No, they'll vote Green or stay home.

Sanders probably could have beat trump, betwenen the youth vote, dems who would vote for anyone with a D after their name, and never-trumpers. Biden won't. I don't think Biden will make it to the actual election. Will be interesting to see who they replace him with.

They will stay home. But here is the secret twist, they will stay home either way. The money is real but unneeded. The votes will never appear.

If Biden goes full Sanders he will lose more votes than he gains.

NicoleK gets to the heart of the matter, but should have included "will throw a hissy fit". Besides, I'm pretty sure Quid Dementia Joe has expressed support for those things in one form or another.

But by all means, come out and make a clear and concise statement of support for those planks in your platform.

I thought Dems were opposed to such amounts of money corrupting our electoral processes?

"Sorry, but if Biden doesn't give in, will all the under 45 progressives go, "Screw you, Senator!" and vote for Trump?"

That game of chicken didn't work out so well for the DNC in 2016 when they decided they didn't need folks under 40 to win.

The demographic we are talking about is obviously even larger 4 years later.

If they have any brains they will try and unite their factions by absorbing some policy positions.

If they fail to do this they haven't learned much.

It make little sense for the DNC to expect the electorate to have learned something from 2016 if they haven't learned anything.

It doesn't look like there is a way to join these two different groups, Arty. Especially when you have to factor in all those who didn't vote in the primary but are still needed for the general election.

But hey, hope springs eternal and all that.

No, they'll vote Green or stay home.

I'm sure some will probably do that but others will hold their nose and vote for Biden.

In 2016, very few people expected Trump to win so Sanders supporters who voted Green or sat out that election almost certainly concluded that doing so wouldn't hand the election to Trump.

Now, they can't be so sure that Biden is going to win, plus they've seen what 3+ years of Trump in office has been like. As much as they dislike Biden, they really loathe Trump so I think a lot of them are going to vote for Biden.

Ben,

There may or may not be a way to join these groups into a unified coalition.

That being said I do know that something that will definitely not work is to stay planted in place and refuse to budge.

The only possible way to join those groups is to concede some ground.

His choice of running mate will be very important. Someone black or hispanic from a Swing State.

I'm tempted to not bother getting my ballot. Emailing my hometown feels like too much effort for this guy I am totally not excited about, besides MA will go to him either way.

I feel like there were so many good choices... THIS is our guy? Really?

I mean, I'll do it, probably, but... ugh.

I've been a super excited voted my whole life. When I lived stateside I drove to other states to canvas. I was very excited about democracy.If I"m feeling this way, how do you think the folks who were already lukewarm feel?

There probably won't be an election anyhow so it doesn't really matter.

His choice of running mate will be very important. Someone black or hispanic from a Swing State.

NicoleK at April 13, 2020 12:28 PM

Ted Cruz? :-)

Nah, someone with a vajayjay. Perhaps Theodora Cruz, a transwoman might be available?

NicoleK Says:

"There probably won't be an election anyhow so it doesn't really matter."

There will be an election.

I've watched/listened to some legal analysis and the results of no election at all would be President Nancy Pelosi or President Patrick Leahy.

The reason for this is that Trumps term ends on January 20th of 2021 if he is not re-elected:

"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

At that point they move on to the line of succession, which includes the speaker of the house and the President pro tempore of the Senate... the second of which would revert to Leahy in the absence of an election to keep the GOP in control of the senate.

No election at all is a losing strategy for republicans.

Now, they can't be so sure that Biden is going to win, plus they've seen what 3+ years of Trump in office has been like. As much as they dislike Biden, they really loathe Trump so I think a lot of them are going to vote for Biden. ~ JD at April 13, 2020 9:38 AM

According to Pew, prior to the 2016 presidential election, more voters voted for a candidate than voted against one. I don't know if that's going to be a long-term trend reversal or if it was a one-time blip. In that election 53% of Trump voters said they were voting against Hillary Clinton.

Among Clinton voters, younger voters were much less likely than older ones to say their vote was in favor of Clinton - 29% said their vote was for Clinton vs. 71% who said their vote was against Trump.

This doesn't tell us what lies in store for the 2020 election. Biden does not carry the baggage that Clinton carried, but he is not a popular candidate by himself - he only won in comparison to the other candidates in the primary. Many Bernie supporters remain unhappy with the DNC's treatment of Bernie (in 2016 and 2020) and may still vote against its chosen candidate, despite the fact that doing so could give Trump a victory.

Biden is not a compelling candidate on his own, so he's not going to get a large pro-Biden vote, but he may get a large enough anti-Trump vote to win.

On the other hand, Biden also does not generate the enmity that Clinton did, so he may not energize the voting-against crowd the way she did. That means the anti-Clinton voters who gave Trump a victory may not turn out as anti-Biden voters.

It's still a tough election to call as Trump has gained some support (and lost some). Biden had some built-in party support, but shifting to the left to gain Bernie supporters risks alienating a fair portion of the independent voters who don't lean left.

I think JD has it right. There have to be an awful lot of Democrats who didn't bother to vote last time thinking Hilary had it in the bag. They'll all be saying to themselves, "If that !@#$^& wins again, it won't be because I didn't vote!"

I expect Biden's running mate will be President before Joe has found his way to the Oval Office, courtesy of the 25th Amendment.

Conan Says:

"...shifting to the left to gain Bernie supporters risks alienating a fair portion of the independent voters who don't lean left."

Recent polling indicates that 61% of independents are in favor of medicare-for-all and 73% are in favor of a public option for health care:

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2020/

This suggests there is ample room to lean into some of these proposals in a smart way to thread the needle between giving Bernie supporters a reason to believe Biden is concerned about the same things they are while also capturing a majority of independents.

Based on the numbers there is more risk in not doing the politically intelligent thing and moving as far as he has to and no further.

Staying put is a losing strategy given the available information.

Recent polling indicates that 61% of independents are in favor of medicare-for-all and 73% are in favor of a public option for health care: ~ Artemis at April 13, 2020 4:01 PM

That 61% and 73% still have to vote. And turnout is going to be key.

COVID-19 could still play a role. If the entire election goes mail-in, it could get tricky. By sheer numbers, the majority of people requesting and sending in mail-in ballots tend to lean left, but the right-leaning voters who use mail-in ballots are more likely to actually mail their ballots. In a recent New York Times interview, an experienced Democratic operative gave the GOP a slight edge if the entire election goes mail-in.

Of course, even an experienced staffer's estimate doesn't mean it will break that way. Like I said earlier, it's still a tough election to call 6+ months out and in the middle of a pandemic.

Staying put is a losing strategy given the available information. ~ Artemis at April 13, 2020 4:01 PM

Not necessarily. We're still 6+ months out and whether those polls queried registered voters or likely voters can make a difference in how the results predict reality.

Biden would be better off actually standing for something rather than adopting an ever-changing position based on the latest polling. He needs to be the candidate that the voters can respect, not the one that promises every special interest group a package of goodies. If he believes in Medicare-for-all, believe in it and present a case to the voters.

If Biden advocates MFA, he needs to be able to answer the proposal's critics. NHS and Canada's system do have issues that concern a significant portion of the voting public. The estimated cost alone is astronomical and a source of major concern. He needs to be able to answer the critics' concerns, not just advocate something because it polls well.

Remember, early in the primaries Biden publicly criticized Elizabeth Warren for not "being fully honest" and "making it up" about how much her proposals would cost and how she'd fund them. Adopting even a few of her proposals this late in the campaign won't play well. Trump will pounce on that flip-flop. He's got the Democratic nomination. This is the time to go after those voters who might still vote Trump or third party.

Another concern is that Biden's mental acuity is demonstrably slowed lately. He may still be cogent enough in private to be president, but his speeches indicate that his debate performance will be affected as off-the-cuff speaking is not his forte right now. He'll get torn apart with Trump deliberately running him in circles to confuse him. It won't matter if Trump's claims during the debate get savaged by fact-checkers afterward. Biden's performance has to be sharp and on point; and it likely won't be.

I expect that few voters are going to put into office a man they expect to get ridden out of town on a 25th Amendment rail before his first term is over.

Conan Says:

"That 61% and 73% still have to vote. And turnout is going to be key."

And:

"Like I said earlier, it's still a tough election to call 6+ months out and in the middle of a pandemic."

Sure, but decisions for the campaign need to be made 6+ months out.

Biden cannot decide on a platform to run on 6 months from now, he need to establish his platform ahead of time.

To do this he is going to need to make some judgment calls based on the information he has available.

Right now the information available indicates he risks relatively nothing in terms of losing the independent voting block by providing enough of a reason to progressive voters to join his coalition.

Without voters 45 and under Biden cannot possibly win. He knows this, I know this, and I suspect you know this... this means his only option is to give them something to get behind.

He cannot do that effectively 6 months from now... or even really 4 months from now.

If Biden fails to add the 45 and under demographic to his coalition he loses... if he convinces them to get on board he wins.

"Biden would be better off actually standing for something rather than adopting an ever-changing position based on the latest polling."

That is kind of twisting things.

In order to successfully bring a party together one almost always adopts concession positions associated with the other groups.

That isn't the same as constantly flipping around wherever the wind happens to take him.

"Another concern is that Biden's mental acuity is demonstrably slowed lately. He may still be cogent enough in private to be president, but his speeches indicate that his debate performance will be affected as off-the-cuff speaking is not his forte right now. He'll get torn apart with Trump deliberately running him in circles to confuse him."

This isn't exactly an area anyone should be worried about Trump running him in circles.

Trump never had an intelligent thought in his life... Biden now can't keep track of whatever intelligent thoughts he might have had.

Jeffersonian orators these two are not.

You really believe the guy who brought to us covfefe and spends entire speeches ranting about flushing toilets is going to "confuse" Biden?... I mean maybe... but that is because Trump objectively makes no sense when he rants and raves.

He isn't going to run circles around Biden with his intellectual wit... he is just going to spin really fast in place while Biden and everyone else wonders what on earth he is doing.

It is entirely possible that a debate between Trump and Biden will be the most intellectually vacant conversation that has ever taken place in the whole of human history.

Biden . . . needs to be the candidate that the voters can respect

I don't think so. I think there's enough TDS out there that he just needs to be not Trump.

I expect that few voters are going to put into office a man they expect to get ridden out of town on a 25th Amendment rail before his first term is over.

For the same reason, I think the undead corpse of Ronald Reagan would win if the Dems put it up.

We'll know who's right soon enough, but if I knew anyone here in person, I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner right now that Trump will lose to whoever the Dems end up running.

I would take that bet Rex. Oh well.

I think there's enough TDS out there that he just needs to be not Trump. ~ Rex Little at April 13, 2020 9:01 PM

You may be right. However, I've found that the loudest voices in American politics do not always represent the largest constituency. So, the volume of TDS does not, by itself, predict a Trump wipeout.

He isn't going to run circles around Biden with his intellectual wit... he is just going to spin really fast in place while Biden and everyone else wonders what on earth he is doing. ~ Artemis at April 13, 2020 7:16 PM

He won't need "intellectual wit." He'll just need to run Biden in a circle, to get Biden off script and discombobulated; to fluster him. Whether the entire debate is "most intellectually vacant conversation that has ever taken place in the whole of human history" won't matter. Trump will attempt to use it to highlight Biden's mental decline. And that may be enough.

I wish I could feel about this the way Lt. Greenwald felt about Queeg, that a cosmic injustice was done in his mental decline. I just can't. Biden wasn't standing a lonely vigil while others got rich. He used his "public service" as a shortcut to getting rich - and, in doing so, contributed a fair amount to the damage being done to the body politic.

"You know something... When I was studying law, and Mr. Keefer here was writing his stories, and you, Willie, were tearing up the playing fields of dear old Princeton, who was standing guard over this fat, dumb, happy country of ours, eh? Not us. Oh, no, we knew you couldn't make any money in the service. So who did the dirty work for us? Queeg did! And a lot of other guys. Tough, sharp guys who didn't crack up like Queeg."

“Trump never had an intelligent thought in his life... Biden now can't keep track of whatever intelligent thoughts he might have had.

Jeffersonian orators these two are not.”

Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind as to what Artemis thinks of all of us, fellow posters?

Now that Sanders has endorsed Biden, we (those of us who want Trump booted out of the White House) can only hope that he'll manage to help convince the majority of his supporters to (a) get out and vote and (b) make that vote for Biden.

Conan Says:

"He won't need "intellectual wit." He'll just need to run Biden in a circle, to get Biden off script and discombobulated; to fluster him."

If you are counting on Trump saying something so inane and utterly stupid as to have Biden go "off script"... sure, that could happen.

When the moderator asks a question and Trump goes off on a 10 minute rant on how everyone at his rallies flushes the toilet 15 times that would be sure to push anyone "off script".

Biden's "mental decline" will not matter in comparison to Trumps idiotic rants.

It will be a wash.

No one is going to be convinced to abandon Biden in favor of Trump on the basis of mental acuity.

Isab Asks:

"Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind as to what Artemis thinks of all of us, fellow posters?"

It is illogical to draw any conclusions about what I think about anyone on the basis of my belief that Trump is an idiot.

You should only be concerned if you think Trump is more intelligent than you are.

For what it is worth Isab, I think you are more intelligent than Trump.

JD,

From what I have seen anecdotally many folks are encouraging people to look at things from another perspective.

There is no need to "vote for Biden" when you can vote for particular policy positions, or vote for the next supreme court pick.

The sad part about all of this is I don't really know how much it has sunk into the >45 crowd that both Trump and Biden are poised to gut social security.

That will be a rough pill to swallow for them. There is no great way around that now that Sanders is out of the race.

No one is going to be convinced to abandon Biden in favor of Trump on the basis of mental acuity. ~ Artemis at April 14, 2020 1:35 PM

Au contraire, mon ami. If Biden shows outward signs of advancing dementia in the debate, he will lose voters; perhaps not to Trump, but he will lose them. Trump, while outrageous in his rhetoric, does not show outward signs of dementia - ego-mania, perhaps, but not dementia.

People looking to vote for the former vice president and long-time senator will not find him in this election. And that may be enough to keep them home on election day.

Artie, you remind me of the proverbial woman at the New York party in 1968 who was astonished that Nixon won, because no one she knew had voted for him. No one you know is supporting Trump, so you can't see why anyone would. You can't understand why anyone would prefer Trump over Biden.

You see every statistic, every poll result, as proof that Biden will win; that the country as a whole detests Trump - to the point of preferring a demonstrably addled candidate over him. No one in your social circle supports Trump, so how could he possibly win?

However, outside self-reinforcing circles, Trump does have a fair amount of support. While he is a flawed human being, his policies generally reflect what some hold is the proper role of a limited federal government. They're willing to overlook his bombastic behavior in favor of his policies - much like the folks who willingly overlooked Bill Clinton's behavior in favor of his policies.

The voters will get to decide this November. Until then, it's all speculation. A lot can change in six months.

Au contraire, mon ami. If Biden shows outward signs of advancing dementia in the debate, he will lose voters; perhaps not to Trump, but he will lose them.

[Trump supporters are] willing to overlook his bombastic behavior in favor of his policies

It works -- or can work -- both ways, Conan. If Trump supporters are willing to overlook his personal shortcomings (of which there are many) then Biden supporters -- and people who want Trump out of the White House -- can be equally willing to overlook Biden's personal shortcomings (e.g. the alleged "dementia".)

Plus if Biden selects a strong, competent person for his running mate, it could help assuage any fears people may have about his ability to function.

Artemis, do you think that anything needs to be, or should be done, with Social Security and, if so, what?

...people who want Trump out of the White House -- can be equally willing to overlook Biden's personal shortcomings .... ~ JD at April 15, 2020 8:34 AM

Valid point, JD.

I would point out, however, that those folks have to be energized to come out to vote. I don't know that Biden is a dynamic enough personality to get them energized. Trump, on the other hand, may be enough to energize them.

As for his running mate, very few running mates carry an election. A few might have crashed an election, but I don't think any have ever carried it. Fritz, LBJ, the younger Biden, and Cheney may have reassured voters that their young and relatively inexperienced candidates would be backed up by an experienced and capable VP, but they were not the margin of the candidate's victory.

Unlike Cheney, very few VPs have been actively engaged in the day-to-day running of the country. Al Gore, perhaps, depending on whether the 2000 polls told him to connect himself to or distance himself from Bill Clinton. John Nance Garner called the office "not worth a bucket of warm piss."

As for my argument about Biden's dementia, it was that if it shows up in the debate, it will hurt Biden. If it stays under wraps and is only an allegation (as her health issues were for Clinton), it probably won't make a difference and will be easily overlooked by people inclined to vote for him or his party or to vote against Trump.

I don't know that Biden is a dynamic enough personality to get them energized.

I don't think Biden has to get them energized. What will energize them is a fervent desire to get Trump out of the White House.

I think the anti-Trump sentiment will be every bit as strong, if not stronger, than the anti-Hillary sentiment among Trump voters in 2016.

Conan Says:

"Trump, while outrageous in his rhetoric, does not show outward signs of dementia - ego-mania, perhaps, but not dementia."

A 2018 letter drafted by ~40 experts in the field disagree with you:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/01/12/letter.to.radm.jackson.january.11.2018[1].pdf

This is not a distinguishing feature between Trump and Biden as much as you seem to want it to be.

They are both viewed as mentally impaired in some way.

Therefore it is unrealistic to view this as some point of differentiation.

"You see every statistic, every poll result, as proof that Biden will win;"

This is demonstrably untrue. Even in this very thread I said otherwise when I said the following:

"If Biden fails to add the 45 and under demographic to his coalition he loses... if he convinces them to get on board he wins."

Please pay attention to what I am actually saying as opposed to making up false positions for me. You do this often and it makes for silly conversations because you are just setting up strawmen.

JD Says:

"Artemis, do you think that anything needs to be, or should be done, with Social Security and, if so, what?"

Before I even thought about cutting into social security I would do the following things:

1 - Remove the contribution cap
2 - Have a retirement assets test of some sort put into place to be eligible to receive social security

This way it actually operates as a social safety net. If one does not legitimately need the net then one does not get a pay out.

A 2018 letter drafted by ~40 experts in the field disagree with you: ~ Artemis at April 15, 2020 6:24 PM

That letter is a request for a psychiatric examination to accompany the physical examination of the president, a standard procedure since the president is over 66 years old. It is not a professional diagnosis of mental decline, nor an allegation of evidence of mental decline.

Likewise, without a personal examination, any allegations of dementia in Biden are also not a professional diagnosis. Signs of an apparent mental decline do however abound in some of Biden's recent appearances. None of that says he actually has dementia. But if that behavior shows up in any of his debate appearances, it will harm his campaign.

He has been easily confused lately. That may be a medication issue or a sign of incipient decline in his faculties. A medical professional will have to make that determination, but the campaign is unlikely to allow it. Will those psychiatric professionals so concerned that the elderly Trump get a mental exam alongside his physical one also insist Biden get one? Or, like the Tara Reade allegations, will another double standard by applied?

And those signs of a Biden decline are not offset by outrageous rhetoric by Trump. Voters have come to expect that of him.

This is demonstrably untrue. ~ Artemis at April 15, 2020 6:24 PM

Artie, in your anti-Trump rhetoric, you do seem unwilling to accept that Trump has a fair amount of voter support and may win the election; or that Biden has weaknesses that could cost him the election. My inference? Perhaps, but your implication as well.

As for the under 45 voters, they will likely already vote by a large margin for Biden, but the question is whether there will be enough of them to swing the election. Younger voters typically do not turnout in the numbers that older ones do; unless they're inspired by a candidate. And Biden is not inspiring them.

Nor is it my stance that he should try to. If the past is prologue, he'll carry the younger voters in the general election by a wide margin. Biden needs to worry more about attracting the older white working class voters that Clinton lost in 2016 than he does about attracting Sanders voters.

A lukewarm attempt to "unite [the party's] factions by absorbing some policy positions" would not be enough to inspire a large percentage of Sanders voters to turn out for him. They'd see it as a blatant attempt to buy their votes. They may still turn out to vote against Trump, but to bet the campaign on that would be foolish.

Biden needs to keep to the fiscal discipline he endorsed when he criticized Elizabeth Warren for not "being fully honest" and "making it up" about how much the proposals endorsed by the Warren-Sanders wing would cost and how they'd be funded.

Thus my earlier assertion that Biden needs to run as a candidate voters can respect, not as a cafeteria worker doling out goodies at a buffet. He needs to eschew adopting some of Sanders' policies in a less-than-subtle attempt to attract younger voters and simply run as an experienced politician who can restore normalcy to the White House after the chaos of the Trump years; a politician who openly advocates more liberal policies, but one who will not radically upset the apple cart.

Conan Says:

"It is not a professional diagnosis of mental decline, nor an allegation of evidence of mental decline."

Of course it isn't a professional diagnosis.

That isn't the standard here as Biden doesn't have a professional diagnosis either.

You aren't using the same standards between Trump and Biden.

Let's remind you of what your claim was:

"Trump, while outrageous in his rhetoric, does not show outward signs of dementia - ego-mania, perhaps, but not dementia."

Now let's actually look at the details of the letter which you seem to have ignored:

"This is especially true at a time of increasing concern over the President’s:
• Declining faculties for complex thought, rambling speech, difficulty completing a thought
• Episodes of slurred speech
• Failure to recognize old friends
• Frequent repetition of the same concepts
• Decreased fine motor coordination
• Difficulties reading, listening and comprehending
• Suspect judgment, planning, problem solving and impulse control
• Markedly declining vocabulary in recent years, with over reliance on superlatives

Your examination should also include a basic dementia screen such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and as thorough a neurological examination as you can perform given your specialty as an internist."

The professionals even included a bulleted list of concern items they have observed associated with dementia and specifically requested a dementia screening.

This demonstrates that there has been a long standing concern that Trumps is showing outward signs of dementia... which is what you said didn't exist.

If your standard is a professional diagnosis then Biden is in the clear as well, because no such diagnosis has been issued to the public indicating such.

You cannot logically have it both ways.

Pick a standard and apply it equally across the board.

"Artie, in your anti-Trump rhetoric, you do seem unwilling to accept that Trump has a fair amount of voter support and may win the election; or that Biden has weaknesses that could cost him the election. My inference?"

It isn't reasonable for you to apply "your inference" as "my position".

I have never stated that Biden is free of weaknesses, I have never stated that Trump has no support... I have never argued any of the things you are pinning on me to try and make a counter point.

That is the definition of a strawman.

Deal with the arguments I have actually made, not the ones you have imagined.

Conan Says:

"If the past is prologue, he'll carry the younger voters in the general election by a wide margin. Biden needs to worry more about attracting the older white working class voters that Clinton lost in 2016 than he does about attracting Sanders voters."

You are presuming that these two objectives are mutually exclusive.

That is where the polling data suggests you are wrong.

It would be a foolish strategy to count on voters 45 and younger just going out to support Biden without him making some move to garner their support.

The polling makes it clear at this stage that providing a proverbial olive branch to unite his party will not dissuade independent voters... in fact such a move aligns with the majority of independents.

Since you are talking about the past as a prologue... how did it work out for Clinton again by ignoring the progressive wing of the party?... that's right... she lost.

Bare in mind that in 2016 I predicted that Clinton would have significant difficulty because she tried to run to the center in a vain effort to curry favor with centrist republicans.

The reason this is a failing strategy is that most of the republican base (~30% of the population as a whole) vote strictly along party lines. They are single issue voters for things like abortion.

Unless Biden is willing to commit to fighting against abortion those folks are a lost cause regardless of anything else he does.

His efforts should be focused on wining the battles he can win.

In principle he can win amongst the 45 and younger crowd, if he isn't stupid.

Conan,

I'll go one step further even... I don't even believe Trump will agree to participate in a debate against Biden in the general election.

Sure he'll rant and rave about how he is doing Biden a favor, or say how no one is interested in seeing a debate against Biden, or come up with some other excuse for why a debate isn't necessary... but at the end of the day he won't participate in a debate because his own mental faculties aren't all there either.

Trump isn't the kind of guy to avoid a debate to prevent Biden from being embarrassed. He will avoid the debate to prevent his own embarrassment.

I'll go one step further even... I don't even believe Trump will agree to participate in a debate against Biden in the general election. ~ Artemis at April 16, 2020 9:55 AM

We'll record that as a prediction, Artie, and get back to you in a few months.

Trump isn't the kind of guy to avoid a debate to prevent Biden from being embarrassed. He will avoid the debate to prevent his own embarrassment. ~ Artemis at April 16, 2020 9:55 AM

It's not the candidate's job to spare his opponent any embarrassment. So, likewise, I'd not expect Biden to avoid a debate with Trump if he thought it might embarrass Trump.

Conan,

You can record it as a "prediction" if you like, but it is just something I have a hunch will occur. That particular statement isn't based on data.

When I make an actual prediction it is based on data and evidence, not my suspicions regarding behavior.

Predictions for me are scientific and data driven... this is just a hunch.

My actual prediction (based on data) is that if Biden fails to get the 45 and younger crowd to turn out and vote for him he will lose... if he succeeds in getting them to turn out and vote for him he will win.

Mark that one down as an actual prediction... the thing you latched onto is a my own personal suspicion based on observing the kind of guy Trump is.

Artie, you're quibbling. You didn't say "hunch" when you boldly declared that Trump would refuse to debate Biden. You called it going "one step further."

Conan,

There is no quibbling here... here you go again with your failure to understand the English language.

This is the exact quote:

"I'll go one step further even... I don't even believe Trump will agree to participate in a debate against Biden in the general election."

I didn't "boldly declare Trump would refuse to debate Biden"... I said I don't believe he will.

It is my belief.

In other words, I would not be the least bit surprised if he didn't agree to participate in a debate because that is the kind of guy I think he is.

When I make a bonafide prediction I will say so.

My predictions are based on data. There is no data here, just my own beliefs on the kind of guy Trump is.

...here you go again with your failure to understand the English language. ~ Artemis at April 16, 2020 6:28 PM

I understand the English language just fine, Artie. I even majored in it for a few semesters. You, on the other hand, could use a lesson or two.

Example #1: "Bare in mind...." at April 16, 2020 5:50 AM. Artie, it's "Bear in mind...."

That's not the first spelling (or punctuation) error I've noticed in your writing. I usually let those go as typos missed in proofreading, but this is the second time in only a few days you've insisted that what you wrote is not what you meant, and then blamed the entire misunderstanding on someone else.

You really need to work on your written communication skills, Artie.

Conan,

If you understand it just fine why would you conflate "belief" with "prediction"?

People believe all kinds of things that do not amount to predictions.

I happen to believe Trump is a coward, therefore I believe he will behave in a cowardly fashion.

That doesn't amount to a specific "prediction" in the sense you want to indicate. You know this, which is why you said "We'll record that as a prediction"... you'll just impose it by fiat.

I have no doubt that given the volume I write here you can find all manner of typos or grammatical oversights.

No one here is free from those.

What I am talking about here is reading comprehension.

That's fine though.

If you want to take it as my "prediction" that Trump won't agree to participate in a debate with Biden, then I will take it as your "prediction" that the path to Biden winning is *not* taking on any progressive policy positions.

Conan,

Just to be clear, you are the one with whom these "misunderstandings" keep occurring.

This also isn't a matter of my "written communication skills".

The problem is that you make things up out of whole cloth or attempt to redefine the meanings of words away from their proper or standard usage.

Then you accuse others of "quibbling" after you have acted dishonesty and in bad faith in the discussion.

Example #1: "No one in your social circle supports Trump, so how could he possibly win?" Conan the Grammarian at April 15, 2020 7:49 AM

How exactly did you come to declare what no one in my social circle supports Trump?

It certainly isn't based on facts or statements I have made indicating that to be true.

You just asserted it without evidence based on a belief... but the difference between you and I is that you assert your suspicions as fact without telling anyone it is just something you believe to be true.

As it so happens what you stated is factually false.

Between your criticism of my typos and my criticism of your dishonest unsupported statements, which is more damaging to communication from a written standpoint?

I for one would take a post riddled with typos over one riddled with unsupported falsehoods any day of the week.

Sleep well Conie.

How exactly did you come to declare what no one in my social circle supports Trump? ~ Artemis at April 16, 2020 8:19 PM

You're cherry picking again, Artie.

The paragraph above that one opened with "Artie, you remind me of the proverbial woman at the New York party in 1968 who was astonished that Nixon won, because no one she knew had voted for him." "You remind me of...," not "you are."

Hence the "social circle" comment as a continuation of that "you remind me" theme and not any statement of definitive knowledge of your social circle, which I'm sure is generously sprinkled with liberals, conservatives, bon vivants, and lively wits - your postings here being so stimulating and entertaining, captivating us all with your humor and insight.

Give it up Conan. Artemis so embarrassed himself on his hysterical and wrong Corona virus predictions that nothing ever again with be forecast without a quibble of epic proportions.

I’m surprised he hasn’t changed his name again, to put the proverbial internet bag over his head.

Conan,

Reasonable discourse does not include saying ‌someone reminds you of some imaginary character you have concocted and then attributing to them all manner of unsupported statementes as if they were in any sense based in fact or reality.

Is this a legitimate or honest way to operate in your opinion?

I certainly don't believe you would consider it to be "cherry picking" to object if I claimed your argument style reminded me of Trump and then followed up with a statement that you have had several adulterous affairs and that your spouse accused you of raping her in a court filing.

Honest people don't pull dirty and illegitimate rhetorical tricks like the one you are describing.

I'll give you that it is very Trumpian in character to the extent that he will make unsubstantiated comments about others that he attempts to weasel his way out of by adding "lots of people are saying...".

Isab,

You have no allegiance to the truth.

I correctly predicted the events to the day based on the available trends and data.

That you have to lie about it after the fact is pathetic and unsurprising.

Isab,

Just to add back in the facts... this was my prediction:

"I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

That is it in full detail.

Anyone who looks at the trend data can clearly see that we hit that target on April 1st.

Conan's erroneous argument was the following:

"But Artie, your wager was we'd reach roughly 5,000 deaths "by" April 1st. That deadline was last night at midnight. You'd have lost that bet as offered."

While I did say in a less specific post "by" april 1st, I clarified precisely what I meant because I know the kind of dishonest folks I converse with here.

The reality is that the clarification wouldn't matter to anyone who understand the proper usage of the English language.

I only clarified because I realized that folks like you and Conan consistently fail when it comes to reading comprehension.

When it comes to setting time lines, the word "by" properly means up to and including the specified date.

If someone tells you for example they need you to file paperwork "by" the end of the month, they don't mean filed on the 29th at the latest. It includes the 30th as well.

Anyone who has ever paid a bill or filed legal paperwork in their life understands this.

This isn't that difficult to understand.

Just to add back in the facts... this was my prediction:

"I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st."

That was not your initial prediction, Artie. You're re-writing history to make yourself look better and smarter than you really are.

Artie, you consistently fail when it comes to written communication. Clarity is not your forte.

You said "by April" initially. Only later that night, after repeating your claim several times, did you clarify that you meant "before the end of April 1st."

Now, you're rewriting the English language to say that everybody understands that "by April" means "sometime in April" and that your last statement of the day is what you really meant; that we should have known that all along.

Your own relationship with the truth is a long-distance one, at best.

This kind of quibbling is why no one here trusts you.

If someone tells you for example they need you to file paperwork "by" the end of the month, they don't mean filed on the 29th at the latest. It includes the 30th as well.

Since the end of the month is 11:59:59 pm on the last day of the month, "by the end of the month" includes the last day of the month, by default.

And if you're smart, you get a clarification on what the actual due date is. If you're not, you rely on ambiguous language and quibbling to insist you were right when you filed it late.

Conan Says:

"That was not your initial prediction, Artie. You're re-writing history to make yourself look better and smarter than you really are."

So let's be clear... my "initial" prediction is the one that counts?

The "most precise" prediction doesn't?

If that is the case what do you think my "initial" prediction was and when was it made?

Conan Says:

"And if you're smart, you get a clarification on what the actual due date is. If you're not, you rely on ambiguous language and quibbling to insist you were right when you filed it late."

Interesting Conan.

You never clarified what was meant by what you call ambiguous language and are quibbling to insist you are correct despite all evidence indicating your interpretation was always wrong.

I suppose you are not that smart by your own standards.

...despite all evidence indicating your interpretation was always wrong. ~ Artemis at April 17, 2020 1:27 PM

"All evidence?" "Always?" Wow. You're delusional.

Even the evidence you presented stated "on or before" when referring to a payment due date - except a marketing promotion by American Express. The language you quoted from an AMEX legal document stated "on or before." No ambiguity there. The rest of your "evidence" was anecdotal, including your reference to the IRS due date.

The evidence I presented included the IRS's official language regarding the due date for taxes - "on April 15" - not "by April 15" as you insisted, but "on."

"By" is, in fact and in common usage, ambiguous. No properly constructed legal document, written with an intent to be clear and concise, says "payment due by." If the deadline includes the date specified, the document says "on or before."

Artie, had I taken your bet, I would have insisted on a clarification of the body count, the measurement authority, and the deadlines - because I know you'd try to weasel out of it if you lost. And I'd have insisted on the designation of a neutral party, or parties, to settle any dispute, again because, if you lost, I knew you would argue that - by your particular interpretation, by what you meant, not by what anyone else read - you didn't lose.

Conan,

You are fractally wrong.

Let's start from the beginning.

This was my initial claim:

"FYI... current death toll associated with Corona in the US is ~1,300.
The doubling rate is about every 3 days given the current trend.
This implies we should hit ~5,000 deaths by April." - Artemis at March 26, 2020 5:54 PM

Now let's go through the math slowly... if the current number is 1,300, how many times must one double it before they exceed 5,000?... the answer is 2.

If we are going through 2 doublings and each doubling takes 3 days this means that the prediction is that 6 days from March 27th we would expect to see the numbers exceed 5,000.

What is 6 days from March 27th?... April 1st.

There is no ambiguity here at all. The context and the math makes it extremely clear what precise date I am talking about.

This should only be confusing or ambiguous to you if you are unable to add or multiply.

Despite this I anticipated that you might get confused, so I then later made a detailed clarification:

"I am fairly certain that we will hit 5,000 deaths in the US before the end of April 1st." - Artemis at March 28, 2020 9:21 PM

That is the version that is explicit without anyone needing to do elementary school mathematics... but we are talking about exactly the same date.

The date never changed.

Despite this you chose to latch onto the word "by" as a way to be a weasel and claim that this meant my prediction was instead about March 31st... this is despite the fact that the math in my original claim is clear and unambiguous.

So great, as I expected you acted in a dishonest fashion... not a big deal because you weren't using the English language properly anyway.

I presented you the following American Express documentation that you acknowledge seeing:

online.americanexpress.com/myca/shared/summary/lendingoncharge/ccsg/payovertime/pdf/online-statement.pdf

And I explained to you that they used the terms "by" and "on or before" interchangeably.

"If you pay the new balance *by* the payment due date each month, you will not incur interest charges on charges added to a Pay Over Time balance automatically." - Emphasis added to "by"

And the following explanation:

"We must receive at least your minimum payment due on or before the payment due date."

You have ignored the fact that AMEX used both terms to refer to the exact same thing.

I then provided you evidence from Investopedia and from open source grammar sites that all universally agreed that "by" and "on or before" were synonymous.

There was no ambiguity in any of these sources.

You are the only person who appears confused with regard to what the word "by" actually means in this context.

I'll make this even more evident for you in a moment.

Conan Says:

""By" is, in fact and in common usage, ambiguous. No properly constructed legal document, written with an intent to be clear and concise, says "payment due by." If the deadline includes the date specified, the document says "on or before.""

Let's put this to bed once and for all, shall we?

Here is but one example from the code of federal regulations:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/986.162

"Handlers shall file reports by the tenth day of the month following the month of transfer. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports are due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month"

Now let's think about this logically, shall we?

The code stipulates that the report shall be filed *by* the 10th day of the month.

In your interpretation this would mean *on* the 9th day of the month at the latest.

Great... but then the code does something interesting and stipulates what should occur if the 10th of the month happens to land on a weekend or a holiday.

It tells us that if the 10th happens to land on a weekend or holiday the report now needs to be filed *by* the first business day following the tenth day of the month.

Great, still following along?

Let's now look at this through the lens of if the word "by" is inclusive of the date mentioned or if it excludes the date mentioned.

If it includes the dates mentioned this becomes very easy to understand. You can file on the 10th, but if it so happens that the 10th lands on a Saturday for example, you can now file on Monday when normal business hours resume.

Perfect... but let's look at what happens with your interpretation.

For you the report needs t be filed on the 9th... the 10th would be late... unless for some reason the 10th lands on a Saturday... in which case you no longer need to file on Friday the 9th... you can now file on Sunday the 11th because Monday the 12th would be late.

Your way of interpreting things leads to a ridiculous result. If the day it wasn't due lands on a weekend you can file on a later time that weekend... but NOT during business hours the following week.

This isn't the only law like this Conan... there are lots of them.

You can cry and whine that these laws aren't "properly constructed"... but your interpretation leads to unreasonable and silly results.

My interpretation (and the interpretation of every other source I have identified) leads to a rational and understandable outcome of a due date landing on a weekend.

TLDR

Artie, we've been over this too many time already. You can keep repeating whatever you want. The fact is you're quibbling, trying to insist you were absolutely right when you were, at best, ambiguous.

I'm not doing 150+ posts with you again to say the same thing over and over. This discussion is finished.

Good night Artie.

Conan Says:

"TLDR"

Sure Conan.

It just so happens that there is a treasure trove of laws on the books that use "by" in precisely the manner I suggest and not at all consistent with your bizarre interpretation and suddenly your eyes are tired.

Good night Conie.

Conan,

I also love how you hinge your entire argument on what the meaning of "by" is... all while ignoring very specific dates offered both implicitly by virtue of the outlined calculation and explicitly by virtue of the actual specified date... and you accuse me of "quibbling".

You're the same guy who spend paragraphs explaining how you used your "inference" to presume that I see no opportunity for Biden to lose despite me describing exactly how I thought he could lose.

It is utterly amazing how your inferential powers are used to conclude things diametrically opposed to what I have written but you are utterly incapable of inferring the logical consequence of a simple calculation.

It is also amazing how you purport to scour my comments for typos and punctuation errors... but the moment it becomes clear there are laws in use that contradict everything you have been asserting you just cannot read any longer.

This is why you are regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum.

This is why you are regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum. ~ Artemis at April 17, 2020 7:48 PM

Oh? I'm regarded as such by whom, Artie? Names and cites.

While we're waiting, let me provide you with a few comments that have come in about you over the years (all emphases mine):

"You're an extraordinarily tiresome individual. Actually being you must be exhausting." ~ Patrick at April 20, 2020 6:41 AM

"Do you want to know why no one here bothers to engage with you? Because you are a dishonest debater. You deliberately miss the point of arguments, and you turn to ad [hominem] attacks when you haven't got anything else." ~ Cousin Dave at May 29, 2019 11:37 AM

"Do people walk up and tell you that you are a nitwit on a regular basis? If not, they should." ~ Isab at May 5, 2019 2:58 PM

"Ever notice Artemis' penultimate argument is always 'your personal anecdotes are not germane, but mine are?'" ~ lujlp at July 28, 2018 7:18 PM

"I find that you, Artemis, frequently argue dirty. I disagree with many commenters on this site many times, but when people, probably lacking the chops to argue clean, argue dirty, it makes the discussion unpleasant. [...] In short: Apples to green peppers and don't be such an asshole." ~ Amy Alkon at June 17, 2014 6:22 AM

Artie, I didn't even have to go all the way back to your days posting as Orion to find these. I bet I could find a whole lot more if I went back that far.

Is that why you changed your name? Were too many people onto your tricks under that name?

You see, unlike you, Artie, I've never changed my name here. And if I do someday, you can bet I'll let people know about it. You, on the other hand, tried to sneak in with a new identity, pretending to be someone else until everyone here was onto you.

Now, tell me again how I'm dishonest and so lowly-regarded here.

Conan Says:

"Oh? I'm regarded as such by whom, Artie? Names and cites."

Well here is one example:

"Conan and Ben, I hope you both get a chance to see this video. The left demonstrates the very type of dishonesty that the two of you love to engage in." Patrick at April 10, 2019 6:06 AM

What's more you are aware of this discussion because this was your response:

"You're telling lies about me again, Patrick. I have not been dishonest about you or to you, Patrick, I've just told you the truth and you can't handle it - as evidenced by your underhanded and weaselly aspersions cast from ambush." Conan the Grammarian at April 10, 2019 7:42 AM

So lets be clear... I mentioned that you were regarded as dishonest.

You told me to present a citation despite the fact that you should be well aware since you responded directly to it.

That in and of itself is dishonest.

Remind me again how lovely and nice and civil you are to folks around here.

It is all a pack of lies.

Just like your lie that 5 years ago you extended an olive branch of civility and I knocked it away... you were never civil.

You just feign being a victim and no one should have patience for someone who goes around attacking people and then cries that they have been treated poorly.

If you want this to be a civil forum then act like it.

You could start by being honest.

One data point, Artie? That's all you used to determine that I am "regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum?"

The most?

Your one data point is from when Patrick was expressing open hostility toward me - and, to be fair, I toward him - and not indicative of our interactions of late, which have been civil (by the actual definition of that word, not your fantasy one).

One data point? To think, you call yourself a good analyst and yet you feel free to draw sweeping conclusions the basis of one data point.

And, yes, I was aware that Patrick had, in the past, leveled such an accusation. You'll notice I included his low opinion of you in my cites - for just that purpose. I knew you'd go to that one quote. It's all you've got. You've milked that one before.

On the other hand, could gather dozens of quotes to back up my assertion that you are the least liked and least respected interlocutor on this forum. I gave you five cites without breaking a metaphorical sweat looking them up. Whats more, I'd have veritable cornucopia of cites if I went back to your days posting as Orion.

Artie, the fact that you changed your name without immediately acknowledging that name change indicates an intent to deceive, however mild the deception. So much for you being the arbiter of what constitutes honesty.

Yes, Artie, I did extend an olive branch years ago, which you slapped away.

Good luck with the world, kid. You're gonna need it.

Conan Says:

"Your one data point is from when Patrick was expressing open hostility toward me - and, to be fair, I toward him - and not indicative of our interactions of late, which have been civil (by the actual definition of that word, not your fantasy one)."

Here you go lying again.

You were never the victim of Patrick. This is you 10 years earlier:

"Define "extremely educated." Does he have enough degrees to be a thermometer?
So, he's an extreme student? Is he the Tony Hawk of matriculation? Is he the Shaun White of college thespians?" - Conan the Grammarian at October 19, 2010 5:43 PM

And what was this in direct response to?... was Patrick insulting to you in any way?... Nope... this was a response to a completely different poster:

"I can see Patrick really riles up a lot of you. He points out the lying, hypocrisy and general immorality of the right-wing. He's also extremely educated which would causes some of you HS diploma types some envy." - Crusader at October 19, 2010 4:53 PM

So let's summarize, someone by the name of Crusader expressed admiration for his perception of Patrick's level of education in comparison his perception of your own... and your response was to trash Patrick and compare him to a thermometer.

That isn't civility. You went after him out of nowhere in response to a completely different person complimenting him.

You started the hostilities between yourself and Patrick and then ended up blaming him for it when he met you in kind.

But you know all of this, none of this should be a surprise to you.

So why pretend that I am just talking about one data point as if the whole thing was a one off event?

That is dishonest.

"Yes, Artie, I did extend an olive branch years ago, which you slapped away."

No Conan... you didn't. This is from 5 years ago from the time frame you indicate you were being so very civil:

"Yes, and it's kinda relevant. 85%-97% of readers would presume that I'm the troll and that Little Arty is the tortured urchin, because my aggression is naked and shameless, while his is defensive and needy." - Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at March 3, 2015 11:23 AM

Great... so Crid fully acknowledges that he was being nakedly aggressive... he was behaving like an asshole on purpose. He also acknowledges that I wasn't the aggressor in our interactions.

This was your response:

"Arty's a tar baby. He'll suck you into a long exchange in which he really really needs to get the last word (in his case, the last 3,500 words).
Only his comments are galling, so you really really want to respond to them. And you do. Then he sticks his next batch of nonsense in there. And so on."

You referred to me as a difficult problem that just wouldn't go away and you apparently had no power to avoid... not because my comments were insulting... but because they were "galling"

Keep in mind I wasn't even in that conversation so it is difficult to argue that I instigated you.

That is you offering an olive branch?... that is you being civil?

I never slapped anything away Conan... you just were never actually civil.

The fact that you keep insisting you were is fundamentally dishonest.

Similarly, the fact that you take such great umbrage at the notion that I "insulted your command of the English language"... you need to get over yourself.

You aren't a nice person but you cry and whine and throw a tantrum anytime someone touches upon your intellectual insecurities.

Why else would you feel it necessary to insult Patrick simply because someone else thought he came across as well educated?

Conan,

Here is another gem of your insulting nature being triggered by your own intellectual insecurities:

"Patrick, you'd be a lot more interesting to have a conversation with if you'd drop the condescension. You're simply not the smartest person in the room." - Conan the Grammarian at March 19, 2016 7:14 PM

Let's face it, any time you get the sense that someone might know more than you about something... or someone else believes a different person knows more than you about something... you lose your shit.

You perceive everyone as talking down to you... you accuse them of thinking they are smarter than they are.

This kind of continuous behavior over a decade is indicative of your own lack of security in your own accomplishments and level of education.

Just get over it already.

There are going to be times that you are going to interact with people who know more than you do on a wide variety of subjects. If your perception of them expressing that knowledge is always one that you are being condescended to that is a function of your own baggage... it isn't externally imposed by anyone else.

You started the hostilities between yourself and Patrick and then ended up blaming him for it when he met you in kind. ~ Artemis at April 22, 2020 6:52 AM

Artie, you speak of things about which you know nothing.

I actually don't remember who started the animosity between Patrick and me, but it the vitriol was pretty evenly spread. And you'll notice things are much tamer between us these days, civil even (by the actual definition of that word, not your fantasy definition of it).

We both took a few things personally that we probably shouldn't have.

Artie, here we go again with an English lesson: it's not "between yourself and Patrick." It's "between Patrick and you." "Yourself" is a reflexive pronoun. You might use "you did this to yourself," but never "between yourself and...."

Perhaps you could take an ESL course.

As for the one data point, Artie. You're using one person who, in the middle of a period of animosity between us, cast aspersions on my character.

Such a small sample size is enough for you to declare that I'm "regarded" as the "most dishonest interlocutor on this forum." "Most dishonest" and "regarded" are allegations that should be backed up by more than one data point, Artie.

In addition, your allegation of my being "regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum" indicates a wide selection of forum denizens accusing me of dishonesty. To make such a sweeping allegation, you should present more than one example. I gave you five in my allegation, all from widely distant time periods, including the hostess, herself (note the correct use of a reflexive pronoun).

Since you seem to regard Patrick's past hostile comment to me as indicative of a wider truth, then we should take his opinion of you as similarly indicative of a wider truth. By your own standard, Artie, I would be correct in saying that you are regarded as the most tiresome interlocutor on this forum.

See ya 'round, Orion. Artie. Jacquelope. Whatever.

Conan,

So what you are saying is that you are fully aware that the hostilities we are talking about took place over the span of an entire decade... and yet you pretended not to know what I was talking about... and when presented with evidence you then acted like it was a one off event.

This is what is meant by dishonesty.

"Artie, here we go again with an English lesson"

Style over substance fallacy again Conan.

"In addition, your allegation of my being "regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this forum" indicates a wide selection of forum denizens accusing me of dishonesty."

Conan... you pretended not to know about a 10 year cycle of claims of dishonestly against you.

Just cut the crap already.

Your relationship with the truth is tenuous at best.

Conan,

I'd also like to address this part of what you said:

"Since you seem to regard Patrick's past hostile comment to me as indicative of a wider truth, then we should take his opinion of you as similarly indicative of a wider truth. By your own standard, Artie, I would be correct in saying that you are regarded as the most tiresome interlocutor on this forum."

What is interesting here isn't my inclusion of Patrick's commentary about you over the course of a decade.

What is interesting here is your choice to include his assessment of my character in the first place as if you believed his opinion was indicative of a so-called wider truth.

This is especially interesting when we take into account your previous comments about him such as this one:

"Patrick,
Not embarassed at all - because you're lying.
Like Joseph Goebbels, you just keep repeating your little lies, hoping that if they're repeated often enough, someday they'll become truth." - Conan the Grammarian at March 14, 2019 5:17 AM

You literally liked the guy to Goebbels last year... and then you decided it was honest and reasonable to use his assessment of our most recent interaction as "tiresome" as a valid indication of anything about my character?

That isn't exactly honest or honorable behavior either.

I'm in a position to consider his opinion about you valid precisely because I haven't likened him to a Nazi.

You did liken him to a Nazi and then decided his opinion about other people we valid when it suited your immediate purpose to smear someone.