• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    r u reddy on Supercitizens
    r u reddy on Supercitizens
    Sweet Sue on Supercitizens
    paper dollr doll on Supercitizens
    paper dollr doll on The White House ignored the St…
    paper dollr doll on The White House ignored the St…
    tdraicer on Supercitizens
    Philip Baum (@philip… on Supercitizens
    Sweet Sue on Supercitizens
    riverdaughter on Supercitizens
    Sweet Sue on Supercitizens
    riverdaughter on Supercitizens
    Sweet Sue on Supercitizens
    Sweet Sue on Supercitizens
    quixote on Supercitizens
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos debate Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    August 2012
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul   Sep »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The End of the Rebels in the Ukraine and the Ukraine’s Future
      We’re down to street fighting in Donetsk.  The Russian leaders resigned in the last two weeks.  The rebels appear to be done, at least in terms of their conventional military phase (of course, I could be wrong depending on how much stomach Ukrainian troops have for house to house fighting).  It seems like that would [...]
  • Top Posts

Attention New Jersey Voters- Rocky Anderson will be on the ballot

Anderson/Rodriguez ballot positions

Democrats in Exile who want to vote for a candidate who more closely represents their point of view and values, should check out Rocky Anderson’s page.  He has a map that shows where he is now on the ballot for the fall election.  He will be on the ballot in New Jersey, probably in a dark, obscure corner in 9pt font.  You will need to be determined to find him but at least you will have an option.

You won’t need to vote for the crazy party with the whip kissing authoritarian, mean spirited, hard hearted judgmental, religious nutcases who worship greed and ignorance and crave for someone to beat them, beat them *hhhharder*.

Nor will you be forced to sign on to your own severe haircut courtesy of your former party who doesn’t have the guts to impose one on the banking industry that bought their candidate.  (Anyone who still thinks Hillary wouldn’t have been different isn’t seeing the whole picture yet.  There’s no chance in Hell the bankers were going to let a potential New New Dealer get anywhere near the mechanisms of government.  You’ve been HAD, guys.  Deal with it.)

The ability to exercise a choice is what separates free people from unfree people.  It separates democracies from single party governments and authoritarian regimes.  Right now, the major parties *think* they have you cornered.  You either vote for ugly or son of ugly.  And the son of ugly party isn’t going to offer you a better choice because son of ugly is firmly in the grips of the people who now own both parties.  As long as the Democrats do their financiers’ bidding, they’re going to keep offering you son of ugly candidates.  And if that’s the route they’re going to go, they’re going to make themselves irrelevant because no matter how you vote, you’re going to end up with the same thing: rule by rich, powerful MEN.

The Democrats think this strategy is working for them.  As long as they’re in power, they won’t challenge their masters.  If it looks like they’re going to lose, maybe they will.

Whatever.

I can almost hear the Democratic loyalists screaming, “Don’t throw your vote away!  If you do, the Republicans will win and the world will end and bad things will happen, you stupid, racist, low information voter!”

Let’s see, I’m a single divorced mother in the little Depression and I’ve lost my job in an industry that is deserting the US at an accelerated pace and is never coming back and I’m paying over $900/month for COBRA.  AND I live in New Jersey where the cost of living is ridiculous.  How can it get any worse??  Obama has been a disaster for me and my two daughters.  If the Democrats are really worried that they will lose the White House in November because some of us can’t stomach the thought of signing on to four more years of the party’s demands for self-evisceration, then they should seriously consider asking their candidate to step aside, just as they asked Jon Corzine to step aside in NJ in 2009 before he lost to Chris Christie.  In the meantime, I have to think about the future and make my decisions based on what will constitute my own future happiness and without any reference to the happiness of politicians indentured to the bonus class.  I don’t feel obligated to sacrifice any more to a party who treats me like a child and keeps telling me I must eat my beets before I can have broccolli.

When the Democratic party gets serious again about representing its base, they will let me know in a significant way.  Having Bill Clinton speak at the convention isn’t going to cut it.  It’s going to have to be a MUCH bigger signal than that.  After all, Obama, the *presumptive* nominee, would still be on the ballot and I don’t trust anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth.  After four years, there’s no reason to trust him. And if his plans to cut the deficit are true, I’d have to be a pretty gullible sucker to vote for him.  With either party, I’m going to be forced to sacrifice very deeply, painfully and to my ultimate detriment.  Why should I sign on to that?  If the Democrats want me to vote for them again, they’re going to have to reestablish my trust.  They aren’t making any moves in that direction.

So, why shouldn’t I put my efforts in to changing the system, starting now, even if it takes a long time?  I’ve got decades until retirement. I might as well look after my own interests from now on, not some major party’s.

I’m not interested in playing games or jumping to the financiers’ tune.  I’m interested in putting the country back to work, holding people accountable for their actions, ending the wars that are sucking us dry, and equality for all people regardless of sex or sexual orientation.  And now, I have a choice just like all the other voters in NJ, and Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and FLORIDA!  If you’re in Minnesota, Idaho, Vermont and Rhode Island, the campaign is looking for volunteers to get petitions to get on the ballot.  In some of the other states, like NY and PA, your write in vote will count.  But there are still some big states out there, like California and Texas, where the state still needs petitions signed to allow Anderson’s vote to be counted as a write in.

Think about it.  Ugly, son of ugly or something completely different.  Don’t let anyone tell you that unless you vote for one of the major parties that your vote doesn’t matter.  Now, you have two viable alternatives: Anderson or Jill Stein.

*********************

And while the Obama campaign is burning through money like there’s no tomorrow, throwing everything it can at Mitt Romney, it’s barely moving the needle in the polls.

New results from surveys over the past week in Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin, combined with surveys last week in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, show that Mr. Romney so far appears to be holding his own with that group, but running no stronger than Senator John McCain did four years ago.

Similarly, Mr. Romney is trying to peel off as many female voters as possible from Mr. Obama’s electoral coalition, hoping to offset the president’s advantages among single and nonwhite women by appealing to married and white women with a message about economic security and pocketbook issues.

But while the poll suggests that Mr. Romney is making inroads among women in Colorado, where he is also showing strength against Mr. Obama by several other measures, support for Mr. Obama among women has otherwise held up in the battleground states. As a result, Mr. Obama has so far been able to stave off bigger losses in the most hotly contested states, in particular among independents, who are divided in Colorado and Wisconsin and supporting Mr. Romney in Virginia, and white men, who are supporting Mr. Romney by double digits over the president in all three states.

Take a look at that sentence in bold.  That right there is the nugget that keeps getting buried by all of the Democratic loyalists who make it sounds like he’s on track for term two.  Obama is not going to battle to victory.  He’s spending obscene gobs of cash and he *still* can’t keep from sliding in the polls.  He’s just not sliding as badly.  His campaign has Jon Corzine written all over it.  Far from ensuring a Democratic victory in November, the Democrats are making a Republican one more likely by running with a guy we can’t trust who is without a shadow of a doubt in the pocket of the very same assholes who created the mess in the first place.

Sure, it may be tricky to change horses mid stream but not when you have a much stronger candidate available.

*********************

How to stand up to intense pressure and ridiculous arguments from the aristocratic rich with dignity, courtesy of Jane Austen:

About these ads

41 Responses

  1. I had only heard of Stein. I’m listening to Rocky now. Also, wants to drop this video off so the Conf can see — it’s on Bain. Both RD and I went through Bain type things in big companies. I just took my early retirement which is bogus from the NYT. Neither Obama or Romney give a damn about what women like RD and I have gone through. And? After watching the vid on Hillary the other day and hearing the idiots speak about “white women” and how they were going to be a problem? Wow. Am liking what Rocky is saying. In the video. RD thanks for this. He is saying “there is a moral line we each can draw” — wow. Will be FB’ing this! God.

    • Which video? If you are trying to embed a video, follow these steps (remove the single quotes):
      1.) Type a ‘['
      2.) Type 'youtube='
      3.) Paste the url of the video after the '='
      4.) Type ']‘
      That should do it. We are restricted to certain media formats. Youtube is standard.

  2. Here is the backstory on Bain. Through the eyes of Americans. You can multiply this by millions of people. It’s not just Bain. It was the corporate mindset.

  3. I was listening to Rocky — RD he nails it! God. How did we get from JFK and LBJ to here? So sick. Sold down the river. Hugs. Even McCain wasn’t like Bain, RD. This will make you cry.

    • “How did we get from JFK and LBJ to here” is a very crucial question actually. If you can stand the thought of perusing some deeply mainstream-disrespected but still high-thought-quality sources, you might look at Rigorous Intuition 2.0 and/or listen to podcasts or read transcripts of David Emory’s “For The Record” broadcasts as part of his “anti-fascist radio/ spitfire list” project.

      http://rigint.blogspot.com/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Emory

  4. Which is why Bain can afford to keep Clear Channel and Clear Channel can pay 50 million a year to keep Rush Limbaugh’s pipes tuned.

    http://roofingbird.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/following-posts-on-the-sandra-fluke-attack/

  5. Bua haa haa eat it, Obots!

    Thought dissing Blue Collar Hillary supporters was the smart thing to do?

    It’s coming back to bite you on the butt.

    The only question in my mind at this time is which Third Party candidate gets my vote.

    BTW Got a reply from Sen Bob Casey Jr. he supports Social Security but no pledge from him or Obama on it.

  6. Or this: http://roofingbird.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/sandra-fluke-revisited/

    Bain is a sore subject; they well represent corporate raiders.

  7. Love that scene with Lady Catherine! I’ve seen it so many times, and it still rocks :) Thanks for posting it and for reminding us that standing up for yourself can be immensely strong and dignified, regardless of whether others (Lady Catherine or tame Dems) call you names. It gives me a lot of support to (for the first time in my life) not vote for a Democrat for President.

    • My pleasure. We should all aspire to have the wit and courage of Lizzy Bennett regardless of our ‘low connections’. We are all equal in this country even if the bonus class would prefer otherwise.

  8. We all bear witness to a once great political party now bent on its own demise. Its leader cares more about preserving the wealth of his financial backers than the well-being of the constituency that voted for him. His policy substance is to do whatever necessary to recapitalize the failed banks while offering PR and half-baked relief to the population. The Party need not take this path. It can do what any rational entity would do when faced with a survival choice: it can attempt to self-correct. It has another, mission-ready candidate in the wings
    Make the call, Democrats.

    • Individual leadership Democrats are already making their own rational calls from the standpoint of their own personal multi-million-dollar private-sector-payoffs which they hope to collect after leaving office.

      That doesn’t explain why people like John Dingell, Marcy Kaptur, Tom Harkin, etc. have remained in the Democratic Party. Perhaps a very good political psychiatrist could explain that.

  9. I don’t know if you are familiiar with the Gotye song< but this out to make a few smile – Uppity had it today….h/t Lorac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJnAp3YxCCw&feature=player_embedded
    the orig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVNT4wvIGY

  10. Well well . . . looking at Digby’s most recent comment and its thread, I see that some of the unbanned commenters are now saying some of the things which Sarah B., I, Monster, and some other people got secretly stealth-banned for. I wonder what Digby and her little mini-me David Atkins are thinking now. I wonder what they will say if enough ex Democratic voters do what they have to do to make very sure . . . surer than sure . . . that Obama loses.

    • And in fact, re-reading Digby’s entry after reading the comments, it becomes clear that Digby is working for the conspiracy. Her job is to sell helpless bystanderhood and keep her Democratic-voting readers voting Democratic and especially voting Obama to cut their survival goverbenefits. Surely it is clear to all why Digby brought Atkins onto the blog.

      • Yes and No. She’s doing the loyalty thing but it’s very clear to me that she is not enjoying it in the least. While she’s happy to bludgeon Romney mindlessly, she is not happy with Obama. In fact, to me, it looks like she is about as disgusted with him as we are.

        • I agree. Digby is probably the most frustrating person to me in the blogosphere. Sharp as a tack, great writing, clear ability to see to the heart of an issue, great liberal instincts and reactions, ability to call BS on her own side – but she can’t follow the logic of her own judgments to even question the idea that Outside the Democratic Party There is No Salvation. It probably frustrates her too because you can tell how upset she is with Obama from what she writes, but then she has nowhere to go (in her mind anyway) with that anger.

          • Perhaps she takes it out on her commenters. Perhaps that is what motivates her deceitful new method of secret stealth banning and de-facto lying about the new-introduction of secret stealth banning. Perhaps that is what motivates her stealth erasure of comments and her adoption of a commenting system which “ghosts” comments for pre-censorship ahead of being posted or not at her discretion . . . also without the slightest shred of honesty or integrity in terms of admitting that she does this.

            The only reason I can’t say this over “there” instead of back “here” is that I was one of qquite a few people who wwere two-facedly lyingly
            deceitfully secret-stealth-banned over there.

            I am just glad I never got around to giving her any money. You can be sure that I never will.

      • This is what’s so frustrating: the left blogosphere feels betrayed by Obama but none of them break from him. I mean he royally screwed us with the ACA but instead of withdrawing support for him and pushing a primary opponent on him, everyone sighed and got back into line. Digby is one example. There are really good people over at Kos who were ready to bolt the party after the ACA debacle, but now they’re singing with the Romney-is-evil chorus.

        • Yves Smith at NaCap alluded to something she called Veal Penning.
          She hinted that many of the progressive blogs and groups and so forth
          recieved funding from various so-called “liberal” or “progressive” funders and foundations. She claimed that the Obama Administration was somehow able to extort the funders into withholding funds from the groups and bloggers until the groups and bloggers agreed to function as Obama support and propaganda outlets. But Yves Smith never wrote a detailed post about HOW this was done. I hope she or somebody does so, really getting down to facts and cases, etc.

          Whether digby and her little fool tool perform Veal Penning from pressure or from personal conviction does not matter to me. They serve the Class Enemy Occupation Democratic Party and its Class Enemy Occupation President. Let them live with the fact of their Freely Chosen servitude.

  11. So, I went to the CA SOS website and sure enough, as of 7/16 Anderson was listed as the P and F candidate.

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/nov-general/

    However, it appears he may not be on the final ticket:

    http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/barrsheehan-2012-vs-the-war-party-by-cindy-sheehan/

    It looks like Barr/Sheehan.

    • In CA Stein got 9,165 votes to Barr’s 7,399 under the Greens. Anderson got 1,589 under the P&F. Compare that to the perpetual Edward C. Noonan under the American Independent Party, with 16,926, in a close field of three. That’s the right wing nutters who are most noted for supporting Wallace’s segregationist campaign in 1968.

      It makes sense that Barr would go to P&F.

      So, if you are considering any of these candiates, I agree with you that it won’t make a ripple unless it it a small state with a concentrated effort.

      To keep it in perspective, O got 2,075,905 at 100%, and R got 1,530,513 79% of their votes. Total votes for the Repugs was 1,924,970. Turnout was was a record low 31.1% If anything, it appear that the right has a bigger problem in CA, unless everyone stays home again. Then O might be in trouble.

  12. ” He will be on the ballot in New Jersey, probably in a dark, obscure corner in 9pt font. You will need to be determined to find him but at least you will have an option.”

    So will votes for him be reported on the news, or just lumped under “Other”? Or will some DNC staffers be determined enough to find out how many votes he got, and get the message?

    I’m looking for a third party liberal candidate whose votes will be reported and noticed.

    • That will depend on how many people vote for him. If he gets enough votes to have an impact, like winning a state and/or flipping a swing state for one of the two major party candidates, I’m going to bet the media will be all over that.
      But you should only vote for Anderson if you like what he stands for. If more people did that, instead of thinking that the only way their votes counts is if it gets reported, then a third party candidate could be a real contender.
      Don’t forget Ross Perot and the first third party candidate in my lifetime that made a difference, John Anderson. They were legitimate candidates and their impact was reported because people were willing to spend their votes on them.

      • And TALK about it through the summer and fall of those years. I guess the equivalent this year would be twittering

      • I remember John Anderson. I voted for Barry Commoner that year.
        Let’s put a biologist/ecologist in the White House! Yay! Such a purist I was.

    • There is matter and there is dark matter. There is energy and there is dark energy. If enough heretofore-Democratic voters vote against Obama or leave the Presidential line blank . . . to the point where Obama fails to win through failure to harvest a winning number of votes . . . his loss will be net-net overall noticed, even if particular votes which did not materialise “for” him are not admitted-to in terms of who they did materialise for.

  13. [...] Emergent parties: “When the Democratic party gets serious again about representing its base, they will let me know in a significant way.Now, you have two viable alternatives: Anderson or Jill [...]

  14. Cuteness break! :mrgreen:

  15. If you think having Bill Clinton speak at the convention is any sort of signal, however small, of the Democratic party returning to its base then you may well be a low information voter (unless by “its base” you’re referring to JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, et al — but there was no hint that you were attempting humor.)

    Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, decimated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC, aka “welfare”) repealed Glass-Steagall, and signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which unleashed the Wild West of unregulated derivatives trading which cratered the world economy.

    There are direct lines between those actions massive off-shoring of jobs, the slashing of the social safety net, and the monumental swindle/upward transfer of wealth that was the housing bubble and post-collapse bailouts.

    Obama represents a faithful continuation of Clinton’s policies, not a departure from them.

    • I send your mother no compliments!

    • Jeff, we’ve gone over this on the Confluence for YEARS. Some of us just simply disagree with you about the purpose of Clinton’s policies. For example, changing welfare was a good thing. But it wasn’t just one piece of the social welfare system that he wanted to change. The changes he had in mind were substantial enough that all of us would have benefitted. That’s why the Republicans sent him 2 welfare reform bills that were so bad he couldn’t sign them Eventually, he signed one and then undid much of the damage in his second term.
      We know our history, Jeff. We’re not young, naive Democrats that you can influence easily.
      We know all about NAFTA, who initiated the treaty, who stripped out all of the labor protections and who got the blame for it. And those of us who have been in the workforce since 1992 know that NAFTA was not as big a threat to American workers as China and India.
      The whole finance reform stuff? Yeah, we don’t like that much. But we also know that Clinton wanted to keep mortgages available to people living in poor neighborhoods and Republicans used that as hostage to get what they wanted. In the end, both houses of Congress had a veto proof majority on that bill.
      In short, you’re not being honest about Bill Clinton and we all know it. The same old shit keeps coming up and we keep shooting it down.
      Nevertheless, as reasonable as Clinton might be at the convention, and let’s face it, Clinton looks like a commie liberal next to Obama, he’s going to be doing it out of loyalty to the party. A party that stabbed his wife in the back, I might add. But if there is no mutiny at the convention, then we’ll still be stuck with Obama.
      And that’s what really counts, Jeff. Obama. He’s the one you need to defend. I don’t think you can.
      It’s time to stop bashing Clinton. Yes, it really is. He’s not the one in charge. He’s not the one who sold out to the bankers, sat on the unemployment problem, neglected stressed homeowners, gave a gift to the health insurance industry and is looking to make a grand bargain that will leave many of us destitute in our old age.
      OBAMA did all that, not Clinton.

      • Word

      • I watch my midlife, unemployed Obot ex flail and flounder trying to make sense of his world after factoring out chunks of reality. Magically everything that’s wrong is the Republicans’ fault. If I tell him his hip new friend in the White House and his Wall Street backers don’t care if he never works again, he shrieks in pain. But it’s true. It’s astonishing how he thinks (or doesn’t) yet calls other people sheep. Look in the mirror fella.

  16. I might sit out this election. I cannot bring myself to vote for the two major candidates and since I don’t know yet what ballot I would get as an expat, I don’t know my 3rd party choices. Plus the new registration form asks if I intend to return to the US or not and I frankly have no idea how to answer that question.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/change-to-ballot-request-form-angers-us-expats.html?pagewanted=all

  17. I agree with you that Obama is not defensible. I say that as someone who not only voted for him (and for Clinton, for what that’s worth), but voted for him a with a greater sense of conviction, pride and, choosing words advisedly HOPE, than any other ballot I had previously cast.

    As for Clinton, suffice it to say I don’t agree with your apologia. As for NAFTA, however many hands were involved in its design, there was only one involved in its signature. This one: http://tinyurl.com/8h4fr55 (The same hand that signed the paychecks of Larry Summers and Robert Rubin as they were engineering financial deregulation, whether you care to remember it or not.) Whether China or India was a bigger “threat” than Mexico or Canada, the Democrats’ trade policy, like virtually every other part of their domestic policy for the last 25 years or so at least, has been pro-corporatist and anti-labor, and has had the effects that I find it very difficult to avoid concluding they fully intended: to render working people more tractable to big business; to transfer wealth upwards; to facilitate the large-scale off-shoring of the nation’s productive capacities to low wage/high profit countries, to financialize the economy, etc, etc. Whether it was obvious at the time or not is debatable.

    But whatever Clinton’s shortcomings, and they were many, and significant, I’ll say this for him: the Constitution (remember, that quaint old thing they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend) was not noticeably worse off when he left office than when he arrivedsch. In contrast, what Obama has done to it not only doesn’t warrant reelection, he’s more deserving of impeachment. And (you’ll have to take my word for it) I’m not one given to making gratuitous inflammatory remarks for rhetorical effect.

    In any case, thanks for the info on Anderson. Guess it’ll be either him or Jill Stein for me in 2012.

    • At first, when you said you “voted for Clinton,” I thought you meant Ms. Clinton. Silly me.

      And while you’re not given to inflammatory remarks, you are given to believing marketing campaigns. The notion that you believed in Obama in 2008, and only realized the truth after he was elected speaks for itself. The rest of us saw thru him, around January 2008, if not sooner. What he stood for was so obvious. I’m glad you woke up, and I hope your realizations about Obama lead to more rational decision-making in the future.

      • While “tolding you so” can feel unseemly and gloaty at times, I will grant that it is important so that we can know who was right about what beFORE the bad choices were made.

        So in that spirit, let me brag just a little about knowing which DemPrimary candidate opPOSED NAFTA and MEANT it as against which DemPrimary candidate suPPORTed NAFTA but was less than candid about it. During the DemPrimaries of 1990, Tom Harkin of Iowa
        bitterly opposed and rejected the entire concept of NAFTA, along with the whole concept of Free Trade Agreements in general, and I voted for him on that basis. Clinton tried to hide his utter and absolute support for NAFTA under a radar-jamming chaff-cloud of claiming to want “side agreements” on labor rights and environmental standards enforcement and so forth. But I was not fooled and that is why I supported anti-NAFTA Harkin as against pro-NAFTA Clinton.

        Please note that I am not making any argument about the objective good brought or damage wrought by NAFTA in the real meatspace-economy world in which we live and suffer. I am merely claiming my due credit for having been correct about which DemPrimary candidate was against NAFTA and which was for NAFTA based on what what
        one honestly said and what the other one danced around.

        But Harkin lost and dropped out soon after. Oh well. Flowover states like Iowa and Illinois and etc. are not taken seriously by bicoastal persons. Maybe when global warming destroys heartland agriculture to the extent that corn costs a dollar per kernel, then the Midwest will be taken seriously for real.

        • I imagine I voted for Clinton in the General Election, though. I remember pulling the “straight Democrat” lever. (Voting machines were still those heavy iron flip-a-lever machines, as I remember).

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 446 other followers

%d bloggers like this: