Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 380: Democrat physics lesson shows Bernie and Liz can’t share space

Liz and Bernie tiff
The Pauli exclusion principle explains the latest dynamic in the Democrat presidential race.

Huh? Who (or what) the heck is Pauli -- is he a writer for the New York Times? Or a CNN correspondent? A congressman from a blue state? Alexandria Ocasio’s special someone? Nope. Pauli was an Austrian physicist, and his principle stated that, “two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.” Feel any better now? No? In English, please?

How about, the laws of physics say that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Now we’re getting somewhere. While only those with advanced math and science educations comprehend what “fermions” are -- or what a quantum state is -- it’s not all that demanding for the lay person to grasp that two politicians running for president from the same party can’t both dominate a certain type of interest group within their faction. Together, Democrat senators -- and competitors for their party’s presidential nomination -- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren validate the concept perfectly. Sanders and Warren are both from northeastern states, both are ultra-liberal true believers in Constitution-trampling big government redistribution/socialism, and each is vying for the affections of the “out there” disgruntled angry Antifa-type American voters.

There aren’t a ton of the species but they do have a powerful lobby on the streets courtesy of their proficiency in making and tossing urine bombs, breaking store windows and wearing black hoods to cowardly mask their identities.

These people despise President Donald Trump and wouldn’t choose him in November even if they -- and everyone else -- were promised and guaranteed American sovereignty, a strong economy, a burgeoning energy sector with stringent environmental controls and protections, record low sustained unemployment, an operative hybrid foreign policy (avoiding largescale military commitments but still situationally asserting American power), an end to uninhibited illegal immigration, new trade relations with our geographic neighbors and the promise of a compromise solution with the world’s biggest trade cheater, China… and the list goes on and on. Trump promised -- and delivered -- on all of these things. And yet the wacko leftists hate him for it.

Let’s not forget judges. Trump swore he’d send only committed Constitution-revering originalist jurists to the senate for confirmation to the federal bench and he’s kept his word there, too. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and scores of lower court nominees now sit in judgment of the nation’s most important cases and controversies, and they’re doing a fantastic job.

Which brings us back to Warren and Sanders. There’s no getting around it -- in political races, there’s only one winner. If two candidates could both occupy the same podium at the quadrennial party convention, then legendary physicist Pauli would be full of… well, you know.

At any rate, Sanders and Warren have been chummy throughout the Democrat primary race thus far, repeatedly praising each other, supporting the other’s ideas and generally avoiding (like the plague) anything close to a direct assault on their friendship during the nationally televised monthly media debates. In the process they’ve virtually split the far-left vote down the middle, with neither one of them appearing to corner the market on the young, gullible and unhinged (or in the alternative, the old, used-up and embittered).

But is their truce terminated now? The two liberals shared several testy moments the other night in the Iowa Democrat debate, and pundits had a field day waxing over their post-program “confrontation”, terse words and absence of a “good job” handshake. Is their détente history? Has war been declared? No more alliance between friendly neighboring tribes? National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote before Tuesday’s debate, “The most zealous on the left see everything in politics through a personal lens and a rather Manichean worldview, despite their ardent belief that they’re the sophisticated thinkers who appreciate nuance.

“Think about what has to be going through Warren’s mind for her to unveil this charge at this moment. She knows darn well what the likely consequences of this are. This is going to be a big issue in tonight’s debate, and there’s a good chance that Sanders will lose some support among women. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that those voters will shift to Warren; the biggest beneficiary of this fight might well be Joe Biden. Sanders has spent his whole life working toward this moment, and now she’s kneecapping him, gambling that this helps her and not the aging centrist that they both would prefer to defeat. There’s no going back to being friends after this.

“Bernie Sanders may seem like a good progressive, but if he ever uttered something that Warren construed as sexist or anti-feminist, he must be destroyed at the right time — years of friendship and shared political efforts be damned. Then again, she probably feels like Sanders has it coming, because in her mind he broke the truce and had his volunteers use those anti-Warren talking points.”

For those who might not have heard -- or cared -- about the origins of the spat, the controversy concerns an alleged (by Warren) remark that Sanders made during a private conversation (alas, no corroborating witnesses either way!) in 2018 suggesting “The Bern” didn’t believe a woman could be elected president. CNN’s Abby Phillip raised the topic Tuesday night and it produced perhaps the most cringeworthy exchange of the evening, which isn’t saying much because nobody yelled, all the candidates (even Buttigieg!) got their time to spout a bucketload of nonsense about how much they like women and the pretenders seemingly went on from there as though nothing was different.

Sanders flat out denied ever having mentioned to Warren that a woman couldn’t win the presidency and then advanced the argument that he’d never say such a thing because Hillary Clinton received three million more votes than Trump did in 2016, and obviously if the Constitution wasn’t screwed up (as far as electing presidents) a pair of female feet would now be housed under the president’s desk in the oval office. Or something like that.

The moment came and passed and I didn’t really think much more of it, dismissing the disagreement as a he said/she said public lover’s quarrel between two political soulmates competing for the same slice of the Democrat kook pie. “The Bern” and “Pocahontas” didn’t point fingers, frown or exchange accusatory glances either. The audience seemed to take delight at Warren’s insistence that only the Democrat women on stage had beaten GOP incumbents in the past 30 years (which I guess is true). No big deal, right?

But delving a little below the surface, you can tell that Sanders and Warren aren’t okay with the current state of the party race. Since they’re essentially splitting votes (the Real Clear Politics Average has them at a just over 35 percent combined nationally (and similar numbers in Iowa), with Biden in first with just over 27 percent), the divide is preventing their shared worldview from dominating over the perceived “moderates” in Democrat-land.

Somewhat shockingly, it appears the Bernie people don’t like Warren all that much and vice versa. It’s a political “marriage” that could easily end up in divorce court and one wonders whether the eventual subtraction of one of them from the race will help reconcile the ultra-liberal voters towards the “survivor.” Two objects can’t occupy the same space, right? Two liberal dreamer presidential candidates can’t both plod along at the same speed in a running lane. Something’s gotta give.

Most pundits -- at least the ones who seem to mind who wins the Democrat nomination -- deemed Warren the “winner” of Tuesday’s clash. But they’re wrong. Warren may have looked like the “bigger” person the other night, but Sanders is by far the better candidate where Democrats are concerned -- and he will prevail when it counts. Warren isn’t electable (neither is Bernie, really) and is renowned as a proven liar, even within normally tight Democrat circles. Sanders is viewed as kind of a nutcase, but at least he’s given credit for the purity of his convictions. He was a dedicated socialist before the Berlin Wall fell -- how can you top that?

Bernie’s marching Gulag-loving foot soldiers are as solid as they come in today’s political realm, perhaps matched only by Trump’s at the other end of the spectrum. “Pocahontas” doesn’t have a steadfast following in the same universe. Sanders’ fundraising might alone is semi-legendary, and people who give to candidates are the ones out on the frontlines on election day (or caucus day). Does anyone think Bernie’s minions will just drop him and head willingly over to Warren’s teepee?

Sanders has the money and will (face it, it’s his last hurrah) to press through to the end and he’ll have enough votes to make a good case for the nomination. Warren is a bespectacled loony granny with an annoying screechy voice and a host of “plans” that make no sense. Who’s the better candidate?

There are additional signs that Warren and Sanders are ending their cushy coupling. If rumors are true, it could get ugly, folks. Joseph Simonson reported at The Washington Examiner, “Following Tuesday night's Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign came out swinging against Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

“When asked in the spin room about Warren's claim that she was the only Democrat running for president who has defeated a Republican incumbent in the last 30 years, the Vermont senator's campaign co-chairwoman replied with some of the harshest language his camp has used so far in their ongoing feud.

“’I know 30 years ago she was a Republican,’ said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner.”

It's true. As further reported by Simonson, Warren was a registered GOPer until 1996 (she formally changed parties supposedly because of her study of family bankruptcy). The party switch shouldn’t make much of a difference well over two decades later, but it reinforces the notion that “Pocahontas” doesn’t know who the heck she is -- and that includes her factional loyalty.

Meanwhile, Sanders and his surrogates appear primed to exploit all of Warren’s multitude of documented falsehoods and inconsistencies (not that “The Bern” doesn’t have a boatload of his own). They both can’t win. One of them has to go, and it seems clear they’re equally willing to end their once friendly rivalry to dive down into the political mosh pit and go at it.

It doesn’t take a legendary physicist to suggest two politicians can’t both occupy the same space at the same time. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been walking a fine line since the beginning of the Democrat presidential race. With a little over two weeks to go until Iowa, the pressure is mounting on both of them.

Share this

True Believers Pick Crazy Bernie

I thought I had heard a few weeks ago, that Obama has picked his horse in the race and it's Warren. Obama also came out months ago sending signals that he was going to oppose Crazy Bernie, prevent him from being the nominee. If those are true, we'll see how that goes. I don't know that Obama has any juice left; after all, he failed to elect Hillary, and I think he was the one to tell Beto to run for president (remember him?). I think Bernie is the ideal nominee for the Dems. Everything that they have said over the years, he represents their arguments perfectly. Perhaps I am biased as I used to be one of those "Bernie Bros." I changed to the Trumpster because I wanted to see Hillary defeated; he was the only option. It was an easy conversion for me because Trump speaks for me when he talks about trade deals, the forgotten worker, illegal immigration, etc. Yes, I liked Obama (in hindsight, there weren't any choices), but the midterms in 2014 were a turning point as well as his weak response to the domestic terrorism events in 2015. I realized that Trump was right about immigration. I don't disavow Bernie when he sticks to facts, however I now see he doesn't have a plan to fix things. Raising taxes can't be the solution to everything. Most of his plans cannot pass Congress. Symbolically though, he is the best messenger for the Dems, even if he doesn't want to be an actual Democrat. If you're a true believer in that, Warren also looks good on paper but she showed herself to be a phony. You might not know, but she refused to endorse Bernie or Hillary last time around. I thought endorsing Bernie at some point would have given him some juice to beat Hillary, but she chose to sit that out. Of course, she became Hillary's attack dog after the nomination. That part was easy. Taking on the establishment (Hillary) is hard. I think Bernie has the edge over her in 2020. Especially if Obama is working his buddies on Wall Street to soften the edges on Warren (because she doesn't mean the class warfare stuff, wink-wink). She's gonna be the establishment, even though others want to be in that lane. She will "pivot to the center" if she wins, and run as Hillary 3.0. I don't think Dem voters will go for that this time. I don't think it matters as Trump, I believe, will be re-elected. I'm giving him 4 more years to finish what he started, and I'm more motivated seeing what he had to go through all this time.