“What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents.”

It looks like Tecmo Bowl when the opponent calls your play.

To be clear: you are implying that a child became a “reformed bigot.” In high school.

This is the part I am talking about:

I don’t understand this article.

Just say “comic book convention” or CBC. Seems like it’s the specific “comic con” shorthand that’s the issue.

I see you have decided to go with the “Gallup, CNN, and 538 are all wrong” position. I’ve provided multiple citations of leading news organizations using the term in exactly the same way I just used it. Feel free to take it up with them.

CNN:

I’m talking about real results, not imagined ones.

I like people who didn’t die from brain cancer.

If a bloc of the voting electorate that only represents a quarter of the voting eligible population elects conservatives, that means three quarters of the population don’t want to vote for conservatives.

It seems I correctly determined you’re one of the right-wing trolls that insists on “Democrat Party.” (The best ones also express indignant outrage at the use of the term “teabagger” to accurately describe the political faction that started out by bringing teabags to rallies.) Have fun with that.

Because the former have proven that they are willing and able to vote, whereas the votes of latter are purely hypothetical. Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that there are people who don’t vote because they view Republicans as too liberal, so your argument doesn’t really provide any guidance as to what politicians…

Nobody cares about “share of the population,” since that’s not how elections work. They care about “share of voters.” If conservatives are winning greater percentages of the people who actually vote, the logical response from Democrats would be to run to the right and compete for those votes, not to run left and…

So when forced to choose between the following:

Hey, if you think “nominating centrists” is such a bad idea, why don’t you try winning primaries so you can nominate who you want? I mean, that’s how the Tea Party took over the GOP and enforced ideological conformity on the right.

The correct words are “a Democrat-controlled Congress” as the system the US operates in is democratic and representatives are elected democratically.

Oh, you mean after a Democratically-controlled Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act with veto-proof majorities earlier that year? Tell me more about The Last Liberal President Richard Nixon.

I’ve already had my fill of the purity pony squad after y’all threw the election to Dubya in 2000. The thing about being “anti-establishment” is that whoever is in control is necessarily the establishment, so you’ll never be satisfied.

MI + WI literally did not affect the outcome of the election, and if you genuinely feel the need to campaign in those two states, the election is already over and you lost. It’s as dumb and useless as campaigning in Illinois or Massachusetts. The idea that Hillary Clinton did not spend enough time and resources in…