Open thread on the Iowa caucuses

Once every four years, our collective attention is drawn to the nation’s fourth whitest state, where people, after being interviewed all morning in diners by members of the press, gather in high school gyms to determine, with a series of coin flips and names pulled from hats, who we’ll all get to vote for come November. Well, the magic is happening at this very minute. As I can’t keep my eyes open, though, I’m going to leave you to sort through the results and the various conspiracy theories for yourselves. (AppArently technical difficulties are slowing down the reporting process.) Please feel free to leave comments.

update: OK, it’s the next morning and the results still haven’t been made public, which is absolutely unacceptable… Maybe, if this is what it takes to finally change things up, so that Iowa never goes first again, and we get a more representative state in that first spot, like Michigan or Wisconsin, this will all be worth it, though.

This entry was posted in Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Mark Brewer by proxy
    Posted February 3, 2020 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Caucuses have many faults – there are several more accessible and easier means to cast votes but caucuses have 1 vital quality we need more of in our atomized, polarized politics: person to person democracy based on persuasive dialogue sans ads, robocalls, smartphones, etc.

  2. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    I think I would enjoy caucuses but then I have the means to take time off of work if needed and very few responsibilities at home. I can totally see how they could be inaccessible to many people.

  3. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    A person in one of my political groups who is in Iowa reported this:

    Full analysis tomorrow. App is crashing causing delay in results. Our precinct 2 Warren, 2 Pete, 1 Amy. 1 Bernie. Biden not viable.

    She is in Iowa City though which probably is more progressive than other areas

  4. Sad
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    God damn Democrats can’t do anything right. SMH

  5. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 4:22 am | Permalink

    This is really hilarious. The Democratic Party in Iowa and the DNC look like complete failures tonight.

  6. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 4:37 am | Permalink

    Looks like we’ve gotten our first glimpse at what the manipulation will be this time around.

    In 2016 the GOP field was flooded in perfect form and timing to escort the most ridiculous clown through to nomination. Then that clown was installed through the sabotage of the Dems voter ID and GOTV operations.

    Everyone bought the ridiculous cover stories. So I suppose everyone will again this year.

    Anyway, we have our first absurd clue to work with now. The caucus app failed…ha ha!

  7. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 4:49 am | Permalink

    Are the Dems going to claim Putin hacked the Iowa caucus app? That would be rich!

    This start has the appearance of complete incompetence on the part of Dems.

    It also protects the candidates who were not doing well there from such an early blow. Biden and Warren can be relieved. Sanders and Mayor Pete are the ones that got robbed the worst tonight. We’ll have to wait for the final and complete stats to get the clear answers.

  8. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:05 am | Permalink

    The Democratic Party has announced that the failure of the Iowa caucus system was not the result of a hack or intrusion.

  9. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Aloha. It is becoming increasingly clear that after 20 years of neo-lib/con rule America can’t do anything very well.

    Trump et al will be using this as yet another data point for the end of democracy or at least why you don’t want the Dems to run things. Such a bad start to the Democratic Party nominating process.

  10. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    What gives you the impression Warren did poorly iRobert.? What I’ve seen indicates a three way tie with Bernie slightly ahead?
    She is the only one who didn’t prematurely declare victory…
    Bernie’s team is both declaring victory and victimization as is their tendency. That’s a toxic cocktail. See populism.
    Anyway it’s all guess work as to results now.
    It does appear that Biden is sunk, and I’m very grateful for that. If he can’t inspire Iowa, he probably can’t win against Trump.

  11. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    Wobblie thinks humans failing on the regular is because of the system instead of because humans.

    Implement the right system and people and institutions won’t fuck up!

    Ha! He may be the biggest fool of us all!
    Or just a person relentless seeking justification for his ideology.

  12. Anonymous
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    My response to Robert and the other conspiracy theorists.

  13. Donald Trump
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is “Trump”.

  14. NPR
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    NPR: Biden campaign general counsel Dana Remus sent a letter to top Iowa Democratic Party officials demanding “full explanations and relevant information” for the “failed” systems the IDP deployed for tonight’s caucuses.

  15. Meta
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    CNN: “The Iowa caucuses just died forever”

    An hours-long delay in reporting results from the Iowa caucuses raised serious questions about the process.

    It was not immediately clear exactly why Iowa Democrats were slow to report the results — they said in a statement they were checking for accuracy after finding inconsistencies — but that didn’t stop candidates already in a rush to leave for New Hampshire from crowding out to give speeches before any results were reported.

    It was a reminder that there are some structural problems with the caucus system, which is barely democratic even though it has such an outsized importance in the American political process.

    But there are issues with the caucuses that extend far beyond the “inconsistencies” Monday night.

    “I would get rid of all the caucuses, first of all,” Terry McAuliffe, a former DNC chairman and Virginia governor said on CNN. He pointed out that Iowa’s population, at more than 90% white, is very different than the rest of the Democratic party. But the problems are bigger than demographics.

    “They’re undemocratic processes. People don’t have time to go spend the time like you heard today,” McAuliffe said, arguing that instead Americans should “go vote, pull the curtain, close it vote and leave. That is a democratic way.”

    Candidates with committed core groups of followers, often pushing a movement or an issue, can do very well at caucuses. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders cleaned up with caucuses in 2016, when he was the outsider challenging Hillary Clinton. They can be more a test of organizing strength among committed base supporters than genuine support across the electorate.

    Nearly every state has moved away from the system, but two of the four early states — Iowa and Nevada — still use them, as does Wyoming. Several other states still hold them on the Republican side.

    All general election voting and the vast majority of primaries these days are done in private. At caucuses, people who are neighbors go to the same location, stand in corners along with other people who support the same candidate and pressure each other to change sides.

    It’s a complicated process to be sure. In 2016, when Clinton defeated Sanders by the narrowest of margins, there were coin flips to allocate some delegates. There were also issues with a Microsoft app used that year.

    This year, the party also pledged to report three sets of numbers — a first round popular vote total, a second round popular vote total after supporters for low-scoring candidates realigned, and the all-important state delegate totals, which are the real prize for campaigns. The holdup Monday resulted from “inconsistencies” in reporting of the three totals.

    A former Iowa Democratic party chairman, Gordon Fischer, told CNN’s Gloria Borger that everyone should take a deep breath.

    “If there’s a delay of several hours, to make sure the results are accurate, is that so bad?” he asked, pointing out the party had to deal with an unprecedented number of candidates and new data. “Also unprecedented: we live in a different age, an age of super speed! Internet! Social media! People simply aren’t used to waiting for anything anymore. Should the Iowa Caucuses remain first-in-the-nation? Absolutely, no question, without a doubt.”

    McAuliffe pointed out there are about two million voters in Iowa and many of them — 745,000 registered voters — are unaffiliated with a party, and so they are shut out of this process.

    If 250,000 people take part in the caucuses, that’s a fraction of the more than 600,000 registered Democrats in the state.

    “We are talking ten, 15% of the eligible voters are going to have a gigantic sway at who the nominee is,” he said.

    Jess McIntosh, a Democratic strategist, pointed out the Iowa Democrats this year had addresses some of these concerns by adding additional “satellite” caucuses throughout the day for people who could not make the evening events. And they added satellite caucuses outside the state.

    “We have come so much further in this conversation this cycle than I have ever heard before,” McIntosh said on CNN. “It’s widely recognized as an undemocratic, discriminatory process that most of us want to fix. This is not going to help their case,” she said.

    Read more:

  16. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    You’re an idiot, Anonymous, who has never been involved in politics. You and other assholes scapegoating old people is a typical know-nothing response which zero-experience assholes like yourself always turn to. I predicted you’d be scapegoating one of your favorite target groups.

  17. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    “This isn’t the first time the parties have used an app in Iowa. In 2016, both Republicans and Democrats used an app designed by Microsoft.” – Business Insider

    But arrogant zero-experience assholes want to scapegoat the very dedicated and experienced senior citizens who work the caucus.

  18. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    Aloha, Info I’ve read indicates that the app the Iowa Dems were using was put together by a company associated with the DNC just two months ago. And then implemented without anything like sufficient testing. I suspect another example of crony capitalism at work. Somebody is making some bucks and will face no consequences for the fubar results.

    Sounds like the essence of the US in the 21st century. JH thinks we will incrementally and gradually with pluralistic agreement work these things out. Meanwhile the DNC sets the table for another Republican feast.

  19. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Looks like my 2018 prediction of the dem party in shambles is coming true now.

  20. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    The app was produced by a company called Shadow, Inc. Haha, that’s cute and appropriate.

    So, does the zero-experience idiot have any other poorly thought out assertions to make? That last one took just a few minutes to disprove. Are there any other innocent, decent people you’d like to scapegoat or slander?

  21. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Maybe all the dedicated caucus workers could be accused of being Putin assets in grooming.

  22. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    CLIP: “Shadow Inc.’s CEO Gerard Niemira served as senior product manager and then Director of Product for Hillary For America during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. His LinkedIn page states that he was “Promoted during the campaign to lead the small but mighty team in charge of all of the campaign’s tools for field organizers and volunteers.” Niemira runs Shadow with fellow Clinton campaign tech alum Krista Davis.

  23. EOS
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Jean talks about populism as if it were a negative.

    Populism: a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

    If only every politician were a populist in a country that purports to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Sigh.

    Populism is a winning political ideology where the “elite” or “deep state” is a small faction.

  24. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Aloha, Nate Silver (538) latest simulation indicates that the only one this Iowa fiasco seems to benefit is Biden. Will surprises ever cease ?

  25. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    It depends on which Jean you’re taking about, EOS. One Jean (I dubbed “Jekyl”) rails against populism. Whereas, Henry (I call “Hyde”) expresses all the negative characteristics of a populist (according to Jekyl).

  26. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    It’s all based on a desperate need to deny conspiracy realities. They’ve gone too far to change now. They’ve bought everything the elite are selling and cannot accept that they could possibly be dupes. They have aligned with something more powerful and awful than they can imagine so they hate whoever has evidence of that. “It’s the People that cause division! There is no such thing as elite conspiracy. You are CRAZY!!!”

  27. Hyb borian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Good information or bad? Tell me.

    Chance The Rapper ‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ᶠᵃⁿᵖᵃᵍᵉ
    So let me get this straight.
    – April 2019, Tanden, Buttigieg, Pelosi & Schumer discussed how to stop Sanders.
    – July 2019, Buttigieg paid $21,000 to Shadow Inc.
    – Dem party app was made by Shadow
    – Parent company of Shadow is ACRONYM
    – A Buttigieg staffer works at ACRONYM (1/2)

    I want people to understand how deep the corruption runs in American politics. How much establishment democrats are willing to go to “Stop Sanders”. I hope undecided voters will pay attention to all of this corruption. (2/2)

  28. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Good information or bad? Tell me.
    Chance The Rapper ‎ ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ᶠᵃⁿᵖᵃᵍᵉ
    So let me get this straight.
    – April 2019, Tanden, Buttigieg, Pelosi & Schumer discussed how to stop Sanders.
    – July 2019, Buttigieg paid $21,000 to Shadow Inc.
    – Dem party app was made by Shadow
    – Parent company of Shadow is ACRONYM
    – A Buttigieg staffer works at ACRONYM (1/2)

    I want people to understand how deep the corruption runs in American politics. How much establishment democrats are willing to go to “Stop Sanders”. I hope undecided voters will pay attention to all of this corruption. (2/2)

  29. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Does Chancelor Bennett (@ChanceFrom79th) offer any detail upon which his claims are based?

    I don’t see anything suggesting Mayor Pete is a part of anything sinister at all. On the contrary, he appears to me to be a genuine outsider.

  30. Anonymous
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Washington Post:

    Warren’s campaign said Tuesday it is providing its internal data to the Iowa Democratic Party as the results of Monday’s caucuses have yet to be released.

    “Our campaign collected photos and other raw documentation of the results at hundreds of caucus locations as part of our internal reporting process,” tweeted campaign manager Roger Lau. “Today we will provide what we have to the Iowa Democratic Party to help ensure the integrity of their process.”

    In a shot at Buttigieg, senior Warren strategist Joe Rospars tweeted: “Any campaign saying they won or putting out incomplete numbers is contributing to the chaos and misinformation.”

  31. Anonymous
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Nate Silver:

    One thing that *all* the data seems to agree upon is that Sanders didn’t add many voters from the 1st alignment to the 2nd alignment. Meaning, relatively few people who didn’t caucus with him initially joined him later on.

  32. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Regarding “populism”:

    Jean loves labels but hates dictionaries. Hmmm.

  33. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Something to look into, right? You keep it in mind. If you find corroboration it might be another part of the puzzle coming together. Make google your bitch and learn fast. Look what I found in two seconds:

    Shadow has also been paid for services by the Nevada Democratic Party and the presidential campaigns of former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

  34. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Aloha, it seems that initial reports of high caucus turnout might have been misinformation. Politico is reporting turnout on par with 2016 which was down about 25% from its peak.

    Tulsi is looking like the only Democrat with brains. She was right about impeachment. She saw the fix was in in Iowa and stopped campaigning there in October. It has turned into a total waste of money and resources for Pete, Bernie, Liz and Amy. Probably will kill off Amy’s campaign, she needed a lift as did Pete. No one but the loser Biden and the Republican Bloomberg will benefit.

    The refusal to release the last poll before the caucus looks a little different now.

  35. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Sanders was well ahead of any other candidate in number of supporters who showed up at the caucus sites. He didn’t have to pick up much on second votes to stay in the lead. Nate Silver also knows that.

    Mayor Pete and Senator Klobuchar had the most savvy and effective in-caucus campaigners. They picked up a lot of the refugees from nonviable candidates and uncommitted.

    Warren’s campaign weren’t the only folks who took photos of everything. Mayor Pete’s did too. You’re fucked.

  36. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    I’m willing to bet the naive Mayor Pete was either suckered into paying to ‘finance’ Shadow Inc. for purposes of linking him, or the link is fabricated.

    It’s very clear to me that what is happening is very multi-layered, and likely involves at least two very savvy actors working to manipulate the way the primary/caucuses play out. There is a complex thing going on here. If I were a detective tasked with sorting all this out, I’d be shitting my pants…like Jean is.

  37. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    By the way, anybody with actual in-person experience with Iowa caucuses, knows every bit of where votes were and went is documented fully by the main campaigns. It’s part of the process.

    Warren is a decoy.

  38. Sad
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    What we are witnessing is a major effort to prevent Mayor Pete from getting elected out of fear of what his queer agenda will do to American. Everything they can do to thwart him they will try. Although his popularity has been rising coverage in the MSM has been falling.

    It’s an affront to decencies and fair play.

  39. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Aloha Sad, just now reading an article by Max Bloominthal at the Greyzone about the connections between Mayor Pete’s billionaire backer Klarrman and the company that developed the aIowa app.

    As I believed from the start Mayor Pete’s CIA connection is all that’s counts.

  40. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    I like how Elizabeth Warren is just sharing her data without laying down the groundwork to claim it was rigged if she doesn’t do well. I think she may have done ok, even if she didn’t win. She is still in the race at least!

  41. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I think Mayor Pete is clean, and any connections to anything nefarious or any questionable individuals has been set up to sink him. And that’s coming from a person who isn’t supporting for him. So I don’t mind him losing. I’m just sharing my impression.

    Sometimes boogiemen put their arm around you just to taint you.

  42. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Like I said, Warren is a great person. I like her a lot. But I know a decoy candidacy when I see one. She wouldn’t accept front-runner status. She knows what comes with it. She’s in the race to siphon support off of Sanders.

  43. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    “I think Mayor Pete is clean…”

    Based on what?

  44. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Aloha, Ever since the Sanders wing of the party forced the super delegates to sit out the 1st ballot at the convention there have been those scheming to force a 2nd ballot and brokered convention. Whomever is ultimately declared the “winner” in Iowa final vote count, you can be sure that no one candidate will exceed 30-40% of the delegate count

  45. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, I hear a lot of Bernie Bros suggesting that Warren is only running as part of some establishment DNC plot to keep Bernie from getting the nomination. It is BS. Just like that whole narrative that the DNC rigged the primary in 2016 was BS. It seems very based on a stereotype that women, unable to be direct, tend to be conniving and manipulative instead. The irony is that accusation seems more likely to get placed on women who ARE being direct in their seeking of power.

    I will confess though that one of my favorite things, when I run into Bernie Sanders supporters who try to spin this narrative, is to kind of flip it around and suggest that Bernie Sanders is running in order to siphon votes away from Warren because he can’t stand the idea of a woman being president. Look at his behavior in 2016. It is of course as much of a BS statement as the idea that Warren is running to siphon votes away from Sanders but it always cracks me up how so often people are just not able to see it. That is the cult of Sanders I guess.

  46. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    My opinion on Mayor Pete being clean is based only on my observations of him and the actions taken by others to derail him. He seems somewhat naive to me, and I think it would be easy to sucker him into any old trick to make him look like he is connected to something questionable.

    By the way, Warren is a decoy. That opinion is based on my involvement in many federal and state level campaigns and my familiarity with those sorts of tactics. Lynne’s opinion is from a place of no such experience.

  47. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    I’m calling her a “decoy” candidate because people would be offended by the term “dummy candidate.” It’s actually a fairly common strategy to put a candidate in a field of candidates simply for the purposes of breaking up the support of a block of voters.

    I’ve seen it often in congressional races, but also in state races and local ones. I could probably go back through the decades and produce a list of hundreds of examples with considerable detail to illustrate it. I’ve even seen candidates run which have the similar name just to confuse voters.

  48. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    It is true that I don’t involve myself with political strategy. Even so, I still don’t feel like either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would willingly be a decoy candidate. However, if I did think that EW was doing this to keep Sanders from winning the nomination, it actually would make me appreciate and like her more. :)

  49. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Lynne: “However, if I did think that EW was doing this to keep Sanders from winning the nomination, it actually would make me appreciate and like her more. :)”

    It doesn’t negatively affect what I think of her either. Like I’ve said, I like her a lot. I think she’s a very hard-working senator.

  50. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Aloha. Lynne I actually think there is a woman of color running who has outstanding credentials and a proven record of integrity. But since she does not fit into your nice little identity politics box you have nothing but disdain for her. Seems horrible racist of you or classist of you. In any event the DNC is committed to making sure our choice will be a “lesser evil” candidate who will support the same policies as Trump, but be more pro-war and politically correct in his/her rhetoric.

  51. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Mind boggling

  52. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    62% of precincts reported:

    Pete Buttigieg
    – 26.9% 36,262

    Bernie Sanders
    – 25.1% 33,793

    Elizabeth Warren
    – 18.3% 24,623

    Joe Biden
    – 15.6% 21,038

    Amy Klobuchar
    – 12.6% 16,972

    Andrew Yang
    – 1.1% 1,430

    Tom Steyer
    – 0.3% 376

    Michael Bloomberg
    – 0.1% 13

    Deval Patrick
    – 0% 0

    John Delaney
    – 0% 0

    Michael Bennet
    – 0% 0

    Tulsi Gabbard
    – 0% 0

    – 0.2% 208

    Other candidates
    – 0.1% 28

  53. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Wobblie, I will not deny the possibility that I have implicit biases that are racist or sexist or classist. However, it is also very possible to have positive biases towards someone and still not think they should have political power.

  54. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Sad, I think your guy is getting framed.

  55. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Entertaining the idea that you might have implicit bias earns you zero points, Lynne.

    You are a thoroughly bigoted person, Lynne. Much more bigoted than the average person. You use the same logic as bigots. Face the facts.

    I’m sure many people would argue Iowans are homophobic. Didn’t your buddy Sad say as much? Oh wait…

    Keep talking Lynne. Never stop.

  56. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    The Iowa Democratic Party is not allowing any press to verify the numbers they are releasing.

  57. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    FF. Surely you dont think points awarded or withheld by you have any meaning?

    iRobert, that is unfortunate if true.

  58. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:39 pm | Permalink


  59. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Oh my… you all are bonkers.
    Not Lynne and a few others, but wow! The crap you will believe absent any evidence!

    EOS— the history of populist candidates is that they can be corrupted in ways that maybe we have lost awarenesss of over time. They play to divisiveness. Other types of candidates are vulnerable to other kinds of corruption. The Tea Party is a populist movement. So is Sanders. I dislike both for that reasons. Or maybe not actually… Corporate monopolies and wealth hoarding tend to less to populist movements. Bad governance but institutionalists giving way to either is usually a slowly eroding disaster. Warren is also a populist but I support her— I think she has a better bead on the excesses of our current system and is more likely to point to institutions than groups of people in her rabble rousing about ‘elites.’

    I believe the circumstances that bring about populist movements must be addressed. I think imaging populist movements can’t be corrupt and destructive is to ignore history.

    FF— here’s a hot take— most ideas/terminology/labels incorporate more meaning and connotation than can be fairly captured in a dictionary definition, even the OED (which I do like). I might just know more about populist movements in the US than is contained in a dictionary definition or even in contemporary cultures use of the term.

    There’s Texas progressive/ex-congress member trying to reframe the term populism to be more inclusive and less divisive.
    So far he’s had little success.
    What’s his name??? It will come to me.

  60. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    “the history of populist candidates is that they can be corrupted in ways that maybe we have lost awarenesss of over time.”

    How meaningless can you get?

  61. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Well that’s a hot mess. Still no glasses. Sorry. No one cares anyway.
    Texas populist is Jim Hightower.

  62. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Really? You don’t understand how playing to divisiveness, fear and suspicion might lead to problems in democratic governance? Maybe difficulty with bipartisan solutions? Maybe a turn towards the autocratic? Maybe a lot of self-dealing? Maybe a suppressive cult of personality that demands total fealty from followers or brands them traitors,?

  63. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    HW and EOS— I suggest you watch a Face in the Crowd or watch or read All the Kings Men for a refresher on populism and politics.

    Kerry was caught with a hot mic worrying that Sanders would kill the Dem party the way Trump is killing the GOP— by demanding total fealty to his vision and refusing to support moderate candidates in tight competitive purple districts . The issue isn’t so much the gutting of power as the inteactivikity that will lead to a suite of executive orders and overreaches ala Trump v bipartisan governance. We’re going to ping pong from far right to far left until we have either a civil war or a true autocrat or both.

    We really don’t have time for this.

  64. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 5:51 pm | Permalink


  65. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    I find those results to be surprising. I hope that once everything is counted, the Iowa Dems will allow the press to count up the votes too so that everyone can be confident that they are accurate and fair.

  66. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    And I was right! EW did ok even if she didn’t win. I just signed up to call NH voters and also donated some more money to her campaign. Onward!

  67. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:04 pm | Permalink


    I was not trying to endorse dictionaries:) I was criticizing your love of superficial labeling. True insight comes from connecting a constellation of facts to provide meaning. You don’t do that. You have a strong penchant for superficially labeling “things” (based on your assumptions) and it rarely yields meaning. Lynne does the same thing. Constantly. Shamelessly. Unaware.

  68. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Lynne. Though Warren didn’t win any counties, she still managed to garner a good number of delegates. At least that’s the look of things so far. She’s got every reason to stay in this. She should do even better in New Hampshire.

  69. Sad
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Oh my gosh –

    Mayor Pete won!

    All my dreams are coming true!

    What a day. It would have been a lot better last night. But we’ll take it.

  70. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Populism is a thing FF. It’s not made up. I’m not using the term in a purely derogatory way. Steve Bannon says the same things I do re the rise of populism on the left and right in US politics btw— but he thinks it’s a great thing.
    Not believing in terminology and categories is like not believing in Reason! Or Logic!

    It’s really impossible to know how to respond when I speak to well understood concepts and patterns in history and political science and apply them here judiciously, and the peanut gallery at declared them superficial or made up.

    It makes me wonder why I waste my time here. Your average diner patron is smarter than this crowd.

  71. Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    So far, Pete Buttigieg has secured 10 pledged delegates to the national convention. Bernie Sanders has secured 10 also. Elizabeth Warren has secured 4. There are another 17 remaining in Iowa which are yet to be assigned.

  72. Jean Henry
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    For those worried about a rigging:

    “Folks, it would be exceptionally difficult to rig the #IowaCaucuses results. You literally write your name, address, and candidate on a card and sign it, and they keep it until the Democratic convention. It’s going to be okay”

  73. iRobert
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    The numbers look fine and legit, Jean. Of course, we’ve only gotten 62% and they won’t say when they’ll share the remainder. They also are not permitting any media to verify anything in live time. That’s not transparency and it’s bad for everybody.

    The Shadow, Inc. stuff looks very odd. It could be argued that it was a failed attempt at something nefarious.

  74. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    “playing to divisiveness, fear and suspicion”

    You still don’t know the difference between opinion and fact. There is plenty of evidence the societal elite have been screwing us for a long time. For example: inflation went up to some 18% just a few years after the Federal Reserve Act was passed by democrats. Since 1913 inflation has reduced the value of the dollar by 26 times. Certainly it is reasonable to find this objectionable.

  75. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Aloha iRobert, it looks to me that the fix is in for Pete. 62% of vote counted and he has very small lead. Several areas where Sanders campaign knows Bernie did very well have not been reported. Now I’ve heard DNC is stepping in to complete the count.
    Tulsi warned in November that DNC was rigging debates and primary.
    This is how you steal elections. The final Iowa results will not be announced till DNC figures it will have marginal effect on outcome.
    If Sanders or Gabbard (against all odds) secures nomination figure on Bloomberg running 3rd party.
    Vote for whom we tell you or we will give you 4 more years of Trump.

  76. Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Well, I’m glad that I didn’t stay up last night for the results.

  77. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    One of the reasons I don’t like Gabbard is that she is often very divisive and feeds that whole “rigging” narrative without any evidence. She is not going to get the nomination because no one is going to vote for her. Sanders might get it. And maybe that will prompt Bloomberg to run third party but that would be a pretty shitty thing for him to do.

    I think everyone should vote for whomever they want for any reason in the primary

  78. Wobblie
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Aloha Lynne. You obviously never read any of the Podesta emails. You obviously are not paying attention to what is happening right now. You obviously did not pay attention last week when the DNC changed its rules for Bloomberg. I would love to play poker with you sometime, we can have iRobert and one of my close friend make it a foursome. Bring lots and lots of cash.

  79. Sad
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Today’s a good day to give money. Here’s the link.

    Come on HW. Be a sport. Let’s see Trump v Buttigieg!

    I hope you feel better soon Wobblie.

  80. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Wobblie, oh gawd. this mansplaining to me my lived experience and assumption that *obviously* I could not have had exposure to the same evidence that you had and possibly come to a different conclusion or formed a different opinion than you, a white guy, is sooooo tiresome. Really. Gabbard Guys are just as bad as Bernie Bros. There is no rigging just because actual real people decide to vote for someone other than Gabbard or Bernie.

  81. Lynne
    Posted February 4, 2020 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Then we have Warren Wenches, Biden Biddies, and so on. What are the Mayor Pete supporters called, Sad? (other than cheaters by the Sandernista I mean)

  82. Wobblie
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Aloha Lynne What conclusion did you arrive at from the purposeful deceit that the DNC perpetrated and was exposed by Wikileaks.? Do you think it was ok for the DNC to tell donors that there donations were going to down ballot races while funneling it into Clinton’s campaign? Do agree with that strategy that caused down ballot Democrats being starved of resources and loosing to Republicans? Is it ok for party insiders to funnel debate questions prior to the debate to a preferred candidate? Are you aware that the DNC was sued over its actions and its defense was, “We are a private club and we can change the rules whenever we like” ? By the way do you think the 2000 election stolen?
    I have never said I am anything but a dogmatic dope. Please note I am only asking questions and not explaining anything.

  83. Lynne
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    I don’t consider Wikileaks to be a trustworthy source. It isn’t ok for party insiders to funnel debate questions to candidates but I highly doubt that had any effect on the outcome of the debates since such questions are usually pretty easy to deduce. I agree with the DNC that they are a private club and thus can make whatever rules they want. Those who wish to have an influence on the rules should join the club. It was stupid of them to funnel donations intended for down-ticket candidates to HRC. That is the kind of action likely to discourage people from donating in the future. I don’t know if the 2000 election was stolen. There certainly were some shenanigans with the vote counts and recounts in Florida. I think Nader voters did more harm than they realize.

  84. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    Please remember that the funds ‘funnelled to HRC’ were returned to down ticket candidates. The DNC (or was it the DCCC) had a screwed up operation and HRC’s campaign functioned as fiduciary for those funds before releasing them. (If you don’t know what a fiduciary is, look it up) Her campaign donated more to down ticket candidates than it received from the Dem Party for those purposes.

  85. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    The Wikileaks stuff was mostly about soft power tactics like board seats for big donors. That happens in literally every industry including non profits. It’s a problem frankly because it creates insular, self-affirming/protective organizations, but it’s not unusual or illegal. It’s not even duplicitous. It was a view into the sausage making of any organization. Not that interesting unless you are looking to find offense.

  86. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    The DNC is an organization independent from the government but subject to election laws. And the state parties are largely independent in governance from the DNC. They can in fact free to changer the rules as they go along within the limits of election regulations.

    I don’t know about you Wobblie— but I’m super happy that we don’t have a State Party.

    All these issues that Wobblie/DD gets worked up about we’re inflated for populist gain by the Sanders campaign. He stoked outrage and suspicion and didn’t supply mediating information or reasonable explanation. This is how disinformation works. You all fell for it because you are naive about populist campaigns.

  87. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    Re the Clinton Victory fund. Pretty good summary. Please note that Hillary donors directly to the fund weee by far the biggest donors. Down ticket candidates were well served by the fund, even if donations directly into their campaigns from the fund were limited. Sanders did shit for down ticket candidates in the primaries. He lacked moral courage to support the progressives who openly supported him in those races. (Many of whom might have one.) Clinton as the establishment candidate would have been unwise to ‘pick winners’ among Dem candidates in the Dow ticket primaries.

  88. Wobblie
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Aloha Lynne, Neither Podesta or the DNC ever said the information exposed by Wikileaks was anything but genuine and authentic. Blaming Nader for 2000 vs. the Supreme Court theft of 2000 election indicates you never bothered to read that decision. You probably also never read the Washington Post and other newspaper reporting on the actual vote totals from Florida. I know it was easy to miss that reporting, after all that reporting was released just as we began to be smothered in 24/7 war reporting.
    So I assume you are fine with the DNC not changing it’s rules to allow Corey Booker onto debate stage , while changing the rules to allow a white Republican Billionaire access to debate stage.
    Meanwhile JH (I do know what a fiduciary is) relies on open source easily manipulated Wikipedia to womansplain to me.
    Wanted to apologize to everyone, I’ve been neglecting my Putin Puppet duties and my abrupt climate change alarmism.
    I did learn the other day from Juan Cole that frogs will actually jump out of the pot before it boils.

  89. iRobert
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    It’s ma’amsplaining, Wobblie.

  90. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Wobblie— I use Wikipedia when the summaries seem accurate and balanced. Clearly that one had input from multiple sources with multiple perspectives.

    I wasn’t addressing you directly. I regularly have to explain the term fiduciary to people in need of one, so it seemed worth reminding people (not just you) to look it up. Would it have been better if I had provided the definition. Or would that have been too much ‘womansplaining’ for you?

    What kind of subservient position would you like me to assume that would allow you to feel better about yourself, Wobblie?

  91. iRobert
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    It’s ma’amsplaining, Jean.

  92. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    1) old Bro shares alarmist populist disinformation about HRC campaign.
    2) I provide clarifying information mostly documented by a supporting link with explanation re where that link has gaps.
    3) old Bro replies, not by correcting my account, but by questioning the integrity of linked sources and resorting to sexist as hominem— accusing me of ‘woman-spraining.’
    4) Another fragile white dude jumps in to double down on the ad hominem.
    — pretty much a microcosm of 2016 in a nutshell.

  93. iRobert
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    We can’t agree on much. But I thought we could all at least agree ma’amsplaining sounds better, and is respectful. It’s got a little southern charm to it.

  94. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Donna Brazille cried.

    Why does it not surprise me that Jean and Lynne would feel entitled to invalidate the feelings of a black woman who is in pain?

  95. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    FF— Donna Brazille also shared those debate questions.
    You are just gross in your paternalistic view of ‘identity politics’ Btw. Truly gross.

  96. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Shouldn’t we really be talking about Mayor Pete?

    Where are the Warren voters going as she falls behind in the race? Pete will get the Biden people. Will the Warren people go to Sanders?

  97. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Jean seems to prefer that I not point out and/or mock those amongst us who employ the logic of bigotry.

  98. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    What does that have to do with Mayor Pete?

    Your obsession with Jean Henry is getting tiresome.

    She’s not running for anything.

  99. Lynne
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for that, JH!

    Sad, If Warren drops out (and it is WAY too early to go there), my guess is that while Sanders may get a few of her supporters, many are former HRC supporters who were abused by Bernie Bros and they will never support Sanders beyond begrudgingly voting for him in the general election if he gets the nomination.

  100. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:16 pm | Permalink


    Tell that about Mayor Pete. He’ll take them.

    With her poor showing in Iowa i’m Sure some in New Hampshire might jump ship.

    There’s plenty of room on the Buttigieg boat!

  101. iRobert
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    I’m trying to get Jean to run for Rebekka Warren’s seat, Sad. FF must not like the idea and is already kicking off the campaign to stop us.

  102. Lynne
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Sad, I talked to some of the Mayor Pete workers at the Santa Rosa women’s march. I even told them I was backing Warren. They were very respectful and invited me to participate in their “bean poll” (people got 10 beans to put in jars representing various issues). No one said anything negative about any other candidates which unfortunately was NOT true of the folks in the Sanders booth. I suspect this comes from the top and frankly is a reason why I think Mayor Pete is a better leader than Bernie, who seems ok with his supporters being nasty in his name.

    If Warren drops out, my second choice is Mayor Pete. Thing is, I have to vote absentee and because I am going to be out of the country, I have to send in my ballot soon. It will say Warren. You will be be happy to know though that because I was impressed with his performance, I made a small donation to his campaign

  103. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Sad thinks I should be less concerned with JH and Lynne’s pro bigotry agenda? Sad’s privilege is showing.

  104. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    It’s called projecting FF.

    Your privilege is obvious and documented by the number of words you put up on this blog. You’ve probably written ten times more copy than Mr.Maynard. And very little of it makes sense. And all to defeat JH and Lynne ?

    What gives buddy?

  105. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for donating to Mayor Pete.

    I know he’s not perfect but who is?

    And I know you think you are perfect FF but that’s probably just part of your illness.

  106. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    I should devote less words to fighting the logic of bigotry? Ok.

    Do you remember me offering to do a self-imposed ban on myself at your whim? Do you remember you exercised that power I gave to you? I never told you this but I never would have exercised that power against you or anyone else—yet you did. Just curious, have you ever wondered if that was the wrong thing to do, Sad? Why or why not?

  107. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    I never banned you from posting.

    You’re confused. It was nice though when you went on vacation.

    Didn’t you enjoy it? Or did the fact that people were saying stuff without you correcting them bother you?

  108. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    The important thing is to get people thinking about Mayor Pete.

    The Michigan primaries are coming up very soon.

  109. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 2:10 pm | Permalink


    After you encouraged me (multiple times) to stop posting on I promised you that I would impose a ban on myself if you requested it. You requested it and then we briefly discussed the length of time the self imposed ban ought to last. Are you denying that happened?

  110. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    I really don’t care FF.


    I’m reall more interested in Mayor Pete.

  111. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I think that is great Sad. I think you and everyone should talk about whatever you want.

    Have I ever suggested you talk more about Pete? Less about Pete? Have I or anyone ever offered you an opinion about what you should discuss and at what rate?

    You have given a type of recommendation to others that others have not given to you—despite the fact that it is *very possible* that there are people here that do not find anything interesting and relevant about your repetitive (and often superficial) Mayor Pete “mentions”.

    Something to think about…

  112. Lynne
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    I like how Sad is campaigning for Mayor Pete, fwiw. It is refreshing to see someone really passionate for a candidate in a way that doesn’t make them mean.

  113. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    You call bleating ‘Mayor Pete’ all day “campaigning”?

  114. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Power alliances are important to people like Lynne. Even in cases where maintaining those “friendships” requires that she make an enemy of the truth.

  115. Sad
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Mayor Pete

    HW is getting nervous

  116. Jean Henry
    Posted February 5, 2020 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    I would run for office on a single issue platform of FF shutting the hell up. I might win. I’m not usually for silencing people, but holy shit, that dude is tiresome.
    At least HW provides amusement.

  117. Lynne
    Posted February 6, 2020 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    JH, oh FF sometimes gives me some amusement! On the one hand, he is a one-trick poney who only is able to call people liars. On the other hand, he can be amusing in his attempts to seem more versatile by using synonyms. “Enemy of the truth”? LOL, whatever you say, buddy.

    And power alliances? I have no idea what that is about but I suspect it is related to how uncomfortable some men are if women show any kind of self-confidence and/or speak their opinions. Who am I forming power alliances with? Hahaha. Sometimes FF reminds me of Dwight Schrute

  118. Hyborian Warlord
    Posted February 6, 2020 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    It’s odd to be amused by your own destruction, Jean. I’ve laid waste to hundreds of your “beliefs” or “facts” or whatever you want to call them by now. Basically everything you say. I am embarrassed for you that you think you are doing okay, let alone in a position to scoff.

  119. Sad
    Posted February 6, 2020 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Pete won!

    Now we’ll see what he can do in New Hampshire.

    Hope in our darkest hour. Finally someone who isn’t an old geezer might have a chance to be president.

    Drinks are on me!

  120. Jean Henry
    Posted February 6, 2020 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Dwight Shrute is 100% on target, Lynne.
    Sometimes I feel bad for FF’s family. I mean we choose to be here… and we can walk away from the inanity at any time (and let HW and FF believe they won) but those poor suckers… no place to go.

  121. Wobblie
    Posted February 7, 2020 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Aloha. Time for some abrupt climate change alarmism.
    Esperanza Antarctica hit 65 F yesterday beating the old record of 63F set four years ago.
    Don’t worry be happy, we have plenty of time for gradual incremental change.

  122. Lynne
    Posted February 7, 2020 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Yeah wobblie, can you imagine the different place we might have been in had Gore won in 2000?

    I agree with you though that it is time for alarmism about climate. Past time actually. Here in California, the effects are much more concrete and noticeable. The fires they have had in the past few years have caused a pretty bad housing crisis so everyone knows someone at least who have friends or family who lost homes in the fire staying with them. There are major water issues too. We MUST work together and frankly, that means voting for whichever Democrat gets the nomination. That is the single most important individual act anyone can make.

    JH, yeah. totally. I am very grateful that I don’t have any Dwight Schrutes in my real life!

  123. Wobblie
    Posted February 8, 2020 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Aloha Lynne if only Obama had not decided to make the US the worlds leading producer of fossil fuels through hydraulic fracking.

  124. Lynne
    Posted February 8, 2020 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Changing from oil to natural gas has resulted in a reduction of CO2 emissions during a time when wind/solar were not up to the task and resistance to nuclear power was preventing us from going in that direction.

  125. Lynne
    Posted February 8, 2020 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    While I still think we need to prioritize climate change, I also want to point out that things really have gotten better and while Trump certainly has reversed the trend, not so much that it is too late. If we can only make sure Trump is not in office, we will have some gains. One thing that will help Trump win in 2020 is people voting third party. Another thing that will help Trump in 2020 is if those who care about climate don’t vote. There isn’t a single Democrat running that wouldn’t reverse the increases in CO2 per capita and we have no reason to suspect that Trump will not continue putting in place policies that cause CO2 levels to rise.

  126. Wobblie
    Posted February 9, 2020 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    Aloha Lynne, please wake up from your dream. Under Obama the US became the worlds biggest producer of hydrocarbon fuels. All of which cause greenhouse gases. Fracking, and tar sands —in some ways the worst possible way to extract hydrocarbons were part and parcel of the Corp Dem agenda. They still can’t bring themselves to call for a ban on hydrocarbons.

    Tulsi’s Off Fossil Fuel Act (OFF Act) is an actionable plan that would eliminate US dependence on fossil fuels by 2030. She has introduced it repeatedly but St. Nancy won’t let it come to a vote.
    Denialism was endemic in the last days of the Weimar Republic. It is the case whenever the old regime cannot move to embrace a new paradigm.

  127. Jean Henry
    Posted February 9, 2020 at 2:13 am | Permalink

    WOBBLIE is correct that it is probably too late to avoid cataclysmic impacts. That does not mean we should stop trying. We don’t really know how fast any of this is going to go down. Right now it looks very very fast. We should be acting as though we have 10 years to eliminate fossil fuels. We aren’t. Not even close.

    It’s weird to see people talk so much about something urgent and likely disastrous and yet do so little about it.

    Humans are super ingenious and speedy when compelled, but we really have failed to step up to the plate. I don’t see much changing. Protests don’t do shit. Everybody is just driving around in two-ton death machines, cranking the heat and the A/C like always. Worried that someone might take away their parking. IF humans don’t take it seriously enough at this point to make it the number one subject of the presidential race, like the only thing we talk about, well we’re toast.

  128. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 9, 2020 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Lynne and Jean are the ones who are similar to Dunder Mifflin’s finest. The total lack of self awareness is amazing. Two wannabe bullies who end up making themselves look like mean-spirited fools. Every. Damn. Time.

    “Dwight Shrute is 100% on target, Lynne.
    Sometimes I feel bad for FF’s family. I mean we choose to be here… and we can walk away from the inanity at any time (and let HW and FF believe they won) but those poor suckers… no place to go.”—Jean

    Question: What sort of person says that kind of thing?


  129. Sad
    Posted February 9, 2020 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    I agree FF you are more like Toby.

  130. caveat emptor
    Posted February 9, 2020 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Only one incumbent in the last 40 years was denied a second term. A few hiccups here and there failed to metastasize into the recession were are overdue for. America isn’t ready to elect a socialist or a gay man. Trump will be re-elected. Climate change will accelerate beyond the point of no return (we are probably already there). Nation states nervous about their security will pursue their own nuclear programs, moving the doomsday clock within a whisker of 12:00. RBG will retire or die, and Stephen Breyer will be right behind her. Enjoy these halcyon days.

  131. Lynne
    Posted February 9, 2020 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    FF, yeah, There are a lot of white men out there who just cannot handle it when anyone else is even slightly mean to them but especially if it is someone who isn’t a white man. Trump is like this, that kid Nick Sandmann is like that, Dwight Schrute is like that, and FF is too. Ho-hum.

  132. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 10, 2020 at 12:36 am | Permalink

    What makes you think I dislike what you and Jean said though? Why would you think I feel offended? What are you talking about when you say I have a hard time “handling” what you and Jean were saying?


    I said you guys often look like wannabe bullies, mean-spirited fools, who lack self awareness…You And Jean remind me of Michael and Dwight in that sense…

  133. Sad
    Posted February 12, 2020 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Big win for Mayor Pete last but Nevada and South Carolina will be the real test.

    Shout out to Senator Amy too!

    And Bernie always gets a hat tip for fighting the good fight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Art Agitation brick throwing