CSotD: Choosing to choose, or not
Skip to comments
Mike Marland anticipates the New Hampshire Primary, coming up February 11.
According to 538, Bernie has a comfortable lead at the moment, with Biden in second place and Buttigieg and Warren in a statistical tie.
Bernie is our hometown boy, and his strength here should be balanced against whatever happens in Iowa, where he’s less of a constant presence.
We should also bear in mind how the polls failed in 2016.
I’m inclined to predict a Sanders win with a virtual tie of the other credible candidates, which tells you almost nothing except that, as Marland says, Granite Staters want change.
Though whoever gets the final nod on the Democratic side will have to come back here if they want the votes, because Republicans have a strong presence despite the Democrats holding the state house and senate as well as both US senators and reps. The Democrats keep winning, but it’s generally close.
F’rinstance, Hillary Clinton won the state’s four electoral votes in 2016, but by a whopping 0.4 percent of the vote.
I backed Bernie last time around basically because the notion of a former President roaming around the White House annoying the interns bothered me, and out of my own cussed refusal to have Debbie Wasserman Schulz and the DNC shove their chosen candidate down my throat.
We don’t need to replay that whole sad story, except that I laughed over Rick McKee‘s cartoon even if Hillary’s interview reminded me of when John Lewis declared, on the eve of the South Carolina primary, that he hadn’t known Bernie personally in the ’60s and so Bernie hadn’t actually been active in the Civil Rights Movement.
Which he clarified after the votes had been counted, and now Hillary has said that, even though nobody likes Bernie, she’d support him if he got the nomination. Meanwhile, she’ll be out in the parking lot slashing his tires.
It was really surprising the number of people around here who stuck Hillary stickers over their Bernie signs and bumperstickers to show their solidarity with the nominee. I expected them to follow Bernie’s lead and support her, but I thought it would be more silent than it was.
Which brings us back to those polls and, first of all, the fact that the loud voices in Facebook and Twitter may not statistically reflect the voters, and, second, that polls tend to skew towards the middle-class and educated, who, likewise, are only a segment of who’s going to show up on Election Day.
QED and we’re paying for it every day.
And speaking of polls, here’s Mike Luckovich with a commentary on those “Who can beat Trump?” lineups people keep releasing, which make it seem as if the only thing the Democrats have to really decide is how much they want to win by.
Biden continues to have a strong lead in the national polls, with Bernie a strong second and Warren not far behind, but the latest numbers show that a majority of the public disapprove of the president and are determined to re-elect him.
I’d suggest voting, and taking a friend with you.
Meanwhile, Clay Bennett provides this analysis of yesterday’s defense argument.
I was watching CNN’s coverage and they actually brought in a fact-checker to analyze the things that Trump’s team brought up that were, to put it politely, counterfactual. Some of it, granted, was spin, but some of it was pure unadulterated falsehood.
I go back to the OJ trial, in which it was perfectly legitimate to argue that the careless handling of blood samples might have distorted the DNA readout, but completely asinine to contend that mishandling Joe Blow’s blood would make the DNA a perfect match for the ex-husband of the murder victim.
But, again, when the fix is in, the arguments don’t much matter, whether it’s a jury determined to let OJ off the hook or a Senate determined to do the same for Dear Leader.
And I did get a chuckle out of Kal Kallaugher’s cartoon, since part of the spin was that, yes, there were segments of the investigation in which Trump lawyers were not permitted, though GOP lackeys were present, but it’s a lie that they weren’t allowed in at all: They were invited and declined to attend.
People keep asking why on earth someone would decline to provide witnesses who would prove his innocence, and the answer is what the hell difference does it make, and, besides, we’re playing to the cheap seats, not to the jurors.
David Rowe was equally unimpressed with the rebuttals, but a bit more rude in saying so, as is his wont and that’s why we like his work.
If you’re going down to defeat, you might as well go down in flames.
Or at least with a hearty laugh, as Clay Jones lampoons Martha McSally’s pissy dismissal of Manu Raju as a “liberal hack,” a nonsensical brownshirt, book-burner attack on the “enemy of the people” upon which Ted Cruz, whose father may or may not have shot Kennedy, depending on what kissing up to Trump will do for him, doubled down.
Which fits in with Secretary State Mike Pompeo’s bullying of Mary Louise Kelly, in which he either lied or demonstrated his incompetence, given that “off the record” is something any competent politician should understand.
It doesn’t mean switching rooms or putting down the pen, and it doesn’t mean you saying, “This is off the record.”
You’re never ever off the record with a reporter unless there is an explicit, both-sides agreement in advance of you saying the thing you don’t want reported.
We can get into that another time, but only a very stupid person would contend that a woman who had just told him she had visited Ukraine had mistakenly identified Bangladesh on the map.
Belarus, Romania, maybe.
But you overplayed your hand, pal, and only the many, many people who watch Fox News, trust Dear Leader implicitly, and will be voting in November will believe the stupid lies you just told.
Oh, and she’d recognize this bit of history, too.
Comments 3
Comments are closed.