Bernie Sanders

Sanders Closing in on Clinton in California, But Poll Numbers May Not Mean Actual Votes

The Golden State's complex primary system may not benefit him, but the fight will help state-level Democrats.

|

Bernie Sanders
Credit: Nick Solari

Sen. Bernie Sanders has been holding rallies all over California to large crowds, even heading inland to smaller communities that tend to get ignored in favor of the largest cities.

California's primaries are on June 7, and while Hillary Clinton has been ahead in the polls in the state this whole time (sometimes with double-digit numbers), a new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has Sanders closing to within striking distance. They have Clinton ahead by just two percentage points, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Clinton is winning with older and Latino Democratic voters. Sanders is winning with younger and "independent" voters. That Sanders is leading with independent voters may mean a problem for him, though. In California, for the presidential races, the parties themselves decide whether to allow non-party members to participate in the primaries. The Democratic Party does indeed permit voters who are not affiliated with any other party to vote for their presidential nominees. But voters have to actually request the Democratic Party's ballot. If they do not, they are sent a ballot that doesn't include the presidential race.

California has a fairly large mail-in ballot system, and votes are already coming in. KQED checked with an election analyst and discovered that an overwhelming percentage of independent voters did not request a Democratic ballot, meaning that they cannot cast a vote for Sanders (or Clinton) even if they want to:

"In Los Angeles County 91 percent of the ballots mailed to non-partisan voters had no presidential candidates on it," says [Paul] Mitchell. "And 85 percent of ballots sent statewide to non-partisan or independent voters have no presidential candidates on it."

There's still time for independent voters to request a Democratic ballot, and they can even do that at their polling place on Election Day. Still, the data suggest a lot of confusion out there with little time to fix it.

In April, the Los Angeles Times noted that huge numbers (likely in the tens or even hundreds of thousands) of self-described "independent" voters had actually registered as members of the conservative American Independent Party, and if they don't correct that mistake, they would also not be able to vote for Sanders or Clinton.

For Californians who aren't participating in the presidential primary, there are still the down-ballot candidates. But that's where the state's top-two ballot system kicks in. What that means is that on June 7, primary voters can cast votes for candidates for statewide or lower offices, and these votes are not bound to political parties. Each voter can choose a Democrat, a Republican, or even a Libertarian, without having to be members of the party. Then the top two vote-getters, regardless of their party affiliation, will face off in November. Essentially, the November election has become a run-off race for non-presidential candidates.

This means voters may end up with two candidates from the same political party as their only choices. This has happened in the past in districts where either the Democrats (in major cities) or the Republicans (in some inland communities) are the overwhelmingly dominant political force. And in this election, it may happen in the race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. Right now the frontrunners for the Senate race are Attorney General Kamala Harris (a Democrat) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (a Democrat). There are Republicans and Libertarians (and others) in pool of candidates for the primary vote in June, but if none of those candidates get more votes than either Harris or Sanchez, they will not appear on the November ballot. The only choice even the most conservative or independent of Californians may get is between two Democrats.

Now that Trump has secured the presidential nomination for the Republican Party, there's a reduced incentive for Republicans to vote in June. But if they aren't aware that the primary determines whether their party has representatives in the fall races at all, they're going to discover a November ballot full of candidates that have no interest in representing them. Welcome to the feeling of being in a third party, California members of the GOP. The PPIC poll found that 24 percent of Californians said they wouldn't even bother voting if the Senate race comes down to just two Democrats.

So Sanders remaining in the race against Clinton actually benefits Democratic candidates all the way down the ballot in California because of the increased voter turnout. No wonder Harris' ads stay out of the fray between the Sanders and Clinton entirely and instead focus on the support she's received from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Advertisement

NEXT: Hulk Hogan's suit against Gawker and the end of adultery

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Even if he ekes out a win, doesn’t he need to get over 75% or something absurd like that to even have a chance?

    1. At this stage, he is running to influence the party platform.

      1. That and jockeying for position if Hillary is indicted.

        (I know, I know, it’ll never happen.)

        1. No. That’s not the story.

          The Justice Department announces indictments on the eve of the convention. Then the wookie throws her hat in the ring to save the party making her the first female extra-terrestrial to run for POTUS.

          1. I need a ruling from Mr Lizard. Is Michelle a lizard-person?

            1. More bug-like than lizard-like.

              1. I, for one, welcome our insect overlords.

                1. If it leads to more group shower scenes, I’m sold.

                  1. Would you like to know more

            2. That is about the most insulting question you’ve ever asked me…she is not one of ours. Governor Scott of Florida is our only active political infiltration.

              1. I thought he was the survivor of a failed abortion.

                1. Lizard people changelings are exchanged in utero.

                  1. We can do both. But we prefer a standard body snatching and replacement

  2. Now you’ve got me worried that Unz won’t be able to win!

  3. The only choice even the most conservative or independent of Californians may get is between two Democrats.

    Like it matters.

  4. So, it’s a battle of stupidity vs. evil to see who will challenge the petulant child?

    It’s like when the Cubans were fighting the South Africans in Angola; unfortunately, one of them had to win, and it was never going to be the Angolan people.

    The universe is organized in such a way as to encourage misanthropy. That some of us have come to care about each other, anyway, really is a evidence of God.

  5. The only choice even the most conservative or independent of Californians may get is between two Democrats.

    So goes America’s Greece(tm), so goes America.

    1. “The only choice even the most conservative or independent of Californians may get is between two Democrats.”

      Actually, the choice nationally is between three Democrats.

      Despite Trump’s conversion of convenience to the Second Amendment faith, I don’t know how he differs from the two official Democrats on anything but aesthetics.

      Trump isn’t a Democrat by Goldwater or Reagan standards.

      We get a choice between three Democrats as far as I’m concerned–and that’s nationally.

      P.S. Trump’s description of proper gun policy would have endorsed California’s proposed new gun laws. You get to keep your shotgun. You get to keep your revolver. But they’re coming for your sister’s AR-15, and Trump was okay with that–right up until the moment he decided to run for President as a Republican.

      1. Trump isn’t a Democrat by Goldwater or Reagan standards.

        Well, when my wife and I were actually viewing American political coverage (CNN in particular), she made the wry observation, “This Troomp, he little more than oily, illogical, contradictory, wolf – Chisla Moneta. Pitiful caricature of Russian oligarch. Parole’…parole’…” (My translation).

        Odd how a little Ukrainian woman who has never stepped foot in the USA surmised his character very quickly.

        1. Just for the record, I miswrote that.

          “Trump isn’t a [Republican] by Goldwater or Reagan standards.”

          That’s what I meant, but I guess you knew what I meant anyway.

          He is aesthetically like Putin. Even the “Make America Great Again” is like Putin pushing the Russian pride button.

          Although Putin pushes that button in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump is doing it just because.

          1. Although Putin pushes that button in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump is doing it just because.

            Her oligarch reference wasn’t of Putin, actually, but moreso Poroshenko, AKA, “The Candyman.” She’s not a fan his, and I’m ambivalent at this point when it comes to UKR politics since I am ineligible to vote.

            She actually prefers Putin as a leader, overall, but Russia itself right now, not so much. She considers Troomp a rather poor Putin imitation.

          2. Oh yeah, it should also be noted, since USA politics is a constant source of amusement and ridicule in Euro-landia, my anecdotal breakdown others’ opinions within my circle generally break along these lines:

            (And be glad they aren’t determining the election)

            Ethnic Ukrainians: I would say about 60% or so break for Skullduggery Rotten Clinton. She gets about 20% of expats that I know (all nationalities). She’s popular because she visited UKR whilst SoS multiple times (did them shit good when they needed weapons). Oddly enough, her analogue here, Yulia Tymoshenko (crooked as a dog’s hind leg), both served hard time under Yanukovich’s rule, and was soundly beaten for President by both Yanukovich and Poroshenko, The Candyman (meh). It would be nice if HRC suffers a similar fate.

            Ethnic Russians (including Separatist & UKR Svaboda Types: They break for Troomp, about 80%. Sanders gets the rest, once his platform is explained.

            Expats: Sanders wins overwhelmingly. He’s actually quite popular with the Euro-landia set that know about him.

            1. Expats: Sanders wins overwhelmingly. He’s actually quite popular with the Euro-landia set that know about him.

              I guess he’s a safe horse to back when you’re no longer paying American taxes.

              1. when you’re no longer paying American taxes

                Oh you silly silly Sweet Cans….

                Behold, FATCA.

            2. Yulia Tymoshenko

              Who is significantly hotter. And her daughter isn’t even the same species as Chelsea.

        2. What is parole meant to signify, that’s he’s like a criminal politician who’s out on parole?

          1. What is parole meant to signify

            It mean literally, “words,” and it a more thorough explanation here. It’s basically a short hand reference that Troomp is full of borshh.

            Chisla moneta is Russian for, literally, “Clear Coin,” and is colloquial slang for, “You’re full of shit!”

        3. Trump is either:

          a) The American equivalent of that Russian oligarch with the tiny giraffe from the direcTV commercials, or

          b) An unfunny, played straight version of Rodney Dangerfield’s Al Czervik character from Caddy Shack.

          I can’t make up my mind.

          Frankly I’d rather actually have Al Czervik as president. The lulz would be epic.

          *At a state dinner, approaches the president and first lady of some other country*

          “Al Czervik: Oh, this your wife, huh? A lovely lady. Hey baby, you must’ve been something before electricity. You’re a lot of woman, you know that? Yeah, wanna make 14 dollars the hard way?”

          1. b) is closer to the truth, but Trump is hilarious.

    2. Finally, a chance to give you a proper ‘welcome back’, Doc. I was late to the post where you told of your trials and tribulations. I’m glad to see that you and your family (!!!) were able to escape a seriously shitty situation.

      1. Thank you Sparky!)))) That’s very kind of you and very much appreciated.

        I hope those kidneys of yours are treating you better these days, yes?

        1. Mostly. I still get the occasional stone but they’re relatively minor. I also think that my ureters have stretched as I’ve passed a few that I didn’t even realize were in there. No more lemon juice cocktails and paper clip surgeries.

          1. These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty abstract.

      2. I missed the trials and tribulations thread? do you have a link?

        1. I don’t remember exactly which post it was last week. It involved a pretty scary tale of outrunning the forces of an unnamed shirtless dictator and his myriad flunkies in an area that was undergoing a bit of a border dispute.

  6. Interesting turn of events here in Washington where Sanders won the primary– which in my state is a caucus not a popular vote. But strangely, the state then does a popular vote primary for both parties– and Clinton won that. So for all of Sanders’ talk about being railroaded in the Democratic process, Clinton could argue the same.

    1. The caucus determines who gets the primary votes, but then they hold a popular vote anyway?

      1. Yes. The popular vote is actually meaningless. The State Democratic Chair said it was merely used for statistical gathering.

    2. I read the comments on 538, which usually devolve into a catfight between Sanderistas and the Hillbots, and I side with the Sanderistas on that one: everyone knew the vote meant nothing and so they didn’t turn out for it.

      Speaking as the God-Emperor’s representative here on this board, I say go Bernie go. And I admire him because the pressure has to be tremendous to bow out and he just won’t. Trolling level: epic.

      1. You know who else goes against popular sentiment and refuses to pull out…

        1. Jim Bob Duggar?

        2. The asshole at the stop sign?

        3. STEVE SMITH?

      2. Anything that exposes cracks in the Democratic Party can’t be all bad.

        It’s an absurd conglomeration of contradictory interests–even in California. Why should the farmers of the Central Valley be in the same party as the environmentalists?

        The unions and illegal immigrant interests are naturally opposing.

        Soccer moms and Hollywood?!

        Wedge issues unify disparate interests, and with gay marriage off the table, I’m hoping these fissures mature into something. In California, and everywhere else, Democratic one party rule always ends in tears.

        Bernie vs. Clinton, yay! I’m not even sure I understand what issues of substance they disagree on. I’m sure people in California don’t know either. It’s about personality, aesthetics, and feelings.

        1. I’m not even sure I understand what issues of substance they disagree on.

          As stated, I’m not particularly sure, either. I think a lot of the people backing Clinton are doing so in the hopes that her corruption will be her saving grace. They want center left policies. Not batshit crazy attempts to recreate Sweden in the US. They’re hoping Clinton is full of shit when she utters the same bullshit Bernie is pushing. They kind of know Bernie means it when he says he’s going to break the bank.

        2. TL;DR version: Hillary is a Menshevik, Bernie is a Bolshevik. Their disagreements are only matters of degree and speed.

      3. “everyone knew the vote meant nothing and so they didn’t turn out for it.”

        what? the caucus had 23,000 participants. the meaningless vote on Tuesday still had 660,000 votes in the meaningless primary.

        The super delegates are using this to justify supporting Hillary even though all the Bernie won the pledged delegates

        1. I am trying to figure out where we disagree, but it’s kinda not really worth the effort.

      4. I read the comments on 538, which usually devolve into a catfight between Sanderistas and the Hillbots, and I side with the Sanderistas on that one: everyone knew the vote meant nothing and so they didn’t turn out for it.

        This is certainly a possibility. What I find interesting is Washington has had a caucus system since the dinosaurs roamed the earth and SUDDENLY Democrats have discovered it’s a problem.

  7. The PPIC poll found that 24 percent of Californians said they wouldn’t even bother voting if the Senate race comes down to just two Democrats.

    Welcome to Voter Suppression, Democrat style.

    1. If it’s Harris and Sanchez, one of them is WAY worse than the other. Spoiler: It’s Harris.

  8. Speaking of voter suppression, I once royally pissed off a left-leaning friend by showing them this article from FiveThirtyEight.com:


    How Democrats Suppress The Vote: Off-year elections have much lower turnout, and Democrats prefer it that way

    1. Anzia shows that off-cycle elections lead to higher salaries and better health and retirement benefits for teachers and public employees. Anzia studies these effects in many different ways. The simplest way is by looking at eight states that allow local governments to set their own election dates. She compares school districts that hold school board elections on-cycle and off-cycle within the same state. Controlling for factors that might make districts different from one another ? like their population size, income, racial composition, partisan leanings and how urban or rural they are ? Anzia found that the maximum base teacher salary is over 4 percent higher in districts with off-cycle elections.

      Higher salaries and better benefits for municipal employees can be a good outcome. What is interesting is that this outcome is the result of a deliberate move to hold municipal elections at times when few voters are participating.

      Oh, its a “Good Outcome”… just one which actual taxpaying voters *might not actually choose* if they were more likely to make it to the polls.

      1. But if school bd. elections are held concurrently w state elections, who’s going to pay att’n to the school bd.’s? At least if it’s the only thing on the ballot, there’s a chance voters might pay att’n to the candidates in it.

  9. At this point, what difference does it make?

    Clinton is going to get the nomination if she doesn’t get indicted first.

    1. It’s still a battle for swing voters.

      That’s what’s interesting: watching Clinton having to stay as left as possible to secure the nomination, while Trump starts playing to the middle.

      The margin of victory doesn’t make up its’ mind until the week before the election, but early impressions die hard. Clinton giving the impression that’s she’s somewhere out there in left field with Bernie isn’t a good thing.

      You’d think she’d offer him the Vice-Presidency already. Either he doesn’t want it, or she thinks having him on the ticket pushes her in the minds of voters too far to the left–when she wants to turn right.

      1. Trump seems to be pandering to the right wing more now that he has the nomination.

        1. He’s consolidating because he’s an outsider.

          Remember that quip about how he was willing to soak the rich because the rich were willing to pay more in taxes?

          He dialed it back some, but that quip came a few days after he sewed up the nomination.

          He has to move to the center to win. So does Hillary.

          I’m thinking Trump will have an easier time of it because he did so well in states with open primaries, but whomever can move to the center with the most credibility will win, right?

          It certainly isn’t going to be about getting the party faithful to turn out–not on the Republican side. Trump won over the objections of the party faithful. Hell, and even on the Democratic side, Hillary doesn’t just need to do well in California and New York. She has to win in places like Ohio, where Trump’s anti-free trade and anti-immigration rhetoric played really strong–and they aren’t so sensitive to the aesthetics of political correctness.

          1. and the party faithful — and this is key — were never really all that conservative anyway. They were always more populist than NRO conservative.

            1. In some ways. The problem is that NRO conservative has become such a restrictive term. In 1990s, they kicked out anyone who was even moderately socially liberal. After 911, they kicked out any one with any objections to internationalism or foreign intervention and in 2016 they kicked out anyone with any reservation about foreign trade.

              Just how many Wilsonian, Immigration restriction supporting, free trade loving social conservatives are there?

              1. This is a good point.

                What you call “NRO” (i’ll just call ‘Republican Elitists’) have been steadily narrowing themselves into a corner. They have basically staked out territory everyone else has been moving away from for over a decade or two. And they’ve never ceded these positions as reality changed.

                and you’re exactly right – that while they may appeal to *some* conservatives with any single point
                ….(there are certainly pro-war voters, and plenty of so-con voters, but they’re not necessarily the same people)…. they appeal to almost no-one with all of them. The fact is that the “base” that votes republican isn’t who they used to be in the 1990s, or even the early 2000s. They don’t give a shit about Gays as much, they’re more suspicious of “globalization”, and they think the War-Agitators have mostly done a shitty job and should be more-cautious and goal-oriented. etc.

  10. There’s a mystery phone in the office, an old corded touch-dial model in that yellow lacquer finish that wouldn’t have been out of place in the early 90s. Once every few weeks it rings; very occasionally it’s a collector looking for someone nobody’s ever heard of, but generally it’s a silent call. Nobody wants to unplug it and nobody calls on the advertised business line to complain about it.

    1. Chilling!

    2. It’s an entry/ exit point for the Matrix. Have you ever seen a bunch of hip looking people in black leather appear there out of seemingly thin air? Or run up to answer the phone and disappear?

  11. I hate this Top 2 system we have.

  12. Clinton looks weaker every single day. What is going to happen that will make her stronger? The email thing is not going to get better and will likely only get worse as the facts of the investigation slowly leak out to the public as the summer goes on. At this stage of her public career, it is difficult to imagine Clinton reinventing herself or suddenly becoming a better campaigner or more likable candidate. Meanwhile, Trump is still a wild card. He is likely to move to the center and get tone down his act a bit and look like a more reasonable alternative.

    I can’t believe the Democrats would ever throw the first female nominee over the side. I still think she is going to get the nomination. But every day you are left to wonder just how they can possibly still nominate her.

    1. I think it depends a lot on how Sanders handles conceding the nomination and how much he tries to get his supporters behind Hillary.

      With the way Sanders refused to go after Hillary over the emails at that one debate, I was convinced that he was eventually going to concede gracefully and rally the troops behind her for the general. But he seems to have gotten more and more negative as his chances of winning the nomination have gotten lower and lower, and is talking about a “contested convention” even though he’s down by almost 300 delegates before you even account for the superdelegates. I’m not as confident that there will be an effective unity push at this point.

      As a side note, I’m not sure how much we can conclude from this poll. Another poll taken around the same time had Clinton +18. So who knows what the actual number is (my guess is around 10 give or take a couple points).

      1. Clinton does so much better than Sanders among minorities, I find it very hard to believe she isn’t going to kill Sanders in California. If California is even close, Clinton is an even worse candidate than I thought she was. She should win by 18. All of Sanders supporters are white and its a Democratic primary in California.

        1. Sanders does do pretty well among minority youth in some states, though he consistently gets killed among middle-aged and older voters in those demographics. Also, California’s minorities are mostly Latinos (who have mostly supported Clinton, but not as heavily as black people have) and Asians (and there isn’t much data on who they’ve supported). Black people are only 6% of the state.

          I can see Sanders keeping it close if he does well with young minorities and possibly Asians generally (though I’m still guessing HRC will win that demographic) to complement his liberal white base, but I do agree that Hillary should win by at least double digits.

      2. The Hill-shills really shot themselves in the leg over the “berniebros” kerfuffle. Whatever you think of GamerGate, it generated a lot of heat (if not much illumination) among people sick of being keelhauled for their supposed misogyny. The berniebro slam and the coming “vote for her, she has vagina!” campaign is going to sting for a good long while. Nobody wants to be labeled a bigot (unless they deserve it, anyway), but nobody wants to have their ideology dismissed contemptuously by haughty, self-righteous activists.

        1. Both groups of supporters have really irritated me. I don’t think all Bernie supporters are racist sexist bigots obviously, but a lot of them have been pretty obnoxious this entire campaign season. And HRC supporters tend to be annoyingly smug in my experience.

      3. But he seems to have gotten more and more negative as his chances of winning the nomination have gotten lower and lower

        Bernie is a petty, vindictive, mean little old man, it is known. Not that Hillary doesn’t deserve him, of course.

    2. The email thing is not going to get better and will likely only get worse as the facts of the investigation slowly leak out to the public

      The email thing is going nowhere, John. At least on a legal front. It may hurt her from an electoral standpoint, but all the signals I get on the legal side is, it’s just a technical thing, rules were broken, policies violated, but it’s not like we can sanction anyone for that, just send out some memos and do some additional training.

      1. Only DOJ knows where it is going legally. There is no point in speculating about that. What will happen is more and worse facts will continue to leak out and make it more and more difficult for Hillary’s media hacks to pretend it is a fake scandal. The miliquist toast IG report that came out yesterday is already so bad that even the NYT and Washington Post had to admit Hillary fucked up. Wait until the FBI starts leaking testimony and grucifer starts talking about all of the state secrets he read. Those leaks won’t be whitewashed with the “she violated ‘policy'” language. They will straight up call her a felon. Right now maybe 40% of the country at most really understands how serious this is. And all of them won’t vote for her anyway. The media has so effectively lied about this that the rest of the country doesn’t think it is that big of a deal. As the leaks continue, the media will no long be able to keep the rest of the country in the dark and it will just get worse and worse for her.

        1. Only DOJ knows where it is going legally.

          The DOJ which is currently run by a certified loyalist and member of the Clinton Machine?

  13. The Democratic Party does indeed permit voters who are not affiliated with any other party to vote for their presidential nominees. But voters have to actually request the Democratic Party’s ballot. If they do not, they are sent a ballot that doesn’t include the presidential race.

    an overwhelming percentage of independent voters did not request a Democratic ballot, meaning that they cannot cast a vote for Sanders (or Clinton) even if they want to:

    “In Los Angeles County 91 percent of the ballots mailed to non-partisan voters had no presidential candidates on it,” says [Paul] Mitchell. “And 85 percent of ballots sent statewide to non-partisan or independent voters have no presidential candidates on it.”

    In April, the Los Angeles Times noted that huge numbers (likely in the tens or even hundreds of thousands) of self-described “independent” voters had actually registered as members of the conservative American Independent Party, and if they don’t correct that mistake, they would also not be able to vote for Sanders or Clinton.

    The wailing and gnashing of teeth will be epic. “NOT FAIR! WE WUZ KUNFUZ-ED!!” *stamps feet*

    I’m getting my popcorn ready.

    1. Well at least they aren’t forced to show an ID to get those incomplete ballots. I’d hate for people to think that their government is trying to suppress their votes.


  14. “In Los Angeles County 91 percent of the ballots mailed to non-partisan voters had no presidential candidates on it,” says [Paul] Mitchell. “And 85 percent of ballots sent statewide to non-partisan or independent voters have no presidential candidates on it.”

    There’s still time for independent voters to request a Democratic ballot, and they can even do that at their polling place on Election Day. Still, the data suggest a lot of confusion out there with little time to fix it.

    I have yet to see anyone yet comment on the irony of the Clinton campaign using a strategy of “repressing turnout” wherever possible.

    There have been a few states (NY most significantly i believe) where the Democratic party was basically purging voter rolls, and where polling stations were only open for limited hours, some featuring broken voting machines, etc…

    …essentially, doing everything they claim that their GOP opponents *wish* they could do (via ID requests), in order to ensure Hillary didn’t get upset in these very-large delegate-count states.

    1. essentially, doing everything they claim that their GOP opponents *wish* they could do

      At this point anytime the D’s accuse the R’s of doing something my default assumption is that they’re doing the exact same thing, probably on an even larger scale than what the GOP is allegedly doing. It’s all projection, all the time.

    2. I have yet to see anyone yet comment on the irony of the Clinton campaign using a strategy of “repressing turnout” wherever possible.

      About as much coverage on this as I’ve seen on Venezuela.

  15. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/234706-2/

    Oh my God. This can’t be real but it is. I am left speechless. Is this a play for the Bernie Bums? WTF?

    1. Hahahahaha, damn, that woman couldn’t get in touch with the average man with five years, a map, and ten recommendations. I love that the same guy shows up on adds for syphilis.

      1. Add Hillary and make it into a Harlequin Romance Novel cover

        *barf*

    2. She’s really going to corner the market on bearded, tatted-up, self-important, pencil-armed dweebs, that’s for sure.

      1. Bearded, tatted-up, self-important, pencil-armed stock photo models, anyway.

  16. OT: When it comes to climate change, The Guardian never disappoints.

    “At Stonehenge, warmer winters are likely to boost populations of burrowing animals that could disturb archaeological deposits and destabilise stonework.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/env…..-un-report

    1. is there anything global warming can’t do?

    2. I bet Britain’s greenies have ensured any pest control at the site is purely of the inefficient capture and release variety.

    3. It’s the butterfly effect.

      Soon, the Guardian will report on how the methane from your flatulence is causing some glacier to melt in Alaska.

      1. It is a daily exercise in confirmation bias. Something has happened and it must have been caused by global warming. Lets construct an expatiation that shows that. Repeat daily forever and you have the AGW movement in a nutshell.

        1. And god forbid that a change in temperature could have any beneficial effects. If they decided tomorrow that global temperatures were cooling instead of warming, would we hear about all the good things that would cause? I didn’t think so.

    4. *facepalm*

      So these huge stone megaliths that have stood for centuries – through cold periods like the little ice age and warm periods – are going to suddenly fall over because Climate Change? Are these people really that stupid, or do they just assume that everyone else is?

      1. Also, if a stone falls over, stand it back up again. It was literally put there by cave men. I think we can manage to restore it.

        1. Most of the stones have fallen and have been put back up in modern times.

  17. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.