ChrisWeigant.com

Democratic Field Still Growing

[ Posted Monday, April 22nd, 2019 – 17:30 UTC ]

Another day goes by, another Democrat jumps in the presidential race. You'll forgive me if that sounds somewhat cynical (or even a bit loopy), but that's what the first few months of 2019 have seemed like, at times. But hopefully we're getting to the end of this opening phase in the 2020 presidential race, and hopefully within the next few weeks or so we'll have a full Democratic field and nobody else will jump into the race. That's our fervent hope, at any rate. It's hard enough keeping up with the names of everyone running already!

 

Campaign News

Another sitting House member has decided that he should be the one to take on Donald Trump. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts officially threw his hat in the ring today. So far, this makes five current House members running (the others are John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, and Eric Swalwell). Now, winning the presidency from a Senate seat is a lot rarer than people think, but winning the presidency from a House seat is almost unprecedented, so all of these campaigns should be seen as the longest of longshots.

Moulton brings an impressive military résumé to the table, but he is best known for challenging Nancy Pelosi's leadership of the House Democrats. How this will play out for him remains to be seen. His attempt to oust Pelosi didn't exactly get a groundswell of support within the party, so he'll likely spend his first weeks on the campaign trail attempting to explain himself and build bridges. We'll see how well this works.

Of course, there's another presidential run announcement scheduled for this week, which will dwarf the news that Moulton is running. Vice President Joe Biden is poised to throw his hat in the ring in a few days, surprising exactly nobody. He's been building up to this decision for months now, and the outcome was never in all that much doubt. Biden routinely tops the polling, both nationally and in the early-voting states, and he's got better name recognition than just about anybody else running. He seems to have (so far) weathered the attacks on his handsiness, and will definitely hit the ground running.

Biden's entry into the race is a political earthquake, since it will shake up the field to a considerable degree. There will now be two clear frontrunners in the race, Biden and Bernie Sanders (based on polling and also, in Sanders's case, money raised). Whether they'll begin sniping at each other or not remains to be seen, but eventually each one of them is going to have to make some sort of play for the other's voters. It will be interesting to see whether the two men will share a stage at the first two debates or not (the debates will be on two nights, and participants will be chosen randomly, so there's no guarantee they'll get to face each other).

What is much more likely is that the struggling candidates in the other two tiers will launch some sort of attacks on Joe Biden. Entering as the frontrunner means becoming an instant target for all those who are trying to make a name for themselves right now -- and there are a lot of them.

We have one technical note before we move on to examining our three tiers. Up until now, our criteria for who should be considered a serious candidate has been only to track those Democrats who have held some sort of public office. But there are two candidates who don't meet this qualification who now have to be added to the mix. They both qualified as serious candidates (for our purposes here) by raising an impressive amount of campaign money. Andrew Yang raised $1.8 million in the first quarter, and Marianne Williamson raised $1.6 million. This put them, respectively, at eleventh and twelfth on the list of first-quarter fundraising -- which means they were both ahead of Tulsi Gabbard ($1.5 million). Julián Castro ($1.1 million), John Delaney ($300,000), and Wayne Messam (less than $50,000).

So we're adding both of them to the roster, as they have clearly earned recognition. Together with Seth Moulton's entry and Joe Biden's imminent entry, this means that by the end of the week, the Democratic field will stand at a whopping 21 candidates.

 

First Tier

Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are now the undisputed frontrunners for the Democratic nomination race. Biden seems to have an edge in the polls over Bernie, anywhere from a few points to almost a 10-point gap. How much of this is name recognition alone will likely become apparent in the next few weeks, as Biden moves from being just a possibility to an actual candidate with an actual campaign. He may lose some of his luster with the voters, or he may actually gain in stature now that he'll be on television a lot more. Either way, though, he and Bernie are so far out in front of the rest of the pack that their frontrunner status seems to be pretty solid for now.

In fact, you could make an argument that the first tier should just end with only Sanders and Biden within it. By the polling, this would be an acceptable way of seeing the race. However, we're not ready to limit the top tier quite so severely yet, since there are other candidates who are not matching Sanders or Biden but seem to be competing fairly equally with each other.

So this time around, we've got four others in the first tier: Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren. All have done a good job of promoting their candidacies and are still receiving media attention. All are doing comparatively well in the polls with each other, although they're all far behind Biden and Sanders. The last time we wrote about the state of the race, we demoted Warren to the second tier, but she keeps rolling out detailed agenda plan after detailed agenda plan, so in our eyes at least she's earned her way back to the top tier. Just today she unveiled a plan to wipe out an enormous amount of student debt (along with making state colleges tuition-free), which -- as with many of her other plans -- goes further than even what Bernie Sanders is promoting. If you're a wonky progressive voter who likes detailed policy proposals, Warren is definitely your candidate right now.

The other three have not had breakout moments in the past few weeks, but they've been sustaining the initial wave that put them in the public spotlight. Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg are all still definitely contenders, and have all been working hard to improve their media coverage.

 

Second Tier

The second tier is smaller than you might think, with so many people in the race. But this is largely due to the overcrowded nature of the third tier, packed with candidates who are still struggling to remind the voters that they too are in the running. The second tier candidates are on the brink of not being one of the faceless pack at the back, but who have also not quite broken into the center spotlight.

Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar both remain in the second tier, with neither candidate having any noticeable breakout moments, but still definitely in the running. Booker and Klobuchar were sixth and seventh, respectively, in the first-quarter fundraising, with Booker raising $5 million and Klobuchar pulling in $4.6 million. This alone qualifies them second-tier status, since most of the other candidates only raised a fraction of these amounts.

We're adding two names to the second tier this week, although both may struggle to stay there. Jay Inslee has concentrated his campaign on the issue of climate change, and is making somewhat of a splash by calling for a Democratic debate solely focused on his pet issue. This is a strong argument to make, since climate change is very important to many voters, and Inslee's definitely the one to be making this argument. If he convinces the Democratic National Committee to agree to the idea, it will definitely be a big feather in his cap.

Andrew Yang also has to be considered in the second tier, as he is championing a radical idea that might prove to be popular among Democratic voters. Yang wants all Americans to receive a "universal basic income" of $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year. Call it "demand-side economics," since this would put a lot of cash into consumers' hands and could be expected to boost the economy with all the extra spending it would allow for.

Many voters have never heard of universal basic income theory, but it has indeed been around for a long time. Alaska has a form of it, since the state sends every resident a check each year to spread the wealth of the money the state takes in from the oil industry. Universal basic income is being tried in pilot programs all over the world, but it's still too early to accurately see the effects of these experiments.

Yang would pay for this by instituting a "value-added tax" to all goods. This might dim the appeal of universal basic income somewhat, since while voters might be expected to think that free money for all each month is a great idea, once they realize that everything they buy is going to be more expensive as a direct result, it might not be welcomed quite so readily. But that's the gamble Yang is taking, so we'll see whether his idea will lead to a true breakout moment in the media for him. So far, he's been doing better than a lot of candidates at getting his message out there, but it still isn't all that widely known as of now.

 

Third Tier

Once again, the bottom tier has grown. We've now got 11 names in the distant pack, making it tough just to remember them all at times.

Last time around, we added Mike Gravel, Tim Ryan, and Eric Swalwell to the third tier, and we see no reason to change their ranking as of yet. This week, we're adding Marianne Williamson and Seth Moulton to this list as well. Maybe one of them will burst onto the media scene soon, but so far none has adequately done so. Moulton's announcement is likely to be quickly forgotten after Biden jumps in, and it's doubtful he'll be able to make much of a splash before Joe sucks all the media oxygen up.

The two rather surprising names in the third tier are Kirsten Gillibrand and Julián Castro. Both were expected to be doing much better by now, but neither one has taken off in any noticeable way. Gillibrand was at the top of the third tier in fundraising, with $3 million, but this really isn't all that impressive considering she's a senator from a state with many deep-pocket donors. In comparison, California's Kamala Harris raised $12 million while Gillibrand only raised one-fourth that amount from New Yorkers. At the same time, Castro raised $1.1 million, which puts him third from the bottom of the fundraising list (beating out only John Delaney and Wayne Messam). Rounding out the bottom tier, we have Delaney and Messam, as well as Tulsi Gabbard and John Hickenlooper.

 

Conclusions

Adding it all up, we have six candidates in the top tier (Biden, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, O'Rourke, and Warren), four candidates in the second tier (Booker, Klobuchar, Inslee, and Yang), and the additional 11 in the bottom tier. This gives us a whopping total of 21 candidates. So the big question is: Are we done yet? Will this be all? Well, probably not, but we're almost there.

There are only really four other possible candidates, at this point, who have not yet indicated whether they'll be running for president or not. Georgia's Stacey Abrams is seriously considering a bid, as is (reportedly) New York City's Mayor Bill de Blasio and Montana Governor Steve Bullock. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet is almost certain to launch a bid soon, though, from how he's been speaking about the race. This means that the field of Democrats running will almost certainly go up to 22, and possibly as high as 25. And if you want to be completely technically correct, you've got to add one to whatever the total field winds up at, because one candidate (Richard Ojeda) has already dropped out.

That's about as wide-open a field as can be imagined. And it likely won't be winnowed for another few months. When the debates roll around, several names will likely be dropped from the "serious candidates" roster, if they don't meet the rather low bar the party has set for inclusion in the first two televised debates. The party has also limited the stage to only 10 candidates per night, so only 20 will make the cut (if more than that qualify, then the candidates with the weakest numbers will be cut).

Of course, some of these candidates are merely in it for a lark (Mike Gravel, for instance). Others are quite probably running to be the vice-presidential pick of whichever Democrat wins the nomination. So eventually we'll all begin to focus on the candidates with a real chance of winning. But that won't happen for at least the next few months, so until it does we've all got to do our best to remember the name of every Democrat running for president -- a challenge which seems to still be ever-growing.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

81 Comments on “Democratic Field Still Growing”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is much more likely is that the struggling candidates in the other two tiers will launch some sort of attacks on Joe Biden.

    Oh, I can't wait to see them try. :)

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This week, we're adding Marianne Williamson...

    Who? Am I supposed to know who that is? I seriously have never even heard of this person.

    So eventually we'll all begin to focus on the candidates with a real chance of winning. But that won't happen for at least the next few months, so until it does we've all got to do our best to remember the name of every Democrat running for president -- a challenge which seems to still be ever-growing.

    With the addition of Marianne Whosit, I am officially allowing you to keep up with all this. I give up. ;)

    Excellent writeup. Thank you.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Off Topic

    I need to leave this right here in order to get it off my chest; I am tired of seeing so much misinformation (not from CW, other places).

    Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 and wasn't impeached until December 1998 so it obviously couldn't have been the impeachment of Clinton that got him reelected. I am tired of 'splaining this to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who are screwed up about history. On the contrary, it was the belief of a majority of the American people that the Republican investigation into a myriad of things not related to his presidency being an overreach by the Republicans... as well as the fact that the economy was booming, of course, among other things.

    Had Clinton been impeached in December 1998 for accepting the help of Russian operatives and Russian cutouts disseminating stolen information in order to win the office of the presidency, as well as money flowing into the coffers from a foreign adversary and subsequent massive coverup of all of the above, I would wager his impeachment trial would have gone way differently.

    Yes, Clinton became more popular after he was impeached 2 years after he was reelected, but then again, Bill Clinton was dealing with extramarital relations between two consenting adults and not winning the presidency via help from Russia and the subsequent multiple lies to the American people and moving of the goalposts and a myriad of crimes committed in the commission of the attempt to cover it up.

    CW: I sure hope you cover this issue of impeachment again. I don't see how Democrats can ultimately avoid it under the circumstances.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    1

    Oh, I can't wait to see them try. :)

    Me too. Go ahead and throw everything you've got at him. Anything anybody has on anybody else needs to come out during the primary season. The person emerging as the winner needs to have all the crap on the table before the general election.

    If a ham sandwich wins the Democratic primary, it has my vote over Benedict Donald Trump. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Others are quite probably running to be the vice-presidential pick of whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

    If Biden is the nominee, then I'd be very surprised if his VP pick is chosen from his fellow Democratic candidates.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Can we please dispense with the Clintons, thank-you very much. :)

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I would also be surprised if Biden goes even the least bit seriously negative on any of his fellow candidates.

    And, I can't imagine anything that any of them could throw at him that would stick or that he wouldn't have a very good explanation for.

    Case in point - his vote in the affirmative for the 2005 bankruptcy bill.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've had ENOUGH of the Clintons, to be clear.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    5

    Can we please dispense with the Clintons, thank-you very much. :)

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you would like your neighbors to the South to be doomed because they didn't learn from history, well then, that's on you. :)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    6

    I would also be surprised if Biden goes even the least bit seriously negative on any of his fellow candidates.

    Have you not been paying attention to recent history?

    And, I can't imagine anything that any of them could throw at him that would stick or that he wouldn't have a very good explanation for.

    Oh, really? Well, allow me to educate you on history:

    Google: Joe Biden Neil Kinnock

    That'll do for starters. :)

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'd put Yang in the third tier. The regressive nature of VAT chews into the benefit for the poorest and does little to redress the money sump to the mega rich. Yeah, that will dim the popular appeal. Put in an income tax component and it becomes a reform that might just rejuvenate the middle class, boost the GDP and give plutocrats the vapors.

    Off topic, but I just ordered the print copy of the Mueller Report. It's paperback and I'm very disappointed in the lack of a proper lurid cover. Trump in his tighty-whities man handling Lady Liberty, as a square jawed G-Man Mueller busts down the door....now that's a proper lurid cover! When did the publishing industry lose its sense of style? A Classics Illustrated Comic version ....or a more modern graphic novel might appeal to those with limited reading time caused by compulsively re-hashing Cable
    News and AM Radio talking points to unmoderated comments sections.

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    4

    If Biden is the nominee, then I'd be very surprised if his VP pick is chosen from his fellow Democratic candidates.

    If anyone not named Kamala Harris is the Democratic nominee, I give her very good chances of being the VP nominee... without some huge disqualifying or intervening event happening, of course. :)

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    10

    Heh.

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-2

    I think a lot of Democrats in Congress agree with you on impeachment. Timing is vital. Congressional oversight sets the stage for what happens next. Impeachment won't happen without strong public support. Voting Trump out of office is a viable alternative because it's almost certain to be quicker.

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    I'm just saying, impeachment is a hot topic in this country for obvious reasons. Buckle up if you're tired of hearing about Nixon and/or Clinton because that's the most recent impeachment history of America that people are discussing in order to inform their current decisions regarding same.

    Best get the history straight if you're making decisions based on it. :)

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What can you tell me about Biden's plagiarism, Kick?

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've had all the Clinton history - he and she - that I can possibly handle.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, do you really think I need to google Kinnock, Neil?

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hit me with your best shot and I'll give you how Biden should respond!

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    13

    I think a lot of Democrats in Congress agree with you on impeachment. Timing is vital. Congressional oversight sets the stage for what happens next. Impeachment won't happen without strong public support. Voting Trump out of office is a viable alternative because it's almost certain to be quicker.

    I can see both sides on the impeachment issue. I just cannot for the life of me see how they can ultimately avoid doing it eventually under the circumstances. I hope they figure it out. In the meantime, I'm tired of hearing people say that Bill Clinton got reelected because he was impeached; he was reelected in 1996 and wasn't impeached until 1998.

    People's decisions based on history should be based on actual history versus revisionist history. The majority getting it wrong are my Republican friends, and I blame the misinformation of Fox News and GOP talking points that contain outright BS. :)

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    15

    What can you tell me about Biden's plagiarism, Kick?

    More than is in the public realm at the present time. Shelve it unless it goes public. Full stop. :)

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    Put another way: Technology is catching up to history. :)

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I doubt the candidates will have anything to say about it, either.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No need to wait for the debates to drop candidates from the serious list. You can drop all 21`right now.

    None of them are serious aboot the most important issue facing our nation- big money in politics because they all take big money.

    No serious person would care if any of them can win the nomination or even the presidency as long as they are taking big money and many are claiming to be small donor candidates when they are not.

    All they are providing is a bunch of empty promises, with or without detail.

    If you can write aboot Yang's "radical" BMI proposal, then there is no reason you can't write aboot One Demand.

    Think of it as "Demand-Side Voting".

    Why not speculate aboot what might happen if one of the candidates made the One Demand commitment, encouraged other candidates to do the same and encouraged citizens that can give more than 200 dollars to a candidate to give to other small donor candidates for Congress and the Senate for 2020 as described in detail in previous threads.

    And if one of them actually did and it worked wouldn't 2020 and future elections begin to and continue to reduce the influence of big money in our political process and wouldn't that be a good thing?

    What is so wrong or so frightening aboot One Demand that it can't be part of the Basic Minimum Information provided to citizens? Are you really afraid of an idea?

    Are you not capable of anything other than churning out more of the same crap that is available everywhere else? Can't you handle an idea that you have to analyze and understand all on your own?

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    22

    Right, EM, and no one in the press will ever say a word about it or publish a story about Joe's "baggage" or even think to ask any of the other two dozen candidates about it either. *shakes head* :)

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Ignore comment [23].

    I demand a discussion about pie... NOW!

    I like the pie idea! Cover the wonderfulness of pie or suffer the consequences of losing your man card. You have been forewarned. ;)

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Word to the wise:

    When you are wandering through the Democratic field, be careful not to get stuck in one of the 21 cow patties.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Or you could try to make one into a pie- but that is not likely to turn out to be the tasty dessert you were expecting.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Why won't you say what the storyline on Biden's plagiarism is. It's not some deep, dark secret.

    I'm sincerely curious about what you would have to say about it ...

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am so painfully aware of how the media/punditocracy/blogosphere have treated Biden over the years, PAINFULLY aware.

    The media storyline on Biden has been nothing short of asinine.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    28

    Why won't you say what the storyline on Biden's plagiarism is. It's not some deep, dark secret. I'm sincerely curious about what you would have to say about it … I am so painfully aware of how the media/punditocracy/blogosphere have treated Biden over the years, PAINFULLY aware.

    I'm not posting information about Joe Biden's plagiarism that isn't yet public. If and when someone else does, it will be then that I'll know how high up the chain someone exists who doesn't want Biden to be the Democratic nominee.

    The media storyline on Biden has been nothing short of asinine.

    The media storyline of every viable candidate fits the same description, and all of them will have to clear the media minefield if they want to win the Democratic nomination... and for what? For the pleasure of running against the con artist candidate who will fabricate endlessly and use whatever means necessary to win at all costs, democracy be damned.

    Trump has no shame; that is his superpower, but it all blows up in his face if the sheeple can wise up long enough to catch on to the ultimate con and stop allowing themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of propaganda phrases and bleating them back on cue like good little sheeple in the service of Trump. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    I hope whoever wins the Democratic nomination is ready for the onslaught and fully vetted during the primary. They'll need it. :)

  31. [31] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The media storyline of every viable candidate fits the same description, and all of them will have to clear the media minefield if they want to win the Democratic nomination... and for what? For the pleasure of running against the con artist candidate who will fabricate endlessly and use whatever means necessary to win at all costs, democracy be damned.

    The scary thing now is that Trump’s re-election may be the only thing that can keep him from being federally indicted in 2020. Statute of limitations for obstruction of justice charges is five years from the date of the obstruction’s occurrence. The examples of obstruction listed in Mueller’s report are from 2017, so Trump wouldn’t be off the hook until 2022.

    You know he’ll pardon himself (and probably his family as well) prior to leaving office, as a last ditch Hail Mary that might run out the clocks on the statute of limitations with the resulting court battles if nothing else.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Kyle Olinger
    Montgomery County Police Department, Maryland
    End of Watch: Thursday, April 18, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c1f544ea7b54a58eeb922b13ed887fee999c194c40e07aed62a98eda2ef6593.jpg

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Democratic leaders urge caution on impeachment as members plot way forward
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pelosi-house-democratic-leaders-urge-caution-on-impeachment-as-members-plot-way-forward/

    Well, it looks like Democrats are going to focus on the Mueller report for the next 18 months..

    "Excellent.."
    -Montgomery Burns

    Nothing will more guarantee a massive landslide Trump re-election than that.. :D

    You heard it here first...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We are supposed to believe now that Donald Trump committed repeated obstruction of justice over a crime that he now, as we all know, did not commit? He is trying to obstruct people from investigating something he says he said he didn't do and Special Counsel has confirmed he didn't do. It is ridiculous, it is a farce, it is making a mockery of America."
    -Piers Morgan

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kamala Harris pledges executive order on gun control if Congress doesn't act in her first 100 days
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-pledges-executive-order-on-gun-control-if-congress-doesnt-act-in-her-first-100-days

    Kamala I-Slept-My-Way-To-The-Top Harris just guaranteed she will lose the General Election if she is the nominee...

    Them darn "basket of deplorables" will see to that..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, the Mueller report was bad..

    Really BAD....

    Bad for Odumbo...

    Mueller's report looks bad for Obama

    (CNN)The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.

    The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" as they drew up plans to "strike back" against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump".

    Why did Obama go soft on Russia? My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama's estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision.

    Obama's supporters claim he did stand up to Russia by deploying sanctions after the election to punish them for their actions. But, Obama, according to the Washington Post, "approved a modest package... with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic." In other words, a toothless response to a serious incursion.
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

    But, of course no one here wants to talk about that..

    "Gee!!! I wonder why that is!!!?"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment is now the deranged fantasy of rage-driven Dems

    The collusion fantasy has officially given way to the impeachment fantasy.

    The Left’s passionate investment in the Mueller investigation had much to do with shock and disbelief at Trump’s victory in 2016 and the hope of early deliverance — the special counsel probe as delectable revenge and deus ex machina.

    The expectation that Mueller would blow Trump out of the White House with proof of collusion with Russia has, not surprisingly, come up empty. No worries. If Volume I of the Mueller report, on Russia, didn’t pan out, there’s always Volume II, on alleged obstruction.

    When you are desperate to, in the memorable words of Democratic freshman congresswoman Rashida Tlaib “impeach this mother—,” any rationale will do.
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/22/impeachment-is-now-the-deranged-fantasy-of-rage-driven-dems/

    As I said...

    Is there ANYONE who honestly believes that President Trump can be removed by impeachment??

    Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler??

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would be the most forlorn impeachment ever. Andrew Johnson came close to getting removed. Richard Nixon quit before he got removed. Even with Bill Clinton, there was a moment when it seemed possible some Senate Democrats might flip against him.

    With Trump, there is no chance of being removed by the Republican-held Senate, which would probably hold a perfunctory, minimal trial, underlining the absurdity of the effort. Trump’s approval ratings wouldn’t rocket skyward like Bill Clinton’s. But Democrats would suffer the opportunity cost of distracting attention from substantive issues people actually care about, and put their relatively moderate members in an awkward spot.

    Then, there’s timing. We’re about 18 months before an election where voters can pronounce on Trump’s presidency directly, without assistance from House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler.

    In the end, there’s only one way to take back what Democrats believe was stolen from them in 2016. That’s to win the 2020 election, which will require some deftness, not perpetual grievance and enraged wishfulness.

    Talk of impeachment shows that Democrats aren't confident they can win at the ballot box...

    They have good cause not to be confident.. They are blowing it, big time..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Critics blast Ilhan Omar over old ‘Black Hawk Down’ tweet

    Freshman US Rep. Ilhan Omar came under fire once again on Monday for allegedly exaggerating the number of Somalis killed during the 1993 military operation that inspired the film “Black Hawk Down,” according to a report.

    The controversial Minnesota lawmaker claimed that “thousands” died in the Battle of Mogadishu — though most reputable sources put the contested body count much lower, according a report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

    Omar made the claim in a 2017 Twitter thread about terror attacks in Somalia when she wrote the tweet, which the Project dug up Monday.

    “In his selective memory, he forgets to also mention the thousands of Somalis killed by the American forces that day! #NotTodaySatan,” Omar wrote in response to a Twitter user’s lament that 19 US service members were killed and 73 injured in the battle.
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/23/critics-blast-ilhan-omar-over-old-black-hawk-down-tweet/

    Once again, America/Israel Hating Ilan Omar steps on her wee wee...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York magazine, McClatchy:
    Michael Cohen went to Prague.

    BuzzFeed:
    Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie, and Mueller has emails proving it.

    The New York Times:
    Paul Manafort passed polling information to Kremlin.

    Axios:
    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein forced out.

    NBC News:
    Federal investigators wiretapped Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen, have recordings of Trump.

    Associated Press:
    Phony Russia dossier was initially funded by Republican group.

    ABC News:
    Donald Trump directed Flynn to make contact with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign

    Talking Points Memo:
    Russian social media company provided documents to Senate about communications with Trump official.

    CNN:
    Donald Trump Jr. conspired with WikiLeaks.

    Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal:
    Robert Mueller subpoenaed Trump’s Deutsche Bank records.

    ABC News:
    Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked with Russia intelligence-connected official as late as December 2017.

    The New York Times:
    Trump Deputy National Security adviser K.T. McFarland lied about another official’s contacts with Russians.

    CNN:
    Trump’s campaign was never wiretapped.

    NBC News:
    Manafort notes from Russian meeting refer to political contributions.

    The New York Times:
    Seventeen intelligence agencies concur Russia hacked the 2016 presidential race.

    CNN:
    Congress investigating Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.

    The New York Times:
    Former FBI Director James Comey says Attorney General Jeff Sessions told him not to call Russia probe an investigation but “a matter.”

    CNN:
    James Comey will testify he never told Trump he was not under investigation.

    NBC News:
    Putin admits he has compromising information about Trump.

    Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, AP, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal:
    Trump fired Comey after Comey asked for additional resources for the Russia investigation.

    The New York Times:
    Numerous contacts between Trump campaign staff and “senior Russian intelligence officials.”

    MSNBC:
    Among others, a Trump family member will be indicted on February 8.

    The Guardian:
    Paul Manafort visited WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange on three occasions.

    The Washington Post:
    Trump campaign changed GOP platform on Ukraine.

    The Atlantic:
    Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions lied about meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    McClatchy:
    Michael Cohen really did visit Prague.

    CNN:
    Trump is lying when he calls Russia dossier “phony.”

    Fortune:
    RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and C-SPAN “confirmed” it had been hacked.

    USA Today, MSNBC, Associated Press:
    Russia’s hacked the election systems of 21 American states.

    The Washington Post, ABC News, CNN:
    Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont.

    The Washington Post:
    “More than 200 websites” were “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season.”

    NBC News, MSNBC:
    Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats.

    Slate:
    Trump created a secret Internet server to covertly communicate with a Russian bank.

    CNN:
    Donald Trump knew in advance of the Trump Tower meeting.

    CNN:
    Mueller Report will show Trump “has helped” Putin “destabilize” the United States.

    NBC:
    Russia supports Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).

    CNN:
    Sessions failed to disclose meetings he had with the Russian ambassador.

    Vox:
    “There’s actually lots of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.”

    The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, Reuters, the Guardian, USA Today, CNN, BuzzFeed:
    Trump revealed classified information to Russians.

    The Washington Post:
    House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Russia paid Trump.

    Fox News:
    Mueller can show Trump campaign “had a connection to Russian intelligence.”

    MSNBC:
    “Rudy Giuliani just told America that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia.”

    The Washington Post:
    Evidence suggests Trump could be a Russian “asset.”

    NBC:
    Russians began hacking Hillary Clinton’s emails on the day Donald Trump joked about it in July 2016.

    Mic.com:
    Russia spy visited Trump’s Oval Office.

    CNN:
    Phony Russia dossier has been “corroborated.”

    NPR:
    Donald Trump Jr. lied under oath about Trump Tower deal in Moscow.

    NBC, The Hill, New York Daily News:
    Russia successfully hacked voting systems in a number of states.

    CNN:
    Trump is “bonkers” for claiming Hillary Clinton behind Russia dossier.

    CNN:
    “Every intelligence expert, both under the Obama administration and under the Trump administration,” agrees with the assessment that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

    BBC:
    Ukrainian president “authorized” an illegal payment of $400,000 to Michael Cohen for additional face time during a June 2017 meeting with President Trump.

    51 instances of the MSM (AKA Demcorat Party Propaganda Arm) making totally bullshit claims against President Trump that were not factually accurate...

    Compare THAT to the number of bullshit claims these same media outlets made that FAVORED President Trump....

    ZERO... NONE... NADA... ZILCH

    The agenda is clear.. These are just random run of the mill reporting errors.. This is a specific and targeted agenda to bring forth a specific goal...

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me get this straight, Michale … you actually believe the Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election!?

    Are you sure about that? I mean, if it was the Russians, then we would never have known about it, right?

    Well, wonders never cease. :)

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not posting information about Joe Biden's plagiarism that isn't yet public. If and when someone else does, it will be then that I'll know how high up the chain someone exists who doesn't want Biden to be the Democratic nominee.

    I'm sorry, Kick, but that's hilarious.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me get this straight, Michale … you actually believe the Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election!?

    I actually believe that the Russians TRIED to interfere..

    But, as EVERYONE who has chimed in and stated it up to AND INCLUDING Obama...

    The integrity of the election was NEVER compromised.. It was a free, fair and legal election..

    So, yes.. The Russians tried to interfere.. Just as they always have done.. Just as they tried in 2018... Just as the US tries to interfere in elections of other countries to further our own national interests...

    Do you concede that we never would have heard a SINGLE PEEP from the Democrats about Russian interference if Hillary had won???

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We were already hearing about it before the election, Michale. And you were the one who was vehemently denying it.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, don't ask me to prove it.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    We were already hearing about it before the election, Michale. And you were the one who was vehemently denying it.

    At the time, there were no facts to support it..

    And, as you point out, it happened on OBAMA'S watch...

    Funny how no one wants to talk about that, eh?? :D

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, as you point out, it happened on OBAMA'S watch...

    Actually, I think you are the one who keeps pointing that out. But, it is nice to see you refer to the former president by his correct name.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I think you are the one who keeps pointing that out.

    "We were already hearing about it before the election, Michale."

    :D

    But, it is nice to see you refer to the former president by his correct name.

    With you, I will.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is a strong argument to make, since climate change is very important to many voters,

    Very important to Left Wing voters..

    There.. Fixed it for you.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    With you, I will.. :D

    Thanks. But, you don't think it bothers me when you use it with others?

    I don't think it's too much to ask ...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks. But, you don't think it bothers me when you use it with others?

    I don't think it's too much to ask ...

    Whenever Paula stops using Blotus and the like.. :D

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well Michale is being unusually civil this morning, despite his usual drivel of posting up conservative columns.

    Let me put the Biden stuff to bed, EM:

    Back a few elections ago, Biden gave a speech that turned out to have been almost word-for-word identical to that spoken by Neil Kinnock, a British labor candidate. Whether the mistake was made by Biden himself, or one of his speechwriters is unknown.

    It sunk his campaign, and he got out of the race.

    But it was awhile ago, and nobody thinks that Biden would do it again, so bringing it up is a bit silly.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well Michale is being unusually civil this morning,

    Michale New And Improved

    despite his usual drivel of posting up conservative columns.

    AKA FACTS and REALITY :D

  54. [54] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Every word spoken by Democratics is, if not 'plagiarized', at least recycled, from their ideological foundation, as in "Transfer from the more productive to the less productive", right?

    Biden's got the idea. Why bother to rephrase it every time?

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    NETANYAHU: 'I WILL NAME A GOLAN TOWN AFTER TRUMP'
    Netanyahu said there “is a need to express our appreciation by calling a community or neighborhood on the Golan Heights after Donald Trump.

    https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Netanyahu-I-will-name-a-Golan-town-after-Trump-587690

    Awww... Lookit the bromance.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden campaign launch back in flux, potentially delayed
    https://www.philly.com/news/joe-biden-charlottesville-presidential-campaign-20190422.html

    Don't count yer Biden eggs before they are hatched..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mexican soldiers detain American soldiers on U.S. soil. Government response: ?
    https://tinyurl.com/y5x28rof

    I'de say a couple of American soldiers are looking at Article 15 action...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Another NNL glitch...

    Wordpress doesn't like 'conservativereview'

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I know why. :)

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I have a pretty good idea about what Biden has said and done since being elected to the US senate in 1972.

    Did you know that Biden gave the speech with the Neil Kinnock bit many times on the stump and he ALWAYS gave attribution.

    Biden made the mistake alright and it was a mistake that saved his life, literally!

    The day he didn't attach the attribution to his speech the media jumped on it like it was the first time they heard. I expect the media to behave similarly now.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think I know why. :)

    I was thinking the same thing m'self.. :D

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Whenever Paula stops using Blotus and the like.. :D

    That's too bad. Maybe you could try it for a while and then others may follow.

    Stranger things have already happened!

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    60: That's good to know, EM. I'll keep it in mind. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's too bad. Maybe you could try it for a while and then others may follow.

    She's been doing it steadily since Donald Trump kicked Hillary's ass all over the election.. :D

    Not in a single post did she refer to Trump as President Trump...

    So I don't hold out much hope..

  65. [65] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is an amazing bit of video from 2005 pitting Joe Biden against Elizabeth Warren when he was working on the heinous bankruptcy bill and she was testifying about it. Biden maunders a lot - but watch it through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVvVzprIxQ&feature=youtu.be

    The upshot: Biden agrees people are being squeezed to death from medical bills but thinks it's unfair to make the gas company or credit card company or any other creditor have to take a loss when they loaned money or provided product in good faith.

    Warren explains - battling through his constant interruptions - that she agrees it's unfair, but the problem lies in the way medical/financial system is set up and unless THAT is addressed, removing bankruptcy as an avenue for people takes away the last option they have.

    Biden's point is REAL - but he offers no solution - and didn't at the time.

    It's kind of stunning to watch tho - just to see how he acts vs. her. (My view: he's pretty windbaggy; she's sharp as hell.)

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    Biden announces Thursday I think and has a public event next Monday. I think that's good. He needs to either kick ass or drop out and he had to officially enter to do it.

  67. [67] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Allow me to spell out the 'Facts of (electoral) Life' for you Democratics.

    In the Age of TV, what gets a candidate elected president is "charisma". Bill Clinto had charisma and got elected, Obama had charisma and got elected, Hillary had whatever the opposite of charisma happens to be (maybe 'negative charisma'), and lost to a guy who didn't have much charisma, but more than Hillary.

    Now comes the problem - the whole 2 dozen currently declared Democratics for 2020 don't have as much collective charisma as Obama had in his left pinkie.

    I'd suggest the winner ought to cozy up to Putin. You Weigantians think it was the Russians that got Trump elected, maybe you can get them to switch allegiance and rescue your guy/girl. Otherwise, it's lookin' bleak.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd suggest the winner ought to cozy up to Putin.

    That's the best strategy a Dem could have.. If they want to win the election to the exclusion to all else..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rivals are scrambling to dig up dirt on Pete Buttigieg

    Buttigieg was on nobody's radar as a serious presidential contender until a few weeks ago.

    Now his competitors are scrambling to find vulnerabilities.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rivals-are-scrambling-dig-dirt-pete-buttigieg-n997031

    Ah... The "unity" of the Democrat Party..

    Bloodsport.. Live and in living color..

    It's going to be hilarious to watch Democrats snipe and slash and try to utterly destroy each other in the coming 18 months.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    31

    The scary thing now is that Trump’s re-election may be the only thing that can keep him from being federally indicted in 2020. Statute of limitations for obstruction of justice charges is five years from the date of the obstruction’s occurrence. The examples of obstruction listed in Mueller’s report are from 2017, so Trump wouldn’t be off the hook until 2022.

    I know, right!? Poor Donald barely won the first time. At the moment, all things considered, it looks like he likely cannot pull off another win, but I will say that I do think the Democrats could screw it up and lose. It's not likely that Trump can run out the clock on the statute of limitations, and there's nothing he can do when New York State decides to throw down on him. He appears finally cornered.

    You know he’ll pardon himself (and probably his family as well) prior to leaving office, as a last ditch Hail Mary that might run out the clocks on the statute of limitations with the resulting court battles if nothing else.

    You just know he'll try. Hopefully we don't live in a country that would allow any president to pardon himself/herself or his/her co-conspirators. Nixon contemplated it... until the Department of Justice produced a memo against it under "the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case," a president could not pardon himself. The Constitution limits pardon in "cases of impeachment." If that question were to go to the SCOTUS, I don't like Trump's chances of successfully pardoning anyone involved in his shenanigans.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    42

    I'm sorry, Kick, but that's hilarious.

    You don't know what you don't know until you know it, and it's all "fun and games" until someone loses an eye.

    Ignorance is bliss... so laugh it up, sweetie. :)

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    43

    Do you concede that we never would have heard a SINGLE PEEP from the Democrats about Russian interference if Hillary had won???

    Not exactly possible since it was mentioned in all three debates and was being "robustly" investigated by the FBI for many months before the election. Your Worship had asked the Russians to find Hillary's emails on live television, and within 5 hours they were actively doing it. You and Trump can keep insisting it was a "joke" until the cows come home, but he knows better, and you would too if you'd read the Mueller Report where multiple witnesses have stated that Donald kept insisting repeatedly that someone find the hacked emails.

    Connect the dots, please. :)

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    52

    Whether the mistake was made by Biden himself, or one of his speechwriters is unknown.

    It sunk his campaign, and he got out of the race.

    But it was awhile ago, and nobody thinks that Biden would do it again, so bringing it up is a bit silly.

    While I certainly hope it isn't brought up again, technology has caught up to history and old habits die hard. :)

  74. [74] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    technology has caught up to history and old habits die hard. :)

    Like the 'handsy' thing, it's a little shot across the bow of the front-runner. Nothing disqualifying, just meant to shake him up.

    Some folks on the Dem side say that it helps to 'toughen' a candidate. I dunno. What I DO know is that in years with lots of candidates, the best usually emerges (McGovern was an exception) and wins.

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    65

    Warren explains - battling through his constant interruptions - that she agrees it's unfair, but the problem lies in the way medical/financial system is set up and unless THAT is addressed, removing bankruptcy as an avenue for people takes away the last option they have.

    She makes him look juvenile on several occasions.

    Biden's point is REAL - but he offers no solution - and didn't at the time.

    And usually doesn't... good point.

    It's kind of stunning to watch tho - just to see how he acts vs. her. (My view: he's pretty windbaggy; she's sharp as hell.)

    *laughs*

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    The bigger problem for Biden in his plagiarism regarding Neil Kinnock is that he didn't just plagiarize the words of Neil Kinnock; he plagiarized biological facts about Neil Kinnock and claimed they applied to himself. Neil Kinnock actually was the first person in his family's history to attend college; however, Joe Biden was not. It's one thing to plagiarize a speech, but quite an altogether entirely different matter to steal a backstory that doesn't apply to you. Neil Kinnock's ancestors were indeed coal miners, while Joe Biden's were verifiably not.

    While Biden's team of researchers did manage to find a great-grandfather who had been a mining engineer, no one with two brain cells to rub together would confuse a mining engineer with a miner who would "come up from the mines after 12 hours and play football." It's ridiculous on its face that Biden's mining engineer great-grandfather played football with him after 12 hours in the mines, and anyway, Neil Kinnock was referring to soccer. :)

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    74

    Like the 'handsy' thing, it's a little shot across the bow of the front-runner. Nothing disqualifying, just meant to shake him up.

    Right. Shake 'em and bake 'em during the primary... better there than in the general. Put it all out on the table. Those that can't or don't wish to navigate the minefield will be weeded out.

    Some folks on the Dem side say that it helps to 'toughen' a candidate. I dunno. What I DO know is that in years with lots of candidates, the best usually emerges (McGovern was an exception) and wins.

    I agree with the Dems. If you can't beat the press and the pressure, then step aside. McGovern was definitely an exception.

  78. [78] 
    Paula wrote:

    [75]Kick:

    She makes him look juvenile on several occasions.

    Yep. It's pretty striking.

    I remember when that bill was being debated - it was a bad bill.

    [76] Didn't know all that about the plagiarism.

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    78

    Shortly after that kerfuffle, it was discovered that Biden had "borrowed" from speeches of Hubert Humphrey (lifted passages regarding helping the neediest), Robert Kennedy (multiple long sentences), and John F. Kennedy.

    Biden then admitted to receiving an F in law school for plagiarizing 5 pages of a term paper from a published article, and then he was forced to admit that British Labor official Denis Healey had not actually given him a tape of Neil Kinnock, but thank goodness that was the last incident... just kidding.

    Newsweek discovered a videotape where Biden had been heckled, whereupon he defended his intelligence by inflating his credentials to the heckler, saying:

    I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship.

    Fact Check: False.

    He also claimed he graduated in the top half of his law-school class.

    Fact Check: False.

    He also stated that he had earned 3 undergraduate degrees.

    Fact Check: False. One, a history/political science double major.

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I guess as far as all of the plagiarism that Biden committed and has already been called out on, I can get past that for a candidate with a good strategy.

    Kinda like when people bring up Biden’s treatment of Anita Hill back in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, or a “No” vote on busing blacks into schools during desegregation — these events from 30 or 40 years ago shouldn’t be the main evidence being used to determine a person’s character today (especially if you aren’t going to list all of the good things they did during the same time frame)!

    I don’t want the Dems overly focused on past slights from their candidates when we know there will be no accountability being practiced with the Republicans.

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    80

    I guess as far as all of the plagiarism that Biden committed and has already been called out on, I can get past that for a candidate with a good strategy.

    The plagiarism is definitely small potatoes compared to the authenticity issue. Voters generally want to support a candidate who they believe is authentic... which is hurting Elizabeth Warren, regardless of whether or not it's being overblown, which it is.

    The authenticity issue is also the exact reason Trump doesn't want his tax returns disseminated; that entire fake backstory he created for himself would be discovered, and there goes the narrative.

    I would vote for Biden over Trump every day of the week; there isn't a candidate who isn't human, but there is definitely a candidate who is arguably inhuman and couldn't care less about anyone who doesn't have his surname... and he'd throw the majority of them under the bus if need be. Sad.

    I don’t want the Dems overly focused on past slights from their candidates when we know there will be no accountability being practiced with the Republicans.

    True... but what doesn't come out in the primary might come out in the general; better to hash it out early. On the other hand, there is a very large portion of the electorate who no longer believes a word out of Donald Trump's face and will assume he's lying anyway. :)

Comments for this article are closed.