Now, the Real Shit

Since I've now covered that ground, it's time to deal with the real shit: The 2020 race has begun, good people. And I have to say, and this might surprise some folks who know me pretty well--it is entirely possible that, in 2020, I may be feeling the Bern'. Understand, please, that I was a real Hillary girl in 2016, and that to a large extent, this was somewhat to the genuine annoyance of some close to me, I'm sure. My go-to line was "Have I mentioned yet that I cannot wait to vote for Hillary Clinton?" There was a point to all that. You know, when it came to Hillary, people talked about an "enthusiasm gap." They'd talk about going to vote for her wit' holding their noses. I can't see voting for her, I heard--she just has too much baggage. And this was all from Democrats. My point, was that one could insist on fueling the "enthusiasm gap," or one could choose get get excited about voting for a mightily-qualified, glass-ceiling shattering, first-time Planned Parenthood endorsed candidate. The "enthusiasm gap" isn't a thing. It's you. And I am one who thinks that the Sanders campaign contributed to the Trump victory in 2016, that he stayed in the race far after he was mathematically cooked, and that he spent his time and effort shit-talking the process itself, doing everything he could to undermine the presumptive nominee's credibility until he finally, and I think begrudgingly, endorsed her in July. I absolutely think that Sanders played a role in our current regime under our own little President Baltar, and I think anyone who dismisses this out-of-hand hasn't really done the math. Not that I defend the Clinton camp like Tuukka Rask stops hockey pucks. I can't. Mistakes were made. Hubris did ensue. The candidate leaned too hard on "look at this braying jackass" rather than so much on "I am a really great broad." She chose a horrible running mate who added no energy to the campaign (can't even remember his name, can you?)

But stopping short at "she didn't win because she was a shitty candidate" just doesn't do it. Not when she actually won by more than 3 million votes. Not when the FBI chief dropped a flaming bag of poop on the door on Oct. 28. Not when Vladimir Putin was literally feeding people the weirdest talking points about our girl ever and actively organizing within the American electoral process.

Or, as FiveThirtyEight put it:

Campaigns probably don't have that much impact in presidential elections. Clinton's campaign made some tactical errors but these likely weren't enough to cost her the electoral college, especially given that she lost states such as Pennsylvania and Florida where she had campaigned extensively.

But I am a voter who tends to reset. I tend to whoosh the slate clean, as I did in 2012 to support Clinton, who I despised after 2008, after she fought and hung on, seemingly threatening a big D win and a vital one at that. (The truth is, Hillary had a far more valid argument for staying in than Bernie did--the math in that race was actually darned close, and it was not out of the realm of possibility considering the potential pull of unpledged delegates.)

I believe in starting over. And, my friends, you cannot deny the fundraising numbers. Bernie Sanders does not apparently suffer an "enthusiasm gap."

There is, in fact, only one candidate so far I wish would walk the plank. The way I see it, Barry, this is the time to let these people woo me. And Bernie comes at this from a more powerful position than before. So I might be woo'd, indeed. However, I think that Kamala Harris broad has some pretty good skills as well.

We'll just see how this goes.

Aren't you glad this one wasn't about shitting?