ChrisWeigant.com

Redefining Electability

[ Posted Monday, May 6th, 2019 – 17:29 UTC ]

The word on the lips of every political journalist who resides within the Washington Beltway this week is "electability." Countless articles have been written on the subject, and it's been raised to almost obsessive levels as the pundits wonder what the voters think about the Democratic field and who will have the best chance of defeating Donald Trump next year. And as with every modern presidential election cycle for at least the past 20 years, the elusive quality of electability is measured and debated using an agreed-upon definition of the term. The only problem is that this definition is now wildly out of date -- if it ever was even correct in the first place.

Literally, electability is "the ability to be elected." Period. No more, no less. Not a word in there about how moderate or extreme any particular candidate must be to qualify. It should be seen as a neutral term, in fact. Whichever candidate is the most electable is the one who will be elected. And that can (and does) mean very different things each and every time around. And it usually means something wildly different than what the pundits think, as well.

Consider the following: Donald Trump was the most electable candidate in the 2016 race. I can say this unequivocally, because he got elected. Trump was more electable than all the other Republicans (including such scions of supposed-electability as Jeb Bush), and he was more electable than Hillary Clinton (in the Electoral College, at least). But would anyone have used the word to describe Trump before he won? It's doubtful, because Trump didn't measure up to what the punditocracy has come to mean when they use the word.

In fact, the pundits have all but redefined the term into an oxymoron. They coronate a few candidates as being the most electable of all, and those candidates then go on to lose the race. So how can the most electable person (according to the pundits) usually be the one who doesn't get elected? Call it a self-defeating prophecy, I suppose.

The pundits define the word not in a neutral, results-driven way but rather in a pigeonholing way that the term doesn't deserve. "Electability," according to them, is the candidate who is: (1) least scary, (2) most moderate, (3) most traditional (in terms of race, religion, ethnicity, etc.) and (4) most well-financed. In other words, an inoffensive moderate politician that Wall Street can love.

But before we get to how Trump has obliterated this definition, let's look at how wrong it has been over the previous few election cycles. Mitt Romney was seen as electable, since he wasn't a raving Tea Partier and wasn't a social conservative warrior either -- he was an acceptably-moderate Republican. John McCain was also seen as electable, because he would occasionally buck his party's line. Hillary Clinton (in 2008) was seen as the most electable Democrat, because while she was a woman, she was not black. John Kerry's entire campaign consisted of: "I am the most electable candidate the Democratic Party has ever seen!" This was very similar to the campaign that Al Gore ran, in fact. And you can even go back to Bob Dole, who ran the same sort of campaign, over on the Republican side.

As you can see, the most notable thing about that extensive list is that none of them got elected. Many were nominated by their party, so perhaps we need a new term -- "nominatable," perhaps, as opposed to "electable" -- to differentiate the primary race from the general election. In many of these cases, their perceived electability was indeed the factor which won them the nomination in the first place. A candidate can be the most nominatable due to perceived electability (right or wrong), if that's not too confusing to contemplate.

In virtually all these cases (excepting perhaps McCain), electability translated into another, more-apt term: boring. These were not rabble-rousing candidates. They were barely even rabble-enthusing candidates. Their strongest asset was to not scare timid independent voters, which translates to some awfully milquetoast candidates. Who then went on to lose, in most cases to a much more charismatic opponent.

This is precisely what the pundits always miss, in their careful calculations of electability. Charisma beats boring almost every time. And, again, charisma is (or should be used as) a neutral term. Charismatic doesn't mean good and likeable -- it means attention-getting. A televangelist is charismatic -- it is his whole schtick, in fact. A used car salesman (a successful one, at any rate) is usually pretty charismatic. This doesn't make them good people who share your values, but it does make them the guy that becomes the center of attention when he walks into a room. Successful politicians are usually pretty charismatic -- whether you agree with them or not. Barack Obama had charisma. So did George W. Bush. And Bill Clinton was probably the most charismatic politician since Ronald Reagan.

Donald Trump, love him or hate him, oozes charisma. You have to pay attention to him, whether in glee or in horror. It is impossible to look away. You can't ignore him, no matter how much you try. And that -- to the shocked surprise of all the other 2016 candidates -- is how he won the race. He was the most entertaining, and it paid off for him. He was, in the literal sense, the most electable.

Because of Trump's upheaval of the political world, many commenters are now wondering if the term electability might not now mean something slightly different than how they defined it in the past. Democratic voters are also realigning what electability might mean for them as well. Because to the voters, there is an almost-universal agreement that the biggest criterion to consider in the primaries will be who has the best chance of beating Trump. Since Trump is about as far from a traditional candidate as can be imagined, though, the traditional concept of electability is not what is under consideration here.

Right now, Joe Biden is seen as the most electable Democrat, meaning he would have the best chance of beating Donald Trump. This may change over time, but his entry into the race has set a new standard the other Democrats are going to have to meet. Biden began his campaign taking direct aim at Trump. While most of the other Democrats haven't yet trained their sights fully on beating Trump, Biden is already making the argument that he's best positioned to do so. He might be right about that, and he might not. Only time will tell.

Biden is a pretty charismatic guy. He's seen as authentic and likeable. More to the point, though, Democratic voters can easily picture Biden on stage debating Trump. And they think Biden would do a pretty good job doing so, at least at this early date. The Democratic primary debates may change this, but for now Biden's heartfelt outrage at what Trump is and what he's been doing seem like the "fire in the belly" that is needed to take Trump on. And so far, the other Democratic candidates haven't really matched Biden in this regard.

It's easy to picture Bernie Sanders debating Trump as well, which is likely why he has remained in second place in the Democratic polling. This points out how wrong the pundits' definition is, in fact, because Bernie is the fire-breathing progressive to Biden's middle-of-the-road likeability, and yet they are the currently the top two most-electable Democrats. Electability really has nothing to do with moderate-versus-extreme or any other false measure.

It is harder to imagine some of the other Democrats going toe-to-toe with Trump. What Democrat, after all, is confident that someone like Kirsten Gillibrand or John Hickenlooper or Amy Klobuchar could hold their own onstage with Trump? Biden's campaign launch should have focused Democrats on picturing who will eventually take on Trump, because that is precisely what all the Democrats are running for. They're not running to be crowned the most-loved Democrat or the most-pure progressive or anything else -- they are running to take on Trump, period.

So the measure of the Democratic candidates' "nominatability" should be how electable they could be in the general election against Trump. That's really what the voters are already looking for, even if it is a hard concept to define when the pundits try to examine it. The pundits scratch their heads and try to come up with a polling question that will encapsulate what Democratic voters are looking for, but this is really a fool's errand because it means so many things to different voters. Some do believe that the most electable Democrat will be the most moderate and least progressive -- but then others believe the exact opposite, that the most progressive candidate will have the best chance against Trump. Some believe that the most electable Democrat will be the one who can peel off blue-collar Midwestern voters who went for Trump -- but then others believe that the most electable Democrat will be the one who excites the base and minority voters. 'Twas always thus, when it comes to what the voters (as opposed to the pundits) think about electability.

Beating Trump in the debates may be crucial to beating him at the polls. But, again, not everyone is agreed upon what quality a Democrat will need to effectively do so. The 2016 Republican field certainly tried all sorts of tactics to best Trump in the debates, and none of them really worked all that well. The Democratic nominee will have to come up with a way to do so, whether that means getting down in the gutter with Trump, ridiculing Trump's profound lack of knowledge, beating Trump's vision for the future, or just poking fun at Trump to such an extent that he both looks like a fool and loses his cool during the debate.

That last one may be the most powerful, in fact. Laughing off an issue in a debate is a time-tested tactic that has worked wonders in the past. Just yesterday, I saw Bernie Sanders being interviewed, and he actually quoted a Ronald Reagan debate answer, saying he wouldn't hold the other Democratic candidates' "inexperience" against them. Reagan initially used this to laugh off his advanced age as a political issue, saying he wouldn't hold his opponent's "youth and inexperience" against him. It was such an effective line that even Democrats quote it today, decades later. That is a powerful debate performance, folks. And that sort of thing is what the Democratic nominee is going to have to pull off while facing Trump across a debate stage.

Trump has charisma, or (if you will) a high degree of "entertainment factor." He's always interesting to watch, because you never know what he'll say. It'll probably be outrageous, it may be completely removed from reality, but it'll be what people are talking about the next day. To beat him, Democrats are going to have to be just as entertaining, in one way or another. They could be angry, they could be playful, they could be dismissive, they could be hilarious, but one way or another they've got to match Trump's entertainment value. That, in fact, may be what electability boils down to in the 2020 race.

This is what Democratic voters are concerned about -- whether the chosen candidate will be able to keep pace with Trump, in one way or another. Can Pete Buttigieg be just as entertaining as Trump in a debate? Will Kamala Harris prove to be the best at undercutting Trump in a one-on-one faceoff? Can Elizabeth Warren out-wonk Trump in such an entertaining fashion as to eclipse him? Or maybe Beto O'Rourke's the guy to draw the most entertaining difference with Trumpism.

Joe Biden certainly fits the media's traditional definition of electable, but that may change over time. My guess is that Democratic voters aren't as concerned with the whole progressive-versus-moderate question as they are picturing "Uncle Joe" debating Trump. Biden can certainly throw verbal punches with the best of them, and he's also able to project authentic outrage at Trump's antics. That could indeed be entertaining to watch. And it might just make him the most electable. But not for the reasons pundits are now using when they use that label to describe him.

 

[Program Note: I couldn't really find a good place to include this link within the text of the article, but the resident satirist at the Washington Post wrote a hilarious takedown of "electability" last week, so I thought I'd stick the link here at the end, in case anyone wants a good laugh.]

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

55 Comments on “Redefining Electability”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    When talking about DJT "winning" always important to note that was in tandem with Russian Assistance and James Comey's ineptitude. And

    So one might need to add, when trying to discern "electibiity" - who's most likely to cheat? That's how GOP does it.

    OR, among Dems, who's the most cognizant of GOP cheating and able to win anyway? Coz what we don't have in 2020 - assuming the criminal-potus hasn't been impeached or resigned - is a standard election. We will be facing an election overseen by GOP and they have shown total willingness to cheat.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    It isn't about who's "centrist/moderate" and who's "leftist" or, for that matter, who's more nazi-like. It's not even about who might best debate DJT.

    It's about the fact that Repub will cheat and Dems won't and have to find a way to win anyway. That's what "electability" means for 2020.

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If they want to shake Trump up, all they need to do is make comments suggesting that Trump is not as rich as he has always claimed to be. It was the ONLY thing that comics could not joke about when Trump was roasted on Comedy Central, and we know it is a very touchy subject just by the fact that he hasn’t released his tax returns.

    The other way to go after him is to directly call him on his lies and force his supporters to recognize that he is lying.


    “When will the military be getting that 10% pay raise that you told them you had secured for them...because none of the military personnel we’ve talked to have received it?”

    Finally, directly ask him about his most ridiculous actions and demand an explanation!

    “So why, exactly, did you want the GOP platform changed to say that if Russia attacked the Ukraine/Crimea we would not provide them weapons to defend themselves?”

    “Why did you choose to meet alone with Putin and prevent the translators from keeping a record of what was said during your meeting?”

    “Why did you lie about having business prospects in Russia?”

    “Why did every member of you campaign lie about having contact with the Russians?

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    all non-partisan investigations have found that dems have been guilty of shenanigans too, although perhaps not on the same scale as republicans.

    JL

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula, James Comey is the polar opposite of inept, for the record, such as it is.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    and he was more electable than Hillary Clinton (in the Electoral College, at least).

    And the Electoral College is the **ONLY** determination of electability...

    The Vanity Vote is meaningless and is only useful as a "well, at least" consoling factor to the luser and the luser's supporters.....

    It has no use or meaning beyond that..

    But would anyone have used the word to describe Trump before he won? It's doubtful, because Trump didn't measure up to what the punditocracy has come to mean when they use the word.

    Except to the few who actually looked at the FACTS and knew Donald Trump was the ONLY candidate with electability.. :D

    The problem that Democrats face is that electability is in direct conflict with purity..

    In the Democrat Party of the here and now, the candidate that will win the Primary will be the one that checks the most boxes..

    And beating President Trump is only ONE of many boxes that Democrats will demand be checked..

    Based on that assumption, Harris is going to be the Democrat Party candidate..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    all non-partisan investigations have found that dems have been guilty of shenanigans too, although perhaps not on the same scale as republicans.

    While I would dispute the factual accuracy of this claim, it does indicate that "shenanigans" aren't the issue, but rather that frequency or amount that is the issue..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Finally, directly ask him about his most ridiculous actions and demand an explanation!

    Why are you lying about these ridiculous actions??

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    When talking about DJT "winning" always important to note that was in tandem with Russian Assistance

    And yet, it's a bona fide proven FACT that there was no "Russian Assistance" that altered the results of the election..

    So, on the one hand, we have your hysterical screeching..

    And, on the other hand, we have the facts..

    It's about the fact that Repub will cheat

    Of course, you have no facts to support your "fact" so your "fact" is clearly non-factual.. IE a lie...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    “When will the military be getting that 10% pay raise that you told them you had secured for them...because none of the military personnel we’ve talked to have received it?”

    Facts to support??

    No??

    OK.. It figures..

    Because the FACTS clearly show, while President Trump did engage in hyperbole, the military DID get the largest pay raise in almost a decade...

    So, your question is misleading and dishonest and only shows your hatred for President Trump..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    "After the best week ever for @realDonaldTrump - no obstruction, no collusion, NYT admits @BarackObama did spy on his campaign, & the economy is soaring. I now support reparations - Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup."
    -Jerry Falwell Jr.

    Heh... Now THAT is funny! :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1125120604103954432/photo/1

    Woops!!!

    Democrats have egg on their faces!! hehehehehehe

    Never put out a poll unless you are 1000% sure that the results will be in your favor... :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Andy Puzder: Trump's booming economy has Democrats on the run
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andy-puzder-trump-economy

    This is why Democrats don't stand a chance in 2020.. :D

    "But! But!! The economy is going to implode!! You wait!! You'll see!!"

    The problem for ya'all is that ya'all have been making that exact same prediction for over 2 years now.. Since Jan of 2016...

    And yet, as with ALL your predictions, they have turned out to be WRONG...

    As I am fond of saying.. The BEST thing for the Democrat Party to do is concede 2020 and start preparing for 2024 when President Trump will be out of the picture...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi is worried. As well she should be..

    So it’s a bit disingenuous for Pelosi, now, to call for cooler heads, to calm her party mates and try and wean them, at least for the time being, off the likes of impeachment and “Medicare for All.”

    But setting aside her own hypocrisy for the moment, the second question here is this: Who’s left in the Democratic Party who could be considered moderate? By any stretch of the word’s definition?

    This batch of campaigning Democrats are calling for reparations; they’re calling for massive environmental regulations and a gutting of the Second Amendment; they’re calling for free — i.e., tax paid — college tuition. They’re making media waves by saying the world has only 12 years left to survive — nope, oops, make that 10. They’re doing dumb things like saying the Boston Marathon bomber should get a vote.

    Pelosi, no political newbie, is feeling the winds and shaking her head in practice defeat. She’s taking preemptive steps to excuse what she senses as her party’s looming losses by offering up an early strategy to fight Trump’s second-term win.

    “In recent weeks,” The New York Times wrote, “Pelosi has told associates that she does not automatically trust the president to respect the results of any election short of an overwhelming defeat.”

    She’s laying the groundwork for battle, making a slyly subtle case for “in case.”

    It’s a bit of a hoot. The Pelosi who’s to blame for ringing in the radical — for bringing to America the same population control that’s favored by communists, called nationalized health care — is now feeling the burn from her overly radicalized base.

    She’s worried about upcoming elections. She’s right. Today’s Democrats, for Republicans, are going to be in 2020 the greatest ballot box gift.

    Nobody knows that better than the queen of the radicalized Democratic Party herself, Speaker Pelosi.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/7/nancy-pelosi-is-right-to-worry/

    As I said.. Democrats have already lost 2020.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather funny in a sad and pathetic sort of way..

    With their Mueller report coup, Democrats forgot the first rule, the VERY first rule, of political coups..

    "If you strike at the king, you better KILL the king.."

    Democrats are going to learn the wisdom of that adage when the actions of Democrat leadership with regards to the infamous dossier and their collusion with foreign nationals comes to light...

    As I said before.. It's my fervent wish that AG Barr's security detail is made up of the best of the best...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party has run afoul of the ancient nostrum that if you strike at the king, you must kill him, and the price for that mistake will soon be upon them. Because what Barr has perceived, which no one seriously doubts — and that includes those Capitol Hill Democrats who so loudly denounce the Attorney General — is the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a bought-and-paid-for lie of the Clinton campaign, fed through the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the Obama administration to give it false legitimacy and to weaponize it against Candidate and then President Trump, and perpetuated in an attempt to destroy his presidency and effect a de facto coup d’état against the duly-elected leader of the free world.

    And Barr is now the instrument of the destruction of those Obama administration and Clinton campaign operatives, who are now faced with horrors — legal, financial, and reputational — to come which may not be avoided. Investigations have begun; recriminations are coming.

    And what is worse, those Democrat operatives have no respite ahead from the factual record. It will be found, from the evidence, that the FISA warrants allowing the Obama administration to spy on individuals associated with the Trump campaign were attained through deliberate falsehood and abuse of power, and it will likely be in evidence, when the investigations get to the appropriate point, that this abuse came from the highest levels of government.

    Furthermore, the investigation will prove not only that the Obama administration covered up criminal activity associated with and underlying Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business as Secretary of State under Obama, activity not only tolerated but participated in by officials at the highest levels of government.

    And nothing can stop this. Nothing, that is, but political pressure on Barr. As Strassel said, he must be demonized and discredited before the inspector general’s report and the related investigations of the Trump-Russia mess are made public and the prosecutions begin.

    That’s why the Democrats on Capitol Hill are so intent on attacking Barr. He is the messenger, and he must be silenced before the message can be delivered.

    Except there’s a problem. CNN buried its own poll results last week, and those results made it obvious why — in a survey of 1,007 random adults from April 25-28, some 69 percent of the respondents “think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.”
    https://spectator.org/stuck-pigs/

    In a ***CNN*** poll, 76% of Democrats want an investigation into the origins of the Russia Collusion delusion... That's even MORE than Republicans (69%)

    The writings on the wall for those who used our intelligence agencies as political weapons..

    Obama's reputation won't be worth a plug nickel when the investigations are done..

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Donald Trump, love him or hate him, oozes charisma.

    Love and hate requires passion... different amounts, of course, but nevertheless does require passion. I would advise anyone that either loves or hates Trump to reconsider wasting any of their passion on a con artist because... quite simply... he ain't worth it.

    You have to pay attention to him, whether in glee or in horror. It is impossible to look away.

    I find it rather easy, in fact.

    You can't ignore him, no matter how much you try.

    Sure I can, whenever I want; it's not even a tad bit difficult. :)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper Mathew Gatti
    Tennessee Highway Patrol, Tennessee
    End of Watch: Monday, May 6, 2019

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

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Electability is mostly just a term to de-legitimize someone that you disagree with- like a purity claim.

    Where do you get the idea that there is almost universal agreement among voters that the most important criteria to consider in the primaries is who has the best chance of beating Trump?

    Somewhere between 40 and 50% of voters will be supporting Trump in 2020.

    And there were many people in 2016 that were more concerned with what/who the candidates were in both the primaries and general elections.

    And because they didn't like or want what/who Hillary was they voted for Trump, Jill Stein or stayed home.

    These voters and potential voters no longer accepted the you have no other choice but big money Democrats lie in 2016.

    If you think that Trump as president is going to teach these citizens the error of their ways for 2020 so they will accept the same old lie again it is you that hasn't learned from 2016.

    So let's make this definition week.

    Define the difference between small donor candidates and small contribution candidates and inform citizens how they can demand small donor candidates in article this week.

    You might find it a liberating experience to actually expose a lie instead of trying in vain to perpetuate a lie that has passed it's expiration date.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Electability is mostly just a term to de-legitimize someone that you disagree with- like a purity claim.

    Oooo good point..

    Where do you get the idea that there is almost universal agreement among voters that the most important criteria to consider in the primaries is who has the best chance of beating Trump?

    I wondered that myself.. Given the facts of the very sharp Left progressive bent of today's Democrat Party, it's clear that purity is going to be the litmus test...

    Somewhere between 40 and 50% of voters will be supporting Trump in 2020.

    And if Schulz runs as a 3rd Party candidate, the Democrats will lose and lose big..

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    Except there’s a problem. CNN buried its own poll results last week, and those results made it obvious why — in a survey of 1,007 random adults from April 25-28, some 69 percent of the respondents “think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.”

    How does one "bury" polling that they've posted on the Internet and every right-wing rag has spun into ridiculous propaganda for the misinformed sheeple who eat up their bullshit and regurgitate it back like useful idiots?

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/cnn-poll-mueller-report-trump-approval/index.html

    I wonder if it crossed the morons' minds that this bullshit is just a reworded complete rehash of the Nunes Memo utter nonsensical propaganda? It probably didn't occur to them that the FISA issue has already been covered ad nauseam, and Rod Rosenstein, Republican, has already released multiple FISA documents to appease Trump and the Republicans in their efforts to obstruct the investigation which Sean Hannity has pronounced "dead" for 2 years running.

    It seems the FBI director was fired and the next day the Russians were in the Oval laughing it up with the POTUS who stated that all the pressure was taken off him since he fired the "nut job." The United States was actually notified of the Oval meeting by the Russians by Russian media and not notified in any way by the White House.

    Anyway, back to obstruction of justice and the Nunes Memo and the large-scale attempt at impeding an investigation where the POTUS confessed on national television to firing the FBI director because of that whole "Russia thing," I wonder if they realize that obstruction of justice is a crime and that there is a section in the Mueller Report with Devin Nunes' name redacted all over it?

    As far as investigating those who had an obligation to investigate a campaign who had 140+ meetings with Russians and were attempting to purchase stolen documents via multiple channels, it was called Crossfire Hurricane for a reason. The Steele Dossier was originally funded by Republicans. It was given by John McCain to the FBI at the urging of Lindsey Graham, which Graham finally admitted only recently. They should really punish those two GOP Senators McCain (too late) and Graham (not too late) for their role in getting the "dossier" to the Republican who headed the FBI by the name of James Comey. Regardless all that, the investigation into the multiple Russian contacts had already begun before that when Australia (FVEY) tipped off the FBI because a drunk moron from the Trump campaign was bragging about how Russia had the stolen documents. Also, Paul Manafort was a long established Russian foreign agent (currently in prison), and with the changes to the Republican platform and Donald Trump calling publicly on Russia to hack his opponent while privately trying to purchase the hacked documents and Roger Stone working with Guccifer 2.0 (the GRU) and WikiLeaks to coordinate the release of the stolen documents, that whole blaming the investigators for simply doing their jobs to protect America from known hostile foreign powers sort of falls flat on its face.

    Blaming Democrats also seems utterly nonsensical when you consider that James Comey, John McCain, Rod Rosenstein, etc., etc. are all Republicans.

    That’s why the Democrats on Capitol Hill are so intent on attacking Barr. He is the messenger, and he must be silenced before the message can be delivered.

    Wrong. In fact, you've got that ass backwards. The messenger was the man by the name of Robert Mueller... also a Republican... who along with his team of not all Democrats investigated the facts for 2+ years, and Barr is the shill who was recently hired to spin the facts that the Mueller investigation uncovered. In fact, if the facts in the Mueller report were all exculpatory and in Trump's favor like he claims like a repetitive pull toy with a string attached to his ass, there would be no reason to lie about Mueller's conclusions in the manner that Bill Barr has done and absolutely no reason whatsoever for Trump to be doing everything in his power to obfuscate and delay.

    If Mueller's Report actually showed what Trump and Barr claim it did, Trump would be autographing the report and encouraging its wide dissemination at taxpayers' expense. But, on the contrary, he's got Barr spinning as fast as he can.

    That GOP propaganda from the right-wing rags should work nicely to appease the gullible and easily conned Trump base; however, the majority of Americans aren't bleating sheeple. If 76% of Democrats and 69% of independents aren't afraid to have the origins of the investigation investigated yet again, that should go a long way to informing the Trump sheeple that the facts still aren't favorable to Poor Donald... been there, done that. Please release those FISA warrants again... this time with no redactions. That would do very nicely. *laughs* :)

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-21

    Over 400 former prosecutors, Republican, Democrat, North, South, East and West agree with you.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Over 400 former prosecutors, Republican, Democrat, North, South, East and West agree with you.

    Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters every one...

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    23

    Democrats, Never Trumpers and Trump/America haters every one...

    Wrong again. :)

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals attack Biden, seeking to blunt his momentum
    Progressives are taking shots at Joe Biden, seeking to blunt the former vice president’s rise in polls by arguing he is too conservative to be the party's presidential nominee.

    The criticism has come from rivals to Biden on the campaign trail as well as liberal groups seeking to put a dent into his poll numbers.

    They are casting Biden as an establishment figure out of touch with the grass roots of his party, highlighting his work on a Clinton-era crime bill and the Iraq War, among other issues.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/442378-liberals-attack-biden-seeking-to-blunt-his-momentum

    "We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without resorting to name calling and insults."

    Apparently..... NOT

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    "My grandparents were cousins..
    My parents were siblings...
    If I was any more inbred...
    I'de be a sandwich..."

    Joffery Baratheon

    :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The writings on the wall for those who used our intelligence agencies as political weapons..

    Obama's reputation won't be worth a plug nickel when the investigations are done..

    James Comey is in trouble and he knows it

    James Comey’s planet is getting noticeably warmer. Attorney General William Barr’s emissions are the suspected cause.

    Barr has made plain that he intends to examine carefully how and why Comey, as FBI director, decided that the bureau should investigate two presidential campaigns and if, in so doing, any rules or laws were broken.

    In light of this, the fired former FBI director apparently has decided that photos of him on Twitter standing amid tall trees and in the middle of empty country roads, acting all metaphysical, is no longer a sufficient strategy.

    No, Comey has realized, probably too late, that he has to try to counter, more directly, the narrative being set by the unsparing attorney general whose words in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week landed in the Trump-opposition world like holy water on Linda Blair. Shrieking heads haven’t stopped spinning since.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/442278-james-comey-is-in-trouble-and-he-knows-it

    Looks like Comey is going to join Obama in the 7th ring of hell... :D

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4] JL: Yeah, no. In the modern era, not Tammany Hall etc. find me examples of Dems doing anything like the wholesale cheating/suppression GOP is doing/done/trying to do now.

    In every state where they rule they try every voter suppression measure they can muster. Last week in Ohio a federal court ruled our maps are grossly gerrymandered and ordered a new congressional map for 2020.

    BREAKING - Ohio's Attorney General, Republican Dave Yost, has filed a motion to block Friday's federal court decision that declared Ohio's gerrymandered congressional maps unconstitutional.
    (link: https://radio.wosu.org/.../ohio-files-motion-block-court...) radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-file…

    Florida GOP now undercutting released felons from being able to vote, after passage to allow them passed in 2018 with a rule demanding payment of fees/penalties etc. - themselves extortionate in nature - before allowing them to vote.

    We recently learned Russians penetrated voting operations in every state in 2016 and GOP wants NOTHING to be done about it - DJT/GOP stopping efforts in every direction.

    DJT has secret talks with Putin in front of all of us.

    And of course, Mitch McConnell squashed Obama from releasing info about Russian interference in 2016. Obama should have told Mitch to eat shit, but he didn't. That doesn't negate McConnel's treachery.

    Nope, GOP is cheating in front of us, in numerous ways, right now. They will continue to do so as long as they are able.

    That's the landscape Dems face.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula: [The] GOP is cheating in front of us, in numerous ways, right now. They will continue to do so as long as they are able.

    The difference is that Trump seems to have lit a fire under them. Much of it is out in the open right now, when we can do something about it, but as the election nears, they'll go underground.

    Right now, it's whack-a-mole. Gotta keep 'em honest while we can still see 'em.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    We recently learned Russians penetrated voting operations in every state in 2016 and GOP wants NOTHING to be done about it - DJT/GOP stopping efforts in every direction.

    That happened under Odumbo's watch..

    Why didn't he stop it?? Was he incompetent??

    Why didn't he retaliate it for it?? Was he in on it??

    Odumbo DID bend the knee and gave fealty to Putin...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The difference is that Trump seems to have lit a fire under them. Much of it is out in the open right now, when we can do something about it, but as the election nears, they'll go underground.

    OR...

    You Dumbocrats had a piss poor candidate who ran a piss poor election and she lost..

    First you blame the Russians.. That was proven false..

    NOW you blame cheating...

    Ya'all simply can't admit that the American people aren't buying the bullshit that Democrats are selling..

    And what about 2018??

    Did Russians interfere then?? Did GOP cheat then???

    You simply can't admit the truth to yerselves..

    Democrats suck..

    That is all there is too it..

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Did Russians interfere then? Did GOP cheat then?

    Yes, and yes. And I guess we have to harden those up because Republicans just have their heads too far up their own asses to do it themselves.

    And we're not 'blaming' Russia, Russia interfered - we know that for a fact. Are we doing anything about it? Naw, Trump's widdle feelings would be hurt by it.

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    22

    Over 400 former prosecutors, Republican, Democrat, North, South, East and West agree with you.

    Yes, sir... and now it's 600 and still climbing. I can assure you that equal justice under the law really is "a thing" with prosecutors. One can "clue in" to that fact easily by reading the Mueller Report or the Porn Star Hush Money Payoff Scheme litigation in SDNY where POTUS is identified as "Individual-1" and his former lawyer, fixer, and "very good man" who followed Trump's orders is sitting in a federal prison for doing so. Okay, I admit I might be wrong about this... Mikey might actually be standing at the present time. :)

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [10]

    Facts to support??

    No??

    OK.. It figures..

    Because the FACTS clearly show, while President Trump did engage in hyperbole, the military DID get the largest pay raise in almost a decade...

    So, your question is misleading and dishonest and only shows your hatred for President Trump..

    Oh really?

    "You just got one of the biggest pay raises you've ever received," Trump said in remarks at al-Asad Airbase during his surprise trip to Iraq on Wednesday, drawing cheers from the troops. "You haven’t gotten one in more than 10 years — more than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one."

    Troops will receive a 2.6 percent — not 10 percent — pay hike for 2019; they got a 2.4 percent pay hike in 2018.

    What's more, American troops have received a pay hike every year for decades. 2019's raise is the largest in nine years.

    Military pay raises are tied to increases in private-sector wages, as calculated by the Department of Labor. Congress can also enact raises that exceed that rate, as well.

    So not only is he lying about what he has done for the troops, he is lying and claiming that they never received a pay raise under Obama. Dear God, the man is so insecure!

    But you think this was just “hyperbole” from Trump???

    Trump insisted that he personally had fought for this raise, because the troops put their lives on the line.

    "They said: 'You know, we could make it smaller. We could make it 3 percent. We could make it 2 percent. We could make it 4 percent.' I said: 'No. Make it 10 percent. Make it more than 10 percent,'" Trump told the troops. "Because it's been a long time. It's been more than 10 years. That's a long time. And, you know, you really put yourselves out there, and you put your lives out there. So congratulations."

    The remarks came during the president's first trip to troops stationed in a combat zone, days after he announced he'd withdraw the U.S. from foreign wars in Syria and Afghanistan.

    Trump had NOTHING to do with their pay raise, whatsoever!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

    That isn’t hyperbole, that’s straight up LYING! Trying to make himself look better by taking credit for what someone else did — that’s your fearless leader!?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-brags-troops-about-10-percent-pay-raise-n952336

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    California chief praises cop allegedly slain by illegal immigrant, hits lawmakers who make it 'more difficult’
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-police-chief-ronil-singh-illegal-immigrant-lawmakers

    The blood of every cop slain by an illegal immigrant is on the hands of every Democrat everywhere...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    That isn’t hyperbole, that’s straight up LYING! Trying to make himself look better by taking credit for what someone else did — that’s your fearless leader!?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-trump-brags-troops-about-10-percent-pay-raise-n952336

    NBC news is your source???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Might as well be quoting HuffPoop..

    President Trump has done 1000x more for the Military than Odumbo EVER did..

    Why do you think the enlisted in the military are 98% in support of President Trump??

    You have a lot of nerve trying to use the military to further your political agenda.. Especially given how bad Democrats have shat on and spit on the military in the last 60 years...

    I won't even bother mentioning how Democrats have treated cops...

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "After the best week ever for @realDonaldTrump - no obstruction, no collusion, NYT admits @BarackObama did spy on his campaign, & the economy is soaring. I now support reparations - Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup."
    -Jerry Falwell Jr.

    So what was Trump doing the entire time the investigation was taking place that prevented him from doing his job? Let’s see....

    There were the days he spent meeting with and answering Mueller’s questions. Oh wait! None of that happened, Trump just said he wanted to testify but then chose not to. In fact, Trump had almost no personal involvement in the actual investigation process. So what was it that stole his first two years of presidency?

    No, Donald Trump spent two years trying to obstruct the investigation at every turn.. and playing golf every other weekend. It seems like Falwell believes Trump did not accomplish anything those first two years.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bathy,

    Did Russians interfere then? Did GOP cheat then?

    Yes, and yes.

    And do you have FACTS that prove that??

    Of course you don't...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ re 37:

    You can spin it all you want..

    But the simple FACT is the entire Russia Collusion bullshit was a Democrat Party delusion...

    It seems like Falwell believes Trump did not accomplish anything those first two years.

    And you know this how?? Oh, because you can mind read :eyeroll:

    Gods, I can't believe how idiotic ya'all sound..

    And what's even MORE moronic is that ya'all are serious!! Ya'all actually BELIEVE the bullshit yer spewing...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me lay out the FACTS for ya'all...

    Ya'all LOST the election.. Fair and square..

    Ya'all had a shitty candidate and a crappy message..

    This is ALL fact...

    No Russian boogiemen changed a SINGLE Hillary vote to a Trump vote..

    Ya'all LOST... Ya'all are LUSERS...

    Man up and take it like an adult.. Jeeeze, this pathetic whining is so immature...

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And do you have FACTS that prove that?

    Why of course I do.

    On August 2, 2018, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats announced along with FBI Director Christopher A. Wray at a White House press conference that Russia is actively interfering in the 2018 elections, saying "It is real. It is ongoing."

    As much as both still have their jobs, I'd call that good.

    As far as GOP cheating, where do you want me to start?

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    [29] Balthasar: Yep.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    On August 2, 2018, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats announced along with FBI Director Christopher A. Wray at a White House press conference that Russia is actively interfering in the 2018 elections, saying "It is real. It is ongoing."

    That's not a "fact".. That's someone's claim..

    Do you have ANY **FACTS** that prove the claim..

    No you do not..

    So quit lying and saying you do...

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    NBC news is your source???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Might as well be quoting HuffPoop..

    I’ll wait here for you to refute any of the information from the story. Tick Tock! Wow, you cannot refute it! So your only move is to try to claim that the source of the story somehow invalidates their factual reporting that you failed to refute.

    What has Trump done for our military? He diverted funding meant to upgrade housing on bases to fund his “border emergency” wall.

    He’s made sure our government agencies had only the best Directors possible!

    Remember when he wanted his personal physician - the one who claimed Trump was 6’3” and 235# - to run the VA? Can’t figure out how to use a tape measure or a scale properly, but I am sure he can handle running an administration as large as the VA!

    And let’s not forget when he wanted his personal pilot to head up the FAA!

    Yeah, the Trump name will be remembered throughout history as it is used to describe the worst and most idiotic actions of the day.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Maroon [43]: That's not a "fact".. That's someone's claim..
    Do you have ANY **FACTS** that prove the claim..

    Of your FBI director and DNI??

    I give up: you're too far gone.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    I’ll wait here for you to refute any of the information from the story.

    I have already refuted it.. It's campaign hyperbole..

    Yer messiah Odumbo was famous for it. Funny how you didn't care about that..

    Yeah, the Trump name will be remembered throughout history as it is used to describe the worst and most idiotic actions of the day.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day.. :D

    But the FACTS clearly show that President Trump has done 1000X more good for this country than Odumbo could ever HOPE to do..

    And now that Odumbo is going to be implicate in spying on an opposing Party candidate???

    His name will be shit.. :D

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And what's even MORE moronic is that ya'all are serious!! Ya'all actually BELIEVE the bullshit yer spewing...

    Glad to finally learn that you do not actually believe the crap you say in here.

    Yeah, I fully defend and stand by my comments on here.

    It’s like when I apologized to you for saying that your opinions on parenting weren’t instantly more credible just because you didn’t pull out and your sister mistook a Pez for her birth control. I would never have made an incest joke had I known that was a topic that was so personal for you and that you were especially sensitive about! I said I was sorry and fully meant my apology!

    Sad to learn you cannot be counted on for an honest debate!

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I fully defend and stand by my comments on here.

    Even when you are utterly and completely wrong..

    "We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without resorting to name calling and insults."

    I have already proven you wrong half a dozen times..

    But you are too much of a pussy to admit it..

    I would never have made an incest joke had I known that was a topic that was so personal for you

    No, it's not personal at all for me, as I don't HAVE a sister...

    But it does show what a complete and utter scumbag you are for TRYING to drag family into your hate-filled debate...

    It's like me saying your husband is a scumbag dirty cop..

    I would never stoop to saying that because *I* don't drag family into arguments...

    Sad to learn you cannot be counted on for an honest debate!

    Sad to learn you are such a pussy that you can't admit when you are wrong..

    As I have proven you wrong time and time again...

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    This NY Times piece covers from 1985 to 1994. DJT was a LOSER throughout.

    In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners.

  50. [50] 
    Paula wrote:
  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Or grossly underestimated his income (etc) to the IRS. Either way, his rep suffers.

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    32

    Yes, and yes. And I guess we have to harden those up because Republicans just have their heads too far up their own asses to do it themselves.

    I disagree. I think they are too busy sucking the Orange Cheeto and have their heads too far up their own asses.

    And we're not 'blaming' Russia, Russia interfered - we know that for a fact. Are we doing anything about it? Naw, Trump's widdle feelings would be hurt by it.

    Exactly. The Orange Cheeto conspiracy cult and their ilk are far too busy sucking The Donald to grasp the concept that the GOP propaganda narrative requires that they simultaneously believe that Obama did nothing while also claiming that Obama needs to be investigated for what he did; it's mass hysteria at it's finest and maximum cognitive dissonance on full display.

    If what Obama said to Dmitri Medvedev about having more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 election qualifies as Obama "bending the knee," then what Trump had a private citizen relay to the Ambassador before the inauguration when President Obama heavily sanctioned Russia, what Trump has said repeatedly against his own intelligence agencies in deference to Putin, then Trump firing the Director of the FBI and laughing and explaining it to his Russian handlers the following day in the Oval, the many things Trump said in Helsinki in the dutiful service of Vladimir, and then Trump gleefully yucking it up in the Oval the other day as he laughed together with Putin at the United States is definitely the equivalent of Trump being castrated and then "bending over" on a regular and repeated basis to accommodate his handler's every pleasure... and all the "whataboutism" and deflection to Obama could never change that fact but does definitely and painfully lay bare the rank hypocrisy of the Trump bleating sheeple. :)

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    45

    Of your FBI director and DNI??

    I give up: you're too far gone.

    What gave it away? I mean, other than the posting of the QAnon conspiracy theory bullshit giant honking clue. :)

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    49

    This NY Times piece covers from 1985 to 1994. DJT was a LOSER throughout.

    Yep. Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, Trump Casinos, Trump Steak, Trump Magazine, Trump's travel search engine "goTrump," Trump University, and numerous others all gone either belly up, bankrupt or completely discontinued.

    After Trump's 90's meltdown and subsequent bailing out by his father yet again, Donald Trump then burned American banks for over $3 billion dollars. What is a multiple failing perennial lousy businessman to do when he's burned every bank in the country? Enter money laundering for Russian oligarchs and doing business within the Russian sistema. Kompromat is at its utmost power when the targets don't know how much information has been gathered about them by their multiple business partners. Poor Donald. #BendOver

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    44

    Yeah, the Trump name will be remembered throughout history as it is used to describe the worst and most idiotic actions of the day.

    A regular modern-day Benedict Arnold... Benedict Donald!

    Who knew? ;)

Comments for this article are closed.