The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[politicus]

Hillary Fans Society of Mutual Support is at work here, I see.

you got owned kaljetw, don't sulk about it

I wish. "Got owned (by)" and "Beet" does not belong in the same sentence. Keep searching, my friend

Well, this time he did own you. Congrats Beet.

[IceSpear]

Hillary Fans Society of Mutual Support is at work here, I see.

Well, if us Hillary fans don't hang together, we'll hang separately.

But really, it was an excellent post regardless.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't have an opinion, because fat people are far too diverse of a group to pigeonhole into neat little categories like 'Freedom Fighter' or 'Horrible Person.' Beyond that, what are we even defining as 'fat'? Obese? Overweight? The idea of what a fat person is varies from person to person and is in part derived from how we view ourselves in comparison to others, what we find attractive, etc.

I will make the prediction that this thread will not end well, though.

[Mechaman]

Not a Communist, but sums up my thoughts to a T:

I left the Democratic Party when I came to understand that liberals and I have fundamentally different outlooks on the structure of society and the meaning of politics. I used to think that liberals were on the same page with those of us on the left, and that we just had tactical disagreements. Lived experience (working as a Democratic Party functionary in college) and the historical record proved that assumption incorrect, and ever since, I have stopped identifying with liberalism and picked up the banner of communism.

Liberalism is more or less the ideology of the bohemian bourgeois' contempt for workers. Its chief representatives look the other way as the American industrial base is gutted and sent abroad, as the right of workers to free association is eroded day after day, as young workers are sent to jail in rhetoric numbers in its phony 'War on Drugs', and actively asserts the 'right' of the United States to bomb other countries into the stone age if they do not except the dictates of its capitalist overlords. It is the raising of rule by bureaucrat to its logical conclusion, where freedom ends where the feelings of the bourgeois bohemians begin. It says that guns should only be in the hands of racist cops, that the state should be able to read your emails and monitor your phone calls, and that it should keep you safe from things like violent video games. It substitutes fake anti-racism and fake anti-sexism (like arguing that promoting more women and minorities to leadership positions in the capitalist system will somehow act as a panacea for the lived experiences of women workers and workers of color) for the genuine article, and in doing so weakens both and emboldens the identitarian right.

Liberalism as an ideology can never be truly liberatory in the capitalist epoch, because it has sacrificed every bit of what made it a revolutionary, liberatory creed in the 18th and 19th centuries on the alter of profit.

Conservatism, like liberalism, is an ideology full of contempt for workers, but on a different level. Whereas liberalism represents the trendy, bohemian version of hating the working class and apologizing for the parasitical upper crust, conservatism is its knuckle-dragging cousin. Conservatism doesn't have any of the pretensions of liberalism and knows it, openly using sexism, racism, and other bigoted ideas to divide workers into separate, hostile identities so as to better exploit them. In spite of saying that they're against 'identity politics', the conservative is the most able user of them, embracing the dog-whistle politics of white supremacy, exalting the patriarchal family unit, and defending 'traditional' gender roles and sexual norms. It promotes the idea of a white, christian male society constantly under siege by the 'other', when it obviously knows better. Like liberalism, conservatism is very concerned with what you're posting on the Internet, who you're talking to and why, and wants to keep bad ideas out of your head, although in their case the ideas are ones that challenge their retrograde view of society as a divinely ordained system where the good and virtuous are rewarded while the evil are always punished or whatever.

I can't identify with either of those ideologies because, at their root, they are the ideologies of the class that exploits my labor, robs me of my free time, and dictates the course of my every day existence by way of its ownership of the means of production. As a member of the exploited class, the working class, I can only view myself as a communist because I want to end that exploitation once and for all and build a society that truly values all of humankind, i.e. a stateless, classless, race-less, gender-less, sexual orientation-less¹, etc. society.


¹Obviously in saying this I don't mean that we'd all be some kind of gray blob with no sexual desire whatsoever (although this seems to be the end goal of some of our liberal friends, if we take their rhetoric seriously). I mean this in the sense that socially constructed identities, like straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc would be dissolved and society constructed in such a way that we reject the idea of biologically determined sexual preferences and the like

[t_host1]

Not a Communist, but sums up my thoughts to a T:

I left the Democratic Party when I came to understand that liberals and I have fundamentally different outlooks on the structure of society and the meaning of politics. I used to think that liberals were on the same page with those of us on the left, and that we just had tactical disagreements. Lived experience (working as a Democratic Party functionary in college) and the historical record proved that assumption incorrect, and ever since, I have stopped identifying with liberalism and picked up the banner of communism.

Liberalism is more or less the ideology of the bohemian bourgeois' contempt for workers. Its chief representatives look the other way as the American industrial base is gutted and sent abroad, as the right of workers to free association is eroded day after day, as young workers are sent to jail in rhetoric numbers in its phony 'War on Drugs', and actively asserts the 'right' of the United States to bomb other countries into the stone age if they do not except the dictates of its capitalist overlords. It is the raising of rule by bureaucrat to its logical conclusion, where freedom ends where the feelings of the bourgeois bohemians begin. It says that guns should only be in the hands of racist cops, that the state should be able to read your emails and monitor your phone calls, and that it should keep you safe from things like violent video games. It substitutes fake anti-racism and fake anti-sexism (like arguing that promoting more women and minorities to leadership positions in the capitalist system will somehow act as a panacea for the lived experiences of women workers and workers of color) for the genuine article, and in doing so weakens both and emboldens the identitarian right.

Liberalism as an ideology can never be truly liberatory in the capitalist epoch, because it has sacrificed every bit of what made it a revolutionary, liberatory creed in the 18th and 19th centuries on the alter of profit.

Conservatism, like liberalism, is an ideology full of contempt for workers, but on a different level. Whereas liberalism represents the trendy, bohemian version of hating the working class and apologizing for the parasitical upper crust, conservatism is its knuckle-dragging cousin. Conservatism doesn't have any of the pretensions of liberalism and knows it, openly using sexism, racism, and other bigoted ideas to divide workers into separate, hostile identities so as to better exploit them. In spite of saying that they're against 'identity politics', the conservative is the most able user of them, embracing the dog-whistle politics of white supremacy, exalting the patriarchal family unit, and defending 'traditional' gender roles and sexual norms. It promotes the idea of a white, christian male society constantly under siege by the 'other', when it obviously knows better. Like liberalism, conservatism is very concerned with what you're posting on the Internet, who you're talking to and why, and wants to keep bad ideas out of your head, although in their case the ideas are ones that challenge their retrograde view of society as a divinely ordained system where the good and virtuous are rewarded while the evil are always punished or whatever.

I can't identify with either of those ideologies because, at their root, they are the ideologies of the class that exploits my labor, robs me of my free time, and dictates the course of my every day existence by way of its ownership of the means of production. As a member of the exploited class, the working class, I can only view myself as a communist because I want to end that exploitation once and for all and build a society that truly values all of humankind, i.e. a stateless, classless, race-less, gender-less, sexual orientation-less¹, etc. society.


¹Obviously in saying this I don't mean that we'd all be some kind of gray blob with no sexual desire whatsoever (although this seems to be the end goal of some of our liberal friends, if we take their rhetoric seriously). I mean this in the sense that socially constructed identities, like straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc would be dissolved and society constructed in such a way that we reject the idea of biologically determined sexual preferences and the like

U'd be running on empty, rudderless in a sea of contempt.

[Simfan34]

I fail to see why Antonio would be expected to write in anything but American English, seeing as that he has no native dialect of English and that he has lived in America in the past and will again in the future. Obviously I have no problem with foreigners using whatever version of English they feel most comfortable with.

Obviously for Americans to type in non-American English is a hideous affectation. I have made my feelings on this very clear in the past. If Americans hate their own native culture so much that they are unwilling to use its language, they are free to find some other place to live.

It is not that I don't think Antonio should be allowed to write whichever way he likes, but it is a bit ironic that he as a European dislikes Americans writing in British English and use American English himself.

In Europe - and in the majority of the world outside of the Americas - the English version of English is English. It is the norm among educated people and using American English signals you mainly have your knowledge of English from US pop culture. So even if Antonio has lived in America it is a bit weird for me that an intellectual French guy writes in American English (I associate European academics using American English with faux solidarity with the working class. It is the kind of thing rich Trots do).

Your intolerant view of Americans that use British English ("love it or leave it") is a bit funny since your parents immigrated from a country that uses British English. It comes off as a bit over the top.

[rpryor03]

Obama should make a trollish remark about being glad to be back in his native land or something like that, just to make the birthers foam.

WHERE IS SCOTT WALKER'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?!?!?!!1!!11!!111!!!!!

I'll settle for his diploma.

[Antonio the Sixth]

THAT POST DOES NOT BELONG IN HERE!!!!!!!

Jesus F**king Christ people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That might be even worse than Oldiesfreak's "contributions" to this.

[Oakvale]

THAT POST DOES NOT BELONG IN HERE!!!!!!!

Jesus F**king Christ people.

So, what, Beet's above screed or someone saying "fat people are fine" does? These threads are inherently a bad idea.

[Antonio the Sixth]

THAT POST DOES NOT BELONG IN HERE!!!!!!!

Jesus F**king Christ people.

So, what, Beet's above screed or someone saying "fat people are fine" does? These threads are inherently a bad idea.

I'm starting to agree that the GPG is probably impossible to salvage at this point.

[politicus]

I've met a few IRL (including a nursing student, haha) since I have a friend who is a libertarian and I briefly went to one of their social occasions. Based on that, I'd say that the reason there are few female libertarians is because the kind of guys who are attracted to libertarianism are often drawn towards anti-feminism, anti-social justice - to use the cliche, "fedora" culture. Since so many libertarians are drawn to their politics through the internet their discourse also tends to embody the abrasive, competitive, pseudo-intellectual and yet socially tone-deaf mode of debate that is so pervasive online - and off-putting to many women.

Also women (due to discrimination) are disproportionally likely to be the vulnerable of society, and thus are far less likely to be attracted to the "sink or swim" ideology of libertarianism. This is probably the reason for the absence of people of colour as libertarians -- and the reason why all the libertarian women I met were privileged white girls.

[Simfan34]

This thread consists of people trying to figure out why this woman voted for Obama twice and wants to meet him, largely because of the first post (She is super old but voted for him TWICE despite being from ARKANSAS?!) This is then answered by classifying her into various demographic camps that allow this kind of behaviour (she's a "New Deal" or "lifelong" Democrat) but this is still strange because she seems white, which conflicts with expected white Southerner voting behaviour. But, as it turns out, she is definitely black after all, which makes her known voting record easy to accept. Phew!

In other words.. classic Atlas thread.

[IceSpear]

A clerical mishap, I'm sure.  Fear not and have patience.

^^^

Could you please relock it?  I seriously do not need the temptation.

You did not start this thread. You have no business asking the mods to lock someone else's thread absent of rule violations.

Your inability to resist temptation is the reason Update exists to begin with. Accept that.

The thread is about me.  I have every reason and business asking that there be no threads about me at all.

It just seems everyone is so entertained by the stupid thread that they care nothing about whether I am tempted or not.  In fact, it's like they WANT me to post there so they can laugh and mock at me at their leisure.

Sometime you should look through the archives to the original Update threads and see how genuinely supportive everyone was. They were excited for you when you found love; they supported you when you looked for new work; they were sincere when they cautioned you to be careful, think things through, take certain paths and gave advice.

And you took a group of sincere, supportive individuals who wanted you to succeed and you kicked them. Repeatedly. If you kick a dog every day for ten years, the first day you come home and don't kick it, it's still going to run and hide. Because it expects it. It has been conditioned. And now these "rats," as you refer to them, have been conditioned to respond a certain way to you.

You own that, Jeff Brown. You. And now you complain that you're being mocked. But I think it's fair to say that you've been mocking us for years in a much more sinister way. Consider this:

 - You solicit advice and feedback about events in your life -- you ask for it on this forum
 - Individuals who care offer advice based on their own experiences
 - You reject all offered advice and do the opposite, claiming that you know best
 - You proceed and fail
 - You tell all who point to their previously-disregarded advice that they have no right to comment
 - You brush off the failure, claiming that you knew best all along
 - You solicit advice and feedback about events in your life -- you ask for it on this forum

The fact is, that is mocking, pure and simple. What is mocking -- it's making others feel or appear stupid, right? Isn't that what you're doing, over and over and over, when those who have (or had) your best interests in mind and had significant amounts to contribute to your growth as an individual are dismissed?

The first time this happened, the forum was forgiving. The second, they were annoyed but had your back. Then it happened a third time. And a fourth. And a fifth. Nearly every decision concerning employment, relationships, dieting, exercise ... it all follows that same cycle.

That first time you asked for advice and shared your life on the forum, you got feedback. And then you proceeded to beat the dogs. And you continued beating them for literally years. Jeff, those dogs started out as loyal, happy, tail-wagging companions who wanted to see you be successful. Through constant beatings, you conditioned them to bite. And now you seem baffled as to why they'd snap at you when you enter the room.

Do I understand why the Update isn't enjoyable for you anymore? Sure -- you can't even make a simple statement anymore without being criticized or questioned a dozen times. But don't ever, ever let this truth escape you -- you caused this. By spitting in everyone's faces for literally years, you conditioned the responses you now get. You are responsible for this, and you have to own it.

There are no dumb dogs, Jeff. Only dumb owners. Do with that analogy what you will.

[Simfan34]

Was just going to post that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Don't move to Sweden.

But -- legitimate question: how are you trying to make it better? I'm not really a bootstraps-picket-fence-American-dream kind-of guy, but I recognize the power of personal choice and responsibility. How are you trying to make things better and being stifled by the structure that exists?

Thank you for your extremely polite response, Jesse.

I am just frustrated.

-I am frustrated with a country where the Indiana "law" is even being discussed
-I am frustrated with the rich getting richer despite a liberal President
-I am frustrated with Calif. installing SPIKES to deter HOMELESS people
-I am frustrated with people saying that atheists are the morally bankrupt people despite what I just said.

I'mfrustrated, bro.  That's all.  I see better things and I want better things.

Hey man I feel your pain.  But moving to Sweden is not suddenly going to make things better.  For starters you would probably have to become fluent in the language, which we all know is a real bitch.  And secondly I hear that Scandinavian social democratic paradises are actually not very friendly towards foreigners (they largely work because of "I have mine, now bugger off!").  Which I guess is about the best way I know of to say that if you are looking for a bunch of bad apples in any place you are bound to find them.

I mostly second J-Mann's advice.  Sure, we would all like a Golden Fuckin' Parachute, but that is not how life happens.  You get good times and bad times regardless of where you are at.  It is all about how you choose to deal with the shit.  Your thoughts are not that much different than millions of other people in this country.  This country is not perfect and we shouldn't be blind to the faults that exist here, but frankly fuck your defeatist narrative Hockey.  We need people like you and the whole "I'M MOVING TO CANADA!" bullshit is not helping any sincere left wing narrative in the States.  I admit a lot of that is pure selfishness on my part: I love my friend and family and I don't want to leave them to a totalitarian theofascist republic just because I can't stand it's politics.

Just remember that without slavery there would've been no abolition.  Without the Gilded Age there would be no organized labor.  Without the Great Depression there would be no New Deal.  Without Jim Crow there would be no Civil Rights movements.  Would I have preferred that everything went right from the get go?  You damn right I do!  I don't think there are many on here who share the same view!  We all wish America was some super duper happy hippie paradise where everyone had healthcare, greedy corporations weren't paying out starvation wages, and stable employment is becoming a thing of the past!  But do not let the situation of the present make you depressed and put you down when the Undiscovered Country of the future is still ahead!  It is up to you to ultimately guide your future.

[/a fellow Left American]

[Mr. Smith]

The thing is... you are very, very American. Even your complaints about America are strikingly American. I doubt you would be happy anywhere else.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Man-made emotional climate change.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fascism is a centrist ... ideology

Wow, that is one of the most hilarious things that I've ever heard.

Let me clarify, Fascism is an economically centrist ideology.

So a prohibition on independent labor unions, banning strikes, and returning nationalized industry to its former owners in the private sector is 'centrist' ideology? This is one of the biggest issues I have with anarchists and libertarians - you have no understanding of the class forces behind a particular ideological position. Fascism is what happens when the left fails. That's why it looks like a mirror image of the left in spite of being its opposite.

Are there left-leaning fascist groups? Yes, there are. Strasserites are left-wing...compared to the run of the mill Hitlerite. This does not mean that the Strasserite is a left-winger. The left has always been defined politically by a belief in rationality as the guiding force in public policy, secularism, and opposition to tradition. Fascism and National Socialism embrace emotionalist politics, often blend the supernatural with the real, and are staunch traditionalists. How on earth anyone can accuse people who literally believe that a cabal of Jewish bankers are the ones really running the world, who want to keep women in the kitchen, who believe in genetic differences among the races, and who reject the equality of all as left-wing?

[traininthedistance]

I'm fine with making people go outside or to designated smoking areas... but this country is a stressful and often horrible place to live for a vast majority.  Now the owning classes want to take away that one nice little treat that young wage slaves have to relax and chill them out if that's what they choose?  Most employers are even lenient with allowing smoke breaks so people can rest their weary bodies and minds outside of their woefully insufficient "lunch" (typically a pathetic half hour).  

No, I don't support taking cigarettes away from the young working classes while Mr. Boss Man puffs his Cubans in his office without fear of any consequences despite any laws he might be breaking.  

I don't see the owning class calling for cigarettes to be outlawed anywhere, do you? Typically these proposals are from health groups and just ordinary people who hate smoking. And now, well, what I really want to do is highlight how the "relax and chill" effects of smoking are typically just the cessation of withdrawal symptoms and all the relief you feel is a farce. In addition to being a wage slave, you're also wasting your pitiful penance on something that will, in the long run, have an immensely negative effect on the quality of your life, and that all along you've been under its control, and you cannot stop, making you doubly the deluded slave.

BUT, you know, I've been there, big time. I remember running off when I had a spare five minutes to have that little joy. Now that I don't smoke anymore, I realise I was full of sh**t.. but I still remember what you described. And I so won't mention anything else, as I'm sure you know all of what I've said, and people like me are only an irritation, trying to take away your moment of relief. You stay in control, buddy.

[Oakvale]

Content removed so as to make context irrelevant and preserve only the truly excellent choices of adjectives:

The unapologetic criminals [...] the dithering defenders of slave power [...] ; the Strangelovian reprobates who brought us to the brink of a nuclear holocaust  [...] ;  [...] , an irredeemable, reptilian, white supremacist lush who never should have been allowed to take office in the first place; and  [...] , the genocidal, hyper-masculine savage.

[Simfan34]

Let us pause for a moment and consider the lie of the land. Polls conducted after the (ridiculous) debate collectively show the Conservatives on between 30% and 36% and Labour on between 33% and 37%. The Liberal Democrats are polling between 7% and 12%, UKIP between 11% and 19%, and the Greens between 3% and 7%.¹ Most of the more extreme figures are from the less well regarded polling companies. There is a tendency in the media to look at this and say (as they have done for months) that the polls point towards another hung parliament. They do not. Due to the electoral system the relationship between votes polled and seats won in Britain is not absolute and is not something that can be securely calculated. Parties have won majorities with very slender leads in the past.² Mostly what the polls point to is a competitive election with an uncertain outcome. They also suggest that a large majority for any party is extremely unlikely. Any inference beyond that point is an example of using data to back up predictions already made, rather than using data to make predictions. Beware.

<sub>1. The Greens are running about sixty seats short of a full GB slate, which will knock their final vote tally down a tad.
2. And very occasionally have actually won majorities despite trailing: the last time this happened was in 1951.</sub>

[Simfan34]

I think at least another twenty-five years are needed to even attempt a guess, really. Using current trends is fruitless.

Well, 50 years ago, would they have predicted that

Gays
Abortion
Drug Legalization
Discrimination in private stores
Religion

Would be social issues?

The answer is yes.

Few would have predicted fifty years ago in the pre-Stonewall era that gay rights would be an issue. Maybe abortion, but even there many of them probably would have predicted that fight would be over expanding access to something like what many pro-life advocates are trying to restrict access to be from what it is now.

I'm with Ernest here. Let's go through the list as seen in 1965. I was a boy then, and Torie can confirm from his perspective.

Gays. As Ernest notes Stonewall wasn't until 1969, and even then middle America paid almost no attention to it other than as another piece of the countercultural revolution. In 1965 gays were nowhere on the radar.

Abortion. This was an issue in 1965, but the more prominent issue was birth control due to the availability of the pill. The Griswold decision overturning Connecticut's ban on contraceptives happened in 1965. Issues surrounding birth control have been documented throughout human history and there is no reason to expect them to go away in the next 50 years. As some have suggested genetic choices may well replace abortion as the prominent issue, but abortion will still remain.

Drug Legalization. This was a rising issue in 1965 due to the availability of heroin to servicemen in Vietnam. It reached a peak during the 70's then dropped back. Regulation of mood altering substances is, like birth control, a timeless phenomenon. What changes over time is the chemical of focus, with some cycling in and out of the nation's attention.

Discrimination in private stores. In 1965 this was about black-white racial relations and not much else. If someone made a prediction that this would be an issue in 50 years they would have assumed that it was a racial issue only. Yet by the late 80's I heard little debate on the topic. Unless there is a specific group that is newsworthy in the 2060's I don't think it will be an issue. That said, I'll put out my future spin on this, the discriminated group in 50 years will be people without electronic IDs on their person and it will be a privacy vs safety issue.

Religion. Another issue that is as old as recorded history. In 1965 a discussion of this was likely to be about mixed families of different Christian faiths (I come from one). The other big issue then was prayer in school since it was in 1962 that SCOTUS ruled against NY's mandate for prayer. The existence of the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment insures that religion will continue to be a matter of debate.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Sometimes two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true, you know. It is undeniably true that Versailles was punitive, vindictive and generally rather harsh. It is also undeniably true that such treaties were the norm at the time and that, on the matter of territory at least,* The Treaty of Versailles was notable for its moderation (we can, for instance, be absolutely sure that if the Central Powers had won the war the territorial demands of Germany et al would have been considerably more excessive). The Reparations are a different matter, and that is where the historical controversy lies. There have been attempts to defend the policy in recent decades, but I personally disagree; it was stupid and short-sighted even if the motivation behind it was perhaps understandable and even if it is absurd to argue Reparations ---> Hitler as though nothing else happened between 1919 and 1933.

_{*Germany lost Elsaß-Lothringen (which was a smaller territory than you'd think from the name; although it included all Alsace but Belfort, it only included about a quarter of Lorraine: the present day department of the Moselle) which was valuable but had only been annexed in 1871 anyway, Posen (a large and not terribly important agricultural province that was majority Polish), the Polish-speaking parts of Upper Silesia (economically valuable, but Germany was hardly short of heavy industry), northern Schleswig (Danish farmers ffs), Eupen-Malmedy (literally a couple of hick parishes), Memelland (ibid), and some additional small scraps of land on the new Polish border (notably the 'Polish Corridor') which at the time (the port of Gdynia not having been built) had no value other than - from a Polish perspective - strategic. To argue that this was onerous by the standards of the time is difficult. It is, in fact, hard to make a case against most of those territorial changes. More questionable would be the hiving off of the Saarland and Danzig as quasi-independent statelets (so that the French could exploit the Saar's collieries - reparations again - and that the Poles would have access to a proper port), though (again) these were rather small territories. There's also the matter of the loss of practical sovereignty over Rhineland which is hard to defend, sure. Oh, and Germany also lost its (actually pretty worthless) colonies, though I'd be very surprised if anyone here were to kick up a fuss about that...}

[Beet]

I) Fundraising

Myth #1: Hillary was a financial juggernaut in 2007-2008, with Obama running on a shoestring budget.

Fact: Obama outraised her multiple times, occasionally by blowout margins. And this wasn't only towards the end of the primary, he was outraising her as early as Q2 of 2007. There's simply no evidence that Obama had any trouble whatsoever keeping competitive with fundraising, which is a hallmark of a serious candidate.

Now, does anyone seriously believe any of the D-list candidates currently running against her are capable of being competitive with Hillary in fundraising? As I type this, Hillary is raising ungodly amounts of money from the Democratic donor class, which this time is nearly unanimously behind her (more on this point later.) Meanwhile, O'Malley, Chafee, and the rest are all dithering in their exploratory committees. That's just making their already inescapable hole even deeper.

Myth #2: Money doesn't mean everything! <insert example here>.

Fact: Yes, there are examples of candidates who got drastically outspent winning. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the time, the better funded candidate wins. And even in cases where the candidate with less money won, they still usually had enough to at least stay competitive. That will not be so this time. Hillary is going to completely demolish the competition in terms of fundraising. It will not be remotely close.

II) Establishment Support

Myth #3: The Democratic establishment overwhelmingly backed Hillary in 2007, just like they're doing now.

Fact: The Democratic establishment was in no way united behind Hillary. Not only is this clear from the fundraising figures above, it is also clear from endorsements. In case you guys forgot, Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of Obama. Many other Democratic politicians backed him as well. Hillary had more endorsements overall, but it was not anything close to unanimous. As for Hillary, at this point in 2007 she had the support of a single Senator. This time she has the support of 27 Senators before she even declared her campaign, more than a majority of the Democratic caucus. Yeah, #Hillaryover50. As for her "competition", they have nothing. In Maryland, both Senators have endorsed Hillary. Same for the Senators and Governors in Virginia and Rhode Island. Sanders' Senate colleague has endorsed Hillary. If none of these people can win endorsements from high ranking politicians in their home states, where exactly are they going to do so?

III) Polling

Myth #4: Hillary was polling just as strong/almost as strong in 2007/2008 as she was now.

Fact: Hillary's poll numbers aren't even in the same universe now as they were in 2007/2008. I will illustrate using the RCP averages.

(For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring Elizabeth Warren's support since she is clearly not running. Some might scoff at this, but if anything it's TOO generous to the non Hillary candidates, since three separate pollsters (Marist, CNN, and YouGov) have all confirmed that Hillary actually gains the most when Warren is excluded. Not surprising when you consider the gender factor. However, since I have no way of knowing what the actual breakdown is, I will simply ignore it entirely.)

National, April 16th 2007: Clinton +9
National, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +39

Iowa, April 16th 2007: Edwards +3 (!)
Iowa, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +51

New Hampshire, April 16th 2007: Clinton +8
New Hampshire, April 16th, 2015: Clinton +44
Swing: Clinton +36

South Carolina, April 16th 2007: Clinton +7
South Carolina, April 16th 2015: Clinton +43
Swing: Clinton +36

The numbers speak for themselves. You're either insane or willfully ignorant if you think Hillary's numbers in the 2008 cycle are anywhere near what they are now.

Myth #5: Okay, Hillary leads by a huge margin, but it's only because of name recognition.

Fact: Name recognition is a part of her leads, but it can't explain them away, or even greatly reduce them for that matter. If it's only because of name recognition, why is she crushing Biden everywhere who has name recognition just as high? If it's only because of name recognition, why is she demolishing Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Russ Feingold, etc. in their home states when most Democrats in those states know who they are and like them? Hell, she even stomps Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and I would consider her a viable opponent against Hillary.

Myth #6: Okay, people are polling horribly now, but they can come out of nowhere just like Obama did.

Fact: Obama did not "come out of nowhere." He was widely talked up as a potential candidate after his 2004 DNC speech. And the fundraising figures and polling numbers show he did not begin as a nonentity once he entered the race either. He immediately gathered a solid base of support (both among the electorate and donor base), unlike the clique of literal 1%ers currently running against Hillary. Just see for yourself how high he was polling even in the early stages of the race through those links from earlier.

IV) Miscellaneous

Myth #7: Well, Hillary got destroyed in 2008, so she's clearly vulnerable anyway

Fact: No, it was actually the closest presidential primary campaign in history, and she arguably won the popular vote. And this was against a stellar candidate like Obama. Considering that, what exactly can Lincoln Chafee do against a FAR stronger Hillary?

Myth #8: She was inevitable in 2008 too!

Fact: This was a retrospective media narrative based off no evidence at the time, simply because "David beats Goliath" sounds a lot more interesting than "strong 2nd place defeats frontrunner", and to simultaneously lionize Obama and bask in the defeat of their hated nemesis Hillary. If you need evidence, read this. The author went back and delved into news stories from 2007-2008, and references to Hillary's "inevitability" were very thin, particularly after Obama entered the race. It's simply not based in reality.

However, even if they did describe her that way, that would simply reflect the idiocy of the media rather than showing anything about Hillary, because of the polling numbers above. How exactly would someone leading by mere single digits nationally and in NH/SC, but TRAILING in Iowa be "inevitable"? The answer is that they wouldn't be, and anyone who described them that way is literally retarded. But again, very few people did.

Myth #9: But Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left/the base/minorities hate Hillary!

Fact: No, they actually all love her. Read the crosstabs of any Hillary favorability poll for proof. I'm sorry, but your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton does not speak for the entire Democratic Party, as much as you wish it to be so. As for minorities, a little noticed fact is that African Americans are one of her strongest core groups of support now, and she cleaned Obama's clock amongs Hispanics in the 2008 primary, another inconvenient fact that went down the memory hole.

Myth #10: I'm an annoying Hillary hack because I consistently point out stubborn facts

Fact: No, actually most of my detractors are the hacks. All of the empirical evidence is on my side, while all the anti-Hillary hacks have is their own wishful thinking.

V) Conclusion

Hillary is inevitable. Get over it.