Election 2020

Joe Biden Wins South Carolina Primary, Slowing Bernie Sanders' Momentum Before Super Tuesday

Biden's win in South Carolina gives his campaign new life, increases the likelihood of a brokered convention in Milwaukee, and ends Tom Steyer's campaign.


Joe Biden scored a much needed victory in Saturday's South Carolina primary, giving his flagging presidential campaign a boost just days before Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states will hold primaries or caucuses.

The former vice president's victory in South Carolina also blunted the momentum of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), who had won each of the first three contests (or two, depending on how you count Iowa's results) and who is favored to win many of the states voting on Tuesday.

With 72 percent of precincts reporting at 9:40 p.m., Biden had 50 percent of the vote in South Carolina. Sanders was running second with 19.2 percent.

While Sanders seems poised to remain the Democratic frontrunner for the time being, the bigger question now is whether he can garner enough delegates to secure the party's nomination without a convention floor fight. Biden's win increases the chance of a brokered convention—something that the forecasters at FiveThirtyEight now say is the most likely outcome. To win the nomination outright, a candidate must secure at least 1,991 of the 3,979 pledged delegates that are up for grabs in state primaries and caucuses. Heading into South Carolina, Sanders had won 45 delegates while Biden had won just 15. (Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was in second place with 26 delegates.)

It is not immediately clear how many of South Carolina's 54 delegates will go to which candidate, since delegates are awarded based not just on the statewide results but also on results within each of the state's seven congressional districts.

The 19 delegates connected to the statewide results are awarded proportionally to any candidate who gets at least 15 percent of the vote. Only Biden and Sanders appear on track to score, with Biden getting the largest share. The same 15 percent threshold exists in each congressional district, making it possible that lower-polling candidates such as Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) will be shut out entirely. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was not on the ballot in South Carolina.

The South Carolina primary also winnowed the field by at least one candidate. Billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer announced Saturday night that he was exiting the race after he failed to hit the 15 percent statewide threshold. As of 9:40 p.m., Steyer had only 11 percent of the vote, despite the fact that he had polled in the high teens in the state recently.

Steyer spent more than $175 million advertising his campaign.

The number of delegates awarded in the first four contests will soon seem somewhat insignificant. Tuesday's primaries and caucuses will award 1,357 delegates, with about a third of all the pledged delegates up for grabs.

So it's possible that Biden's South Carolina renaissance will quickly be overwhelmed by a wave of Sanders victories. It's also possible that this will be the key turning point in the race, one that shows centrist Democrats—who have been casting about for a candidate capable of stopping Sanders—that Biden is their best bet. A quick consolidation of support away from non-Sanders candidates and toward Biden was evident in late-breaking polling of the South Carolina race. Now the question is whether that same phenomenon can be repeated nationally.

Anti-Bernie Democrats are probably right to worry about a general election between Donald Trump and a 78-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, praised some of Fidel Castro's policies, and is promising an economic revolution at a time when unemployment is at a near-record low.

And it should go without saying that a Sanders-Trump general election is a no-win scenario for anyone who cares about reducing the size and scope of the federal government. It would be a choice between a socialist and a nationalist—both of whom admire freedom-crushing regimes around the world and oppose the free movement of goods and people.

As The New York Times reported this week, many so-called "superdelegates"—unpledged delegates at the convention, mostly Democratic Party officials—are opposed to nominating Sanders even if he arrives at the convention with a plurality of delegates.

After the 2016 election, the Democratic National Committee changed its rules to prevent superdelegates from voting on the convention's first ballot—a change that was made, in large part, because Sanders and his supporters worried that superdelegates could block their candidate during the 2016 contest. The new rules effectively mean that any candidate who secures more than 50 percent of the pledged delegates awarded through the primary process would secure the nomination even if he or she were opposed by all superdelegates. The superdelegates will enter the picture only if no candidate secures an outright majority of the pledged delegates.

But now Sanders is making the argument that he should be the nominee even without a majority.

"Bernie wants to redefine the rules and just say he just needs a plurality," Jay Jacobs, a superdelegate who chairs the New York Democratic Party, told the Times. "I don't think the mainstream of the Democratic Party buys that. If he doesn't have a majority, it stands to reason that he may not become the nominee."

Would Democratic Party officials really deny Sanders the nomination if he arrives at the convention with the largest share of delegates but remains short of a majority? It's impossible to know right now, though the answer likely depends on how large of a lead Sanders has and how close to the magic number of 1,991 he is. Chaos is guarenteed either way, but if another candidate can keep the race close, the superdelegates will have a better argument for swinging the convention away from Sanders.

The South Carolina results make it more likely that the superdelegates will enter the picture this summer in Milwaukee. In that regard, Biden's win may prove—in the long run—to be less significant than Sanders' loss.

NEXT: Trump's Proposed Cuts to Farm Subsidies Don't Go Nearly Deep Enough

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. Remember when they said Reagan was old?

    1. 80 is the new 55

      1. ITT, Hihn’s new sock, Vince Smith, goes for a second night of acting like an angry, raving, lunatic.

        He’s also very dumb.

        1. Look. R Fag is obsessed with me.

          He also says I’m dumb yet worships moron Trump.

    2. Sanders and Biden and Warren and Bloomberg and Trump are all way too old to be President.

      1. CE….concur. The Baby Boomer POTUS’ have not been especially good to the Republic. Time for that entire generation to step aside.

        1. Does anyone believe millenials will be better? They’re like boomers without brains.

          1. Like it or not we have to let the next generation step up. The fact is that the boomer generation, my generation, is passing on.

            1. We had so much bad with some good.

              1. Citations needed, faggot.

                1. I have already cited that you are stupid. I can cite again but unreason limits dual links.

          2. Why cant Gen X be better? There is a chance that Gen X is really the only thing keeping the Republic alive with Boomers trying to destroy it no the way out and Millennials being so stupid.

            We have had to put up with Boomer shit for decades.

            We have had to put up with Millennial shit since 1985.

            1. Why? Because Gen-Xers are the biggest bandwagon-hoppers in the country. They’ll follow whatever is the current mass media trend, because they don’t have the numbers to drive culture the way Boomers and Milennials do.

              Who do you think is pushing that stupid woke shit in universities now? It’s not Boomer or Millennial professors, that’s for sure.

              1. Because Gen-Xers are the biggest bandwagon-hoppers in the country. They’ll follow whatever is the current mass media trend

                That is not my experience, or my observations of Gen Xers (I am one) in American society. Maybe I am in a bubble of sorts, but my experience is we Gen Xers tend to be the ‘no nonsense, just give me the facts and get the shit done and over with’ types.

                Who do you think is pushing that stupid woke shit in universities now? It’s not Boomer or Millennial professors, that’s for sure.

                I shudder to think is it is my generation driving that woke shit, particularly the violent Bernie Bro kind of woke, in universities.

                1. Retard who self-identifies with identity group sees no faults in identity group with which he self-identifies. Fascinating.

                2. I shudder to think is it is my generation driving that woke shit, particularly the violent Bernie Bro kind of woke, in universities.

                  It’s not, but only because of the bandwagon-hopping.

                  Gen X has always been a deeply divided generation and the absolute splintering of the traditional ‘clique’ structure of adolescence during THEIR adolescence is emblematic of it.

                  Without a unifying vision, the bandwagoning began. What is thought of as the quintessential Gen Xer is, like the hippy, relatively rare.

                  The problem is the bandwagoning. The giant generation just ahead of X had all kinds of groups to latch on to–but the one that got the most play was the hippies.

                  The combination of the nostalgia boomer hippies, the actual hippies and the Gen X bandwagon hippies gave the left critical mass in universities and media.

                  And that skewed everything their way, just a bit. Enough that we’ve gotten to the utter weirdness of today.

                  So, while not the actual cause of it, Gen X likely helped them get the edge.

                  Sadly, for all the ‘ok boomer’ crap, millennials are pretty much the same navel gazing onanistic types that we got from the Boom.

              2. Gen Xers have a bunch of Libertarians and people who are trying to keep the USA from tipping over from all the damage of the Boomers.

                With that being said, Gen Xers raised a bunch of Millennials and we know how that generation is.

                Lefty Boomers really have done a number on this nation. We are barely keeping the USA on this side of the slippery slope.

                1. Libertarians don’t support trade wars, you stupid fucking fag.

                2. Boehm is so mad and on a bender, perhaps?

                  1. A tariff is a tax. You’re pro-tax. Lol.

              3. Or maybe it’s dumb and pointless to try to even talk about what a particular “generation” is like because all generations are highly diverse, and they are totally arbitrary grouping of people whose ages and experiences vary as much as those of any cohort.

                1. You win the Internet for this common sense reply.

            2. Aren’t Bush 2 and Obama Gen X?

              1. Bush was born in 1946. Obama was 1961.

              2. No, both are Boomers. Like I said, Boomer POTUS’ have not done well for us.

            3. Citations needed, faggot.

              1. Not sure how many times you want me to keep citing how stupid you are. Unreason limits me to no more than 1 citation and I have thousands.

                1. Citation needed for your assertions that Trump proposed net spending cuts in his budgets and that every budget sent to him for his signature was veto proof. 2019 budget deal was passed by House 284-149. That is not veto proof. Republicans voted AGAINST Trump’s deal with the Dems because of deficit concerns. Trump bragged about all his new defense spending. Lol. And now Trump is proposing another unfounded tax cut that will increase the deficit even more. Trump is a fiscal failure.

              2. Whatever you say, Hihn.

            4. As time goes on these groups get dumber & dumber & more immoral & perverted & less able to think for themselves! God Help America!

          3. What about Gen X?

            1. Poor sock troll.

              1. Fag.

                Haha. My insult was better.

              2. I wonder which unreason staffer is on commifornia time to be able to code fince the sock troll?

                1. You think you’re a libertarian yet support Trump’s trade war. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

                  What a fag!

                2. Vince hates libertarians and the gays.

                  1. Cuck.

                    1. Let the hate consume you, Hihn.

                  2. Libertarians don’t support trade wars.

        2. Biden and Sanders aren’t Boomers. They’re older than that. The youngest Boomers are still in their mid-50s.

          1. Yeah they were born before 46, I guess they’re silent generation? Certainly not greatest generation.

          2. Greatest Gen. 1917-1942. Shaped by parents of WWI, roaring Twenties, and Great Depression.

            1. Citation needed, faggot.

              1. I cam teach you how to cite things but I need your 5th grade report card to make sure I am not wasting my time with you,

        3. Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg are older than Boomers. They are from the Silent Generation.

        4. Rand Paul is a Boomer, and I’d be fine with him as president.

          1. Nobody cares, Hihn.

            1. You cared enough to reply, fag.

              And Hihn hates the Pauls, idiot.

      2. Hillary is 73 years old. Of course, she never has to worry about being President. HAHAHAHA

        1. 72 actually

        2. Poor vince the sock troll. Coding has him swinging by every few hours to make sure we all know how Lefties really feel about out homosexuals.

          Democrat Party…Its not the Party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crowe laws, and the KKk for nothing.

          1. Citation needed, faggot.

          2. Also, learn about the Southern Strategy, you uneducated retard.

          3. Yeah, still no citations from you.

            Unreason is just really not going to weather this Trump second term.

            1. Also, I’m not a Democrat. Hahaha, you’re an idiot.

      3. And Trump is also too dumb to be president.

  2. I wonder what elections have had the oldest candidates, combined and individually. I bet someone has made a list.

    1. Mahathir in Malaysia is 94, so he’s right up there, and it looks like if there is an election soon he is running again.

    2. I believe that was 1996, the average age of the candidates being skewed by the 142-year old Bob “Bob Dole” Dole.

  3. Come on, brokered convention.

    1. One can only hope that the democrat candidates tear each other apart so viciously and are so divided that no matter who is nominated a third of their voters stay home in election night.

      1. So you are pleased with all this deficit spending?

        If congress refuses to cut spending, which they have, it only makes sense to raise taxes.

        1. Trump will cut spending in his second term, provided he gets a Republican Congress. He didn’t do it — or rather, insist too hard on it — in his first term because he knows his electorate. And the vast majority of the American electorate isn’t too warm towards massive spending cuts.

          Yes, the vast majority of your fellow Americans are far from dyed-in-the-wool libertarians, and pragmatists know they have to work within this frame in order to get anything (including cuts to government).

          Starting 2021 (hopefully), he’ll have less to lose politically, and will start slashing budgets. He already began with cuts to farmers.

          1. No he won’t. Republicans never cut spending while in power. NEVER.

            1. Your citation fell off.

              1. So did your implicit assertion that some Republican President, sometime, did cut spending. Coolidge is my guess for the last one. How relevant is that?

              2. Yes, iloveconstitution1789. Which recent GOP president cut spending?

                1. Thats not how citations work sock troll.

                  You made the claim. Cite it.

                  1. Lol @ you claiming to dispute something you already know to be true: that no recent Republican president has cut spending or balanced the budget. Fuck off, fag.

                  2. Poor sock troll vince.

                    1. Poor virgin fag.

                    2. Vince is gonna ha e a tough time at Bernie Bro camp when Trump gets reelected.

                    3. I’m a libertarian, not a Bernie bro. You’re a Trumpmoron, not a libertarian.

            2. Bush never signaled he cared about deficits. But Trump did. And his first budget included lots of cuts. Same for Trump’s attitude towards the administrative state. Trump is not Bush Sr. or Jr., except when it comes to defense spending (regrettably).

            3. I’ll take my chances with republicans. Democrats are a disaster. The only time we’ve even approached a balance budget was with a republican congress.

              1. But with Dem presidents.

              2. And that’s because Dem presidents don’t blow the surplus on tax cuts.

                1. repeat after me: tax cuts are not spending.

                  failure to take is not the same as taking. it’s just not. There’s no logic to saying so.

                  1. I didn’t say tax cuts were spending, moron. I said that they take care of the problem of the deficit, which they do. If you won’t spend less, you have to tax more. You’re arguing semantics instead of looking at the big picture.

                    1. no, i’m not

                    2. that’s because Dem presidents don’t blow the surplus on tax cuts.</I.
                      sounds like you're equating tax cuts with 'spending' to me sir

                    3. Since when does a surplus have to be blown with “spending”? Why can’t it be blown with tax cuts that aren’t offset by spending cuts?

                  2. Vince smith is newest reincarnation of sock troll.

                    1. No sir, faggot.

                    2. Unreason really hates the gays today now that buttgeig dropped out.

                      Sock troll Vince is on a bender.

        2. If congress refuses to cut spending, which they have, it only makes sense to raise taxes.


          1. So you’re saying deficits are good? Okay, make your case.

          2. Are you suggesting we just default on our debt? I’d be pretty pissed if I owned bonds, and the government fucking refused to pay me back for them. That is theft.

            1. who’s this “we” you keep referring to. It’s not my debt.

              1. The debt belongs to the taxpayers of the United States. Do you not pay taxes? You live in another country?

                1. no it doesnt’ .. it’s belongs to the federal government. it’s not me it’s not you.

                  Yes they may try to come after you to pay for their debts but it’s not your debt. Don’t buy into their lies.

                  All you have to do is vote correctly.

                  1. We fund the government. Nice try. It’s OUR debt.

                    1. Its Lefty debt. Good job. Now have a red star.

                    2. “We” also fund all the other corporations we do business with. That doesn’t make their money our money or their debt our debt. The federal government is just a corporation that gets to legally use violence.

                    3. We are the shareholders of our government.

      2. What is your realistic so,union to our out of control deficit spending?

        1. He wants to raise taxes in order to cut spending. No shit, that’s what he said in the earlier thread.

          1. Isn’t that what it would do? If taxes are raised, the deficits will shrink. JesseAz, as a libertarian, I’m all for cutting spending, but as you pointed out, congress passes huge budgets with veto proof majorities. So I guess cutting spending is out of the question from here on out. So we have to raise taxes. If Biden or Sanders wins and raises taxes, I’m fine with that. At least the deficit will be taken care of.

            1. Isn’t that what it would do? If taxes are raised, the deficits will shrink. </I.

              hahaha you believe this?

              No matter how much money you give them they will continue to spend more.

              1. Then why did the deficit shrink under Obama? Clinton ran a surplus.

                1. Spending will never be cut, as you say. Why should anyone support paying for it with their own money?

                  1. Spending will never be cut, so raise taxes to offset the spending increases. Duh.

                    1. uh.. no

                    2. Uh… yes. Congress has not cut spending since Trump took office. Even when the Republicans controlled congress. It’s obviously just not going to happen. Therefore taxes must be raised to balance the budget. The end.

                    3. Idiot.

                2. Republicans controlled congress.

                  1. The budgets were balanced because both Obama and Clinton raised taxes. Zero Republicans voted for either. Nice try.

                  2. Poor unreason staffers dont even know that congress controls tax increases and decreases.

                    1. The president signs tax increases and decreases, you fucking idiot.

                    2. And the Dems controlled congress when Clinton and Obama signed those tax increases. Duh, idiot. That’s just another argument for the Dems controlling congress.

                    3. Trumpmorons don’t seem to realize that the president signs bills into law.

                    4. Hihnsanity!

          2. I’m simply fed up with political realities these days. The reality is, spending will never be cut. You criticized Amash for not being realistic and pragmatic, that he only votes for the impossible. So then, all your talk about cutting spending is also “the impossible.” It’s never going to happen, so let’s just raise taxes up to 91% for the richest class. That’s pretty much the ONLY WAY we’ll ever eliminate the deficit and the national debt. I honestly give up. The liberals have won the war on spending because of all the worthless RINO’s who won’t vote to cut spending. So we might as well give in and support raising taxes.

          3. What’s your solution, JesseAz? Give me a realistic one. Not “end Medicaid and all other entitlements.”

            1. What’s your solution, JesseAz? Give me a realistic one. Not “end Medicaid and all other entitlements.”

              Define ‘realistic’. cutting medicaid and other entitlements is actually one of the best answers to the answer of how to cut goverment spending.

              1. “Realistic” = there’s a chance congress will go for it.

          4. You support raising tariffs, which are a tax. What a hypocrite!

      3. solution

        1. It doesn’t involve expanding Medicare to cover every man, woman, child, and twinspirit in the country, forgiving $1 trillion of student loans, spending countless trillions on a Green New Deal that will leave us burning manure to stay warm in the winter, and nationalizing the entire private sector like Comrade Sanders has proposed.

          1. Vince is a pro tax libertarian. See the earlier thread. He also enjoys calling people n*****r.

            1. Perhaps I’ll start referring to him as a stupid pollock or something like that.

            2. I’m not “pro tax.” Just out of solutions for the deficit other than that, since Republicans refuse to cut spending. Yet you blame people like Amash who actually ARE for cutting spending. Lol.

              As far as my using slurs yesterday, I did it because some jackass kept calling me “Hihn.” I’m obviously not Hihn.

            3. Vince is the latest unreason sock troll.

              1. And vince hates gay people.

                1. Then I’m obviously not a Democrat. Idiot.

          2. But “Comrade Sanders” would raise taxes to pay for it. Also, Sanders wouldn’t get his way on any of his proposals. Get real. He would need congress to vote for them.

    2. What’s the over/under for number of cars burned or windows smashed for the convention?

  4. I want to see an Epic Big Apple Battle: Brooklyn vs. Queens between the Left and Right populists.

    1. Not Boston Bloomberg. He’s evil and boring.

  5. Lots of guessing and projections in this piece.

    1. Its Boehm. He guesses and projects in all his articles.

      He used to base economic wellbeing on the Dow Jones until I broke him of that by pointing out how stupid it is.

      1. You Trumpistas were full of the DJIA when it rose after Trump’s tax cuts. The moment it fell, you all denied ever having cared about the DJIA. It rose again, suddenly it mattered again. Now it’s falling again, you all disclaim it again.

        You guys are damned consistent in supporting Trump, but not much else.

        1. You do understand that there are external factors affecting the market at the moment, right?

          1. But many people blame Trump for why everyone is worried about the Coronavirus.

        2. You’ve an overactive imagination

        3. Kinda like how you assured us that every increase in the DJIA was due to latent Obama policies and every downturn is directly attributable to Trump’s trade war?

          You are damned consistent in sucking Democratic Party cock, but not much else.

          1. No real libertarian supports trade wars. Get off the site and onto Breitbart, where you belong.

            1. Vince, the new unreason sock troll that hates Libertarian tiny snd limited government.

              1. Tariffs aren’t limited government.


              2. Poor unreason sock troll..

                Got pegged and on a bender.

                1. You couldn’t refute my statement about tariffs. I win.

            2. But Libertarians support 91% tax rates? GFY

  6. Has anyone pointed out how racist it is to tell African Americans that they must vote for a certain candidate just because a few old African Americans and the white media tell them they should? Especially one who has a record of wanting to lock them up.

    1. I bring this up to my Demo-voting friends ALL THE TIME. People are individuals and have a lot more going on than skin color or sexual preference. Yet they can’t stop talking about problems in exactly those terms. Frusterating.

    2. And it’s especially terrible when it’s “Stop and Frisk” Mike vs. “War on Drugs” Biden.

      1. At least Biden has the excuse that nearly 50 years in DC has made him retarded. Bloomberg is supposedly too smart to be racist.

      2. Bernie is the real solution – he’s going to make blacks and Hispanics sell weed

    3. The Democrat Party literally fought for slavery, segregation, and the kkk yet some Black Americans vote Democrat. Go figure.

      Less and less are voting Democrat which is a good trend.

      1. Those weren’t liberals in the Dem party who supported those things, moron.

        1. That are no such thing as Liberals. You misspelled Progressives.

          1. If you want to see what Vinces pro tax libertarian idealism is, look at the last thread. Hes a liberal. A really racist and ignorant one.

            1. Leftist, not liberal

              1. The American application of ‘liberal’ to left-wing authoritarians and fascists is confusing.

                1. No such thing as liberals in the USA. They are Progressives who tried to steal the term Liberal from Classical Liberals like the Founders to hide how Socialist the Progressives are.

                  1. Libertarians don’t support trade wars, faggot.

                  2. Boy this is fun, sending vince the sock trolls coders into a blind citationless rage.

                    1. Libertarians don’t support trade wars.

                      I win.

                    2. Poor Hihn, diving deeply into another psychotic break down.

            2. JesseAz, so tell me what your REALISTIC solution is to the rising deficit. I’ll wait.

              1. Vince is all demands with no citations.

                1. Fag.

                  I win.

                  1. How does one win a fag?

                    Let’s ask Tony.

          2. They weren’t progressives either, idiot. Democrats who supported racist policies were CONSERVATIVES.

      2. The “Why do blacks vote Dem when the KKK and segregationists were Dems?” question is intellectually dishonest and has been picked apart for decades, yet idiots still pose this question.

        1. Your citation fell off. I have history on my side.

          1. He has revisionist history on his side. Like how he’s super cool and a groovy stud with all the ladies.

          2. So why did the South switch from solid Dem to solid GOP? Is it because Southerners all of a sudden disavowed racism, or is it because the GOP started pandering to them while the Dems stopped? All the Democrat politicians who supported segregation either: became Republicans, were voted out or died off, or had a change of heart like Robert Byrd. Learn about the Southern Strategy, okay.

            1. Citation needed. You people still cannot name 5 Dixicrats that were in federal office and switched from the Party of slavery to the GOP.

              1. The rest of them changed their views, like Robert Byrd. Next?

                Oh yeah, and you’re a fag.

              2. I’ll say it again; the ones who stayed in the Dem Party changed their views and started supporting equality for blacks. I won’t say it again, and I won’t give a citation because I’m not playing your game. Fag.

              3. Still no citations? You cannot find 4 more Dixiecrats when you have fags on the brain,

                1. Uh oh, vince is stuck on this comment frantically looking for Dixiecrats who switched from the Democrat Party to the GOP in congress.

                  1. I said that the ones who stayed in the Dem changed their views. The ones who switched to the GOP (Strom, Helms) didn’t. I never said that they all switched to the GOP. I said that the electorate started voting GOP. Now do you really think that’s because Southerners all of a sudden stopped being racists? Lol. That totally defeats your argument. Checkmate.

                    1. Nobody cares what you said, Hihn.

                2. I didn’t say the Dixiecrats all went to the GOP. Try again, moron.

                  1. Lol. ihateconstitution is pretty fucking dumb, even for a Trumpmoron “libertarian” fascist.

                    1. Stop talking to yourself Hihn, and go ask the nurse for a PRN.

        2. Bill Clinton-flew back to Arkansas during first presidential campaign to execute a brain damaged African American. Signed crime bill targeting Blacks.

          Hillary – Super-predators

          Joe Biden- opposed school integration and supported mass incarceration

          Mike “stop and frisk” Bloomberg pushed gentrification on. Black neighborhoods

          Oh no, Modern Democrats are definitely not racist!

          1. Intersectionality aka segregation

          2. And they were doing shit like to appease Republicans to appear “moderate” so they wouldn’t be accused of being “soft on crime”. You mfers are the dumbest people. Everything y’all do flows from that stupidity. Hence you support Trump. Unbelievable. FDR defeated the Nazis
            The conservatives wanted to ignore Europe no matter that Nazism was sweeping across the continent. What do you stupid fucks think “conservativism” comes from? Your types wanted to put Kings back on the thrones in 1815. Your ilk wanted to preserve white supremacism during the 20th century. Y’all wanted to preserve putting gay people in jail. Again you people are trash.

            1. I left out Obama-the deporter in chief

              1. Obama also made sure tens of thousands of Black Americans were locked up for drugs.

                Obama kept Gitmo open.

                1. Dems support more of a welfare state than GOP. That’s why blacks will always vote for them. Blacks see themselves as victims of generations of oppression that keep them from being as successful as other ethnic groups, and they feel they’re entitled to government subsidies for this. Blacks support universal healthcare, etc. There’s really no use in you trying to convert blacks into voting GOP. It’s never going to happen on even a small scale.

                  1. We get it, you Lefties hate the Negroes and think they are too stupid to ever think for themselves.

                    1. I’m not a leftist, moron. I’m a libertarian who opposes welfare. Try to keep up. Oh yeah, and you’re a fag.

                      It doesn’t help that Trump said there are “good people on both sides” of the Confederate statue issue. Blacks hate the Confederacy and its monuments and flags and want them all down.

                    2. Citations needed.

                      Oh yeah, and you’re a fag.

                    3. Poor vince is a libertarian like hihn is a libertarian.

                    4. Well you’re not a libertarian. How do I know? Libertarians oppose trade wars.

                2. Citation needed, faggot.

                3. Citation needed for your comments about Obama, faggot.

                  1. You really should stop talking to yourself, Hihn.

                    Also, why do you keep only calling him a fag? Why haven’t you called him a nigger yet? Hihn.

              2. Since Obama deported so many people, you should probably give him credit for that, NoVaNick. Aren’t you for mass deportations?

            2. Re-kings on thrones, progressives seem very excited about the possibility of King Michael I

              1. American progressivism is pathologically europhile.
                They resent being “provincials”
                The end goal is neo-feudalism

            3. FDR also put tens of thousands of American citizens in camps and stole their property. All while also trying to pack the Supreme Court to bolster his unconstitutional programs.

              1. put tens of thousands of American citizens in camps

                Progressive Dem initiatives like the Projects were just black-targeted variations on that theme.

              2. Yes, but most people believe Republicans would have done the same thing as FDR regarding internment of the Japanese.

                1. No citations. Typical of unreason.

                  1. I’ve never seen you give a citation, so neither will I.

                    Oh yeah, and you’re a fag.

                  2. Do we have any optometrists in the house?

                    Vince the sock troll is blinded by TDS.

              3. Most blacks supported FDR wanting to pack the courts, and they supported all of the New Deal. Period.

                1. Citations fell off.

                  1. Not playing your game. You get no citations.

                    Oh yeah, and you’re a fag.

                  2. Another reason to ignore the vince sock troll. Refusing citations on bullshit claims.

            4. A leftist, I’m going to have to disagree with you on foreign policy, although I agree with some of your other points. It’s not our job to get involved in other nations’ wars. FDR deliberately provoked both Japan and Germany into declaring war on us. It’s easy to say it was the right thing to defeat Hitler, but you weren’t one of those soldiers who died. The libertarian view is that those who want to fight overseas in other nations’ wars are free to do so on their own dime, but it shouldn’t be the USA’s policy funded by the taxpayers.

              I don’t know about “conservatives,” but libertarians certainly oppose kings.

              1. Citations needed.

                1. I just attacked FDR and supported libertarians, and you asked for a citation. Lol. You didn’t even realize I was arguing for your side. You’re such a fucking idiot.

                  Oh yeah, and you’re a fag.

                2. Poor sock troll thinks libertarians are about teams rather than principles.

                  1. I argued against FDR placing an embargo on Japan and blamed him for provoking Japan and Germany into war. Lol, you’re such a fucking retard.

                  2. And a fag.

          3. And Republicans were better on those issues? Republicans have never had a problem with executing mentally retarded people and would still support it if SCOTUS hadn’t struck it down. Hell, I would still support it. I have no problem with the death penalty for murderers, and I don’t care how stupid you are. If you are mentally competent to stand trial and be convicted, you are mentally competent to be executed.

            Trump has supported “stop and frisk,” and there’s record of him doing so.

            1. Citations fell off.

              1. You’ve given no citations, so neither will I. Sorry. You lose. You don’t get to be a hypocrite here.

              2. Opposing the death penalty is for pussies.

          4. Blacks will always vote Dem because Dems support a larger safety net, as well as affirmative action. Plain and simple. Dems also don’t pander to white supremacists like SOME (not all) Republicans do. Like another chatter said, Dems did all those things so that conservatives wouldn’t mock them for being “soft on crime.” Bloomberg was a Republican mayor too.

      3. The democrat party still has those ideals. Since they couldnt maintain jim crow they began to convince minorities to segregate on their own.

        1. You’re just dumb and wrong.

          1. Your citation fell off. Poor scared little Lefty.

            1. Where’s JesseAz’s citation, moron?

              1. So no citation for YOU…again.

                Unreason sure is pissed. You morons are so predictable.

                1. Lol. You’re such a fag.

      4. Look at what every Congressional Black Caucus member supports, and you’ll see why blacks vote Democrat. No Republican member of congress would support any of their ideals.

    4. Blacks are an eternal center-left electorate. They never minded capitalism, markets, they never cared about profits, about fracking, about regulation, billionaires, or whether parks are privately- or publicly-owned.

      All they really want is a robust safety net and welfare programs to go along with all of the above, and don’t want any of them cut. And of course, they don’t mind additional freebies like affirmative action.

      And thus far, center-left politics have given them the best of both worlds. Because taxation on the lower earners is minimal under centrist or right-wing policies (at least in America), whereas the further left you go after that, the more substantial tax hikes start to affect those down the income scale, especially when you raise sales taxes.

      1. They also, generally speaking, are highly religious and hold conservative view points when it comes to abortion, gays, Muslims, and guns. Something the Dem leaders always seem to ignore

        1. Who says they hold conservative views on abortion? Cite your source, please. Every CBC member is for abortion.

        2. Cite your source for blacks being pro-life and/or pro-gun please. I’ll give you the gay issue, but that’s not enough reason for them to vote GOP. It’s an issue that doesn’t affect them, and blacks aren’t “single issue voters.”

          1. Vince is all demands without any citations. Unreason needs more web traffic.

    5. Since the vote totals and polling data seem to say the listen to such crazy ideas, why is it a crazy notion?

    6. I always thought it was pretty racist to say that blacks are too stupid to get a free picture ID and show it to be able to vote. But white democrats don’t.

    7. Has anyone pointed out how stupid it is for old white men to vote for a candidates that ships their job overseas, gives tax breaks to the richest people, and would cut their health care, The fact is the old white men have more in common with old black men, than either have in common with the Republican candidates they vote for.

      1. Your citations keep falling off.

      2. What the hell are you attempting to allude too?

  7. Biden has never been my first choice. But I will absolutely support him if he gets the nomination. Don’t listen to Drumpf supporters when they claim Biden is declining mentally. Or when they mention his Iraq War vote. Or his occasional hair sniffing.

    All that matters is that — with the possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard — any Democrat would be an improvement over Orange Hitler.


    1. Considering Republicans refuse to cut spending except for the handful of libertarian leaning ones who don’t have enough voting power, the GOP is a threat to fiscal sanity. Democrats would definitely be a better option for balanced budgets.

      1. Your citation fell off.

        1. What has Drumpf done about the budget?

          1. The legislative branch passes budgets. Trump has proposed cuts in every single one of his budgets. Which usually results in the Democrats demagoguing the issue.

            1. Most recently, bad orange man caused a worldwide pandemic in China by not increasing the CDC’s budget enough

              1. True. Rod Rosenstein’s sister says so. And it’s not like she’s a lifelong democrat or anything.

            2. I am sorry but this dog won’t hunt. I have been around long enough to see this dodge pulled by executives as Presidents, Governors, County Executives, and Mayors. You put out budget with big cuts that you know will never pass and then give a long sigh, saying I tried. It is fertilizer.

              1. Yes, the actual way that the government operates with constitutional separation of powers is a ‘dodge’. Except when Obama ‘inherited’ Bush’s deficits, right Tony?

                1. Brian Pillman Obama inherited Bush’s deficits and then lowered the deficit by approximately a half. Moron Sean Hannity laughs at the notion “Obama cut the deficit in half” because like other inbred morons, he confuses the deficit with the national debt. Let’s look at the record, shall we?

                  Clinton: deficits shrunk, eventually surplus (last surpluses in American history to date)
                  Bush: wiped out surplus on tax cut, spent more, ran up the deficits
                  Obama: inherited huge deficit, cut it in half
                  Trump: cut taxes, deficit back up to over $1 trillion

                  1. Here is the spending as a percentage of GDP by year for Bush’s second term and Obama and Trump. Except for Bush’s last year he spent about 1.3% of GDP yearly less than Obama did during his second term after TARP wound down, thats a significant amount. Trump briefly went back below 20% his first year before relapsing.
                    Bush II – 18.38714
                    Bush II – 18.85017
                    Bush II – 18.77265
                    Bush II – 18.96162
                    Bush II – 19.21915
                    Bush II – 18.88121
                    Bush II – 20.27170
                    Bush II – 24.34558
                    Obama – 23.05941
                    Obama – 23.18189
                    Obama – 21.77293
                    Obama – 20.58333
                    Obama – 20.00475
                    Obama – 20.25731
                    Obama – 20.58567
                    Obama – 20.39830
                    Trump – 19.96598
                    Trump – 20.76023

                    Measuring spending by deficits is extremely misleading, if your wife goes on a spending spree at the mall and tells you its ok, she just cleaned out the savings account and didn’t use the credit card I don’t think it makes you feel better about the 10k she spent.

              2. So what can the Executive ranch actually do? If he vetoed the spending bills, the government shuts down and then who gets blamed? If he signs them, he still gets blamed. He gets blamed even for proposing cuts. If he doesn’t spend the money he gets impeached. So what can he do, if that dog won’t hunt? No, your post is pretty much what comes out of the south end of a north bound male bovine. It ignores how the government actually works, in a rush to blame Trump for the deficit, despite him having very few recourses.

                1. Especially now that the Democrats control the HoR and all spending bills must originate there.

                  1. The Dems control the House because Trump is a moron, and the voters made that statement loud and clear in 2018. Yeah, I know I know, Obama lost congress in midterm elections too, but the Dems still won the popular vote in those years. Gerrymandering in the House and the fact that Republicans control all the tiny states that still get as many Senators as the big states are the reasons why Obama lost both houses of congress. The Republicans got WIPED OUT in 2018 by the voters.

                    1. The Democrats lost over 1,000 elected positions under Obama. The Rs controlled over 30 governorships, and 2/3 of state legislatures. And your stupid ass thinks that was “gerrymandering”.

                2. The president cannot be a pussy and be afraid of shutting down the government. Trump has no balls.

                  That reminds me, JesseAz. You said every budget was veto proof, but as was pointed out we did have a brief shutdown once during Trump’s presidency. So I guess there wasn’t a veto proof majority that time. Trump caved in once the Dems agree to spend more on defense. Lol.

            3. Proposing cuts isn’t good enough. Sorry. Trump is to blame for cutting taxes BEFORE spending cuts were made. He is also to blame for advocating huge increases in defense spending when we don’t need those increases. We don’t need a God damn Space Force. Fuck him.

            4. soldiermedic76, since Trump has signed all those budgets instead of vetoing them and letting congress override his veto, that means he supports those budgets.

            5. soldiermedic76 Oh, and even the budgets Trump propose still are not balanced budgets due to all of the bloated defense spending. Troll harder, Trumpkin idiot.

          2. Poor new sock troll Vince Smith.

            A citation for his blathering gets requested and then he doubles down on moving goal posts.

            1. Be careful or he’ll start calling you a nigger or a faggot.

              1. Think it’s a Misek sock?

                1. I think it’s Hihn trying hard not to sound like Hihn.

                2. No. I’m not a sock. I’ve had this account for years but only comment once in a while because other websites are superior to this one. Reason should think about using disqus like everybody else.

                  I’ve had arguments with Hihn about abortion. I’m not Hihn.

                3. Its the typical unreason sock troll.

                  In a pathetic attempt to Boost web traffic. The advertisers are getting wise to most of the sock troll comments being spam and nobody watching their stupid popup videos. Notice the videos are getting more aggressive in hang and start duration.

                4. Definitely the raging anger similar to Misek.

                  I’m honestly not convinced it’s not someone doing a super angry liberal parody just for a chuckle.

                  I also think it could be Jeff/Mike trying to get revenge for being owned very hard repeatedly.

                  1. I’m gonna go with Hihn for now though, because it likes being called Hihn.

                  2. I am not a liberal, so how am I an angry liberal parody, dumb fuck?

            2. When you give citations, troll, I’ll give mine.

              1. Poor new sock troll.

          3. “…Drumpf…”

            Why do ‘tards with TDS spent most of their time coming up with ‘clever’ nick-names that embarrass 1st-grade kids?

            1. That’s the original spelling of his family’s surname, you fucking idiot. It’s not a “joke.”

              Trump is a “big orange mentally retarded turd.” Now THAT’S clever namecalling, at least more clever than the namecalling Trump does.

            2. I forgot that Drumpf is also a lardass with small hands, and you know what small hands means. Lol.

      2. Jeff. The leader of the pro tax libertarian movement.

        1. I’m not Jeff, but it seems to me you’re the leader of the huge deficits libertarian (bowel) movement.

  8. Can a Trumpmoron please give me a realistic solution for our current deficit spending? What should Trump do about it? Everyone I’ve already talked to seems to admit that cutting spending is a pipe dream, so how should we eliminate the deficit?

    1. Cut every department to the bone and completely defund any department not specifically called out in the United States Constitution.

      1. Especially the CDC because viruses are hoaxes.

        1. Especially the CDC because private industry develops and produces vaccines.

      2. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        1. Constitution supporting libertarians should consider voting for Bernit if he’s the nominee. (Personally I don’t what the fuck I’ll do if it comes to Bernie vs. Trump. Maybe I just won’t vote.) Former Tea Party libertarian constitutionalist Republican Congressman “Freedom” Joe Walsh says to “vote blue no matter who” in November, even if it’s Bernie. In other words, libertarians now have permission to vote for Sanders.

      3. Unicorn Abattoir I said “realistic.” You think RINO’s or Trump would cut any of those things. Lol. Amash would, yet you idiots hate Amash but worship Trump and the RINO’s who kiss his huge behind.

      4. Poor sock troll Vince was coded to be busy tonight.

    2. Lay off 10 percent of government workers. Cut administrative budgets 5 percent across the board, and freeze government pay for the next 4 years. Cut defense spending 20 percent or so. Stop coming up with new ways to spend money. Keep taxes as low as they are now so the economy keeps growing.

      The budget could be balanced in 4 or 5 years if someone tried.

      1. None of that will get close to covering the massive money hole that is Medicare/Medicaid Services ($1.5 trillion last year and rising)

      2. “Lay off 10 percent of government workers”

        Think about what you just said. Those workers go into the general work force, they either bump other workers or get unemployment benefits. Those government workers buys houses, cars, and groceries. You lay off10% of government workers and you are looking at recession. Same for the rest of your suggestions. Right now there is no easy fix to the debt.

        1. Even government workers are able to find productive jobs if they have to. Well, maybe 25% of them.

          1. And those who don’t can go on welfare or unemployment, thus consuming far less in resources than they currently do

    3. HODL

    4. Actually, I have come to the conclusion that the deficit isn’t much of a problem, IF we hold spending to <= 21% of GDP. And as long as there are no other shocks to the economy, like the late 70's oil shock.

      They could use QT (Quantitative Termination) to buy the Federal debt when stimulus is needed, but then hold it until it sunsets rather than feeding back in the market in order to reduce outstanding debt.

    5. Everyone I’ve already talked to seems to admit that cutting spending is a pipe dream, so how should we eliminate the deficit?

      Answer: don’t worry about it. It’s not your debt. It’s THEIRS.

  9. Anything that keeps Sanders away from the presidency is a good thing

    1. Sanders wont be President and Trump kicking Bernies ass in election 2020 is necessary to shut socialism down for awhile.

  10. “promising an economic revolution at a time when unemployment is at a near-record low”

    As AOC has explained, that’s a misleading statistic. In the Drumpf economy, a low unemployment rate is cause for alarm — it just means everyone needs 2 or 3 jobs to survive.

    And that was before the economy got even worse lately because of the coronavirus. Which is 100% Drumpf’s fault.


  11. The democrats have finally reached the ideological fork in the road. Stay left or go lefter, viz.:

    Biden v. Bernie will soon take full shape. (The others are dead (wo)men walking.)

    My advice: get the kids off the street.

    1. The people with no chance need to stop being attention whores and leave the fucking race.

      1. In 2016, Donald Trump won the nomination and the election. Donald Trump. The game show host. The guy who can’t go 5 minutes without saying something that would cause most politicians to self destruct. They guy with the “hair”.

        If that guy can win, anybody can win.

        1. If that guy can win, anybody can win.

          Trump’s most important quality is that he gets off on people losing it and hurling insults at him; that’s why he keeps provoking them. That’s not a quality most people, even politicians, have.

          Democrats by and large don’t even experience this because they are kept in a sound-proof, padded cell by the media and the people surrounding them. Some Democrats get it: “the Squad” also gets all excited when people insult them, though to be fair, the members of the Squad really are socialists, racists, and totalitarians. Bernie loses it when he gets challenged by anyone. Just wait until victims of communism walk up to him at campaign events and start calling him an evil prick, or until the media actually start asking questions.

          1. So you like Trump because he insults liberals but not because he actually gets stuff done, which he doesn’t.

          2. +1000

            1. Only fags type shit like “+1000.”

      2. They need to stay in to help ensure that the democrats lose. The democrats are so awful now they can never be allowed to hold power ever again.

        1. The “Democrats” and people like them are the reason you’re not speaking German right now.

          1. Joe Biden fought in WW2? Explains a lot actually.

            1. Biden was at Potsdam and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation.

              He’s got depositions from Nelson Mandela and MLK to prove it.

          2. They also would be called reactionary fascists by modern woketard standards

          3. The Germans never had any chance of invading the US. And do you think a Republican would have decided not to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor? What an asinine comment.

            1. BTW both Patton and Eisenhower were Republicans. So you could say two of the most influential Generals, who happened to be Republicans, are just as responsible for us not speaking German. Also, how many of the soldiers sailors, Marines and airman were also Republicans? FDR’s policies before the war arguably decreased America’s readiness, making the war longer.b

            2. soldiermedic76 FDR provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor via his embargo. America could have actually totally avoided WW2 with an anti-interventionist president.

            3. Its vince. Unreasons newest after hours sock troll.

              1. ihateconstitution1789 worships FDR. Who would have thought?

          4. Okay, A Liberal, we get it. You’re pro-war.

    2. All the Dem analysts on MSNBC and CNN were practically begging Bloomberg to drop out, even though only 2 percent of the delegates have been distributed so far, and a huge chunk is up for grabs on Tuesday, just 3 days away. Bloomberg has been spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave in the Super Tuesday states and may even crack 10 percent like Steyer did in South Carolina after inundating the state with ads.

      1. +1000

      2. He hasn’t even been on a ballot yet. If he dropped out it would literally be just lighting $500M on fire.

        1. Yeah, Bloomberg won’t be on a ballot until Tuesday. That was his strategy, to not waste any money on the early states, kind of like Giuliani’s strategy in 2008. It didn’t pay off for Rudy. If it doesn’t pay off on Tuesday, Bloomberg should drop out. Obviously dropping out right now would be stupid, though.

  12. And it should go without saying that a Democrat-Republican general election is a no-win scenario for anyone who cares about reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

    Fixed it, you’re welcome.

  13. MORON JeffAz blames Justin Amash instead of blaming all the RINO’s who consistently vote to hike spending. Then he claims Trump is getting things done when the deficit keeps getting larger. Lol.

    1. Part of that is just Social Security and Medicare eating more and more of the budget as the population keeps getting older. The rest is needless increase in defense spending + whatever Trump gives Democrats in the hope they let him build his wall or won’t get too much in his way.

      It’s not sustainable, but that’s where we are right now. The only hope is a Trump reelection + a Republican Congress. Second term means less to lose politically, where cuts are more likely.

      1. Your optimism reminds me of my younger days.

        1. Last I looked, Congress spends money not Presidents.

          1. Trump signs the budgets. That means he agrees with them. If he doesn’t agree with them, he should veto them and then let congress override his veto. That way he wouldn’t “own” the budgets. Also, he signed the tax cut. He should have known back then that spending wasn’t going to get cut.

            I also believe libertarians like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc. should never vote for another tax cut until spending is cut. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

        2. Stop talking about pre school. You’re in 3rd grade now.

          The fact that you dont even understand entitlements are the biggest driver of debt shows your utter ignorance. Trump has lowered future COI adjustments already on SS. He is seeking to do block grant medicaid for states, but is being blocked by liberal judges. But you continue thinking naming 2 post offices on 10 years like Amash is the solution.

          God you’re fucking ignorant Jeff.

          1. That’s not Jeff. That’s the guy who switches names every day and continually attacks ENB.

            Apparently she stole his boyfriend a few years back.

            1. Not so much a boyfriend as he was the guy’s gimp I’ll wager

              1. Lol. He definitely acts like he’s got someone locked up in his basement.

                Or his mom’s basement.

                1. Vince hates gay folks, that for sure.

            2. Nope. I’ve only had one name.

              1. And 3,500 socks.

          2. Why doesn’t Trump advocate spending cuts to defense?

            1. Democrats would actually vote for defense spending cuts, as well as libertarian leaning Republicans. Why did he have to advocate for a fucking Space Force we don’t need? He’s a God damn idiot.

          3. So your best example is Trump doing something that has little chance of making it through the courts. Lol.

          4. I should also point out that the great negotiator Trump insulted John McCain so many times that McCain was the deciding vote against the ACA repeal. You can call McCain an asshole and traitor for what he did, but Trump is a fucking idiot for belittling him for so long without thinking there’d be a receipt. Now the Dems control the House, so repealing the ACA is out of the question. Great going!

    2. Pro tax libertarian Jeff here wants to not only not cut spending but wants to increase taxation to further increase spending. He thinks a president can veto legislation passed with veto proof majorities. He has yet to advocate for any actual reduction in spending on his own. The only solution pro tax jeff has called for is more taxation.

      1. He sounds like my leftist aunt. Constantly bitches about republican deficits, then all you can eat is crickets when democrats are in charge and running huge deficits.

        1. The last two Democrat presidents either decreased the deficit or ran a budget surplus, Shithead. I mean, Shitlord.

      2. No. Never said I want to increase spending. Why do you have to lie?

        All I said was, the reality is spending won’t be decreased. Do you disagree with that?

        Common sense says you cut spending, THEN cut taxes. Not the other way around. Duh.

      3. +1000

  14. “And it should go without saying that a Sanders-Trump general election is a no-win scenario for anyone who cares about reducing the size and scope of the federal government.”

    I’m sympathetic to arguments that Trump is spending too much money, and believes in a robust executive branch. But maybe you can tell us which of the Democratic candidates believe in a smaller government, and a pared back executive?

    Buttigieg wants to pack the Supreme Court, Warren wants to forgive a trillion in student loans by executive order, Bloomberg wants to be Nanny of the Nation, Biden wants the GND and to outlaw fracking and coal. So unless you are still holding out hope for Tulsi, then Trump is the small government candidate.

    And while spending and deficits are definitely up, federal spending as a percentage of GNP has been steady: 2017 -20.4, 18-19,96, 19-20.76. Which actually averages a little lower than the last year for Obama, and is right around the 1975-present average.

    1. Tulsi’s only positives are being skeptical about foreign intervention and being telegenic.

      She’s a Green New Dealer and borderline socialist on most other issues. She’s the wrong place to look for fiscal discipline.

      1. This is true, though she also stands out among the Ds by not coming across as completely psychotic

        1. Except for the always wearing white thing.
          Not sure what that’s about, but its getting a little creepy at this point

          1. Listen to Trump speak. He’s a God damn moron. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          2. Former Tea Party libertarian leaning GOP congressman Joe Walsh says to “vote blue no matter who.” EVEN IF IT’S BERNIE. That’s huge news. A libertarian saying it’s okay to vote for Bernie because of how much of a fucking piece of shit Trump is.

        2. Not completely psychotic, unlike Trump.

    2. I’m sympathetic to arguments that Trump is spending too much money

      Trump isn’t spending money, Congress is. Trump gets into trouble if he doesn’t spend money as fast as Congress orders him to.

      1. He signs the budgets. Therefore he agrees with them. Next?

  15. Tom Steyer’s closing remarks to supporters after ending his presidential campaign: “When the Lord closes a door, he opens a window. I will find that window and crawl through it with you, I promise you that.”

    Hey, Tom, when the Lord closes a door, you can just open it back up again. That’s how doors work. Did you really not know that? Have you been crawling through windows all your life? How many times per day do you get trapped in the bathroom? Do you really think you’re qualified to be President if you’re so easily outwitted by an inanimate object?

    1. Reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke…He was once asked if being born via c-section ever effected him.

      He said no, except whenever he left his house, he always exited through the window.

      1. My favorite Steven Wright joke — I have a packet of instant water, but I don’t know what to add.

    2. Opening windows wastes heat and electricity, and kills Mother Gaia.

    3. Hopefully the Lord opened that window on the 50th floor and Steyer can crawl it all the way down.

    4. He’s either talking about suicide or home invasion.
      It’s weird

    5. That “crawling through the window” metaphor is a pretty good summation of how he even got on the debate stage in the first place.

  16. And it should go without saying that a Sanders-Trump general election is a no-win scenario for anyone who cares about reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

    And this is different from every other election how?

    1. Well…. in the order of magnitude of the spending numbers proposed.

  17. Biden will resurrect the 150 million who he said died from gun violence in the last decade! It will be like it never happened! And he will nominate the first African American to the Senate! And he’ll do for every transgendered drug addict what he did for his son Hunter: he’ll get them $1 million/year “jobs” by blackmailing Ukraine! Good times!

  18. Looking for an Application to help the Lambor88 website

    1. Hey Vince Smith, this is a bot. Don’t respond to it.

      But do click on the link and give them your info.

  19. Chaos is guarenteed [sic] either way, but if another candidate can keep the race close, the superdelegates will have a better argument for swinging the convention away from Sanders.

    This presumes a convention is permitted during a pandemic.

    1. It would be a real shame if they had to quarantine the convention center. After the convention starts.

      /To all the prog NPCs here, this is obviously a joke.

  20. “Bernie wants to redefine the rules and just say he just needs a plurality,” Jay Jacobs, a superdelegate who chairs the New York Democratic Party, told the Times. “I don’t think the mainstream of the Democratic Party buys that. If he doesn’t have a majority, it stands to reason that he may not become the nominee.”

    So what does this guy think about the electoral college?

    1. Duh! He thinks the tuition should be free.

  21. At least Warren is toast.

    1. At least 1/1024th toast.

  22. Please give me a brokered convention

    Politicians sit yourselves down, there’s nothing for you here
    Won’t you please come to chicago Milwaukee for a ride
    Don’t ask jack Barack to help you `cause he’ll turn the other ear
    Won’t you please come to chicago Milwaukee or else join the other side
    We can change the world
    Rearrange the world
    It’s dying – if you believe in justice
    Dying – and if you believe in freedom
    Dying – let a man live his own life
    Dying – rules and regulations, who needs them
    Open up the door


  23. See there? Everyone thought old Joe was daffy saying blacks were tantalized by his leg hair.

    1. Scary thing – you may be telling the truth.

  24. Biden will resurrect the 150 million who he said died from gun violence in the last decade! It will be like it never happened! And he will nominate the first African American to the Senate! And he’ll do for every transgendered drug addict what he did for his son Hunter: he’ll get them $1 million/year “jobs” by blackmailing Ukraine! GAMING ZONES

    1. Wow. An on-topic ad bot.

  25. Tom Steyer’s closing remarks to supporters after ending his presidential campaign: “When the Lord closes a door, he opens a window. I will find that window and crawl through it with you, I promise you that.” Lyrics Providers

  26. Here are the numbers for the Federal budget as a percentage of GDP by President going back to Ford.

    Clinton 18.61
    Bush II 19.71
    Ford 19.74
    Carter 20.13
    Trump 20.36
    Bush I 21.06
    Obama 21.23
    Reagan 21.29

    I only went back to Ford because every President before that was < 18%, every one after that was higher. We don't really need to see that Federal spending was 3% of GDP under Coolidge. I also assigned the fiscal years to the President who was in office at the start of the fiscal year: Fiscal year 2017 started October 2016, so its Obama's.

    This probably explains why we are getting low inflation now even though we have high deficits a lot better than Modern Monetary Theory. The inflationary pressure from government spending is related to the % of the economy that government absorbs, not how much of the spending is debt. So MMT will be falsified and inflation skyrocket as government spending rises as a percentage of GDP, unless of course taxes rise too, to the point where they dampen consumer demand. Its

    ∆Inflation = (∆GovSpending% + ∆Consumer Spending%)

    Only if ∆Consumer Spending% 0 except in the very short term without accelerated inflation.

    1. I’d be happy to vote for Coolidge, but he’s been dead for 87 years.

      1. Still better than Bernie –

    2. Good post, kazinski

    3. ‘Inflation’ isn’t logically programmed ‘If spending is govtl, then inflation else not’.

      With debt-based money, inflation roughly = (change in debt – change in production)/(change in production). We MEASURE inflation only by recording the delta in production in nominal prices. But in fact the inflation can either push up those prices or it can push up the prices of the assets used to produce something. And in a world of overcapacity – where we have been desperate to avoid a debt-deflation by blowing bubbles, the inflation just raises asset prices.

      MMT is really based on a different bookkeeping equation. Which IS based on separating spending into govtl v other – but which fundamentally is different from standard theories of money origination. Where money did NOT originate as a replacement for barter but originated as an IOU for tax obligations. Which is actually supported by ancient history – and modern debt-based money (where Fed/bank money only has value because govt says it does and will accept it as tax payment). Regrdless, it results in the idea that the market can’t self-correct monetary imbalances. It can only self-correct production (supply/demand) imbalances. Monetary imbalances have to be corrected by govt.

      As long as we mismeasure inflation by ignoring asset prices, MMT will be the go-to heterodox explanation that explains or provides a ‘solution’ for the incompleteness/imbalances created by that mismeasurement. If we start measuring inflation correctly, the immediate effect would be to jack up interest rates (a lot). Which would in turn induce people to save rather than spend but would also force debt writedowns and a change in expectations re things like the stock market and housing prices (no more assumption of perpetual increase in those) which in turn would change the debt loads people take on to buy those. And since that won’t ‘add up and solve everything’, some other heterodox explanation (with much lower govt requirement re money) will pop up (or be re-unearthed from classical era econ) as the alternative.

      So – do you want less govt spending or lower stock market/housing/asset prices?

      1. “‘Inflation’ isn’t logically programmed ‘If spending is govtl, then inflation else not’.”

        That of course isn’t what i said. What i said is that if government spending goes up significantly then consumer spending is going to have to go down significantly. Especially now that we are at pretty much full employment and full economic capacity. The inflation comes because the economy can’t actually produce the 20 units more, so bidding for the existing production is what causes the inflation.

        If our GDP is 100 units and we increase federal government spending from 20 units to 40 units, then perhaps the economy has enough slack to produce 105 units without significant inflation, but that still means that consumer spending will have to go down from 65 units to 50 units (state and local spending is the other 15 units).

        Now maybe in the short term we can borrow or print money enough to fund the other consumption from foreign economies, or draw down inventories. But the simple truth is printing money, or even taking money from billionaires doesn’t produce anything that we actually consume. Getting hung up on the money is a red herring, the issue with increasing government consumption by 20% of the economy is that we can’t increase production by 20% so it has to come out of consumer consumption, and that doesn’t even take into account the additional costs switching from consumer goods to government goods.

        If we had unlimited production to supply unlimited consumption the money would take care of itself.

        That’s also what’s behind the pension and medicare crises. Its not the money. The money is a marker for what percentage of national consumption we are setting aside for retirees. Obviously we aren’t putting retirement homes and medical care into the SS and medicare trust funds, we are putting vouchers for a share of future gdp to produce those goods in the trust funds.

        1. What i said is that if government spending goes up significantly then consumer spending is going to have to go down significantly.

          That is ignoring the balance sheet – debt/assets. And our money system is a debt-based money — not a ‘surplus production’ money (like eg a silver coin based money or any money based on a post-barter type model)

          Now maybe in the short term we can borrow or print money enough to fund the other consumption from foreign economies, or draw down inventories.

          And that is merely an assumption that is based on pretty much nothing at all except an ideological assertion. Ignore the ‘print money’ phrase – which is meaningless now because all money now – including in the MMT model – is created via new debt. The marginal productivity of marginal debt has been dropping since WW2. It’s part of what has always been very very long credit creation/destruction cycles. And while that chart is a bit outdated, nothing has reversed since 2010. Debt has simply been used to buy equity or buy existing assets or pay for overspending or somesuch. It has no productivity anymore – and very possibly negative productivity. Since 2010 according to the Fed’s Z1 report – corporate and federal debt have driven the increase, households lagging a bit but still up, and state/local government declining. Mathematically, those subsectors MUST add up to the total – or you’re just saying there’s some ever-growing unknown fudge factor.

          Even if we both agree that debt growing faster than productivity is an ugly end-game – the end-game is NOT actually here yet.

          1. Shit. I hate this inability to edit to close tags

  27. Let’s not get carried away before Super Tuesday (and March, generally). With ~200 delegates awarded of ~2K needed, it is premature to say much of anything. All of that changes by Wednesday morning, the day after Super Tuesday, when roughly ~30% of the delegates are up for grabs. The week after, it is another ~20%, followed by March 17, which has another 25%. The first half of the month of March will tell us whether there is a clear mandate for anyone.

    One, if Mini-Mike fails to crack 15%, he gets nothing for the 0.5B (yes, a half-billion) spent to date. You must get 15% of the popular vote within that state to get delegates. He will be mathematically knocked out. Expect POTUS Trump to be merciless to Mini-Mikey…because it is now personal, not business.

    Two, the best March outcome if you want Team D to self-destruct and lose their collective minds is The Bern and VP Biden and Mayor Butthead and Fauxahontas and Klobuchar to walk away with at least some delegates. And no clear majority. Pretty much guarantees a nasty fight at the convention. The MSM will go wild. Others will laugh with glee.

    Three, I think Klobuchar suspends her campaign drops out by the end of the month; leaving four to duke it out.

    Unreason…I get why you need to play this political shit up, but the application of more reasoning and logic in your coverage would be helpful, as opposed to mindless speculation. With only ~10% of delegates awarded, momentum has not really started.

    1. “One, if Mini-Mike fails to crack 15%, he gets nothing for the 0.5B (yes, a half-billion) spent to date.”

      I get it now. Bloomberg is spending all that money, just when it needs a boost to ride out Covid-19, to juice the economy to ensure Trump’s reelection.

      Its also possible that the Democrats intentionally put up such a weak field to induce as many billionaires as possible to get in the race in order to implement a covert income distribution scheme benefitting their media and tech allies.

      1. Nah, it is personal for Mini-Mikey, too. They despise each other.

  28. Trump is getting USA out of Afghanistan and barely a mention of this accomplishment on this thread or in the Main Stream Media. This just several weeks after the media screaming about Trump dragging us into World War III after killing a monster.

    1. This certainly seems like a pretty big story to miss on the front pages.

      Maybe everyone is waiting for the think-tanks to poll test some terms that resonate.

      “Risky scheme”
      or “Dangerous isolationism”

      maybe they’ll go with “negotiates with terrorists”?

    2. Afghanistan is a pretty big deal. Especially for those who lost people pretty close to us. It’s too bad that the US isn’t really going to get a chance to celebrate this occasion.

      1. We’ll celebrate by voting Trump back into a second term as President.

        1. You’re such a useful idiot for Drumpf. Lol.

        2. Gotta love all the tariff supporting Trumpkin “libertarians” on this site.

        3. Vince smith sock troll coders have been busy today.

    3. Justin Amash just made it clear on his Twitter timeline that Trump is NOT getting us out of Afghanistan. Try to keep up.

      1. Its like it takes 5 vince smith coders for every real person on unreason.

  29. I find the polling and coverage of this primary interesting.

    Joe Biden essentially skipped the early primaries and put all his chips on South Carolina. The campaign publicly acknowledged this in advance of the primaries and the press covered it widely, telling us that Biden had a huge lead in South Carolina – somewhere close to 50% of the vote.

    Then Biden looked a little senile in the debates, telling people they need to play the radio at night for their kids, etc. Suddenly he’s not leading big in South Carolina. Polls show a dead heat with Sanders. Biden only has about 25% of the vote! All the polls basically agreed on this point – Biden at less than 30%.

    And what happens on election day? Biden gets nearly 50% of the vote.

    Now, I can see polling being off by a few percentage points. That’s built in to the process. But a factor of 2? That hardly seems likely.

    The Democrats have been using polling results to influence the vote for decades. Heck, I remember them saying Florida was a lock for Gore before the polls even closed in the panhandle, and Georgia remained “too close to call” throughout the night in 2000. Of course, Florida was famously “too close to call”, despite the early call. And Georgia was 60/40 for Bush when the actual votes were counted, which is impossible to square with exit polling showing a dead heat. Now, I can see missing things by a few percent – certainly enough to swap the order of finishers in important ways. But how can you possibly miss a 49% to 19% blowout as a statistical dead heat?

    It certainly feels like polling being used to push public opinion, rather than document it.

    1. Definitely = It certainly feels like polling being used to push public opinion, rather than document it.

      My take:
      The polls understated support for VP Biden by ~10%
      The polls overstated stated The Bern’s support by ~5%
      The polls overstated support for Mayor Butthead, Fauxahontas and Klobuchar by 2%-3%.

      It all broke VP Biden’s way; meaning, all the error was actually in VP Biden’s favor. That was certainly curious to me.

      1. I could see a lot of Democrats deciding that Bernie can’t be ont he ticket and voting for Biden because they know he has the better chance, and Biden isn’t a commie.

        1. Yup. This is the first “anybody but Bernie” state we’ve had a chance to see. Tuesday will be interesting.

    2. Most of the SC polls here can easily turn into the actual outcome if the vote in SC was perceived as a pro-Sanders v anti-Sanders. As voting day came closer, people who were gonna vote for someone in 3rd to 7th place decided to vote for Biden instead in order to stop Sanders. LP and third parties suffer the same result in elections

  30. I keep hearing that Biden has massive support among black people. What is the reason for that? Is it just because he was Obama’s vp? I just haven’t heard him say anything that would be especially appealing to that demographic

    1. I’d be willing to bet it’s just straight up name recognition. There are whole communities that don’t follow politics at all. Period. Biden has been in the news for over 13 years pretty regularly. Hell, he’s got his own memes!

    2. Same reason some Black Americans vote for the Democrat Party which is the Party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crowe laws, and the KKK.

      1. Blacks vote for Democrats because they dislike the bigots who populate the current Republican Party.

        Seems reasonable and obvious.

      2. iloveconstitution1789, you’re such a moron.

      3. iloveconstitution1789, you just gave Rev. Kirkland an easy layup on that one.

      4. You can always spot the unreason sock trolls. They back up the ignored sock trolls like Sqrsly.

        1. Oh yeahKirkland.

  31. What difference, at this point, does it make?
    Whoever they nominate will be running on the dems platform

  32. Why are we not spending a lot more laughing at Mike Bloomberg flushing billions of dollars down the toilet for nothing?

    This stupid schmuck is engaging in what is almost certainly the biggest personal waste of money in human history.

    1. Wait 3 more days until Super Tuesday. That’s when we can call him a failure, because its the first time he will be on the ballot.

      But he actually might have a viable strategy. If Sanders deals Warren a death blow in MA, and Buttigieg and Klobacher flame out, then if Bloomberg gets a couple of 2nd place finishes that leaves him and 2 other 78 year olds in a death match. That’s not a bad place to be because he’s not the crazy one with a bad ticker, or the senile one with wandering hands. He’s the bitter racist nanny with more money than sense, which plays well with many of the democrats core constituencies.

      1. It’s bizzarro world when the Democrats some how manage to make Biden look like a viable choice in a cripple fight.

      2. Even if it does end up as a brokered convention, which is looking more and more likely all the time, it won’t be his little midget ass who gets picked no matter how many people he tries to bribe, I promise you.

    2. Bloomberg hasn’t been on the ballot yet, idiot.

  33. “And it should go without saying that a Sanders-Trump general election is a no-win scenario for anyone who cares about reducing the size and scope of the federal government.”

    Sure, but a pragmatist would look at this in degrees. One guy would turn up the fireplace a little to get warm while the other would burn down the living room.

    1. “And it should go without saying that a Sanders-Trump general election is a no-win scenario for anyone who cares about reducing the size and scope of the federal government.”

      Unless you ignore the fact that Trump deregulated, slashed the corporate tax rate, and is fighting like mad to slash eligibility for Medicaid, an entitlement program–something no president has done before–and certainly not in an election year. Trump has also just negotiated an agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan with the Taliban.

      . . . and that’s just off the top of my head. But other than all the things Trump has done and continues to do to limit the size and scope of the federal government, there’s no reason to think he would limit the size and scope of government.

      Is that what I’m supposed to think?

      And I’m supposed to think a vote for Trump isn’t a vote against Bernie Sanders’ promises to increase the size and scope of government by way of the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and free college for everyone, too?

      The best reason that shit should go without saying is because it’s fucking absurd.

      1. By your weird cherry-picking definition, Sanders will limit the size and scope of the federal government because he wants to cut military spending.

        1. Cherry picking definition?!

          If slashing corporate taxes, cutting Medicaid eligibility, and getting us out of Afghanistan isn’t decreasing the size and scope of government, then you’re the one cherry picking.

          If you think opposing The Green New Deal and opposing Medicare for All isn’t increasing the size and scope of government, then you’re the one that’s cherry picking.

          Yeah, we need more of it, but Trump is doing things no one has seen a president do to decrease the size and scope of government since before World War II. And to pretend he hasn’t done and isn’t doing these things is to be willfully oblivious. Pretending that the alternative isn’t a self-described democratic socialist is being willfully oblivious.

          1. Trump also started a trade war, created a military branch we don’t need, and is a fucking criminal, as well as a prolific liar and fat moron.

            I’m not for Sanders, but none of his ideas have a chance of being implemented.

            1. Breaking news: Buttigieg just dropped out. And now we’re down to six.

              1. Poor unreason really doesnt like that Trump will beat any Democrat.

                1. A Fox News poll shows him losing to every Democrat. Lol.

              2. Looks like they must have leaned on Buttigieg pretty hard, or Bloomberg offered him a big carrot.

                It doesn’t make much sense to drop out the day before Super Tuesday, after you’ve done all the work to get there unless you are trying to clear the field for someone else.

                1. Is he really surprised he didn’t win in South Carolina?

                  I’d love to think they’re more enlightened than I suspect, but that’s about the last place to be surprised if they aren’t as enlightened as we’d like.

  34. The win in South Carolina is a big one for Biden because his primary only selling point with mainstream voters is that he’s the most electable candidate, and it’s hard to make the case that you’re the most electable candidate on Super Tuesday after you lose Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and then South Carolina, too. Having won South Carolina, now he has a leg to stand on.

    . . . unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg will be competing on Super Tuesday, too, unlike South Carolina.

    To my eye, this is all about Texas.


    I assume Sanders will win in California. If Sanders also wins in Texas on Tuesday, then Biden is finished–except as a consensus candidate in a brokered convention. If Sanders wins in Texas, Bloomberg doesn’t have much of a chance either.

    Warren and Buttigieg are out after Super Tuesday.

    We’ll be looking at a three-way race between Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders after Tuesday, with Biden refusing to drop out for hope of winning a contested convention, Bloomberg not dropping out with some of the same hope–but also pride and having plenty of his own money to spend–and Sanders running the vote totals up.

    Meanwhile, I don’t care what the polls say in Texas. It’s an open primary state, I suspect there will be plenty of conservative minded Democrats participating as well as old time Southern Democrats. I’ll have to see Texas nominate a democratic socialist from Vermont before I believe it. My bet is that the Buttigieg and Klobuchar vote goes to Biden in Texas.

    1. “We’ll be looking at a three-way race between Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders after Tuesday,”

      One of the women candidates would be wise to stick around to fill out the field.

  35. Good to see the Reason blackout on Trump negotiating an end to the war in Afghanistan after 18 years. I’ll be looking forward to hearing how this means he’s actually a warmonger trying to start WWIII just like withdrawing from Syria was.

    1. I’m pretty sure almost every full time Reason staffer is mortally terrified that if they say even one thing the tiniest bit non-negative about something Trump does, Welchie Boy will fire their ass. And they’re right, he most definitely would.

      Isn’t it completely absurd that they can’t even say a word about one of the biggest stories in the world because the guy running the show here is a psychopath?

    2. Why didn’t Trump simply end the war the first day of his presidency? Why did he bomb Syria? He’s not anti-war. Lol.

    3. Read Justin Amash’s timeline. Trump has done no such thing regarding Afghanistan.

    4. https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1233813107132243969

      Right here. Amash just owned Trumpmorons.

      Oh, and there are now more registered independents than Republicans. Lol. No wonder Trump has 95% approval. Every Republican who hates him has left the party.

    5. Unreason is pissed that Trump is the greatest President in US History (thanks to democrats).

  36. Was that the other Biden who won South Carolina? Seriously the guy is not healthy mental wise.

    And the peace deal in Afghanistan not being covered by Reason? Welch needs to go…he isn’t even a libertarian..never talks about the Fed or the need to shut down most govt agencies created after 1930..just the same old “social liberal” garbage over and over again. And the obsession with destroying our natural rights with this ridiculous “open borders” shi$ needs to stop..

    1. Vince the sock troll is early clue droppings that unreason will be Propagandizing all this week to sabotage the USA getting out of afghanistan.

      1. Citation needed for “getting out of Afghanistan.”

  37. If a single primary loss us enough to slow down Sanders’ momentum, then his momentum was illusory anyway.

    1. “was enough”

      Edit button please?

  38. Not a word about Buttigieg or Steyer quitting?
    The first was worrying in that he never once distanced himself from his bat-shit-crazy Marxist father.
    Steyer was SCARY! He was on a mission to do nothing less than SAVE THE WORLD!!!! You can imagine the lack of restraint someone accepts if the future of THE WORLD is at stake!
    It’s just a shame he didn’t blow another hundred mill on the effort…

    1. I suspect Steyer’s support would go to Warren, but she’ll be obliterated on Tuesday. Steyer’s support goes to Sanders, and after Tuesday, Warren’s support goes to Sanders, too.

      Buttigieg’s support goes to Biden or Bloomberg. Too bad for both of them that they can’t come to an agreement before Super Tuesday. If Sanders wins in Texas, it might not matter what either of them do after that.

      If Biden would drop out in favor Bloomberg if Bloomberg offered to make him his Vice President, that would be how to beat Sanders. Biden’s been Vice President before, and I bet he likes it. I’d say Biden might offer to make Bloomberg his Vice President, but Bloomberg isn’t about to play second fiddle to anybody.

      1. Honesty here; ignoring the positions of most of the D candidates has been my pleasure.
        Steyer has been nearly impossible to ignore in CA; he has been pitching that “SAVE THE WORLD!!” message for at least a month, since he ran “I can beat Trump!” up the flag pole and got no salutes. Seems ‘saving the world’ might have invoked a bit to much of ‘the rapture’?
        Guessing that his support was largely ‘green’; has Warren been the alternative ‘green’ candidate as opposed to the ‘scold’ candidate?

        1. I saw a Steyer ad where he was flat out calling Trump a racist.

          It availed him nothing. A lot of money was wasted, and no one was saved.

          The Beatles might have written both Eleanor Rigby and Nowhere Man about Steyer.

          1. Steyer is an example of how no matter how rich people can get, stupidity can always separate them from their money, just as a poor person.

            Rich people just have more money to give away on stupid shit than poor people.

            1. They certainly seem to imagine that if we all knew them as well as we should, we’d want them to run our lives.

              There’s a word for that. It’s called narcissism.

    2. P.S. They’re still not talking about how President Trump inked a deal with the Taliban to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan within 14 months.

      If a tree falls in the middle of a forest because half of Wyoming blew up in a volcanic eruption so large it sends half the world into three years of non-stop winter, it doesn’t make a sound unless it also, somehow, makes Trump look bad in an election year.

      1. Crickets from Reason on it too.

      2. PSimon, over on the “CDC” thread, predicts “Trumpistas” will claim a “deep state” conspiracy at the CDC if the pandemic gets much worse.
        I’m sure he thinks ‘a conspiracy’ means people meeting in smoke-filled rooms, assigning this task to that operative, etc., rather than a shit-pot full of TDS victims grasping on every possible means to discredit Trump, including ignoring positive instances.
        Pretty sure neither Welsh nor anyone else at Reason forbids such stories; it’s simply that the focus is on ‘orange man bad’ and the resultant dishonesty.
        I sent $100 this year; the impression was intended to approximate how the server reacts to that nickle left in the tip drawer. It may be $1.00 next year.

      3. Unreason is pissed about Trump being the best President in US History. They wont cover anything that helps him. They will throw some anti-American propaganda down though.

  39. So the real question in my mind is how much of this was actually Biden support? Cause the Republican party in SC announced “Operation Chaos” prior to the primaries, with the express purpose of screwing with the Democrat numbers (SC has an open primary, basically anyone can vote for anyone, but you can only vote once.)

    The Republicans have been upset with the open primary for a while, since the Democrats are usually the ones to fuck with their candidates, and wanted to take this opportunity to do a protest vote, to show it could go both ways.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.