"OMG! One of my posts was hidden. But why? For what? I've been a good girl (lately...mostly)!"

*click*

Oh...it's a Valentine's Day heart.



THANK-YOU KIND ADMIRER!

Sure, he represents our principles and aspirations but the GOP won't have any of that. They'll try to block him at every turn. They'll stone wall the silly socialist at every opportunity.

So we should, instead, vote for Hillary who they're demanding be criminally indicted. Who knows, maybe she'll be able to "work" with them to get them to drop their witch hunt. I'm sure they could be persuaded to find a Clinton presidency to be more to their liking.

And that's what is really important -- right?

I found this over at the Whine Cellar --



Did you notice this part --


That's a euphemism for "torturing the data until it told us what we wanted." I'd wager alcohol and other forms of substance abuse is a far more greater indicator of domestic violence than firearm ownership but that was excised because GUNZ!

It's not a sin, it shouldn't be a crime to be a girl.

Many gun control advocates treat "regulation" to mean "restricted" whereas those without an prohibitionist agenda would see it as referring to "well-performing."

In fact, there is nothing restrictive in the nature of regulation. I believe it is an inherently RW argument to interpret regulations as restrictive, designed to deny otherwise well-meaning people with legitimate intentions access to the thing being "regulated." The RW constantly complains that regulations kill business whereas Progressives tend to see regulations as improving business environments and worker safety so as to make the economy more efficient/well-performing, not less.

So why reinforce RW talking points and validate their suspicions?

This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul, who is nuttier than a squirrel's birthday cake, but rather a thought experiment.

Imagine how we, as the opposition to the GOP, would view Paul's showing. Would he still be dismissed as merely a fringe candidate or would we all suddenly, simultaneously sit bolt upright at the clarion call that he was now a legitimate threat to be contended with?

Would Paul's supporters say to themselves, "Well, we fought our hardest, I guess we should just pack it in, though" or would they see their goals within reach and redouble their efforts making them even more of a threat to their opponents?

Would the claims he was not a viable candidate still ring with the undecideds or those who originally sought safe haven among more acceptable candidates or would that showing allow him to draw in more support?

Would the halls of the Establishment, with its promises of safe haven from the enemy, seem as unshakeable as they once did?

Now imagine -- what if it wasn't nutty Ron Paul but rather someone who actually has consistently argued for the Democratic party's core values for decades.

Sanders, Cruz and Trump are running as anti-Establishment candidates, albeit from their respective sides of the political spectrum. None of them should have, would have, done as well as they did in prior elections. If the Establishment had its way it would have been Hillary by at least 20 percentage points and Bush or, as a fallback position, Rubio.

Of the two parties the GOPers were the real winners. First, their anti-Establishment candidates may be within 5-percentage points of each other but the real story is the Establishment guy only garnered 23 percentage points to the antis combined 53 percentage points. That greater than 2:1 anti-Establishment margin will continue to hold once the field narrows into a nominee.

Oh, and by the way, the Rs were able to muster a record turn-out meaning they're motivated.

Meanwhile, across the aisle the guy who shouldn't have been within 20 percentage points only lost by 6 coin tosses. Turn-out was good and by "good" I mean "typical." If the usual number of people are willing to caucus and half the caucus goers are willing to go anti-Establishment where are the margin of Ds that correspond to the additional turn-out of Rs?

Sitting home demoralized, I would imagine.

They want their own anti-Establishment candidate but they're being told it's too unrealistic. Such a candidate could never get anything past the GOP Congress which is just another way of saying Congress has been conceded to the GOP and the Establishment plans on working with them. Oh yeah, and remember when we rallied you to cheer for single-payer? Well, you're all idiots now -- probably racists, too.

Last night wasn't a win for the future nominee, it was the opening of a schism so finely split down the center that the only way to settle it was 6 out of 6 coin tosses. Meanwhile, the enemy is mustering record numbers to coalesce around ideals over personalities; a far stronger motivating force.

The electorate is angry and the only argument the Establishment candidates can make is they're the safe, predictable choice against their respective opposition even if they have to burn down their own previous platforms to do it.

Standard political playbook triangulations are not going to carry this election. If anything that will only exacerbate the anti-Establishment mood. But the Establishment will not change course because it is invested in one thing and one thing only: It's own power. It's only attraction is for those who think they will find safety within its walls.

This will not end well even if it ends in victory.

I'm genuinely sorry for your candidate. He wasn't my candidate but I've always seen you guys as decent and sincere folks.