Slog PM: Trump's Clear Path to Victory in 2020, FACEBOOK, What the Fuck Happened at Bob's Burgers?



Bernie Sanders: "Never let the good be the enemy of the perfect!"


Facebrook: Omg. How incredibly boring. The best minds at the company and...: All caps, sans-serif font. ORIGINAL!

Following the same bland trend line bravely pioneered by Google, Burberry, AirBnB, Spotify, Pinterest, Bank of America, Microsoft, Berluti, Yves Saint Laurent, Balman, Ben Sherman and so many more.

That's corporate creativity for you folks! Pablum!




@1 - Apple dodging out on their taxes, and then spending a ^pittance^ in a self-serving "charity" move is... good? This is what our society wants? Nay, needs? This is what you call "good"? Corporate narcissism that simultaneously dilutes facts, boosts their toxic "brand image", while starving government of the much greater funding they would otherwise have available to put towards the goal of providing housing for the least fortunate?

IDK Chad, that doesn't sound even halfway to "good" in my book.
What happens next? Microsoft-branded high-speed rail service to Portland? smh


fb's too fucking Big to Fail
or Comply* but they'll never get
any fucking CAPS from me.

Is Zuck coming here
just to drive up the Rents?

*fuck off, peons.


@5 -- that's Zucked up.


Everyone has a right to live in Cupertino. But it's so expensive the people who scrub my toilet can't afford to live here. Pay them enough to make it worth their time and they will show up.
Are First World Problems now becoming the new justice causes?


As I've been saying all along, I think there is a pretty good chance that any of the three frontrunners could beat Trump in the general, but I also think there's a decent chance Trump can win again. It's going to be very close. And it seems that Liz Warren is the most likely to lose, but I think she could pull it off too. The polls aren't really accurate anyway- the election is going to be extremely close, that's the take away, and it's a full fucking year from now, a lot will change.

There's really nothing any candidate can do but throw their all into a really good campaign and hope to turn out as many people as possible- the Dems win when that 2-3% of the population that usually stays home is motivated to vote.

The sure fire path to failure is Dems pretending that Trump is so hated that they have it all in the bag, being complacent, trying to court moderate Republicans etc. This is how they will lose.

I think any of them could win if they run a really good campaign and really try to turn out their base. I happen to think Biden and Bernie have a better chance- Biden because old people like him, Bernie because more of the disaffected will turn out for him and no one else, and both of them because they do not come across as seeming like they have means test statements before they make them. I think Warren is least likely to win of the three because she does that political double speak thing where she flip flops on things and won't give straight answers and sometimes does stuff that seems insincere and staged. (This despite the fact that I prefer her to Biden personally, I can see her faults).

Also I think everything could change in the general. I think Bernie would stand up best to Trump's bullying. He's already bullied Warren into that stupid DNA test thing, and also you can tell when she gets flustered, it's visibly awkward when it happens. I think Biden can coast a bit on Obama nostalgia and old people voting for him- he has the Boomers of all races- but I think Trump would rake him over the coals over the Hunter stuff. I also don't know how much that will matter- the people in each of their camps are not likely to cross over.

I wish it was over already frankly. In short Dems need to work really fucking hard and stop being complacent and figure out already how to look strong after impeachment fails. At this point, they won't even enforce their own subpoenas, so I'm super fucking nervous about the fact that the future is in their hands.

But cut through the bullshit- Bernie is the only of those three with an organized movement behind him, organized against the actual enemies, and as the stonewalling in the Senate continues, I think that's what's really going to matter. Because while it's necessary to beat Trump, it's not sufficient to any change- Biden will not try to do anything and Warren has no strategy to achieve anything beyond compromise with industry & GOP and that's the difference.

We've got three months folks. Everyone throwing their weight behind Yang or Kamala or Tulsi or Mayo Pete really ought to start thinking more strategically.


Trump's going to get less of the popular vote than he did in 2016. If losing by 5% still can make you President, we've got a serious structural problem.


@4: 2.5 billion a pittance? Okay, set your bar. But at least Bernie could be a tad more gracious and magnanimous to a company whose products are owned by probably half of his supporters.


I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here, but what do we do when The Donald loses a few toe-to-toes to Bernie and sends in his Whackos?

What happens next?


@8 "Mayo Pete"

I think I have pleurisy now from laughing so hard. Absolute gold.


@Sir Toby

I think you are incorrect. You think that if Warren or Bernie is the nominee than the Dem base is going to stay home or vote for Trump?

The core base of the Dem party is going to vote Blue No Matter Who. They are precisely the people we can take for granted. It's the 2-3% of disaffected that matter- the ones who will not turn out for someone who offers them nothing.

Honestly it's the primary that's going to be the battle because only party hacks, enthusiastic supporters- and people who worry about what other imaginary people will do rather than voting for what they actually want- they are the only ones who vote in primaries.

So I think it's going to be harder for Warren or Bernie (especially) to win the primary over Biden, but I think once any one of the three have won it, the party base will fall in line. Then what's up for grabs is who is more likely to turn out that extra 2-3%.

Bernie does well with people under 50 of all races. Biden does well with people over 50 of all races. Warren does well with wealthier urban liberals. Booker and Harris really don't do well with anyone.

And here's something I think libs in blue states really need to understand. In red states and rural areas, the biggest bloc is people who don't vote. Next are Republican voters. Smallest is Democratic voters. Now liberals in blue states tend to look at this and see that this mean most people are conservative. But the truth- at least in most places I've been anyway- is that most people are disgusted with both parties equally, something that wealthier and urban liberals really will never understand (that's another topic). So those disgusted nonvoters - they want things to change. Will they turn out for a farther left candidate and boost that 2-3%? I don't know. It's an untested strategy. But one thing is for certain- they will not turn out for a moderate establishment Dem. Anyway, if you look at the donor base of the various Dem candidates, it's Bernie that has support in rural areas and in red & purple states, not Biden, not Warren, not Harris, not Booker.

I don't know if it's enough to push over for the win over the EC. I do know that Bernie and Warren both say they'll abolish the electoral college, so if either of them win and do manage to challenge that, it will have a greater effect into the future. But Bernie is the only candidate who is talking about removing corporate funding for the DNC altogether- since Warren will accept big money from DNC in the general, I can't imagine she'd push for real structural change once elected. That's how I'm thinking about it all anyway.


There's a link within the link I pasted above with NYTimes interactive donor map & data- fascinating if you want to zoom into different areas and play around with it, click on different candidates and see their stats. This was from a few months ago before the impeachment started and before Beto dropped out, but I think it's enough to blow away the idea that Bernie has only support in coastal areas, etc.

I also think data like this is more accurate than polls which can show things either way. Based on everything I can see, it looks to me like Warren, Biden and Bernie are basically in a three-way tie, with each having different levels of support in different states. I think it will be a contested convention.

But these things are famously difficult to predict, it's still a few weeks until the primary and a full year until the general, and honestly the only thing that would surprise me is anyone having a landslide. I think both the primary and the general are going to be extremely close.


BTW I didn't link to the NYT map directly b/c it's behind a pay wall for me.


When you shout about "our own important Electoral College-free election happening RIGHT NOW", I have to wonder if anyone you work with has told you that The Stranger backed districting for City Council elections. We used to elect the entire council at-large, citywide.


Daddy, he will be impeached (that's just the hearings) but he won't be found guilty. It would require 1) the GOP to allow it to proceed in the Senate and 2) every single Dem (including Manchin) both independents and 20 fucking Republicans to vote guilty. There is absolutely zero possibility that the same Dem party that can't even enforce a subpoena is going to convince 20 Republicans to vote against their party during an election year, and anyone who thinks so has not been paying attention for the last two decades.

For a quick reminder- they got ZERO republican votes in the House to proceed, couldn't even get two of their own to vote for it, and in the Senate, if all the GOP senators combined who have broken rank during the Trump years on various votes were to vote guilty, they'd still have to convince a dozen hardcore partisan Republicans to vote against their party.

It's not going to happen, unless you mean by "impeached" simply carry through with the show, in which case, yeah maybe. So what? It will be over nearly a year before election and no Trump supporters are going to be shocked to discover he's corrupt.


@18 Do you want to go back through the history of US presidential elections, assemble all the data, and come back to tell us that people past middle age have always had an overwhelming advantage in that particular contest, or would you rather just admit you've said something demonstrably fallacious just to drag Democrats, and are hoping nobody will notice?


@10 Apple's revenue for 2018 was 265 billion dollars. 2.5 billion is just under 1% of that.

What's your definition of "a pittance," exactly?


What’s amazing is folks on here actually believe Booker, or Harris stand a chance in hell. They are even more flawed than the top 3.

Pinning your hopes on a man that had a heart attack 3 weeks ago? Desperation is thick in this comment section.

Impeachment? Get a fucking clue! Not going to happen. By next year voters will be either cynical anything coming out is true, or turned off from voting Democratic because their sick of hearing impeachment nonsense. Impeachment issue is a hard left issue, it won’t win neither impeachment nor the election.

May as well put it all in, and out Gabbard on the ticket. She’s the only viable candidate in the lineup.


Profoundly shallow wishful thinking.


@9 when a party representing ~25% (and less) of the potential electorate can sustain a stranglehold on policy, you have a structural problem.


Latest Iowa poll:

Warren 23%
Sanders 19%
Buttigieg 18%
Biden 17%

Bernie is still in the mix and surging. Of course you wouldn't know since corporate media is disappearing Bernie. This thing is far from over.


@22: Why question the amount of a philanthropic venture in the first place? It's their money.


Pete has been getting nonstop blowjobs from the media from the jump despite having no practical experience and he’s doing alright in the polls. Yang offers absolutely nothing worth talking about besides his terrible UBI policy that is apparently the only idea he has ever had. And Tulsi is so unspeakably bad at politics that it is baffling she was ever elected to anything. The only thing keeping her afloat is that the incel crowd thinks she’s hot. They seem to like Yang too, for reasons that have never been clear, but we’re talking about a tiny sliver of the population with no loyalty to the democratic party so really who cares.


29: Original ideas lol? Who is this miracle candidate with original ideas? What fucking world are you living in?


30: Sorry, that was directed @ 28.


When have the Democrats EVER have won a presidency with an elderly candidate? The answer is and will remain "never".

We once had a socialist Prez.
He was 64 when elected.

Repubs were so Dismayed
they term-limited Prezzes from then on...


@32, edited:

"When have the Democrats EVER have won a presidency with an elderly candidate? The answer is and will remain 'never'." --dddady

We once had a socialist Prez.
He was 64 (and in a wheelchair) when elected.

Repubs were so Dismayed
they term-limited Prezzes from then on...


Tbf, barely 1/3 of the entire country votes. So when we say things like "50%" of the vote for a president, we're talking about 1/6th of the country, or ~60mil people.

@27 - No, it's OUR tax money that they dishonorably withheld via cheating.

Dear DEM Party: Please don't force me to vote for Biden over whatever the REPs throw against the wall. Please don't do that to us. Please. .... please...


As I said, I tend not to look at polls anymore because they've been so terribly wrong in the recent past and because they vary so much themselves, depending on who conducts them and who they call and what their sample size and methodology is as well as the fact that some of these have a huge margin of error, etc. And it's a year out.

The only purpose the polls serve is propaganda, and it's because you can find a poll to say anything you want. They are often used to support media narratives, but they are also used by individual campaigns to bolster their people.

Again, the reason Bernie matters despite his age is that he is the only person who is even attempting a strategy that would challenge stone-walling in the Senate and by industry. I think it's a slim chance that such a thing could succeed, but he's literally the only person with any chance of achieving anything at all. I don't know why liberals don't get this, especially after watching what happened with Obama. I hope seeing the impeachment fail will wake them up.

We do not have a functioning legislative system nor a functioning democracy. So it really doesn't matter which of the Dems you elect- none of them can achieve anything through our systems because our systems have been co-opted. So if you are not talking about how to achieve things OUTSIDE of our system, then you have no plan for anything and you are just running for a beauty contest. And Bernie is the only one talking about this, how to respond to industry and GOP stonewalling with things like general strikes, organized disruption, etc in the hands of the people. Warren, for christ's sake, is going to take big money (via the DNC) in the general. Her plans are castles in the sky. Biden doesn't even pretend he wants to change anything.


Honestly the only question any Dem candidate should be asked is "How do you plan to achieve anything?" because the answers to everything else are irrelevant if they don't have an answer to that one.

And every single one of them who talk about working with the GOP to pass legislation and compromising with industry lobbyists- which is all of them except one- should thereafter shut up about whatever their plans are since their answer to this first question shows they have zero chance of implementing them.

This is the most important conversation we should be having right now nationally.


"How do you plan to achieve anything?"

"Anything?" May as well ask "tell me about solving everything."

Will you except exceptionally broad answers like "By working at them and not giving up." Because those are the only answers that make any sense.

Believing there are single answers to such a complex question betrays a childish ill-formed understanding of how the world really exists.

The world exists in constant flux and change —you can't attach some simple check list to this world's problems. Certainly not one you can describe in a sound bite. The reality is nobody knows how to achieve big solutions to big problems until you try to do it.

We do not exist in a static world. Big systemic changes require constant adjustment and adaptation to current states and no one strict approach or ideology will solve the vast scope of problems like Climate Crisis.

Any plan will have to be vague and exist in simple strategies not bogged down in unknown tactical details.


Yes I literally mean ANYTHING. Again, I don't know where you guys have been. The strategy in the Senate was to deny the Democrats any legislation at all, even when it was something the Republicans wanted.

More specifically I mean any of the electoral reforms, health care reforms, climate change responses, immigration plans, etc that this current crop of Democrats are saying they are going to implement when they win.

Professor History said nothing tangible in his response. Neither would most of the candidates. Some vague shit about reaching across the aisle and compromising with industry- first off, if they win back some of the Senate then perhaps they can do some of that, and we'll get bullshit like first term Obama reforms- watered down, serving the ruling class- which are exactly what put us in the position we are in now.

But more likely, they will not take the Senate- there is no hope of that happening by 2020- so even THAT (watered down reforms that do nothing) will be impossible.

And I don't know how much more blatant this can be. We literally watched it happen for years under Obama. And it's happening right now with this impeachment bullshit- not a single Republican in the House went a long with it, and the Democrats can't even enforce a subpoena.

Y'all gotta wake up and see that the system you are pretending to work within has ALREADY ceased to function.

Any person who is serious about resisting the Republican agenda with their industry bosses can't pretend they are going to achieve anything through legislation nor the courts. If you are still pretending this, you are not paying attention.

And this is literally the only difference between Bernie and all the others- it's the main thing that matters. His strategy is to use the office to mobilize an organized base, through strikes and disruption and mass movement- to force change. Think- what ended the government shut down?

Again, I'm not sure this would work, I'm not super optimistic. But unless you can answer that question with another idea or a better plan, then nothing else you say/do matters.


@29: "Pete has been getting nonstop blowjobs from the media"

Crass or internally homophobic, or both. Maybe you're just a tad out of sorts today.



41 show me anywhere i said anything in support of loan forgiveness

The ubi is bad because not everyone needs financial aid and its existence would be used as an excuse to gut assistance programs for people who actually do need it


39 lol what

i will unapologetically concede to being crass but i hope you’re sitting down for this because straight guys get blowjobs too and contrary to what the angry man on your radio keeps yelling at you, not everyone in the media is gay


40: None of the ideas Sanders proposes are original. He's simply packaged social democratic boilerplate for a U.S. audience. Nothing wrong with that, and I basically like Sanders, but the claim that he invented his proposed solutions and policies out of thin air is silly.


What Bernie proposes is not "original" and he never claimed it was- he talks openly about his inspiration being FDR's New Deal, Eugene Debbs, and some European policies. But it is unique in the American Democratic field of the last several decades and also Daddy is correct that he has shifted the narrative so that the front runners must respond to his positions.

As for Yang and UBI, I have no opposition to UBI more generally but Yangs proposal simply presents it as a pay off so that no one must address the structural problems that necessitates it in the first place. He is a millionaire techie, which in this field makes him among the least wealthy. He's also among the people breaking party platforms and discussing wealth inequality, so I think his presence has had a net positive to the national conversation. Nonetheless, his foreign policy (while better than mainstream Democrats) comes across as naive and his overall schtick seems to be compromise with industry (reform, how?) or progressive libertarianism- in short, I don't see how he'd either A) achieve any of the things he proposes nor B) why he focuses on symptoms rather than causes.

In any case, he has zero chance of winning, so if you are throwing your weight behind him, you might instead think of how to be more strategic- and, if I can be a bit blunt here- better informed. Yang, like Tulsi, appeals to people who recognize that the current system is totally fucked but who really don't understand the current moment. Of course I'm sure I'll be called a snob for that, but it's just true- you can see it in their incoherent ideology regarding imperialism especially.


Yang has way more ideas than just UBI. It may not be the panacea for automation, but at least he is focused on attempting to steer the conversation towards that very real concern. I don't think he's qualified to be the president, but he would be a very strong member of the democratic cabinet in an advisory capacity imo.


The Electoral College has GOT to go. Period.