I'm back

[IceSpear]

Hey everyone. A year was enough of a politics break I think.

Some notes:
1) Racist WV Hicks obviously only elected Jim Justice because they knew he was a Republican at heart. His party switch vindicates me. RATINGS CHANGE: WV-Sen: Likely R -> Safe R.

2) #Hillary2020 #StillWithHer #Inevitable (j/k, I doubt she even runs again, much less wins. The book is awesome though.)

3) Just lol at thinking Dems have a chance at taking the Senate in 2018. Only two seats have the slightest chance of flipping to the Dems, WV is already safe R, and there are others where the Dem is the distinct underdog such as IN/MO.

4) Taking the House is kind of a pipe dream too due to extreme gerrymandering and intense polarization, but there's at least a small chance of that. The more realistic goal is cutting into Ryan's majority enough so that passing major legislation is next to impossible and winning a bunch of gubernatorial/state legislative seats so we don't get massacred again in the next redistricting.

5) Stop creaming your pants about Dems winning in 2020 polls by a landslide. Once the right wing hate machine and propaganda outlets gear up against Biden/Sanders/Warren/whoever, they're going to become just as "polarizing" as Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Obama, etc. Deplorables are unwinnable and Trump (or any Republican) is guaranteed 45% of the vote just for showing up. I was mocked for saying this in 2016, but what do you know, Trump got 46%. It's going to be a dog fight no matter what.

6) Trump sucks.

[IceSpear]

I'm glad to be back guys!

Were you always like this?

Like what?

How original. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that before. Please, tell me more...

Thanks, I try.

Welcome back, boo! We missed you so much!! When someone with your name was arrested the day after the election, we thought the worst. (though it was obviously not you)

LOL! Hey! Good to see you're still around. What were they arrested for?

Are you trolling?

No.

You haven't followed in the footsteps of Elliott County yet?!

Your tail must be mighty sore after being tucked between your legs for almost a year.

Well, something between my legs has been sore thanks to all the free time I've had since taking a sabbatical from politics, but it's not my tail.

[IceSpear]

I thought you were dead to be honest Glad you're okay. I rarely post over here anymore though.

My last post here I said I wasn't dead! But I needed a break from politics. I was strongly considering taking one even if Hillary won actually, but the outcome only sealed the deal.

You know, almost 200,000 West Virginians made their way to the polls this past November and cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.  I'd say you are a little harsh on those folks.

Hey Tom, good to see you. How does it feel that Jim Justice (R) is now a Republican? I was right all along that WV would never vote for a TRUE member of the anti-white hate group (i.e. Democratic Party.) I sure hope Jim Justice (R) feels right at home! I hear Jim Justice (R) is getting a warm welcome!

Oh, and I never said that ALL West Virginians were racist hicks...just the vast majority.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

Oh, hi jfern. I bet you missed me.

What about him?

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right-wing-in-nearly-all-aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right wing in nearly all aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

You're really, really behind the times.  What era did you come out of, 2004?  This is no longer allowed.

lol, I don't even recall this being a "controversy" in 2016.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right-wing-in-nearly-all-aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

It arose because the abortion lobby, which for obvious reasons has sway in the party, decided to make a big stink about Sanders's endorsement of the mayoral candidate. Had the abortion lobby kept quiet, the controversy wouldn't exist. Actually, before Sanders endorsed that candidate, Perez said pro-life Dems were fine, and seems to have changed his view for the sole reason of placating NARAL.

Oh, so in reality it's just an extension and relitigation of the 2016 primary. Jesus, jfern's post should've clued me in. It's time to move on people.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

He's not pro-life so..

He had a mixed record as governor, and would have been next in line for Presidency. But we're supposed to care about some mayoral candidate in Nebraska.

His record was mixed as governor, but not as a senator which is more relevant for obvious reasons. And regardless, how was it relevant to my initial post you replied to? Even if he was currently pro-life or "mixed" he's a fairly reliable mainstream Democrat on most issues.

[IceSpear]

You left before I joined, but I've heard a good amount about you, and I find your signature to be hilarious, but also obvious trolling.

Also, I don't get why you think WV is titanium R at all levels. It's that kind of attitude that has brought down the Democratic Party over the last eight years.

Anyway, welcome back.

It's not my attitude, it just is what it is. I'm not the one that forced them to start prioritizing other...uh..."issues" over their economic well being.

Thanks!

Welcome back! It's really not worth staying.

Was it ever?

5) Stop creaming your pants about Dems winning in 2020 polls by a landslide. Once the right wing hate machine and propaganda outlets gear up against Biden/Sanders/Warren/whoever, they're going to become just as "polarizing" as Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Obama, etc.

LOL, you are such a delusional hack. Don't you know Bernie is now the most popular politician in the country? That alone makes a +400 victory assured is he runs. I mean, come on, it's not like Hillary had great approvals at the same point back in 2013, right?

lol, remember when Hillary was the most popular politician in the country and Trump was a joke that was not only unelectable but would have a high chance of falling below 100 EVs? Good times. You'd think people would learn the lessons of 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If she ran again, would you endorse her? Would she be inevitable in the primary again?

Also, do you agree with the sections in Hillary's book that blame Biden and Bernie for her loss?

Yes, I'd endorse her. But she wouldn't be inevitable in the primary again, or even close. She might not even be the frontrunner. I do think she'd have a strong chance though, particularly if she continues to be vindicated by Trump and the Russian interference reports. If she doesn't run, I'm pretty much totally undecided and will be watching the campaigns/debates to decide who to vote for, although there's obviously some I'm inclined to be more receptive of (like John Delaney of course literally lol'd when I saw he was running) and others I'm inclined to be less receptive of (COUGH GABBARD COUGH.)

There's a million different reasons why Hillary lost. The intense polarization of the country, politics turning into a reality TV show with Trump being the logical conclusion of such a trend, the Comey letter, Russian interference, the short attention span of Americans, her misjudging the mood of the country, sexism, etc. all among the foremost. I don't think Biden had any impact whatsoever, and I think Bernie had minimal impact. I wouldn't really say she "blamed" anyone either. The media is full of crap about how she "blames everyone but herself blah blah." She does blame herself, along with the countless other external factors out of her control that also undoubtedly affected the outcome.

[IceSpear]

"Like what?" Exhibiting a style of smarmy condescension.

idk maybe

Congrats on becoming a mod btw! Oh, and Virginia as well.

[IceSpear]

Welcome back, Icespear! I was worried you'd be gone for good after Justice won WV-GOV, and Trump won PA.

Luckily Justice is a Republican now, so that gave me permission to return.

Btw, remember our chat on Skype about how I wanted to visit the PNW? I actually spent March - July in Seattle living with a friend. It's a great city!

[IceSpear]

Congrats on becoming a mod btw! Oh, and Virginia as well.

Cathcon's been a mod since 2015 and you just noticed now? 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=215915.msg4745565#msg4745565

Virginia is new to the moderatorship though, yeah.  She joined this year, whereas I finally retired myself from the job.

Huh...go figure. I guess I forgot. I can't believe you retired though!