Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 30, 2019

James B. Foley: On Amy Goodman's program, "Democracy Now," she repeatedly shouted at Michael Bloomberg ... because the Madrid meeting had identified inequality as a driver of climate change, she felt that Bloomberg was a hypocrite for attempting to win the presidency by leveraging his personal fortune.

Advertisement

More

Comments

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

While I am not a Bloomberg fan by any stretch of the imagination, I think that this hits the nail on the head.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-12-30 03:31 PM | Reply

Progressives will give us four more Trump years.

Oh, they'll whine and cry about their popular vote "win" yet again, but they'll give us Trump all the same.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-30 05:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

LMFAO That's why Hillary won in 2016. Oh wait , she DIDN'T.

giphy.com

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-30 05:39 PM | Reply

#2 | Posted by jpw

Sometimes you come up with some really dumb ---.

#4 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-30 05:45 PM | Reply

"moderate" Joe Biden to workers he wants fired: Learn to code!

"Anybody who can go down 3000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well."

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-30 06:16 PM | Reply

"Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God's sake!"

How clueless is this old fossil?

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-30 06:33 PM | Reply

Genesis coal mine employees receive WARN notices, 250 laid off

"Our county government and our economic development alliance are all working to try to create new opportunities for folks in our county," explains Johnston. "I am more concerned about those individuals than I am the total economic impact on the county."

www.wymt.com

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-30 06:46 PM | Reply

Better an old fossil than a lying, Putin-puppet:

Coal is dying, and Trump knows it

Of all the empty promises Donald Trump made on the campaign trail in 2016, perhaps the cruelest one was the vow he made to coal miners that the coal mining industry would come roaring back.
www.dailykos.com

Miners for Trump': The story behind the Russian-organized Philly rally highlighted in Mueller's report
www.inquirer.com

Mueller report: "Miners for Trump" rally in Pittsburgh was a fake
www.peoplesworld.org

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-30 06:52 PM | Reply

--Coal is dying, and Trump knows it

Thanks to fracking.

Oh wait. Democrats want to ban fracking as well, and Biden is happy to fire "hundreds of thousands." They can learn to code as well! Everyone a coder!

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-30 07:03 PM | Reply

Sometimes you come up with some really dumb ---.

#4 | Posted by Angrydad

LOL yeah...swing states like WI, PA, OH and FL are just aching for a Progressive candidate to make them vote Dem.

Hidden bastions of liberalism that have flown under the radar all these years...

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-30 07:14 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God's sake!"
How clueless is this old fossil?

Good point.
He should have said:
"Anybody who can yeet coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God's sake!"

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 07:15 PM | Reply

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are GOP Gerrymander territory, JPW. They're not as conservative as they appear.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 07:16 PM | Reply

Big oof

#13 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-12-30 07:16 PM | Reply

Trump is pragmatic.
Just ask his supporters.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 07:20 PM | Reply

LOL yeah...swing states like WI, PA, OH and FL are just aching for a Progressive candidate to make them vote Dem.
Hidden bastions of liberalism that have flown under the radar all these years...

POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-30 07:14 PM | REPLY

All States Hillary lost. Oopsie Daisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-30 07:27 PM | Reply

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are GOP Gerrymander territory, JPW. They're not as conservative as they appear.

#12 | Posted by snoofy

I was going off of the 2012 election results.

All of which went Obama but within a percentage point or two of 50%.

None of those states are likely to swing very far from that mid point and none of those states shows an inclination towards being the flyover California.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-30 07:40 PM | Reply

All States Hillary lost. Oopsie Daisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr

Yes. Clearly that's because she wasn't progressive enough...

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-30 07:41 PM | Reply

"None of those states are likely to swing very far from that mid point and none of those states shows an inclination towards being the flyover California."

Florida will always be a mystery, but I think Sanders would win the others. Particularly the reason he wins is he's not a gun-grabber, and those are some backwoods redneck states.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 08:48 PM | Reply

(that means people go hunting there, by the way)

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 08:48 PM | Reply

LOL yeah...swing states like WI, PA, OH and FL are just aching for a Progressive candidate to make them vote Dem.
Hidden bastions of liberalism that have flown under the radar all these years...

It's really not that simple. Wisconsin is polarized, with huge numbers of very progressive people in Milwaukee and Madison, and full on Trumpers elsewhere. Bernie won the WI Dem primary in 2016. Milwaukee was the last major city to have a socialist mayor.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-30 08:49 PM | Reply

On topic, i could have sworn we nominated a getiatric pragmatic centrist in 2016 who lost to Trump. Any moron who wants to do that again is, well, a moron.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-30 08:50 PM | Reply

#20 explains it better than I can: Bernie Sanders is the best Democrat candidate for them, because he won't take their guns, and it's not like poor----------- people with no hope and no future are people are in love with their for-profit health insurance or having their friends and family OD on for-profit opioids. They're in love with burning trash in a barrel.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 08:51 PM | Reply

Bernie Sanders doesn't mind if you burn your trash in a barrel.

Bernie 2020.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-30 08:53 PM | Reply

I guess what i'm saying is that Wisconsin being 50/50 doesn't mean it's full of centrists. It's a lot closer to being half socialist and half alt-right. It's easily one of the most politically divided states in America.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-30 08:58 PM | Reply

It's really not that simple. Wisconsin is polarized, with huge numbers of very progressive people in Milwaukee and Madison, and full on Trumpers elsewhere.

How does that address what I'm saying?

WI, being that polarized, is won in the middle. Which is what Trump did in 2016. Abandon those middle voters and WI will go Trump again.

i could have sworn we nominated a getiatric pragmatic centrist in 2016 who lost to Trump. Any moron who wants to do that again is, well, a moron.

#21 | Posted by JOE

The only moron is the person who thinks Hillary lost because she was a "centrist".

The election of Trump was hardly a call for Progressivism.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-30 11:31 PM | Reply

It's really not that simple. Wisconsin is polarized, with huge numbers of very progressive people in Milwaukee and Madison, and full on Trumpers elsewhere.

Morning consult does a monthly state-by-state tracking poll of thousands of voters per state.

Trump is underwater -14. Scroll down to "State Trends" and select Wisconsin (or any other state).

Since Trump took office, his net approval in Wisconsin has decreased by 20 percentage points.

morningconsult.com


#26 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-12-31 02:04 AM | Reply

morningconsult.com

(scroll down to "State Trends"

BTW, he's also down:

MI: -14 (-22 since he took office)
PA: -7 (-17 since he took office)
IA: -13 (-22 since he took office)
OH: -5 (-19 since he took office)
AZ: -4 (-24 since he took office)
CO: -14 (-16 since he took office)
NC: -2 (-20 since he took office)

You get the idea. A majority of Americans - especially in swing states - don't like Trump

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-12-31 02:14 AM | Reply

WI, being that polarized, is won in the middle.

Unless you can prove that there are more "centrist" voters than those who might be activated on the fringes by a more extreme candidate, you have no basis for saying that.

Hillary was in the political "middle." She lost to an alt-right ------- because many Americans do not feel represented by the status quo in Washington. Dems ignored that at their own peril.

The election of Trump was hardly a call for Progressivism.

It was a rejection of "business as usual," which Clinton (and Biden) were and are.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 02:50 AM | Reply

Unless you can prove that there are more "centrist" voters than those who might be activated on the fringes by a more extreme candidate, you have no basis for saying that.

So you'd rather gamble on "activating" non-voters than winning reliable voters?

I'd rather somebody who does both.

Hillary was in the political "middle."

Hillary was also a lot of other things that weighed far more on people than her centrism.

I figured you'd grow up a bit and get over this stupid little bit of nonsense but I see that that's not likely.

It was a rejection of "business as usual," which Clinton (and Biden) were and are.

And yet, policy wise, Trump is "business as usual".

Which is why he's only supported by his die hard base.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 07:47 AM | Reply

If Sanders is the nominee a loss in the general will be blamed on progressives for nominating somebody that couldn't appeal to GOP voters. If Biden is the nominee a loss in the general will be blamed on progressives for not getting behind him enthusiastically enough. Anybody noticing a pattern?

Reminder: the last time we had a real progressive in the Whitehouse lawmakers had to change the constitution to keep him from being elected to a fifth term.

#30 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-12-31 07:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So you'd rather gamble on "activating" non-voters than winning reliable voters?

So you can't prove your claim that there are more "centrists" to be had than the potential voters in the 110,000,000+ potential voters who don't see a reason to bother with people like Clinton and Biden? You claimed elections are won in the middle - surely you have a source for that, or can just admit it's only what you think.

I'd rather somebody who does both.

Who would that be?

Hillary was also a lot of other things that weighed far more on people than her centrism.

Corrupt? People chose the most corrupt, criminal president in American history over someone who was careless with her emails. If corruption really mattered Trump would have a 0% chance of winning in 2020. That is not the case.

And yet, policy wise, Trump is "business as usual".

Doesn't matter. He speaks off the cuff, he isn't "focus grouped" (at least not traditionally), he (acts like) he doesn't give a ---- what people think of him. I can name one person in the DNC primary who approaches this dynamic, and it isn't Joe Biden.

he's only supported by his die hard base.

Trump routinely polls at or nearly as well as he did before the 2016 election. Add the people unable to admit they support him and he wins.

I figured you'd grow up a bit

Classic. And when you nominate a centrist (again) and Trump wins (again) and Americans are saddled with 4 years of Trump running our very short lives (again), will you "grow up" too? Or blame some other stupid reason other than yourself?

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 08:05 AM | Reply

4.4 million 2012 Obama voters stayed home in 2016 " more than a third of them black

On Sunday, the New York Times published research from a group of political scientists and data analysts that breaks out how voters who supported President Barack Obama in 2012 behaved in 2016. Most of them, unsurprisingly, voted for Hillary Clinton. Nine percent voted for Trump. Seven percent didn't vote.

Those percentages aren't distributed evenly by race. According to the analysis, 12 percent of white voters who had backed Obama in 2012 voted for Trump four years later. Eleven percent of black Obama 2012 voters stayed home.

Those are small percentages of the total pool of voters, but it means that the Obama-to-Trump voter pool was overwhelmingly white " and the Obama-to-nonvoting pool disproportionately black.

2016 was an election cycle in which Trump's margin of victory was one of the narrowest in U.S. history. It came down to about 78,000 votes in three states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It's hard not to wonder, then, how the decrease in turnout among black voters might have affected the outcome. In Michigan, where 14 percent of residents are black, Trump won by 10,704 votes of 4.8 million cast. In Pennsylvania, he won by 44,000 of 6.2 million cast " with blacks making up more than a tenth of the population. Clinton wins those states, and the 2016 race is essentially a tie.


www.washingtonpost.com

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 08:16 AM | Reply

We'll see, but if true, the question is, Who can get out the black vote?:

2020 will be the year of the African-American voter | Opinion

[I]n the election of 2016, Hillary Clinton won 88% percent of the African-American vote, compared with an abysmally low 8% who voted for Trump. Yet turnout in the African-American community was subpar, especially as compared with the massive Black turnout for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Hillary did not generate the same passionate enthusiasm among African Americans as did Obama, and many Blacks, as true with whites, took it for granted that Clinton would win and did not bother to vote.

The lower than expected African American turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Detroit, Michigan resulted in the loss of these three states, and the Electoral College, to Donald Trump, making him the 45th president of the United States.

www.nj.com

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 08:22 AM | Reply

Whoever the candidate is, Dems better have a robust ground game to counteract the GOP's time-tested voter suppression tactics:

In Wisconsin, 200,000 Voters Hang In The Balance While Commission Is Deadlocked

A very partisan battle is being fought in Wisconsin over whether or not to purge 200,000 voters from the rolls just before the 2020 election.

talkingpointsmemo.com

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 08:29 AM | Reply

So you can't prove your claim that there are more "centrists" to be had than the potential voters in the 110,000,000+ potential voters who don't see a reason to bother with people like Clinton and Biden?

You're asking for an answer you know likely doesn't exist.

You're also moving the goal posts from WI to the US at large.

You claimed elections are won in the middle - surely you have a source for that, or can just admit it's only what you think.

LOL you need a source for the fact that elections are won in the middle? That dumb. Like Nulli level dumb.

Corrupt? People chose the most corrupt, criminal president in American history over someone who was careless with her emails. If corruption really mattered Trump would have a 0% chance of winning in 2020. That is not the case.

You're using what we know now about Trump with what we "knew" then about Hillary.

Although anybody who was paying attention knew Trump was likely to turn out this way.

Trump routinely polls at or nearly as well as he did before the 2016 election. Add the people unable to admit they support him and he wins.

His support has always been limited to his base with a little more.

Remove the consistent Rasmussen outlier and on his best day his approval is 40%.

Trump wins if people stay home.

Or blame some other stupid reason other than yourself?

#31 | Posted by JOE

Centrism isn't what elected Trump.

Keep reading that until it sinks in.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 08:41 AM | Reply

www.cnn.com

BTW I think it's funny that you're assuming I'm in the bag for Biden.

My first choice was Warren but she's showing herself to be inept at even campaigning for the primaries. She'll be destroyed in the actual election unless her staff is canned and competent people brought on.

Sanders? His old man yelling at everything shtick is past its prime. Most of his policy positions that are most appealing were integrated into the DNC platform in 2016 to try and lure his supporters in and his response has been to go further left to make it sound like he's got original ideas. Sanders as the nominee will give 2016 but worse-he'll energize voting blocks in states that are already blue and do nothing or hurt chances to win red states.

I'm starting to look into the down ticket candidates more as the best hope I see is an Obama-like candidate. A dark horse candidate who wasn't on the receiving end of the mud slinging as much as the big names but has the policy appeal and outsider image that's desired by the electorate. Being younger and newer to politics would likely help as well.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 08:52 AM | Reply

Here's the bottom line, folks: Trump will win if everyone who opposes him doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that nominee is. If people stay home, vote 3rd party or don't vote due to voter suppression, Trump will win.

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 08:54 AM | Reply

JPW: buttigieg?

#38 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-12-31 08:58 AM | Reply

Don't know a ton about him.

Him and Yang are two I'm looking into most,max they're the names I hear the most rumblings about.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're also moving the goal posts from WI to the US at large.

You're the one talking about how "elections are won." Surely you need to win more than one state to do that?

LOL you need a source for the fact that elections are won in the middle?

I don't dispute that's the conventional wisdom. But America is more polarized now than it was in the days when elections were won in the middle. Republicans took advantage of that, nominated an alt-right rapist, and activated fringe voters. Democrats are living in the past if they don't nominate an authentic candidate who can appeal to the 110,000,000+ people who aren't satisfied with Clinton types.

You're using what we know now about Trump with what we "knew" then about Hillary.

Everyone "knew" Trump was a dirtbag. We "knew" he was a criminal sex offender because he admitted to it on tape before the election. Stop pretending personal conduct matters. Trump is proof it doesn't.

His support has always been limited to his base with a little more.

Remove the consistent Rasmussen outlier and on his best day his approval is 40%.

That's not a response to what i said. He polls at or near where he polled when he won in 2016. So if you weight the polls accordingly he has a good chance of winning again.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 09:06 AM | Reply

Right now during the primaries, it is appropriate for Democratic voters to be like Goldilocks: this candidate is too centrist; that candidate is too progressive; ah, but this candidate is just right. Once a nominee is selected, however, unity is key. Being Goldilocks then (this candidate is too centrist; that candidate is too progressive) means Trump will continue sleep in the WH, and the bed will be very much to his (and his supporters) liking.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 09:07 AM | Reply

Centrism isn't what elected Trump.
Keep reading that until it sinks in.

Uh huh. And when you nominate a centrist (again) and they lose to Trump (again) and we are stuck with the bloated------------- running America for over 10% of our projected lifespan, what will your scapegoat be? Anything but your own stupid choices and inability to learn from the past, right?

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 09:09 AM | Reply

I'm starting to look into the down ticket candidates more as the best hope I see is an Obama-like candidate

I thought O'Rourke was the guy for that, and i still think he'd make a formidable VP choice.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 09:15 AM | Reply

Yang has really surprised, and I've seen a large of friends throw their public support behind his campaign.

Could be a "Ron Paul" type of niche support, or could be a real movement

#44 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-12-31 09:27 AM | Reply

--bloated-------------

Angry Joe the Blogger morphed into the nasty Reinheit so smoothly nobody noticed.

Congrats, I guess.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-31 09:33 AM | Reply

And you morphed into a Trump ----------. Sad!

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 09:35 AM | Reply

I am posting this to challenge the notion that the issue only a progressive can win in swing states. This is not an endorsement of Klobuchar:

Amy Klobuchar @amyklobuchar

In 2016, Donald Trump nearly won Minnesota.

In 2018, I flipped back 42 Trump counties and won the state by 24 points.

In 2020, we need a candidate who has a proven ability to win everywhere.

twitter.com

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 09:55 AM | Reply

Correction: I am posting this to challenge the notion that only a progressive can win in swing states.

#48 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-31 09:56 AM | Reply

1. Minnesota is not traditionally a swing state. It was close in 2016 but historically has been a throwaway for Dems. That said, I acknowledge it might be one now.

2. Klobuchar is a Senator *from* Minnesota, of course she will do well against Trump there.

3. Nobody said that only a progressive can win in swing states.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 10:05 AM | Reply

Wisconsin and Georgia are, right now, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of legitimately registered voters. Debate candidates all you want but the truth is that the Republican Party will cheat their way to victory until there is a massive movement to demand an end to it. All of the corruption surrounding our elections is courtesy of the SC and it will only get worse if Trump gets another term. I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate and every other person who beieves in free and fair elections should do the same, oh, I know, some of you are too pure of heart to compromise and vote for a candidate who isn't your first choice. We have President Trump today to thank you for and if your pure hearts cause you to do the same thing again we'll have four more years of this lunatic and don't, for a minute, think that most of us who do vote blue no matter who won't remember who was more loyal to their ideology than to their nation.
Compromise is the basis for our democracy, when you can't or won't compromise you bring harm on yourselves, your children and everyone else whether or not you are adult enough to admit it.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-31 10:06 AM | Reply

Wisconsin voter registration roles are way past due to be cleaned up. They have same day registration so this should not be controversial.

#51 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-31 10:44 AM | Reply

"They have same day registration so this should not be controversial."

Fair point, still doesn't prove there is any need to "clean up" voter rolls though considering photo ID is required for voting. Georgia, on the other hand, is just disenfranchising 300,000 pwoplw because they are suspected of being Democrats. And you know, as well as I do, that is the truth. Yet you and other Republicans seem perfectly fine with that, I guess cuz it helps your side win. Victories like that are shameful for everyone who happily tolerates it.

#52 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-31 10:58 AM | Reply

You're the one talking about how "elections are won." Surely you need to win more than one state to do that?

The conversation was about swing states, you chimed in about WI specifically.

It's not a leap of logic to conclude we were talking about WI.

What's funny, though, is that it's boiled down to about 5 states to win nationally. Hence the swing state conversation.

But America is more polarized now than it was in the days when elections were won in the middle. Republicans took advantage of that, nominated an alt-right rapist, and activated fringe voters.

I need more than an N of 1 to discount the middle and try to pander to people who've never gotten off their ass to participate up until now.

I also need a link supporting your assertion that "fringe" voters were responsible for Trump's election as opposed to a combination of the middle swinging his way and people staying home who would have voted for a Dem other than Hillary.

Stop pretending personal conduct matters.

I'm not. You're actually highlighting perfectly the issue: Trump's public record was non-existent. Hillary's was miles long. That's what killed her. Trump had at least similar name recognition but not the negative connotation because he was known as a reality TV "star" and "celebrity".

He polls at or near where he polled when he won in 2016. So if you weight the polls accordingly he has a good chance of winning again.

Right now he's higher than normal at about 41% (without Rasmussen). That's 5% less than when he started and 5% or so above his lowest rating.

His disapproval is 10% higher than when he started.

As I said, the only chances he has of winning are

A) People stay home
B) People vote 3rd party in protest

I don't see him garnering much support from people who disapprove as the Dems would have to nominate somebody who's so God awful people would rather four more years of Trump than risk the Dem winning.

Anything less than that nightmare scenario results in A and B leading to the Dem's pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 11:05 AM | Reply

Adding to the end of post 53, look at the 3rd party votes in the last several elections.

As a % of total votes cast:
2004: 1.0% (~1.2 million votes)
2008: 1.45% (~2 million votes)
2012: 1.75% (~2.25 million votes)
2016: 5.04% (~6.9 million votes)

THAT is how Trump will win again. They only have to convince people that the Dem candidate is as bad as he is and get them to cast a protest vote. They don't have to sell Trump as good or even try to act as if his record is that great. They just need to continue to make people feel disgusted with the process and exhausted by any interaction with it and they'll win again through division and strife.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 11:31 AM | Reply

I also need a link supporting your assertion that "fringe" voters were responsible for Trump's election

You need a link to prove that an alt-right nazi-sympathizing rapist wasn't elected by moderate voters? That's Nulli level stupidity.

Trump's public record was non-existent.

There was more than enough public information to support the conclusion that he was a criminal, so your distinction between public and private life in the context if being a criminally corrupted POS is meaningless.

Right now he's higher than normal at about 41%

His RCP average is 44.5%. He had a 37.5% favorability rating the week of the election and a 45% approval rating upon entering office. If you think he's in any different a position today than when he won, you're clueless.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 11:52 AM | Reply

You need a link to prove that an alt-right nazi-sympathizing rapist wasn't elected by moderate voters? That's Nulli level stupidity.

crystalball.centerforpolitics.org

en.wikipedia.org

Next time just say "why yes JPW, I did pull that right out of my ass".

There was more than enough public information to support the conclusion that he was a criminal, so your distinction between public and private life in the context if being a criminally corrupted POS is meaningless.

LOL so which is it, Joe? The above or

Stop pretending personal conduct matters.

Because right now you're just spouting whatever you need to in the moment. Like Trump.

His RCP average is 44.5%. He had a 37.5% favorability rating the week of the election and a 45% approval rating upon entering office.

That's not what five thirty eight says, although they're not far off.

But congrats, you're saying exactly what I did just using a different site's numbers!

If you think he's in any different a position today than when he won, you're clueless.

Where did I suggest that?

Quote the post directly, please.

Because the only clueless one appears to be you and your reading comprehension problems.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 12:26 PM | Reply

Joe,

You seem to be perpetually panty wadded over what you see as insurmountable support of Trump by his base.

Lost in that is the fact that no modern POTUS has ever started so low and remained there throughout their term(s).

His term began with only his base supporting him and he's going into reelection with only his base supporting him.

Personally, I see that as a good thing.

Strong economy? Hasn't helped.

Tax cuts? Hasn't helped.

Impeachment sympathy? Hasn't helped.

They've tried every trick in the book and support for Trump hasn't moved an inch.

2020 will be for the Dems to lose.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 12:32 PM | Reply

LOL so which is it, Joe? The above or

??? Those two statements are perfectly cohesive. Learn to read, moron.

But congrats, you're saying exactly what I did just using a different site's numbers!

You said Trump is polling at or better than he did when he won in 2016; and that therefore he has as good or better a chance of winning again? What are we arguing about then?

You seem to be perpetually panty wadded

You seem to be channeling your inner ROC. Not a good look.

2020 will be for the Dems to lose.

So was 2016. And you want a repeat.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 12:45 PM | Reply

Those two statements are perfectly cohesive. Learn to read, moron.

LOL no they're not. He was never convicted of a crime so it was all personal conduct you're basing your assessment on.

With no political life, all we had to go off of was Trump's personal conduct. Which is precisely why we agreed that his election proves personal conduct means nothing to voters.

And the abundance of info on his personal life scuminess is precisely why I said that anybody paying attention would have guessed Trump would turn out this way.

Ahh hell nevermind. You'll just chirp some other nonsense to make yourself feel "right".

You said Trump is polling at or better than he did when he won in 2016; and that therefore he has as good or better a chance of winning again? What are we arguing about then?

Right after Learn to read, moron.

LOFL

You seem to be channeling your inner ROC. Not a good look.

I call it like I see it.

I note you ignored the entirety of that post.

You seem to like the hair on fire look. Not a good look.

So was 2016. And you want a repeat.

I want Hillary to be the Dem nominee again?

Here's a hint. She lost for far more complex reasons than "Duhhhhh centrist".

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 12:56 PM | Reply

He was never convicted of a crime so it was all personal conduct you're basing your assessment on.

Let's backtrack. You said we only had what we "thought" Trump might be like in terms of criminality and corruption. I pointed out that we had plenty of information on him being an admitted sexual predator among a cornucopia of other moral, ethical and legal lapses throughout his life - so therefore we had a lot more than just "thoughts," we had facts, and none of that mattered because people elected him anyway. Any perceived inconsistency is just you flailing and being unable to comprehend.

I note you ignored the entirety of that post.

I note you're a liar. No point in wasting further time with a liar.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 02:02 PM | Reply

I pointed out that we had plenty of information on him being an admitted sexual predator among a cornucopia of other moral, ethical and legal lapses throughout his life - so therefore we had a lot more than just "thoughts," we had facts, and none of that mattered because people elected him anyway.

To which I agreed.

And even stated that quite clearly myself.

Not sure what you're arguing here.

I note you're a liar. No point in wasting further time with a liar.

LOL getting out while you still think you have some face?

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 02:44 PM | Reply

#61

Joe: You seem to be channeling your inner ROC. Not a good look.

JPW: I call it like I see it.

Give it up JPW, Joe is allergic to facts and rational argument that don't fit his preconceived bias but you can always tell when he has been owned when he posts something like this:

I note you're a liar. No point in wasting further time with a liar.

As you note, he is getting out while he has a modicum of pride left.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-31 03:12 PM | Reply

"She lost for far more complex reasons than "Duhhhhh centrist"

She lost because she's a she.
Too much,and too soon, to have a black and then a woman in charge.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-31 03:15 PM | Reply

To which I agreed.

No, you grabbed two pieces of that and tried to pretend they were inconsistent with one another because you have nothing of worth to say.

I see your butt buddy is here - have fun tonight ladies!

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-31 03:34 PM | Reply

LOL have you seen me and RoC interact? We're hardly "butt buddies".

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pragmatism is a smaller target for Trump than "Red Commie Socialist!".

That being said, if the both progressives and moderates were to support whomever the primary voters choose, as many if us will, that person will become President. Which was also true in the case of Clinton, Obama, and Gore as the article points out.

2/3rds of the time that didn't happen in those cases, and the one time it did, the far left fumed about Obama as President... which was still better than having a rwinger President, even though some won't admit that.

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-31 04:18 PM | Reply

She lost because she's a she.
Too much,and too soon, to have a black and then a woman in charge.

#63 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

For some probably.

I'm willing to bet not for as many as you'd think.

Deserved or not Hillary carried far too much baggage that was exactly the kind the electorate wanted to move away from.

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-31 04:29 PM | Reply

"For some probably.
I'm willing to bet not for as many as you'd think."

Might not be that many...
Only takes a few to tip the balance.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-31 04:33 PM | Reply

Let's see if I have this right: Republicans gave us this POS in the Whitehouse and now that they recognize what a danger he is to American style democracy, they are willing to get rid of him only if the Democrat running against him does what they want? Any Dem that does that will lose because progressives won't turn out in sufficient numbers to overcome the bias of the electoral college.

#69 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-12-31 07:30 PM | Reply

Fair point, still doesn't prove there is any need to "clean up" voter rolls though considering photo ID is required for voting.

It will be a problem for all the Republican Trump voters who show up with paper bags over their heads to disguise themselves.

#70 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-01-01 02:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort