I talked to my boss to get a report from him about what happened.

Sporting a sunburn, he said that he stood in line for 5 hours and he didn't get in.

They turned away 10,000 people, he told me. So they turned away more people than they let in. And getting there 5 hours early was not getting there early enough.

Yeah, that looks like I'd have gotten a post out of that.

"Have you ever gone to a pro wrestling show? Well, back in the late 90's, we went to the house shows at the World Arena whenever they came to town. The house shows usually had between a third and a quarter empty seats. (Hey, it was a house show.) This rally? The house was *PACKED*."

She's going to give you a sock.

(Oh, and the World Arena seems to hold 8,099 people. Which means that they gave away at least 8,100 tickets and people were waiting in the parking lot to make sure that they'll be part of the 8,099.)

Dunno. Denver has been fully Californicated and we no longer balance Denver out. Fort Collins and Boulder might balance each other out still but Colorado Springs and the Western Slope would need to be in lockstep to balance out Denver and I'm not sure that that would happen.

But there is enthusiasm that exists in 2020 that didn't exist in 2016. (And the priors that resulted in the Cruz incident that marked the Colorado Caucus back in 2016 don't seem to be operative in 2020.)

Speaking of crawling across broken glass... I got invited to go to the Trump Rally a couple of weeks ago. My boss asked me if I wanted to go and my immediate response was "but it's outside..." and then I thought about it and how I'd throw it past Maribou and whether I'd get a good post out of it...

And I came to the conclusion that I would get a good post out of it. Which brought me to throwing it past Maribou. I told co-workers "if I go to the Trump rally, she'll serve me with papers!" (an overstatement) but immediately thought of how I'd sell it to her: "Baby. It's either Trump or Bernie. Either Bernie's going to get half my stuff or you will. And I love you!"

Anyway, I mentioned going to the rally to Maribou and she pointed out "you know it involves leaving the house, right?"

And I called my boss and asked if I could have one of the tickets to the rally, assuming he had an envelope with 6-8 tickets in it. And I was told that the tickets were free, they had festival seating, and they'd already given away more tickets than the building would hold. But I could download them from the site and we'd all leave early from work that day and wait in the parking lot.

And I didn't want to write a post *THAT* much.

But there were people camping in the parking lot.

That's true for the .99%. No doubt.

One number I've been wondering about is 3.28%.

The Libertarians got 3.28% in 2016. More than tripling their highest percentage to that point. In 2012, Gary Johnson got .99% (almost 1!) and, in 2008, Bob Freaking Barr got .4%. (I voted for Charles Jay that election.)

So the Libertarians seem to have a hard floor of .4%.

So let's remove that from 3.28.


Where will that 2.88% go come the First Tuesday after the First Monday in November?

Or is a better comparison to Gary Johnson's almost 1%?

So we're dealing with a mere 2.28% now. Where will those folks go?

They were obviously willing to throw their vote to some entertaining purity candidate in 2016 because they were unwilling to crawl over broken glass.

So I'm wondering how much broken glass there is in front of Vermin Supreme and how much in front of the Democrat.

I don't even know how to start comparing the amount of broken glass that would be in front of Bernie for the median Team Gold nutter versus in front of, say, Bloomberg or Buttigeig.

Versus how much would be in front of Trump, having witnessed 2017-2020.

A million years ago, Ted Cruz threw a Hail Mary and announced that his ticket would be Cruz/Fiorina. So, in the primaries, you knew exactly what your final ticket would be.

Now, I think that this was a good idea with horrible execution. There are probably people he could have taken as his running mate that weren't Fiorina that would have worked better. Maybe he wouldn't have *WON*... but it strikes me as a good play to have made. Canny.

Biden/Klobuchar would be a smart play. Warren/Buttigeig would be a smart play.

There are smart plays that remain to be made.

McMegan has a tweetstorm:

I found it interesting.

Even though she said intemperate things about anti-war protesters in 2002.

There was a minor kerfuffle a week ago (an eternity ago) that showed that Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigeig are polling much higher, if you add their numbers together, than Bernie. More than 50% to 30-something.

There were two main arguments that I noticed:

1. This means that my two less-preferred candidates need to drop out and the fact that they aren't is damaging to Democracy or some crap like that.
2. Bernie is a lot of people's second choice so this isn't a good comparison.

I don't know how true #2 is.

But Trump was a lot of people's second choice.

And their first choice wasn't "Clinton".

Your loss.

There are a ton of candidates out there that will allow you to not have to apply iodine when you get home from voting for them.

There are other options, you know.

You can purchase a t-shirt where Vermin Supreme is strangling Baby Hitler here.

"Fighting The Past To Protect Our Future"

No, it doesn't come in 3XL.

Here's what I saw about Warren's appearance: "Huh. She does belong up there...", which means that she's going to do better on day-of in Nevada/South Carolina than on early voting that happened prior to the debate.

Which, oddly enough, strikes me as likely to result in more split votes.

Buttigeig did really well in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Warren does well in Nevada and Biden does well in South Carolina... what does that mean for Super Tuesday where Bloomberg will do reasonably well?

And we few, we happy few, eat these debates up like Pixie Stix but there are people who don't even know that there was a debate last night who will vote on Super Tuesday continuing to not know that there was a debate last night.

If everybody has a reasonable claim to staying in because, hey, they're polling within the margin of error of 20%... Then we get to get to the convention with the guy we haven't yet mentioned having the most votes/delegates.

It was almost like he was caught off guard by a question about the biggest topic of his tenure as Mayor.

This is the problem. It's not that he had a crappy answer to the question. It's that he was surprised by it.

Like he told his handlers "they aren't going to ask me about that" when they told him "we need to work on this question".

From *MY* perspective, I'm not upset that he's spending his own money on his own campaign. I *AM* flabbergasted that the Democratic Establishment (e.g., the DNC) has demonstrated that it is willing to be bought by Bloomberg's own money and do stuff like "change the rules" oh his behalf.

In this case, we got lucky because they changed the rules on his behalf, he got on the stage, and immediately imploded.

But I still want to see what happens on Super Tuesday.

Because Bloomberg ain't on the ballot in Nevada. And him doing poorly in Nevada can be immediately spun by pointing out that what matters is Super Tuesday. And March 3rd is an eternity away.

I feel better about Bloomberg today than I did yesterday.

One thing that occurred to me about Bloomberg/Trump in the last week or so: neither one of these guys has any peers in their personal life. They have no one who they recognize with the authority to tell them "No!" They haven't had one since their father died.

And that's a long time to go without a viewpoint that you respect that disagrees with you.

These guys literally are not used to being disagreed with.