I can only hope so!
Many stayed away because we were told that under the new state rules, we would not be voting for candidates directly. Most figured why bother if we’re not even voting. I couldn’t go because I had to work that night.
Look, the Colorado caucus was a giant clusterfuck. Under RNC rules, if we had voted for a candidate, the delegates would have been bound but by never voting for a candidate but by selecting delegates our contingent is not bound. The way it turned out we should have either done it the way every other state did it OR chosen volunteers at random from each congressional district/state as a whole.
Get that down to fewer words than “The guy with the most votes should win” and slap it on a bumper sticker and you’re golden 
“Show up or Shut up” 
You should work for a campaign.
Just so long as it’s not Trump’s…
Not so different from many American Christians, who pretty much ignore what Jesus said about public prayer, accumulation of wealth, compassion for the less fortunate, etc.
I am shocked
[/spoiler]
to learn of a fake Christian in politics.
Jesus wasn’t a true Christian!
CMC fnord!
IIRC you once said “Most people know just enough about their Holy books to justify whatever their beliefs are” or words to that effect.
That said, I’m sure they could find other passages though like Jesus claiming they needed to follow ever not and tittle of the law. The Crusaders I’m pretty sure had read the Sermon on the Mount.
P.M. Carpenter’s latest post nicely lays out a case that dovetails with my reasons for rooting for Drumpf to win the nomination (which led me to even consider, for a time, crossing over to vote for him in the Missouri primary). He also punctures the huffy posturing from Dana Milbank (among many others) about how we need to transcend partisanship and oppose Drumpf’s nomination on principle, or something:
He goes on to make another point I’ve long been fond of: namely, that while it might obviously be ideal if we could get Democrats out for midterms, we can sufficiently move progressive incrementalism forward by occasionally getting a two-year cycle of Democratic control of the Oval Office and both houses of Congress, then fighting a rearguard action to protect those gains the rest of the time.
You sure are enamoured with this P.M. Carpenter guy. Kind of weird - he’s just some nobody blogger.
Oliver’s failed Drumpfening is the saddest and most desperate thing ever. I don’t think I have ever seen even one tenth the effort put into forcing a meme.
It’s mostly a form of virtue signalling by normie liberals to show how “funny” they are.
It’s middle school antics. “Yeah, we may have lost, but we sure told them!” It’s a more sophisticated version of “You’re momma!”
Not that I don’t love those shows, but what makes them good is that they are informative while being entertaining. But when they get into trying to claim scalps they always fail. Clowns don’t claim scalps. Ruthless people claim scalps. See: Karl Rove, Lee Atwater. They destroy candidates. Which is why John Oliver does entertainment and doesn’t work on a campaign.
Yes, it sure is strange for anyone to read the same blog on a regular basis. Normally people who like blogs just read a different blog every day at random. :rolleyes:
That “nobody” part is particularly interesting to me, though. You do realize that when you read a thread here, you are just reading a bunch of nobodies (as far as anyone knows, anyway)? Each thread’s OP is basically equivalent to a blog post, and then with a bunch of comments below. So your complaint is what’s actually “kind of weird”, IMO. :dubious:
You can’t measure this one “working” or not by Google trends. I have never once put “Drumpf” into a search engine. Yet not only do I use that moniker to refer to him, thanks to the browser extension every article, Facebook post, etc. refers to him the same way, from my perspective. Even if I’m the only one left in the world blissfully remaining in that state (which I doubt, given what huge reach Oliver has shown in the past), I enjoy it and it looks just the same to me as it would if it had “caught on like wildfire” or whatever.
Maybe that last is the real point: unlike Pierce Hawthorne trying to get “streets ahead” to take hold as a catchphrase, those of us who have Drumpfinated aren’t really in the business of trying to make it catch on, while sort of anxiously looking around to see if others are doing the same. I don’t know if I’ve come across hundreds of people using it in comments on news sites, Twitter, Facebook, etc., or if it’s just the Drumpfinator making it look that way. And I don’t really care. 
ETA:
You mean “*your *momma”. (Presumably.)
But how have we “lost” to Drumpf? I know you like predictions, but that’s quite a whopper. Can I quote you on that? Because if Drumpf wins the election in the fall, I will–as they saying goes–eat my hat.
Trump will probably lose, but a) it won’t be because he got made fun of, and b) GWB was the focus of a much more coordinated campaign of ridicule.
Perhaps a campaign of ridicule could be effective, but probably only against someone who cares about being taken seriously. Trump and Bush are brash guys who don’t really care what others think of them. Ridicule probably hurts someone like Clinton a lot more.
Sometimes you seem particularly insightful for a Republican, but then…huh? “Trump and Bush are brash guys who don’t really care what others think of them”?!?
Let’s just leave Bush aside: I wasn’t talking about him, this thread’s not about him, he’s history. But Drumpf? I can’t think of any public figure who is more thin-skinned, who cares *more *about what people think of him. Where on earth did you get that?
ETA: Thin-skinned people almost always try to make a show of not caring what others think, but I always find this insistence incredibly transparent and even more cringe-inducing. I had no idea that anyone actually took those protestations at face value.
Mocking some foreign name seems just so damn… sad.