The day before Super Tuesday, what SCOTUS was not going to do was decide Trump was going to be taken off of primary ballots and definitely declared a no-goo insurrectionist who better not try running for dogcatcher. What they did decide was that the statute couldn't be applied by the states as is--and I don't try to pretend to be the Constitution-understander, but if this was some kind of cop-out, it was a UNANIMOUS cop-out.
For what it's worth, the states most likely to toss Trump off the ballot would be those where he wouldn't win anyway. If a loosey-goosey standard for who gets declared an insurrectionist is accepted, I would expect red states to get completely silly over labeling anyone who ever protested on the left being labelled "antifa" and a potential insurrectionist. (I feel like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton have political fanfic about doing just that stuffed under their mattresses.)
I can't get disappointed. After all, if SCOTUS thinks they have saved themselves from some kind of legal free-for-all today, surely, they are aware by now of what their docket will look like November- January 2025. And as for the idea that Congress do something about settling this same issue NOW--I don't think you'll find enough huevos for an Easter Egg hunt.
What was it a very smart man had said? "Don't boo. Vote." I don't think there was ever going to be a better answer than that.
I spend way too much time on Twitter, but I know Twitter is not real life. Dean Phillips just finished 3rd in South Carolina. Despite polling that only had Joe Biden at 69%, he won SC with about 96%. (Maybe they were looking at the results upside-down?)
I see people online trying to say there was really low turnout. President Biden is the incumbent. Nobody expects him to lose. It isn't a sign of ,as far as I can tell, anything, and the spin people are putting on the low turnout takes me back to, um, former President Trump's numbers in Iowa. I also want to point out that SC isn't a state Biden would expect to win in the general (although, no kidding, I'd love to pretend Democrats were competitive everywhere)
Here's the thing that is interesting to me--South Carolina has open primaries, but you can't vote in both and they are held on separate dates. So what I'm wondering is, what's going to be the turnout for the Republican SC primary, held after the Nevada contest (which looks like a dog's breakfast, and why would any political machine do that to themselves?)
I never heard of Ramaswamy before he decided he was going to run for president, and for a little while there, I kept forgetting who he was. And then I would be like, "Oh yeah! That tech capitalist dude running in the 2024 primary." And then I'd go back to ignoring his existence. That time felt good. But I'm tired of looking at him, now.
See, the GOP is going through some things. Their obvious front-runner for 2024, Donald Trump, is under four going on umpteen indictments for infinity counts, and that feels like a guy who, at what a judge just recently described (Kaplan, in a rejection of a frivolous suit re: his sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll) an "advanced age", might not exactly prosper in a grueling campaign schedule that includes all of his various criminal trials and a campaign fundraising effort that is largely going to legal fees leaving who knows what over for actual campaign stuff.
Their former number two, previously believed to be formidable challenger Ron DeSantis, turns out to be an awkward and unlikeable stiff whose culture war machinations work well enough in the Free People's Republic of Floridastan, but look fucking quaint and actually shambolic among people who give a shit about politicians who, well, look like they actually give a shit. Ron looks like a man who gives a shit about running for president and has no idea why. It's the killer resume item that prepares him for nothing at all, in the same way Trump wanted to be president to check something off of a bucket list. Neither of them seem to give a fuck about what actually happens to people or making life better for anyone. It's "checking grievances" and "power for power's sake" all the way.
Apparently professional racists Peter Brimelow and Nick Fuentes were at the election night party with Laura Loomer in Florida. They were joined by an assortment of other racists and far-right figures. pic.twitter.com/QTbOT9T7b9
Dan Webster feels like a Tea Party-era relic. He's a homeschooling guy who has feelings about covenant marriage and was pitched as a replacement for John Boehner as Speaker of the house circa 2015 a couple times, but it came to naught. Anyways, he is well to the right of lots of folks. He's very anti-abortion and pro-keeping brain dead people on feeding tubes. And yet, he's a lot less problematic than Laura Loomer, who once chained herself to the Twitter HQ and doesn't quite understand why being a Jewish white supremacist has to be so hard.
I'm going to go as out of the way as I possibly can about this and desperately avow I do not understand this district, because these people are awful and either one of them would probably have been a cinch to win the seat. How are people in this district ok with these choices?
Also, too, Loomer might not think the thing is over and yet she is totally swimming in the support of the kind of people no rational soul should think is normal or good. This makes her a viable candidate for the GOP in the future.
This party needs to be totally fucked up, if this is what flies with them. This is a candidate steeped in conspiracy theory, attention whoring and racism. And yet she did pretty well, considering.
UPDATE: Carl Paladino, the Elise-Stefanik-backed "Trump of Buffalo", lost his primary in the NY district 23 primary, and that was also closer than it should have been and Paladino could have won--even though he is basically a thoroughly revolting person based on the trash that falls from his face on a regular basis. And this is the Republican party. Even when the vicious, bigoted people lose, you can see they still had their wells of support, and were not rejected to the extent they would be abandoned had they won their primaries. Oh no. They are taking what they can get. It's a bad thing.
UPDATE: Wow, Loomer is having a normal one. Well, for her version of "normal":
A lot of digital ink has been spilled this week over Nina Turner's loss to Shontel Brown and what it means regarding progressive and "establishment" Democrats, but I'm going to just say that this primary had a lot to do with some critical errors on the part of the candidate with all the name recognition and quite a lot of money and doesn't really say anything about the direction of the party. It says something about how to campaign and be part of a team.
Which made her opponent look pleasant and trustable in comparison. It isn't deep. People saw her grievances, and lost sight of what she could do for them, and her campaign didn't turn that impression around.
But keeping in mind that tomorrow....exists, how Turner has chosen to lose is also very puzzling, because the faults that lost her the race are how she's going to stick her impression. Like, just what were her comments about "evil money" supposed to mean when she also had some really good fundraising? And if she wants to talk about corporate money, well, okay then, let's do that. And why is she saying that her loss is about how the establishment does progressive candidates specifically dirty when she earned her retaliation by specifically pissing on the establishment in the first place? It feels to me like she could have gotten backing with her name recognition if she didn't start off on the entirely wrong foot.
Also, now that we are are well past the 2020 Democratic primary, I'm just going to say it--Bernie Sanders has questionable taste. Regardless of whether any fundraising has fossil fuel money behind it, Brown's priorities per her website generally support the Green New Deal, and she says she would be a vote for Medicare for All if it ever came to the floor. That's not a candidate who is not progressive, that's a candidate who is, but just doesn't have Turner's progressive connections. Which reminds me that Sanders also had David Sirota, who was a great communicator that blocked a shit-ton of liberals on Twitter and also seems to hate the MSM, as one of his press folks and had Shaun King as a surrogate. It isn't necessary or helpful to defend Turner's primary loss as having a damn thing to do with corporate money when there is a general election to be won, no matter how much of a guaranteed D district it is.
Sometimes a personality just isn't a fit for a job. And taking a loss without any grace, and by deriding the process as being at fault instead of showing any introspection, basically pulling a Trump, isn't a great look or demonstrating that any lessons were learned. This is how not to lose. It isn't winning, because it precludes the possibility of figuring out how to win. It doesn't help anybody,
I'm not saying Turner is a very bad candidate, just that she wasn't the best candidate for right there and then, and needs to see a direction away from that loss that is positive and meaningful. Her initial response was anything but.
Among the more absurd images from last Tuesday's Wisconsin primary vote was the one above, of Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos--a Republican, who urged voters that it was incredibly safe to go out and vote while dressed up in a way that strongly fashion-signaled "not incredibly safe."
The discouragement if the visual was the point. Republicans were counting on low turnout in the hopes that it would benefit their preferred judicial candidate, the incumbent WI Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly. By blocking the Democratic governor's executive order to delay the vote due to outbreak fears, they aimed at disarray.
It did not work, however. I think the takeaway is, volume of turnout aside, the voters who made it out to the polls were strongly motivated. (I note that President Trump strongly supported Kelly). It's possible that by so obviously showing this level of low regard for voters' rights and public safety, the GOP did not help themselves at all.
I would not be surprised if there is more where that came from, too.
Bernie Sanders: "I cannot in good conscience continue to mount a campaign that cannot win and which would interfere in the important work required of all of us in this difficult hour." https://t.co/ih97JpAlkUpic.twitter.com/3K2wTG501W
If one has to end a campaign, it should be in good conscience that the campaign was done well, that it raised significant issues, and that ending it is the best thing to do to further the policy goals intended. We aren't living in normal times at all, as this last, appalling primary in Wisconsin made very clear. Defeating the Republican party is the only way for any kind of progressive agenda to take hold because, in part, of what the conservatives in this country have made of the courts. Senator Sanders was a damn good candidate, and is a damn good senator and a strong ally in the fight against the current corrupt administration. He demonstrated that when he said, "Not me, us", he meant it.
It will take many people of good conscience to get rid of Trump. All of us who believe in a system that is fairer and more just. That are sick of the lies and hypocrisy. The Democratic party isn't a perfect vehicle, nor former VP Biden a perfect candidate, but it's the shot. In good conscience, what in the hell would four more years of Trump bring?
I have talked my share of smack about Rep. Gabbard with respects to her penchant for going on Fox News to run down fellow Democrats (I have kept my opinions of her "present" vote regarding the Trump impeachment to myself), but I have to give her credit for doing as she said she would--throwing her support to the probable nominee at the end of her race. I see the endorsement as also being a measure of saying she isn't planning a third party run, and I think she can certainly try to run for congress again. She's leaving on an honorable note, and I respect that. I'll go so far as to say I'm pleasantly surprised.
Her endorsement may piss off people who saw her as aligned with Sen. Sanders, but being aligned on some policies or political views doesn't always mean automatic support. Her support can't do Sanders any major favors and it isn't owed (as I've said about Senator Warren as well). It's entirely her choice to make as an independent person. She using her endorsement to say something about the status of the primary.
Bernie Sanders will assess his presidential campaign after the Vermont senator's poor showing in Tuesday's Democratic primaries, his campaign manager says https://t.co/1rt2f5RGkJpic.twitter.com/JGSazOFRiy
Former VP Joe Biden decisively won the three primaries held on Tuesday. Based on the current....everything! even holding future primaries has become more onerous. Also onerous--the task of trying to overcome a delegate deficit when two very important things affect the outcome: past performance and future expectations. At this point, there will be voters who submit Biden votes just to end it. The upcoming primary calendar and general Democratic polling aren't showing wins for Sanders. There isn't a lot of room his campaign has, at this point, to change things up. Both of these candidates have strong name recognition, and it is very unlikely that voters are making up their minds at the last minute at this point, as they may have done in the Iowa caucus.
There's something about the prospect of the remaining couple of weeks of a two-man contest between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders that I am not looking forward to. I have a lot of respect for both men and I could vote for either of them and justify my vote entirely. But the prospect of the next few weeks (I genuinely think it will only be a few weeks) of randos and not-so-randos trying to talk shit about Bernie's heart and Joe's brain is basically going to bring us all down to the fucking floor of the discourse.
It just didn't have to be like this, and a part of me feels deeply it shouldn't have been. When I say "heart" and "brain", I'm talking about the literal organs of two gentlemen in their seventies, amply gifted with both, metaphorically. They are both older than my dad, and I'm as old now as Obama was when he ran--twelve years ago. They are both older than Trump, who, despite the fluffing by his flacks, flunkeys and fawners, is, under the bronze paintjob and teased hair helmet, looking especially decrepit and deluded these days.
Warren on sexism in the 2020 race: "That is the trap question for every woman. If you say yeah, there was sexism in this race, everyone says, 'Whiner.' And if you say no, there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, 'What planet do you live on?'" https://t.co/7eG9ZYlQsWpic.twitter.com/zMy5ohtbgd
Knowing this was coming doesn't make it feel any less disappointing, but she isn't done fighting, because she promised. She has said in the past that good policies were what mattered to her, more than becoming president for herself. She will just be working towards them in the US Senate, just as before. I feel like I've already written up my feelings about whether she owes anyone an endorsement in 2016, and whether gender has anything to do with it feels self-evident to me. I think the timing was right--she could have stayed in for another debate, but that would not have helped anyone in any way at all.
I just think she would have been great at being president, is all.
Breaking News: Michael Bloomberg is dropping out of the 2020 race, wrapping up a costly bid that failed to win over moderates as they converged around Joe Biden https://t.co/dHP79vzCrC
You know, I've talked a lot of crap about Mike Bloomberg, but I will give it to him, he bowed out gracefully after Super Tuesday established that his high-spending bid wouldn't get enough traction to be competitive. Also, in the man's favor, he has a contempt for Donald Trump that seems like a living, breathing, palpable thing, and I have to respect that.
If you watch the above video of Symone Sanders just up and hauling off a protester while Jill Biden guards her husband, I feel like that says an awful lot about work in this Democratic primary. Biden was protected and promoted this evening in large part by Black and women voters. For all that anyone might want to ding his campaign turnabout on the donor class or elites or the establishment, the fact is--working class people, and marginalized people, and all kinds of people actually in fact voted for him. You can't take away from that by mislabeling his support.
Here's what they want: to beat Trump because he's actually, actively harmful to them. Biden's successes this evening come from the hopes of lots of people for a government that recognizes them, and it wasn't brought about by money. It was brought about by people believing in the network of goodwill he got from the people who said they would stand with him, because they knew what he stands for. And when I see anyone denigrating that as if the people who stood in line and took the time out of their day to make their vote were somehow dazzled into it by some nefarious fuckery--shit, I don't have to agree with it to acknowledge it for what it is. These people believe he can beat Trump. They believe he has the coalition.
Having a team matters. Being a part of a big thing, matters. It might not be a revolution, but it is not nothing.
But before I get into anything to do with these results (which aren't all in yet) can I vent on the subject of Elizabeth Warren?
Of all the primaries thus far, it seems to me that South Carolina's has been the most consequential. Former VP Joe Biden won handily, moving him to second in delegate count and first in popular votes, and giving his campaign a much-needed fund-raising boost that demonstrated there still is life in it. In his third time at running for the presidency, this was the first time that Biden had won a state.
That's really something to think about. That's persistence. It also shows that sometimes, the goodwill that a candidate needs to have is built up over a long time. It's about a long record forged on doing the things that were right for the time, and showing the kind of decency and compassion that stirs something in people. It isn't about being the perfect candidate, but being trusted. People in South Carolina who voted for Joe Biden knew who he was. They trust him.
The decisive win lead Tom Steyer to bow out, but he is still in the political fight. He made a good statement about his goals:
“I, of course, will be supportive (of the nominee). I’ve said since the beginning, every Democrat is a million times better than Trump -- Trump is a disaster,” Steyer told his supporters. “Let me say this, we’re in South Carolina, Lindsey Graham is a disaster, he’s a disaster for the people here. So of course I’ll be working on that. Let me say one last thing, when the Lord closes a door, he opens a window.”
Maybe it isn't in the cards to be president--but it certainly is possible to positively influence a senate race (or so) and in doing that, continue the fight against the Trump regime. Steyer might not have been the likeliest candidate, but his support for the environment and his concern for our society shows a lot of decency, and I can't fault him for trying to create a platform within his campaign--but I think a supporting role just makes more productive sense and appreciate what he has done and can continue to do.
Yeah. It doesn't feel like things that are real. Like take the supporters who are paid to say nice things about the former mayor of NYC.
A look inside the strategy — based on documents reviewed by The Times, interviews with five of these organizers and an examination of the operation’s social media output — shows that many have been using accounts created within the last month for their Twitter posts. At least two had openly posted in support of other candidates. And unlike the high-profile influencers the campaign recently hired to create viral memes, the vast majority of these organizers have modest personal audiences. On Twitter, many have fewer than 20 followers.
Rather than create their own content, organizers often use the exact text, images and links provided to them by the campaign. The result has been a stiff outpouring of tweets, Facebook and Instagram posts with little to no engagement and sometimes half-hearted text messages. Some organizers were so robotic in their tweeting, Twitter suspended their accounts Friday evening after The Times inquired about whether their behavior complied with the platform’s rules on spam and manipulation.
That's pretty lackluster. What else is the social media strategy up to?
Well, if you said posting mildly homophobic and hacky Tweets under the "Team Bloomberg" handle and then deleting them because they really sucked, that would get you an exploding cigar.
Wow. That was almost as bad as the time the campaign posted an obviously doctored video of the debate to create a "Mike Drop" incident (see what I did there?) that never happened after their candidate got notoriously roasted.
All of this effort. All of this money spent. What is it for? Take these dumb billboards, please!
There are internment camps for migrant children and they want to talk about burnt steak? At least be Henny Youngman-level interesting. "Donald Trump is so broke he only buys used gum!" "When Donald Trump sits around the White House, he really sits around the White House!" "Donald Trump may cheat at golf, but at least he's well known for his short putts." (But again, what does "He's fat and he dresses funny" things do for you? They show elitist values and alienate regular people! Not rocket surgery!)
The money spent during this campaign just makes me so mad. It could power up so many congressional races. It could fix immediate real-people needs. But it looks like clowning.
I sense there are some folks out there experiencing some alarm that progressives are on the verge of nominating someone they see as the most electable progressive choice, but really? Our ideas about electability should have died a hard death when Donald Trump won an election. A multiply-bankrupt, serial adulterer, with several credible sexual harassment and assault claims, fraud claims and settlements, surrounded by the right wings' worst collection of dirty tricksters, with allegations of support by Russian bots, leaks, etc., compounded by the pretty obvious fact, ongoing to this day, that there is something, maybe even organically, seriously wrong with how the man understands the concepts of right and wrong....
Sanders is incredibly electable if our comparison is Trump. Above is then-Representative Sanders, talking about how much the US spends on defense vs. on American workers. He says, "Let's invest in American industry." He talks about feeding and educating our kids. That's who he was then; that's who he is now. And he excoriates both parties, because some Democrats were a little bit full of shit then, and some are a little bit full of shit now. (Democrats, for some reason, thought about a budget-balancing amendment for a minute back then. Think about the utter damage that would have done to the safety net for so many. Something something, Department of Defense, something something, bake sales. )
That was 1992. When I became aware of what he was standing for, it was this 2010 filibuster (ish) stand. Yes, he goes against what he is calling the "Democratic establishment"--also, I sometimes think the entire Democratic party could go bolder. Organize more. Fight like hell for the things we love.
Criticizing the Democratic party isn't about electing Trump. It's about saying there are sides and you have to choose one. And anyone who chooses Trump over someone like Sanders is saying they like fascism, racism, misogyny and lies. The party should be able to take arguments. If the Democrats are, in fact, a large and diverse party, that will have to be expected. But that is over policy differences, and in the meantime, there is a world at stake, our universal human rights, and the fight to preserve our environment.
The opinions of Never-Trumpers should have no bearing on Democratic conversation. Obama got into office without them--with many of them working against him. If they understand now the kind of bullshit statist liberals were trying to fight against then, and don't know how their attenuated McCarthyism (like the destruction of ACORN due to peckerheads like O'Keefe and Breitbart) fueled leftist rage, they can go get stuffed. Even Liz Mair, who is getting sued alongside an internet cow, by one of Trump's most captivated Renfields. What is her game? Because she needs an entire grip if she thinks you go from sued the entire fuck to hell and gofundmeing on it to...ooohhhh! Fuck me! (Keep an eye on that lawsuit right there.)
He is better than his stans--that seems enough. But if you all are a Democrat and wanted a unity candidate that would do--notice that Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg are all standing in that gap. If Bloomie wanted to make a way for a moderate, he done fucked up by uniting lefties under Sanders.
Warren is probably the unity candidate for non-Berners. I'm not being pro-anyone, even if I' m telling you that despite what the news says, Sanders is not an op. He's been real since way before Russia took an interest in him. I'm just letting you know--don't freak out. Maybe Democrats being a little bit leftist isn't actually a whole fucking news flash.
I've been noticing a silly argument on Twitter that I won't link to, because it is silly: whether "Bernie bros" will put people "on a list" if they support or work for former Republican NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Whatever that list might mean, I really don't think people in this country can get shut out of working for campaigns or commenting on politics based on their previous support. My goodness, Jill Stein supporters manage to get attached to Democratic campaigns today, don't they? And the mainstream media doesn't look like it will ever give up it's love affair with Republican-lite/moderate Democrat cross-overs. For the unity!
But let's get real, the country will not be unified over Mike Bloomberg. Sure, he's got a whole lot of money and his ads do nail Trump right in his vanities and failures. But that doesn't equal a plausible Democratic candidate against Trump (it may even have some drawbacks as an outside antagonist, as I hope to demonstrate).
In the past, I've blogged about my support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Black Lives Matter, and the Me Too movement. If a Democratic candidate does not have a good record with, or can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of, the impact of economic inequality, the wealth gap, the failures of the system to protect consumers against fraud and predation in ways that harm economic security and mobility (as well as the way it intersects with racial inequality); if a candidate does not have a good record with, or can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of, the impact of racial inequality especially as it has related to the tools of the criminal justice system being used as a weapon against black bodies especially; and if a candidate does not have a good record with, and can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of, the ways men in power deploy misogyny and exercise their privilege against both women and men in sexualized ways, then, this party should not want them.
Unless you are super on-line, I think maybe the average person is almost aware of Greenwald because of Ed Snowden, about whom my opinions have been registered. I don't even know who knows who Neera Tanden is in the not-very-online world.
But because I do a little politics blogging now and again, I want to take a look at what he's saying, because WTF?
The President of the largest Dem Party think tank continues the personal & sustained attack on the party's front-runner with critiques that could cripple him against Trump.
Not sure if she's motivated by pro-Trump sentiments, pro-Putin ones, are (sic) both, but it's highly disturbing:
Says the Greenwald tweet (capped because it might go away). The Tanden Tweet he quote-Tweets is this:
Just FYI: Other Dem candidates who are his age have released their medical records going back decades. What’s the problem with Sanders doing the same? I don’t understand the mystery here. https://t.co/V5GxWqGcSY
Trump's campaign has access to the same shit Neera Tanden does, because they are called newspapers. They will bring up the same issues she does because: political campaign. Because certain underlying facts exist, they will get brought up in the general campaign. Ignoring them now would be, therefore, lacking in even the least bit of foresight.
She's not pro-Trump, she's against the Democratic party throwing in 100% with a candidate she has reservations about. The Trump Campaign in 2016 pretended Hillary Clinton was dying because she fainted when she had a touch of pneumonia. (She got better!) Does anyone seriously think Sanders is not going to get attacked for being older than Trump and having had a serious cardiac incident (even though we still don't know a whole hell of a lot about Trump's little excursion to Walter Reed).
Just because something shouldn't be fair game, doesn't mean it won't be treated as such.
Fine. Whatever. Any of them, I guess. It's a fucking Friday of a long-ass week and....
All right, Warren and Klobuchar seemed most on-point. Mayor Pete got the front-runner treatment and looked dazed. Also, and I mean this entirely: I still really hate debates.
The first thing to get out of the way is--well, I'll be damned! Maybe Mayor Pete had the right idea to declare his pleasant surprise at the Iowa results (that weren't, exactly, yet) Tuesday night, because he did pretty damn well.* You can chalk that up to a handful of things, of course. Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar did have to do their duties in the Senate. His campaign speaks fluent "heartland." Also, although he polls well, previous primary campaigns have left me wondering how former VP Joe Biden does in reality versus on paper.
I know the Shadow/Acronym stuff looks really shady, but for the love of democracy, let's not do conspiracy theories. For one thing, the whole Iowa caucus thing is close and weird and the results are wonky, historically. For another, it looks like folks just wanted to up the digital game and inserted an app where it overpromised and underperformed. In the grand scheme of things, that's a far cry from any kind of "rigging" that I can tell.
And I just want to talk for a minute about how cool it is that Buttigieg did well here, in the home of the FAMiLY Leader and all that. There's a lot of tolerance out there, and it's growing. (Despite the example of this person, who is getting her information about candidates from some very questionable sources. Of all the things I think one might have known going in about Buttigieg...that he served in the armed forces and is a happily married gay man: those are the two things.)
Also, the other thing that's going on this year, again, and why people should keep the hell off of conspiracy theories, is that the fuckery is still very much with us:
Yeah. So, when Trump and his little fans want to discuss the caucus as a Democratic clusterfuck, um, no. Maybe a little bit of a cluster, but they helped. (And keep in mind, they want to divide the party by heightening any grievance felt by Sanders backers vs the establishment, so some of that shit needs to be recognized as enemy action on these internets.) Also, the RNC is coronating a smooth-brained impeached and acquitted but not exonerated wanna-be tyrant, so they have earned exactly zero democracy points.
Anyway, on to New Hampshire!
* But it looks like Sanders probably did actually take Iowa on the basis of raw votes. So what do I have to say about that? Um, cool? The Plan B for a possible total Biden implosion (which would hilariously make Trump/Giuliani Ukraine exploits to get "dirt" on him totally irrelevant to the Democrats and totally still damaging to Trump) is to smear the "Commie". But Democrats have been called "commies" since McCarthy. (Tail-gunner Joe, not Kevin. Except probably Kevin, too.) So I am all for "taking it back". This is a referendum on Trump's perfidy, but there's no reason to shy away from how to accomplish the 3rd of FDR's Four Freedoms.
