bernie Sanders won the Democratic Party presidential caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska, and Billary Clinton, in keeping with her popularity in the South, won the backasswards red state of Louisiana.

Thus far the map of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary race (this one from Wikipedia) looks like this, with Bernie’s wins in green and Billary’s in gold:

Note that Iowa was a tie, with Billary “beating” Bernie by a whopping 0.3 percent. Also close was Massachusetts, which Billary won by 1.4 percent. (It apparently helped her to at least to some degree that Bill Clinton apparently was electioneering for Billary at polling places in Massachusetts on “Super Tuesday.” [His mere presence at a polling place, even if he didn’t speak a word, was electioneering, in my book, given how well he is known as a former president and since his wife appeared on the ballot at the polling places that he visited (only to “thank the poll workers,” he claimed). Of course, the Clintons are royalty, and members of royalty are above the law.])

Nevada wasn’t a blowout win for Billary, either; she won that state’s caucuses by 5.3 percent.

Billary’s wins in the Southern states have been in the double digits, which speaks volumes to me. The South is another fucking country, as far as I’m concerned.

Bernie’s double-digit wins in states like Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Vermont (and his almost-wins in Iowa and Massachusetts) indicate to me that he represents the real Americayou know, the portion of the United States that didn’t practice slavery and wasn’t part of the Confederacy.

Queen Billary says that she’s the real Democrat in the race, yet why is her power base in the South — which is not exactly a bastion of the values and beliefs of the modern Democratic Party?

At any rate, although Billary once again stupidly was declared “inevitable” after “Super Tuesday” this past week (she won seven states [all of them, except for Massachusetts, in the South] to Bernie’s four), this remains a race.

(As many have noted, if a clear majority of the voters and caucus-goers pick Bernie over Billary, the so-called “super-delegates” will be pressured not to subvert democracy, but to go with the popular will and to therefore go with Bernie — if the Democratic Party is to survive.*)

Next up is Maine, which caucuses tomorrow, and then on Tuesday, Michigan and Mississippi hold their primary elections.

I expect Bernie to win Maine, and of course Billary will take the backasswards red state of Mississippi. I’m hoping that Bernie takes Michigan; that would be a real coup for him.

In any event, tomorrow night is the seventh Democratic Party presidential debate. It will be held in Flint, Michigan, and is to be carried by CNN at 9 p.m. Eastern/6 p.m. Pacific.

I plan to live-blog it, but I might do it differently this time; truth be told, after having live-blogged the first six Democratic debates, I can tell you that these debates get repetitive. Tomorrow night I might decide to live-blog only new material and the more interesting exchanges, and let the repetitive crap go.

Finally, if you are a regular reader of mine you will know this already, but I’ll say it again: For me it’s still Bernie or bust.

I will not support Billary Clinton, Queen of the South, in any way. Not a penny and certainly not my vote, not in California’s primary election in June or in the general presidential election in November.

Billary Clinton does not represent the United States of America or the Democratic Party to me.

My world is a progressive one, and she is from another planet.

P.S. Speaking of other planets, as far as Donald Trump is concerned: I’m sorry that he has gotten this far. It’s a sad statement on the sorry state of sociopolitical affairs in the nation that he has.

Donald Trump does not represent all white male Americans. Let me say that. He represents some of them. (White males are around 31 percent of all Americans, and Trump has the support of about 36 percent of Repugnicans, men and women, and around 39 percent of Americans identify as Repugnican or leaning Repugnican, while around 43 percent of Americans identify as Democratic or leaning Democratic. So Trump has the support of around 36 percent of around 39 percent of Americans, including women, so let’s please not say that he’s representative of most white American men. He is not. He is representative of a loud and obnoxious minority of them who share perhaps three brain cells among themselves.)

Donald Trump to me is evil not so much in that he has all of these definite evil plans for the groups of people whom he definitely would persecute, like his forebears the Nazi Germans did, but in that because he has no moral compass and no apparent conscience, but is pure ego, he would go in whatever direction he would perceive to be politically beneficial to himself, regardless of its harm to many others. He sociopathically lacks all empathy, very apparently.

Sure, that also pretty much describes corporate-ass-licker Billary Clinton’s entire political career, but would another Nazi Germany arise under Billary Clinton? Probably not. Under Donald Trump? It certainly could.

That said, I still think that I prefer the overt fascism of Donald Trump to the “friendly” fascism of Billary Clinton; I still think that I’d rather deal with the obvious wolf than with the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

On that note, both the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party establishments — the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party — need to go.

Yes, the thought that the establishment parties’ demise could be replaced by something akin to Germany’s Nazism (that is, nationalism, far-right-wing ideology/fascism, white supremacism, etc.) is a frightening thought, but there is an alternative to that: the progressive, inclusive, democratic socialism that real Democrat Bernie Sanders promotes.

*While I don’t share Salon.com writer Andrew O’Hehir’s assessment of Billary’s chances of emerging as the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee — I think that he overstates her chances (for one thing, she remains underwater in her favorability polling of all voters by double digits — while Bernie’s favorability polling of all voters still has him liked more than disliked by double digits) — I do agree with O’Hehir’s assessment that there is a civil war within the Democratic Party just as there is within the Repugnican Tea Party.

It’s just that the Democrats are “nicer” about it, and it hasn’t blown up (yet).

Whether Billary emerges as the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee or not, the fact remains that her center-right brand of Democrat is sorely out of date, is unsustainable and needs to go, and it will go; it’s only a question of for how much longer the Clintonistas can keep the Democrat-in-name-only game going.

If we Berners — progressives — can’t take back our party this year, we will take it back in the near future.

Billary Clinton is not in a good place politically, not in the long term.

Why?

Well, if Bernie beats her, it will be seen as a victory for progressives. (Of course, if Bernie beats her but then goes on to lose in November, he’ll be lumped in with the likes of George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, which probably would be damaging for the progressive brand and seen as vindicating the Clintonistas’ brand of the Democratic Party, of course. [This wouldn’t last forever, but would last for some time, I surmise.])

But if Billary wins the nomination but then loses in November, it most definitely will be the final stake in the cold, stupid hearts of the Clintonistas. The members of the party will look for a new direction, and we progressives are quite ready to supply that direction.

But even if Billary wins both the party’s presidential nomination and the White House, she’ll have a very rough go of it.

She will be attacked relentlessly by the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, and if you look at who her supporters are now, it appears as though as president she’ll have the support of the Democrats in the South — Democrats who are fairly powerless within their own states.

The rest of us — us Northerners, mostly — aren’t at all thrilled about Billary Clinton now, so she probably can’t count on much political support from us should she actually become president.

And that’s her fault, not ours.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

With narrow Nevada win, Billary is one step closer to losing the White House

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton arrives with former President Bill Clinton to give a victory speech at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016. Clinton edged out Bernie Sanders on Saturday in Nevada's Democratic caucuses, capitalizing on a more diverse Democratic electorate to propel her to a critical win and give her momentum as the presidential campaign shifts toward the South. (Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus via AP)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (R) and husband Bill Clinton (L) wave to a cheering crowd after winning the Nevada democratic caucus at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 20, 2016

Las Vegas Sun/Associated Press and AFP photos

Billary Clinton celebrates her relatively narrow win in today’s caucuses in Nevada. (Of course Billy Boy is there, since she needs all of the help with likability that she can muster.) However, Bernie Sanders beats or at least ties all of the Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders in match-up polling, whereas Billary in match-up polling loses to Ted Cruz and to Marco Rubio — and even to John Kasich. The lemming-like Billarybots fairly clearly have us all headed for a cliff.

Unfortunately, apparently Democrat in name only Billary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses today. With 82.7 percent reporting, Politico reports as I type this sentence, it’s 52.4 percent for Billary to 47.5 percent for Bernie — a difference of just under 5 percent.

The Billarybots can celebrate today, but Nevada demonstrates that about half of the Democratic Party and those of us who lean toward the party don’t want Billary as our standard-bearer in November.

And yes, the state of Nevada apparently is fairly representative of the nation as a whole. As Wikipedia notes of Nevada:

Nevada has voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1912, except in 1976, when it voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. This includes Nevada supporting Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Democrat Barack Obama winning the state in both 2008 and 2012. This gives the state status as a political bellwether. Since 1912, Nevada has been carried by the presidential victor the most out of any state (25 of 26 elections).

Nevada also is a purple state — yes, Obama won it in 2008 and 2012, but George W. Bush won it in 2000 and 2004. Its governor is a Repugnican and one of its two U.S. senators is a Repugnican. So a blue state it ain’t.

Considering that fact, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders did well in Nevada today.

Billary very most likely will win the South Carolina primary a week from today, and so apparently she gets to go into “Super Tuesday” on March 1 having two clear wins under her belt (Nevada and South Carolina) to one clear win for Bernie (New Hampshire) and a tie (Iowa, although of course the Billarybots won’t admit that Iowa was a tie).

“Super Tuesday,” on which 11 states hold primary elections and caucuses, will be a real test for Bernie, but whether Bernie ultimately wins the Democratic Party nomination or not, that he has done as well as he has thus far demonstrates that Billary Clinton is not a strong candidate.

Billary is going on her surname and the widespread belief that “it’s her turn,” as well as the belief of the New Feminists that women who don’t vote for other women like they’re told to go to hell (one wonders: Did this “feminist” fatwa also apply to the likes of Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina?), but the one critical thing that Billary doesn’t have is very much enthusiasm among the electorate, which probably will put the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate, whoever it turns out to be, into the White House if Billary is the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

If you think that I’m just being a “Bernie bro”/Chicken Little, know that while Billary beats Donald Trump in polling match-ups (but only by about 3 percentage points), she loses to Marco Rubio (by almost 5 percentage points) and even to Ted Cruz (and get this: John Kasich beats Billary by more than 7 percentage points).

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, in the match-up polling beats or at least ties ALL of the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidates. (He beats Trump by almost 8 percentage points, beats Cruz by almost 5 percent, ties Rubio and beats Kasich, although admittedly not by a lot.)

Chew on that fact, Billarybots!

So yes, it’s quite possible that Billary wins the Democratic Party nomination but then loses in November. Not only is it quite possible, but I’d say that it’s more likely than not to happen if she wins the nomination.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, after eight years of “socialist” Barack Obama, will be a lot hungrier in November than will the Democrats. They will vote.

If Billary wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination, I — and many, many other Berners — won’t vote for her in November. That’s all that there is to it. And I don’t care what anyone thinks of me.*

The Democratic Party has become a shell, a husk of its former self, a pro-plutocratic, pro-corporate Repugnican Lite Party, and I cannot and I will not support it as it is now.

I am a registered Democrat now only so that I can vote for Bernie Sanders when California finally has its primary in June. (Even if he has dropped out of the primary race by then, if he still is on my primary-election ballot, I’m still voting for him.)

Billary Clinton at a “town hall” recently criticized Bernie Sanders’ past criticisms of “Democratic” sellouts, saying, “Maybe it’s because Senator Sanders wasn’t really a Democrat until he decided to run for president.” (She was booed by the audience, deservedly.)**

Bernie isn’t an actual Democrat but Billary Clinton is? Oh, really?

As a true progressive his entire time in Congress, I’d say that for some decades now Bernie Sanders has been one of only a relative handful of true Democrats in Congress. Center-right sellouts like Billary use the label “Democrat,” but true Democrats they are not.

Billary the uber-harpy can entertain herself and her “fem”bots with her bullshit charge that she’s the true Democrat. Fuck her. I’m not voting for her, giving her a penny, or supporting her in any way whatsofuckingever.

Unlike the legions of Billarybots, who are too fucking stupid to vote in their own best fucking interests, I, for one, will not help Billary Clinton to screw me, the common American, even more than she and her Democrat-in-name-only ilk already have, at least ever since she and her DINO husband turned the once-progressive Democratic Party into a slightly paler imitation of the Repugnican Party in the 1990s.

Fact is, come January 2017 I’d rather have a Repugnican Tea Party president than a President Billary. I’d rather deal with the obvious wolf than the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

If it takes another disastrous Repugnican Tea Party White House administration to finally drive a stake through the heart of The Vampire Clinton, then so be it.

I want the Democratic Party back, and it won’t come back with Billary Clinton in the White House.

*Fact is, if Billary is the Democratic Party presidential candidate, in November she will win my very blue state of California and all of its 50-plus electoral votes anyway. Therefore, my vote already doesn’t count, not really.

All of the fucktards who quite ignorantly would say that by refusing to vote for Billary I helped the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate to win sorely need Civics 101, including education on how the U.S. president is chosen by the Electoral College (which sorely needs to be abolished), not by a popular vote.

**For years my party registration has alternated between the Green Party and the Democratic Party, and that’s because the Democratic Party establishment makes me want to vomit.

So when Queen Billary slams Bernie for not embracing the craven Democratic Party establishment, which hasn’t deserved our support for many years, she slams millions of us Americans who are left of center and who want to vote on the Democratic Party ticket but who are disgusted with how far to the right the Clintons and their DINO ilk have dragged the party, which once stood for progressivism and for good, but which now stands for regressivism and for greed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Firewall,’ schmirewall: Could Billary be on the brink of spectacular collapse?

Billary Clinton must be shitting her pantsuit right about now.

Polls have the Nevada caucuses, which take place this Saturday, at a statistical tie between Billary and Bernie Sanders, and Billary’s lead in nationwide polling is dropping while Bernie continues to surge nationally.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the admittedly-too-few recent polls of Nevada right now has Billary at 46.5 percent and Bernie at 46 percent. The Huffington Post’s average of the Nevada polling right now has Billary at 48 percent and Bernie at 47 percent.

Bernie very well might take Nevada.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the nationwide polling right now has Billary only 12.8 percent ahead of Bernie, whereas HuffPo’s average of the nationwide polling right now has Billary up only 7.7 percent on Bernie.

If that doesn’t mean much to you, here is HuffPo’s graph that illustrates the trending in nationwide polling starting from January 12, 2015, to the present:

On January 12, 2015, the graph’s beginning, Billary stood at 60.8 percent to Bernie’s 4 percent.

Today, they stand at 48.2 percent to 40.5 percent. Um, yeah.

Team Billary’s propaganda has been that sure, Bernie would do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but then rather immediately thereafter, he would crash and burn once he hit Billary’s “firewall.”

But Bernie might take Nevada, which would throw iced water on Billary’s post-Iowa-and-New-Hampshire “firewall,” dealing Team Billary a crushing blow.

Even if Billary takes South Carolina on February 27 — I expect her to, since RCP right now has her leading there by 21.2 percent and HuffPo right now has her leading there by 23.3 percent — if Bernie wins Nevada, I expect Billary’s “firewall” to collapse; South Carolina would prove to be an outlier, not the rule.

(If Bernie actually ekes out a win in South Carolina, then Billary definitely is toast, but again, unless something big happens between now and then, such as a federal indictment of Billary, I expect her to win South Carolina.)

As the Huffington Post’s graph of nationwide polling from January 2015 to the present indicates, the more that people learn about Billary and Bernie, the less they like her and the more they like him.

“Saturday Night Live” already has called the Democratic Party presidential primary battle, it seems to me. It recently had Billary Clinton singing Bonnie Raitt’s “I Can’t Make You Love Me” to Berners:

Yup.

Pretty much.

I don’t agree with all of the sentiments expressed in the skit, such as that Billary is the most qualified candidate for president we’ve ever had (oh, please) and that we Berners don’t go on substance but only on “vibe” (methinks that we go on both) — the writers wrote this bullshit, I have to suspect, to be able to say that they were “fair and balanced” to both candidates — but overall it captures where we’re at.

That said, as I’ve written before, what does it say of Billary that her strength is in the South? The South reflects the Repugnican Tea Party’s values and beliefs much, much more than it does the values and beliefs of the base of the Democratic Party.

I, for one, never would brag about being the darling of the South.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Live-blogging: Is Bernie Sanders about to win first-to-weigh-in Iowa?

Updated below (on Tuesday, February 2, 2016)

The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucuses appears to be … a tie (as I type this sentence at 9:30 p.m. Pacific Time).

8:43 p.m.: It’s 8:43 p.m. Pacific Time as I type this sentence, and as I type this sentence, Politico has Billary Clinton at 49.8 percent and Bernie Sanders at 49.6 percent in the Iowa caucuses, a whopping difference of 0.2 percent… This is with 93.8 percent of the reporting in.

Apparently Billary is walking away with more delegates than Bernie, but if Bernie wins the percentage war, he’ll be declared and known as the winner of Iowa, I do believe…

8:47 p.m.: Politico now has Billary at 49.9 percent and Bernie at 49.6 percent, with 93.9 percent reporting.

Martin O’Malley already has dropped out of the race; he stands at 0.5 percent in Iowa right now.

8:51 p.m.: We’re back to 49.8 percent Billary to 49.6 percent Bernie…

8:53 p.m.: Back to 49.9 percent Billary to 49.6 percent Bernie, with 94.1 percent reporting. I truly have no idea which one is going to win, but whoever wins, apparently it’s going to turn out to be almost exactly 50-50, so the bragging rights will be quite minimal, it seems to me (except that, again, Billary very apparently will get more delegates from Iowa than will Bernie).

9:00 p.m.: Ugh. This is painful. Still at 49.9 percent to 49.6 percent, with 94.3 percent reporting.

On the Repugnican Tea Party side, Ted Cruz has been declared the winner of Iowa (with about 28 percent), with Donald Trump and Marco Rubio in at second and third place (with about 24 percent and 23 percent, respectively). Cruz is a scary individual, but I recall that in 2012 Iowans picked as their No. 1 Prick Santorum, so I’m not overly spooked over Cruz yet.

That said, as I’ve noted before, Marco Rubio is the one the Dems should fear. I can’t see either Trump or Cruz winning the White House, but I can see Rubio winning it. He’s evil and insane like Cruz and Trump, but he conceals it much better than they do.

9:09 p.m.: With 95.1 percent reporting, we remain at Billary at 49.9 percent to Bernie at 49.6 percent… Again, round those up and that’s 50-50, so I see no real bragging rights for either candidate, except that, again, apparently Billary is getting at least 28 delegates from Iowa and Bernie is getting 21 of them. (I have to plead ignorance as to how the number of awarded delegates is determined. It very apparently isn’t strictly tied to the percentages, or it wouldn’t be a difference of seven delegates [thus far].)

9:19 p.m.: This is surreal. With 95.4 percent reporting, we’re back to Billary at 49.8 percent and Bernie at 49.6 percent… The way this has been trending, I expect Billary to beat Bernie by no more than 0.3 percent, if she beats him, and he still might win, it seems to me, or they’d have called it already, and they haven’t. Of course, if Bernie does win, I doubt that it will be by more than around 0.3 percent. Again: surreal.

9:30 p.m.: I just found a graphic to go with this and popped it up at top. With 95.8 percent reporting, we’re back at Billary at 49.9 percent and Bernie at 49.6 percent…

9:40 p.m.: We remain stuck at Billary 49.9 percent to Bernie 49.6 percent, with 96.5 percent reporting. I don’t expect the final difference between the two to exceed 0.5 percent.

Yet again: No bragging rights here, except that, of course, it says something about Bernie that he at least tied Queen Billary, whom conventional “wisdom” coronated a long time ago.

I mean, this is her second time around in Iowa, and the best that she could do, apparently, is a tie

And her opponent calls himself a (democratic) socialist; he hasn’t waited for the traitors on the right to slap that label on him as a pejorative. And he hasn’t been running for president (at least) since 2000, like Billary has.

9:55 p.m.: With 97.1 percent of the vote in, we’re still at 49.9 percent Billary to 49.6 percent Bernie. I don’t see Billary hitting even 50.0 percent, although she might, and it seems to me that psychologically, there is something about hitting 50.0 percent that helps a candidate, whereas 49.9 percent is seen as a bigger loss than it actually is. (This is why shit costs, say, $4.90 or $4.99 instead of $5.00…)

In any event, I’m off to bed now. Again, the final results are going to be so close that if Bernie or Billary is declared the “winner” of Iowa, it won’t mean much, as it will have been by a fraction of 1 percent, probably by no more than 0.3 percent.

I’ll update this tomorrow if necessary.

Update (Tuesday, February 2, 2016): This is sooooo typical of Billary. CNN reports:

Hillary Clinton declared victory early Tuesday morning in a razor-thin contest against Bernie Sanders in Iowa. But Democratic party officials have not yet declared a winner.

“Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa Caucus,” the Clinton campaign said. “After thorough reporting — and analysis — of results, there is no uncertainty and Secretary Clinton has clearly won the most national and state delegates.”

The state party indicated in a separate statement that it was not ready to make a call.

“The results tonight are the closest in Iowa Democratic caucus history,” Iowa party chairman Andy McGuire said. “We will report that final precinct when we have confirmed those results with the chair.”

One thing is clear after Monday night’s Iowa caucuses: there’s a long, volatile election season ahead before two deeply fractured parties can unite behind a nominee. …

Again, according to my very limited knowledge as to how Iowa awards delegates, Billary won more delegates in Iowa, but with 99.9 percent reporting, per Politico, she is at 49.9 percent to Bernie’s 49.6 percent.

So for Team Billary to claim that she’s clearly the people’s choice, at least in Iowa, is quite bullshit, given the imperfections of the Iowa caucus system (gotta love that line “there is no uncertainty”; if you have to claim that, it means that there is some uncertainty), and to brag about a lead of 0.3 percent demonstrates how desperate you are. I mean, Billary came in at third place in Iowa in 2008, so of course she’d love to claim a No. 1 win today, even if we’re talking a whopping difference of 0.3 percent.

Bernie will go on to win New Hampshire on February 9. (His lead there approaches 20 percent; see here and here.) Only if Billary clearly had won Iowa would she have been able to improve her outcome in New Hampshire.

We’ll see how Nevadans vote on February 20 (Nevada is the third state to weigh in). If Bernie wins Nevada, then yes, we will be in for a bit of a wrangle, methinks.

In the meantime, the degree to which Billary and the Billarybots spin her embarrassing tie in Iowa as a win demonstrates their desperation (as well as their character). Billary, with all of her corporate cash and her establishmentarian support, should have done much better in Iowa than she did against a rumpled, 74-year-old (democratic) socialist who only relatively recently obtained a comb. That it was a tie reveals, as 2008 did, what a weak candidate Billary Clinton is, that those of us who are left of center just aren’t at all that into her.

P.S. Speaking of the psychological significance of hitting at least 50.0 percent, if you add Bernie’s 49.6 percent and Martin O’Malley’s 0.6 percent, you get 50.2 percent of the vote in Iowa last night that was not for Billary. Just sayin’.

P.P.S. To (try to) clarify, the percentages to which I have referred above (i.e., 49.9 percent for Billary, 49.6 percent for Bernie and 0.6 percent for O’Malley) are percentages of “state delegate equivalents” earned in Iowa, not percentages of individuals’ votes.

Again, I don’t claim to be an expert in the fairly complicated ins and outs of the Iowa caucuses’ process.

Slate.com’s Josh Vorhees does a pretty good job of briefly explaining the process here.

Vorhees concludes that “There is a strong case to be made that more Iowans showed up to caucus for Sanders [last] night than did for Clinton,” but notes that “the Sanders campaign says that it doesn’t foresee contesting the final results.”

P.P.P.S.: The Associated Press explains further that in Iowa Billary Clinton garnered 23 delegates and Bernie Sanders garnered 21.

The AP notes that 2,382 delegates must be won in order to secure the party’s presidential nomination, and that thus far Billary has 385 so-called “superdelegates” on her side to Bernie’s 29. (“Superdelegates” may switch from Billary to Bernie, and many of them probably will if he racks up a lot of wins in the coming states’ primaries and caucuses.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Surging Bernie on track to win Iowa and New Hampshire — and cripple Billary

Reuters photo

Progressive U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks in Des Moines, Iowa, on New Year’s Eve. Sanders has annihilated Billary Clinton’s recent double-digit lead in polling in the state, where the two candidates now are statistically tied. And Bernie leads Billary by about six percentage points in New Hampshire. Iowa weighs in on the race for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination on February 1, and New Hampshire weighs in on February 9.

Here is a pleasant surprise: Bernie Sanders has been surging in Iowa and in New Hampshire quite lately, and if his momentum continues, he will win both states.

Bernie had had the lead in Iowa for a while and then more recently lost it to Billary Clinton by double digits, but now, Real Clear Politics’ average of recent Iowa polls shows Billary at only 0.2 percent ahead of Bernie in Iowa.

Wow.

Bernie in short order cut Billary’s double-digit lead in Iowa to a statistical tie there; if his remarkable momentum continues, I see him winning Iowa.

And while Bernie’s lead over Billary in New Hampshire recently had gone down to around only 2 or 3 percent, if memory serves, Real Clear Politics’ average of recent New Hampshire polls now has Bernie beating Billary there by 6.2 percent.

The Huffington Post’s average of Iowa polls right now has Billary at 47 percent and Bernie at 43 percent – again, her double-digit lead in the polls there has evaporated, and again, the safest thing to conclude at the moment, very apparently, is that in Iowa the two candidates are statistically tied – with all of the momentum on Bernie’s side.

HuffPo’s average of recent New Hampshire polls right now has Bernie at 50 percent and Billary at 44 percent, very near Real Clear Politics’ difference between the two.

Yes, as I noted long ago, mathematically speaking, Billary could come in at second place in both Iowa and in New Hampshire and still win enough delegates to win the presidential nomination – after all, Iowa and New Hampshire are only two of 50 states – but losing both Iowa and New Hampshire to Bernie Sanders right off the bat would, I think, cripple Billary right out of the gate.

And looking at it only mathematically incredibly stupidly (or, at least, rather autistically) ignores The Lemming Effect: I don’t know anyone, not one person, who is excited about Billary Clinton (whose unfavorability exceeds her favorability in all recent nationwide polls), and when Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers in the later states see that the voters and caucus-goers in the earlier states have opted for Bernie over Billary, they’ll move on over to Team Bernie — much like lemmings, except that they won’t be careening off of a cliff. (The significantly more likable Bernie’s favorability outweighs his unfavorability in most nationwide recent polls, after all.)

If Bernie wins Iowa on February 1 and New Hampshire on February 9, I see him winning the third state, Nevada, on February 20, and then I really can’t see Billary recovering after that, despite her “firewall” in the South.

And what does it say of Billary that her strongest states are in the South?

I mean, the Southnot exactly a Democratic or a progressive bastion, is it?

I mean, on the Repugnican Tea Party side, if a presidential candidate’s claim to fame were that he or she sure did awfully well in the blue states!, most Repugnican Tea Partiers would say that he or she obviously isn’t really a Repugnican Tea Partier, then.

Why would or should it be any different for Billary?

It’s repulsive that Billary’s base of support is the fucking South. And it speaks volumes about what the woman is really about.

At any rate, the bottom line is this:

Berners, we can win this thing!

Go to BernieSanders.com and help in whatever way or ways that you can!

P.S. (Wednesday, January 13, 2016): I note also that Bernie’s polling nationwide has been surging while Billary’s has been falling.

Real Clear Politics right now has Billary leading Bernie nationally by only 8.6 percent, and HuffPo right now gives Billary a 13-percent lead nationwide.

If 8.6 percent and 13 percent seem pretty good to you, hit those two links in the previous paragraph and look at the graphs. You’ll see that Bernie is surging and Billary is dropping. At this is happening not only in Iowa and in New Hampshire, but nationwide as well.

And I suspect that crying in public won’t help Billary this time around.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized