ChrisWeigant.com

Biden Realigns The Field

[ Posted Tuesday, May 7th, 2019 – 17:27 UTC ]

The end is officially in sight. Hopefully.

Yes, we're almost at the point where every Democrat who has ever dreamed of running for president has already announced his or her intentions, and we can finally say that the field is set. Almost. We've still got three holdouts, but two of them seem likely to jump in the race within the next few weeks, and the third has announced she's not going to make up her mind until September, so even if she does join in, it isn't going to happen any time soon.

So, hopefully, in a few weeks we'll have a full slate of 2020 Democratic candidates and the news will move on from: "Who will jump in the race next?" to the inevitable: "Who will drop out first?" Such is the cynical cycle of political reporting.

 

Campaign News

As we predicted last time around, Joe Biden has now officially joined the race. Also as we predicted, this caused a political earthquake of sorts as the race got shaken up in a major way. More on that in a moment.

Michael Bennet also jumped into the ring, becoming the seventh sitting senator to run for president this cycle (the six others: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirsten Gillibrand). At this point, it's hard to even see what he expects to uniquely bring to the race, as many have already pointed out. He's not even the only guy from Colorado running, as Governor John Hickenlooper has been in the race for months now. But hey, why not run? Everyone else is, after all.

The only other real news on the "who's running?" front comes from three politicians who have so far remained on the sidelines. As mentioned, one of them -- Stacey Abrams of Georgia -- has indicated that she's going to take her time about her decision, although she did just make some news when she announced she wasn't running for a Senate seat in Georgia. This means she really has only two choices still open -- join the crowded 2020 presidential field or wait to run for governor again in 2022. Either way, we may not find out until September.

The other two have both strongly indicated that they'll be making an announcement soon, and also strongly indicated that their announcement will be that they're running for president. Montana Governor Steve Bullock is set to announce first, but New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also seems eager to toss his hat in the ring as well, from all reports. If these two do jump in, then we may have a full field (with the possible exception of Abrams), so there's that to look forward to.

As things stand right now, and by our count (others come to different totals depending on who they decide is a serious candidate), we now have 22 Democrats running to beat Donald Trump. Twenty-two! If Bullock and de Blasio jump in, that will rise to 24 -- a full two dozen candidates. This means that at least some of them will be excluded from the first debates, since the D.N.C. has set an upper limit of 20 candidates over two nights. And, as we mentioned, the speculation will move on from who will jump in to who will exit the race first. It's a pretty safe bet that not all of these candidates will make it to the first round of caucuses and primaries, that's for sure.

 

First Tier

We're going to radically alter how we set our dividing lines this week, based mostly on recent polling. The numbers we'll be using today all come from the most recent poll, from Morning Consult, which is fairly representative of what the other pollsters are saying at this point.

One word of caution, though: this is still very early polling. Personally, I'm not going to take any poll seriously until roughly two weeks after the first debate, because I don't think most Democratic voters are paying all that much attention yet. We're still really only mostly seeing name recognition being measured, in other words, and people won't start to develop really strong feelings for the candidates (positive or negative) until they start seeing them face off against each other. So in early July we'll be paying a whole lot more attention to the polling than we are now, but at the same time this is what we have to analyze for the moment, so make of it what you will.

At this point, it is clear that there really are only two frontrunners in this race. Joe Biden got an incredible bump in the polls by tossing his hat in the ring, and he went from already being out front to being way, way out front almost overnight. If all the primaries were held tomorrow, Joe Biden would walk away with the Democratic nomination, hands down. Of course, we've still got months and months before that's going to happen, and most candidates see their initial polling bump dissipate to some degree or another after the first few weeks. So while we can't read too much into things for the future, as things stand now, Biden is the clear favorite.

In the Morning Consult poll, Biden pulls in a whopping 40 percent. That's stunning, in a field of 22 candidates. Part of his bump in the polling came at the expense of Bernie Sanders, who is still running solidly in second place with 19 percent of the Democratic electorate behind him. Biden has over twice what Bernie's got, which wasn't the case right before Biden announced. But Bernie, to be fair, also has over twice what anyone else (other than Biden) has in the race right now.

One interesting sidenote from the poll's data is that when you look at people's second choices, Biden and Sanders still dominate the field -- to the extent that Biden voters would largely shift to Bernie and Bernie voters would largely shift to Biden, if for some reason either man suddenly dropped out of the race. This puts the lie to all the "progressive versus moderate" electability nonsense now floating around, because voters are obviously looking for the strongest candidate to take on Trump no matter what their ideology.

But at this point, we simply cannot lump any of the other candidates with Biden and Sanders, because they now own the top tier all by themselves. No other candidate broke into double digits in this poll, meaning all the rest are far, far behind the two at the top. Biden and Sanders combined are now the favorite of 59 percent of Democratic voters. In a field of 22. And nobody else even cracks 10 percent. That puts these two in a class by themselves.

 

Second Tier

The poll numbers tell a clear story about the second tier as well. Other than the two in the top tier, there are only six candidates right now who are polling above a single percentage point. In order of their current standing, they are: Elizabeth Warren (8 percent), Kamala Harris (7 percent), Pete Buttigieg (6 percent), Beto O'Rourke (5 percent), Cory Booker (3 percent), and Amy Klobuchar (2 percent). The first four of these all saw an initial bump in the polls -- some into the low double digits -- but then saw this early interest fade over time to some degree or another. Booker and Klobuchar, though, never really saw much of an initial bump, and are in danger of slipping back to the third tier at this point.

The biggest question in the upcoming draw for who gets to debate on which night in the first two debates (there will be no "adult table debate" and "kiddie table debate," as the Republicans held in 2016, instead the slots will be assigned at random) is obviously going to be whether Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden get to face each other or not. But the placement of the second tier candidates is also going to be crucial. Depending on the draw, we may wind up with a de facto kiddie table debate anyway, in other words. All of these second-tier candidates still have a solid chance to break out of the pack and spark some interest with the voters, and all of them have been running fairly solid campaigns so far. Many of them have been introducing carefully-thought-out policy ideas, so there should be a substantive debate over multiple issues. They'll all be trying to present their agenda as the most solid and in tune with the voters, and they'll all be trying to contrast their campaigns with that of Biden and Sanders.

In short, they'll all be vying to move up into the top tier, where they can get a chance to run directly against the two who are already there. Four of the six in the second tier are senators, but experience is no guarantee of success. For the time being, they're jockeying for position with each other in the hopes of a breakout moment which launches them into the spotlight.

 

Third Tier

Can I just write "everybody else" here? Sigh. No, that would be rude, wouldn't it?

Kidding aside, we now have 14 candidates in the bottom tier. The most recent addition is Michael Bennet, who starts off decidedly behind the pack. But there are plenty of others who have yet to make any sort of impression on the voting public at all.

The Morning Consult poll lists only nine of these candidates, while completely ignoring the others. Seven of these are polling at one percent: Julián Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, and Andrew Yang. Two of them are polling at zero percent: Jay Inslee and Seth Moulton. Bennet probably announced too late to be included in this poll at all, but there are four others not listed as well: Mike Gravel, Wayne Messam, Eric Swalwell, and Marianne Williamson. Together with the two polling at zero percent, these are all the longest of the longshots. Those polling at one percent are somewhat-shorter longshots (if that's not an oxymoron). The only real surprises in the third tier, as we've mentioned previously, are Castro and Gillibrand, both of whom were expected to do better than they so far have.

While it is still too early to definitively rule anyone out, this is probably the list that pundits will be looking at when they start guessing who will drop out of the race first. Or "next," really, since we've already had one candidate throw in the towel (Richard Ojeda).

 

Conclusions

Biden shook up the race, but it's still too early to see if his bump has staying power or not. However, it's a pretty large bump to begin with, so even if it does fade a bit he'll still be the clear frontrunner. Bernie Sanders has some catching up to do, and he's already drawing the difference between his record and Biden's, pointing out the various issues on which Bernie's been consistent for years but where Biden had to "evolve." He's right about that -- his record is clearly more progressive than Biden's, but then again Biden hasn't been in the Senate for a whole decade, so all of his votes are pretty old news.

Biden's record is decidedly mixed, but he's counting on the fact that more recent than all his Senate votes was his experience as Barack Obama's vice president. Obama is still very well-loved and respected in the Democratic Party, and Biden's big claim to progressive fame was the fact that he evolved on gay marriage first, and then talked Obama into following his lead.

Many people said, four years ago, that Biden should have run in 2016, with the clear implication that his window for being president was closing. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. If Bernie were 25 or 30 years younger, Biden's age might have been an issue, but almost six out of ten Democratic voters seem just fine with both men's advanced age.

The one thing other Democrats (led by Bernie) are hitting Biden on now is fundraising. Biden is a traditional establishment Democratic candidate, meaning he has already been holding large-donor fundraisers to rake in lots of campaign cash. Other Democrats have eschewed such tactics and are almost solely relying on small-dollar donations. The contrast is pretty clear, but what isn't clear is how much this matters to the voters.

The first debates are less than two months away. This will be when the campaign really begins for most voters. I would expect fairly high ratings for the first couple of debates, at the very least, since voters will be interested. Up until now the sheer size of the field has been daunting for people to contemplate, but in the debates we'll be able to put a voice and a face on all of these names.

For now, we've had to drastically realign our own campaign rankings. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are the only two candidates who can be considered frontrunners, clearly. We've now got six in the pack behind them (pretty far behind them, at this stage), all jockeying for position with various degrees of success. And then we've got a whopping 14 longshots trailing far behind the rest. We've got two more pending announcements to expect in the next week or two, and then (finally!) we may have a full count of the 2020 Democratic presidential field.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

70 Comments on “Biden Realigns The Field”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bernie Sanders has some catching up to do, and he's already drawing the difference between his record and Biden's …

    Catching up to do, indeed. Like discovering that a vote for the 'Iraq Resolution' was not a "vote for war".

    Speaking of Iraq, I don't recall hearing anything about what Senator Sanders did to fix the mess that was US policy in Iraq. Besides, of course, voting for Senator Biden's sense of the senate resolution detailing a proposal to change US policy toward Iraq and support federalism as a way forward for the failing state.

    Or, did Sanders vote for that - was he one of the 23 senators who misguidedly voted against it?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It has always been my fervent dream that Biden could CLEAR the field.

    Not a joke!

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This means she really has only two choices still open -- join the crowded 2020 presidential field or wait to run for governor again in 2022. Either way, we may not find out until September.

    Only two choices still open, you say? Did you perchance forget about the very real possibility that Ms. Abrams might be tapped as a vice presidential running mate, mate? As long as Biden remains the front runner and can translate those polling numbers into actual votes at the polls, I'd say that's a very real possibility. :)

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    “THIS IS DO-OR-DIE”: JOE BIDEN’S “ELECTABILITY” ARGUMENT IS HOW DEMOCRATS LOSE ELECTIONS

    When Democrats play it safe and “fall in line,” the results are devastating—as Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry made plain. If Biden wins the nomination next year, it will be because Democrats went with their heads, not their bleeding hearts. But Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign is a cautionary tale.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/joe-biden-electability-argument-is-how-democrats-lose-elections

    I still say that Biden can't win the primary because the Democrat Party today is a PURITY Party, not an Electability Party...

    That being said, if Biden DOES manage to pull it out, it will forever stain the Democrat Party as the Diversity Party..

    For all their talk of diversity and minorities and identity politics, when all is said and done.... The Democrat Party nominates an old white guy to be their champion..

    So, either way, it's a win-win for me.. :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another recent poll from CBS News and YouGov revealed that Democrats would prefer a female candidate over a man, a candidate of color over a white person, and a young nominee over an old one.

    As I said..

    Democrats want Purity.. Not Electability..

    They want a candidate who checks the MOST boxes, not the candidate who checks a SINGLE box...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as far as Biden's lead in the polls??

    Keep in mind, that Hillary lead Obama by 20 points in the polls of 2008...

    Then she came in 3rd in Iowa...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, the wisdom of President Trump *NOT* releasing his tax returns is made clear...

    The State Of New York got some tax information (not returns, just information) on the pretext of some legal issue..

    And what did they do?

    They IMMEDIATELY leaked that confidential and private information to the Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party, the Leftist media...

    Proving beyond ANY doubt (as if any proof was needed) that this isn't about justice..

    It's SOLELY about obtaining a new shiny bludgeon with which to beat President Trump over the head with..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pelosi made a comment about President Trump and impeachment..

    "He's just like taunting, taunting, taunting because he knows that it would be very divisive in the country, but he doesn't really care. He just wants to solidify his base."

    And Democrats didn't care that the bullshit Russia Collusion delusion would be VERY divisive for the country..

    Democrats just wanted to solidify their base..

    So, one (who has common sense and is not enslaved by Party dogam and ideology) has to ask..

    What is Pelosi's point???

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is simply undeniable..

    Trump Confronts China as Biden Scoffs

    On the appeasement side of the political spectrum, former Vice President Joe Biden perfectly summed up the total unwillingness of the political class to even recognize the existential threat China presents. On the campaign trail last week, the Democratic front-runner stated: “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man -- China isn’t in competition with us. …They’re not bad folks, folks. Guess what -- they’re not competition for us." Sleepy Joe Biden apparently needs political smelling salts to awaken to the reality of how dangerously China manipulates America.

    But perhaps that willful ignorance emanates from self-interest, as his own son Hunter Biden once accompanied him on Air Force Two as part of a vice-presidential delegation to China. Ten days after that visit, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion joint investment deal with the state-owned Bank of China. Amazingly, one of the technologies that Hunter Biden has invested in alongside China is an app known as Face++, which facilitates Chinese government spying on millions of its own heavily oppressed Uighur citizens. In fact, the Chinese have imprisoned many of these Muslim minorities in concentration camps, directly contradicting Papa Joe’s assurance that the Chinese Communists are “not bad folks, folks.”
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/07/trump_confronts_china_as_biden_scoffs_140264.html

    Biden has a China problem that is going to kill him in the General, assuming he makes it thru the Primary..

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    That being said, if Biden DOES manage to pull it out, it will forever stain the Democrat Party as the Diversity Party..

    That whole ridiculous nonsensical "purity" spew and the "diversity party" bullshit talking points the GOP useful idiots are spewing falls apart easily with a few very simple facts:

    * White guys and partially white guys are actually welcomed in the Democratic Party and are a part of its rich diversity.

    * The Democratic Party hasn't had a presidential candidate who actually was a "total white guy" since John Kerry in 2004.

    * Therefore, the nomination of a "total white guy" in 2020 (regardless of his age) by Democratic Party voters every 16 years or decade and a half -- give or take -- would actually prove the diversity of the Democratic Party rather than disprove it.

    White guys are people too and indeed part and parcel of the rich diversity included in the Democratic Party... a Party that welcomes all kinds across the human skin color spectrum chart... except for Orange Treason Weasels who simply will not be tolerated. :)

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Great. (or should that grate?)

    You say the polling now doesn't really mean anything, but it's all the information you have at the moment so you use useless information to write another useless horse race article.

    BULLY! (and not the Teddy Roosevelt kind.)

    But it does expose once again an issue that you do have information aboot- small donor campaigns vs. small contribution campaigns.

    (credit where credit is due- at least you said the rest of the field other than Biden are "almost solely relying on small-dollar donations" instead of small donors.)

    There is a contrast between Biden and the other candidates, but there is also a contrast between small donor campaigns and small contribution campaigns.

    As it is unclear how voters feel aboot the contrast between Biden and the others on fundraising approaches and 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics, it is time to provide citizens with information on the difference between small donor candidates and small contribution candidates so they can decide whether they want openly big money candidates like Biden, candidates like the rest of the field that take big money in small amounts pretending to be small donor candidates or if they want the real thing.

    The contrasts are pretty clear. Let's find out how much it will matter to voters.

    Why not inform citizens aboot this opportunity and speculate aboot what might happen if one of the candidates took the lead on small donor campaigns?

    It has much more of a possibility of improving the sad state of affairs that is our political process and discourse than another horse race article based on unreliable information.

    All that you get after the horses is a lot of horse shit.

    The candidates are shoveling enough on their own- they don't need your help.

    But citizens do need your help in finding information on what they can do aboot it.

    There is no reason that you should remain being just the guy with the broom at the end of the opening to "Fractured Fairytales".

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Russia Collusion delusion is not closed.. We are going to re-litigate, RE-litigate and then re-litigate again the Russia Collusion delusion.. We're going to do it, re-do it and then do it again until we get the outcome our partisan Party agenda MUST have to survive.."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Great!!! (Or should I say "GRATE") :D

    It is my fervent wish that Democrats do keep on the Russia Collusion delusion to the exclusion of all else..

    It will simply make 2020 like 2016, where Republicans made a complete run on all aspects of the government.. :D

    So, go ahead, Dumbocrats.. Keep doing the exact same thing over and over hoping for a different result...

    I double dog dare ya!!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Russia Collusion delusion is not closed.. We are going to re-litigate, RE-litigate and then re-litigate again the Russia Collusion delusion.. We're going to do it, re-do it and then do it again until we get the outcome our partisan Party agenda MUST have to survive.."
    -Nancy Pelosi

    Great!!! (Or should I say "GRATE") :D

    It is my fervent wish that Democrats do keep on the Russia Collusion delusion to the exclusion of all else..

    It will simply make 2020 like 2016, where Republicans made a complete run on all aspects of the government.. :D

    So, go ahead, Dumbocrats.. Keep doing the exact same thing over and over hoping for a different result...

    I double dog dare ya!!

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Why not inform citizens aboot this opportunity and speculate aboot what might happen if one of the candidates took the lead on small donor campaigns?

    Why not take "no" for an answer?

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Interesting morning.

    So, Trump lost over 1 Billion dollars during his Art of the Deal Decade! Only Jacques Cousteau has spend more time under water.

    Trump pissed his substantial inheritance away. The Emperor has wet himself! Can we please call the soon to be Pulitzer Prize winning NY Times artcle the Pee Pee Papers?

    Q. What does The Donald wear under those baggy suits?

    A. Depends!

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's only an interesting morning to Trump/America haters who were handed ANOTHER reason to hate President Trump and this country..

    To the rest of the patriotic Americans, the collective question is SO??

    You LOST, Stig..

    And you LOST **AGAIN** with that bullshit Russia Collusion delusion...

    Get over it already.. President Trump is going to be YOUR President until Jan of 2024...

    Deal with it..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hehehehe

    Remember how ya'all were so excited during the Justice Kavanaugh hearings that someone would challenge Susan Collins for her Senate seat???

    'Queer feminist mermaid' Dem aims for Senate seat of Maine's Susan Collins
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-queer-feminist-mermaid-steps-forward-to-challenge-maines-susan-collins-for-her-senate-seat-in-2020

    I'll give you Democrats one thing..

    Ya'all sure now how to pick 'em... :D

    Heh

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sinking to Third World Status
    Why did the FBI and CIA spy on the Trump campaign?

    https://spectator.org/sinking-to-third-world-status/

    The world is about to learn the facts..

    And Democrats are running scared...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party

    The Pseudo-Impeachment
    Democrats hold show trials rather than vote to oust the President.

    House Democrats are escalating their campaign against the Trump Administration with complaints that its resistance to Congressional requests for documents is a threat to democracy. It’s more accurate to say that Democrats are performing what amounts to a pseudo-impeachment so they don’t have to undertake a real one.

    Democrats are agonizing over impeachment because while they’re itching to do it, special counsel Robert Mueller’s report blew up their Russian collusion hopes. He also took no position on obstruction of justice while reporting a highly critical “analysis” of President Trump’s actions. Democrats now find themselves caught between a left-wing base that says they’ll abdicate their duty if they don’t impeach and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s cold-blooded calculation that it could cost their majority in 2020.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pseudo-impeachment-11557271242

    The masters of the Kobyashi Maru...

    Always creating for themselves the LOSE-LOSE NO-WIN scenario..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The real offense against the Constitution here is by Democrats. Oversight of the executive branch is an important Congressional power, but the Supreme Court has said it should be related to Congress’s legislative function or constitutional duty. It can’t merely be a trawling exercise to see what nasty details they can find to score political points and discredit a President before the 2020 election.

    If Chairman Nadler wants to continue his Mueller fixation, he should announce that he is beginning formal impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a legitimate Congressional power, and at least the public would then understand what Congress is up to and could judge the effort. If Democrats really believe Mr. Trump is a threat to the Constitution, they should file articles of impeachment and have every Member vote on them.

    That’s the path of accountability. The current pseudo-impeachment is a fraud on the Constitution and the American public.

    Democrats are afraid to go the Constitutional route because they know they will lose and lose BIG TIME...

    Hence all the whining and crying and stamping their feet...

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (14)-
    Because "no" doesn't address the question which is why not?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump asserts executive privilege as House Judiciary Committee prepares to hold Barr in contempt

    The Justice Department told lawmakers Tuesday ahead of the panel's session that it would recommend that President Donald Trump assert executive privilege to the material the attorney general has declined to provide.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/justice-department-set-ask-executive-privilege-mueller-report-n1003146

    TRANSLATION: SUCK IT, DUMBOCRATS!!!

    :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrat committee voted to hold AG Barr in contempt because AG Barr won't violate the law to further the Dumbocrat HATE TRUMP/AMERICA agenda...

    The political ads against the Dumbocrats all but write themselves...

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Why did the FBI and CIA spy on the Trump campaign?

    The NSA and multiple intelligence agencies and our FVEY allies among others throughout the world are constantly monitoring Russian nationals and many others from multiple other countries... so much so that if you're meeting with Russians, you can consider yourself being monitored via multiple sources and methods. Our FVEY allies are just as happy to share their intercepts of SIGINT with as we are with them.

    Knowing as much as he did and being privy to the myriad of ways our IC collects data and monitors Russian nationals, Michael "Misha" Flynn and multiple others connected to the Trump campaign chose to interact with them anyway and were captured on multiple intercepts via our allies... who were happy to share those intercepts.

    The world is about to learn the facts..

    The world already knows many of the facts since it was indeed "the world" that came to us and presented their intercepts and collected information.

    And Democrats are running scared...

    You will know who is running scared by observing who is attempting to cover up counterintelligence investigation information. Hint: It's not Democrats. :)

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    21

    Because "no" doesn't address the question which is why not?

    It's kind of honking obvious to everyone with the exception of yourself that "why not" is the equivalent of or something similar to: If he was interested in doing so he would have already done it. "Not interested" isn't a hard concept to grasp. :)

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Not interested" isn't a hard concept to grasp. :)

    Unless you lack opposable mental thumbs. :(

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, it's good to see that the impeachment fight will be a good one.

    On the one hand are the Democrats. They're angry, and after Barr, the gloves have come off.

    On the other hand is Trump, and his crude vision of the Constitution. So his game is delay. Send it all to Court.

    But that doesn't shut down Congress. Nadler can still hold hearings. So what's Trump's NEXT move?

    Reichstag Fire? I seem to remember a conservative pundit named Fromme who suggested that we watch for such a thing.

    Either way, Trump's gonna get antsy. He can't restrain himself on Twitter. And Court cases take way to long.

    Should be interesting.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Anthony Neri
    Sanibel Police Department, Florida
    End of Watch: Monday, May 6, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it's good to see that the impeachment fight will be a good one.

    There IS no impeachment fight..

    Dumbocrats are too skeered to put forth impeachment..

    But that doesn't shut down Congress. Nadler can still hold hearings.

    And President Trump can still ignore them... In the interim, President Trump wins re-election by a landslide in 2020...

    Either way, Trump's gonna get antsy.

    Yea.. You have been saying that for 2+ years now..

    And you have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong...

    ***ALWAYS***

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump's betting on SCOTUS.

    You know what I can't wait for? The first time that Roberts jumps to the other side.

    That's gonna be spectacular.

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In the interim, President Trump wins re-election by a landslide in 2020...

    It's gonna take a lot of Russian help this time...

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There IS no impeachment fight..

    Keep thinking that.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know what I can't wait for? The first time that Roberts jumps to the other side.

    That's gonna be spectacular.

    Still delusional...

    Keep thinking that.

    Show me ONE impeachment hearing.. You can't because there are none..

    Democrats are too afraid..

    Even Pelosi said there is no impeachment..

    So, who should I believe??

    Her??

    Or your deluded fact-less fantasies???

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, how is that redact-less Mueller report fight coming, Blathy??

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  35. [35] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    For several years Trump lost more money that any other American. Doesn't that make him the "Biggest Looser"?

  36. [36] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    In a ten year period Trump lost over 1.2 Billion dollars, most of it was other peoples money. And we put him in charge of this nations finances? So far he is proving the wisdom of that move.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh, how is that redact-less Mueller report fight coming, Blathy?

    C'mon, we're still in the first round, and the White House has shot its wad. Nothing?

    Okay, we'll use the courts. It'll take longer, maybe up to the election. Then, who knows?

    And meanwhile, lots of hearings on topics you're not fond of.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a ten year period Trump lost over 1.2 Billion dollars, most of it was other peoples money. And we put him in charge of this nations finances? So far he is proving the wisdom of that move.

    And yet, the economy is exploding and unemployment is the lowest it's been in DECADES..

    So, yea.. The wisdom of the move is self evident..

    Except to those who can't get past their hatred of Trump and America..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, we'll use the courts. It'll take longer, maybe up to the election. Then, who knows?

    Ya know what yer so stoopid??

    It's the frakin' DEMOCRATS who created the law about Grand Jury secrecy!!!

    Let me lay it out so even a dullard as yourself can understand..

    Nadler and the other morons will NEVER see the un-redacted Mueller report..

    NEVER...

    YOU LOST.... That is the only fact that matters..

    You LOST and, as in the 2016 election, you simply can't accept that you LOST...

    Come Nov of 2020 when President Trump and patriotic Americans celebrate a landslide re-election, you'll still be prattling and yammering on and on about Russia Collusion and other fanciful delusions...

    Don't worry.. I'll still be here to laugh and point fingers and say I TOLD YA SO.. Just like I did in Nov of 2016... :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    For several years Trump lost more money that any other American. Doesn't that make him the "Biggest Looser"?

    OH MY GODS!!!!

    Trump lost some money in business ventures.. Just like every other business man in the HISTORY of business men...

    So, let Democrats run a person who has NEVER lost money in a business venture...

    Ya think ya can find one!???

    :eyeroll: Jeezus, I am surrounded by delusional morons in here..

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Nadler and the other morons will NEVER see the un-redacted Mueller report..

    What? Now looks who's delusional. Of Course the democrats will see it, it's just a matter of when.

    Trump's got all of his fingers in the dike. What gives first?

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump lost some money in business ventures.. Just like every other business man

    ..an average of 100 million dollars per year for ten years. You couldn't burn it that fast.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..an average of 100 million dollars per year for ten years. You couldn't burn it that fast.

    If I had hundreds and thousands of assets all over the world, of course I would.. ANYONE would..

    You see, this is EXACTLY your problem..

    You are so blinded by hatred and intolerance that every little nit pick rises to the level of earth shattering catastrophe..

    That is exactly why ya'all have no credibility.. You have absolutely NO CONCEPT of choosing your battles and emphasizing the really bad stuff..

    To you and your fellow hysterical nimrods, EVERYTHING is earth shatteringly bad..

    What? Now looks who's delusional. Of Course the democrats will see it, it's just a matter of when.

    Yea, you keep saying that.. Just like you kept saying that President Trump would be frog-marched from the oval office in handcuffs..

    You have ALWAYS been wrong..

    Grand Jury testimony is SECRET.. It CANNOT be revealed except under the most extraordinary of conditions, such as an impeachment hearing..

    Let Dumbocrats start impeachment. THEN they can see it..

    But Dumbocrats won't do that because they KNOW how much it will elevate President Trump..

    But let me ask you something..

    What do you think that 2% of the redacted information will show you??

    Do you HONESTLY believe that it will change Mueller's assessment that there was absolutely NO FACTS to support Russia Collusion??

    Do you HONESTLY believe that??

    Of course you do.. Hence, delusion...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are like the slavers in Slavers Bay and the Sons Of The Harpys on the ground in Meereen..

    And the dragons are coming.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are like the slavers in Slavers Bay

    Which is rather apropos since the Democrat Party gave us the KKK and Jim Crow and slavery...

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Do you HONESTLY believe that it will change Mueller's assessment that there was absolutely NO FACTS to support Russia Collusion?

    We'd kind of like Mueller to say that.

    Whew! talk about party slavery.

    Grand Jury info can be released, and that's coming too.

    Relax. It'll all get out.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not interested is not a hard concept to grasp.

    But why not is not in any sense the equivalent of no or not interested.

    First, one is a question and the other is not.

    And no and not interested do not in any way address the point of the question- why would CW say no or not interested?

    But since you can't even make the relatively easy distinction between why not and no/not interested it is doubtful you will be able to grasp this simple concept either.

    I'm sure that many slaveholders were not interested in ending slavery and many men were not interested in allowing women to vote, but that didn't stop people from keeping at it even when they got no for an answer.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    We'd kind of like Mueller to say that.

    Yes, I know ya'all want Mueller to change what he said.. The problem is ya'all are so delusional you that you confuse what you WANT with that the reality is..

    Grand Jury info can be released, and that's coming too.

    Yea.. We know.. You ALWAYS keep saying "it's coming"...

    And you are **ALWAYS** wrong...

    Relax. It'll all get out.

    As far as Russia Collusion delusion?? Yea. it IS all out.. You lost..

    As far as Odumbo and his minions spying on the Trump campaign...

    Yer right..

    It WILL all get out.. And being a Democrat will be like being a leper... :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Come Nov of 2020 when President Trump and patriotic Americans celebrate a landslide re-election, you'll still be prattling and yammering on and on about Russia Collusion and other fanciful delusions...

    It's "prattling on and on" you mimicking dolt.

    Don't worry.. I'll still be here to laugh and point fingers and say I TOLD YA SO.. Just like I did in Nov of 2016... :D

    Yes, you are the only person on the board clinging to the election while whining incessantly that everyone else can't get over it; self-awareness isn't exactly your strong suit. You should allow yourself to get over it; there was an election and a 50/50 chance of calling it correctly, and now you can't go two comment boxes without bragging about how you can go potty all by yourself. It's hysterical to watch. You've literally got nothing else except your training potty full of the same stench, different day. :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    The New York State Senate just passed Senator Brad Hoylman's bill to provide state tax information to requesting Congressional committees.

    Start spreading the news,
    I'm leaving today
    I want to be a part of it
    New York, New York. ;)

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    46

    Grand Jury info can be released, and that's coming too.

    It's not even that hard to have it released either; Barr is just refusing to allow it, and the liars in the GOP are telling the sheeple it's impossible. It's Watergate all over again. Don't these morons ever learn from history?

    Relax. It'll all get out.

    Appendix D. :)

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals Were Very Wrong About Tax Cuts. Again.

    Contra the Chicken Littles, tax relief has once again spurred economic growth.

    For those of you who survived the Great GOP Tax Cut Massacre, things are finally looking up. The unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent last month, the lowest level since 1969. We’ve now experienced over a full year of unemployment at 4 percent or lower. The economy beat projections, adding another 263,000 jobs in April. Wages are rising.

    It was Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary and Barack Obama’s White House economic adviser, who warned that tax reform would lead to over 10,000 dead Americans every year in December of 2017. Summers, considered a reasonable moderate by today’s political standards, was just one of the many fearmongers.

    The same month, after cautioning that passage of tax cuts would portend “Armageddon,” then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi explained that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), a reform of corporate tax codes and a wide-ranging relief, was “the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress.” Worse than the Fugitive Slave Act? Worse than the Espionage Act? Worse than congressional approval of the internment of Japanese Americans? That’s a really bad bill.

    The tenor of left-wing cable news and punditry was predictably panic-stricken. After asserting that the cuts wouldn’t help create a single job, Bruce Bartlett told MSNBC that tax relief was “really akin to rape.” Kurt Eichenwald tweeted that “America died tonight … Millenials [sic]: move away if you can. USA is over. We killed it.” “I’m a Depression historian,” read the headline on a Washington Post op-ed. “The GOP tax bill is straight out of 1929,” proclaimed the same writer. And so on.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/03/as-usual-liberals-were-very-wrong-about-tax-cuts/

    What *IS* it about Dumbocrats that they are **ALWAYS** wrong?? :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Blathy,

    Grand Jury info can be released, and that's coming too.

    Can you cite me any precedence where Grand Jury information was released to Congress??

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats' Plan to Destroy the Jobs Boom

    If you're looking for work, this is the best job market in 50 years. The economy is soaring.

    But Democrats running for president are pitching plans that will destroy millions of jobs, doubling the number of people out of work.

    Consider "Medicare for All." It could wipe out a staggering 2.5 million health insurance and health care jobs nationwide, causing the number of unemployed people in this country to jump by almost half.

    New research by Stanford University doctors in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that Medicare for All will cause hospitals to lose a whopping $151 billion in payments the first year. Hospitals will be forced to eliminate as many as 1.5 million jobs overnight.

    Meanwhile, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who's sponsoring Medicare for All legislation in the House, admits it will cause 1 million insurance employees to get canned. She cavalierly suggests they can retire or get job retraining. Tell heartless Jayapal to do that herself.

    Presidential aspirant Bernie Sanders brags Medicare for All will prevent Americans from having to choose between food on the table and medicine. Sorry, Bernie, but if your job is eliminated, putting food on your table will be impossible.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/08/democrats_plan_to_destroy_the_jobs_boom_140272.html

    Democrat Party = The Job Killing Party

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    47

    But why not is not in any sense the equivalent of no or not interested.

    Are you seriously this honking stupid? You seem to have completely misinterpreted what I wrote, which is not altogether hard to understand considering the lack of education you demonstrate in your lengthy yet anemic bio. The gist of what I said is that I believe the answer to "why not" is quite obvious and probably the equivalent or similar to "not interested"... you know... because someone that was genuinely interested would obviously show some interest.

    And no and not interested do not in any way address the point of the question- why would CW say no or not interested?

    Asked and answered already... and every day no interest was shown and every day it was ignored and unanswered.

    But since you can't even make the relatively easy distinction between why not and no/not interested it is doubtful you will be able to grasp this simple concept either.

    You know how I keep encouraging you to go to college and get an education? Forget all that; you clearly have reading comprehension problems and would be one of those fools who'd blame the instructors for not being able to "dumb things down" enough for you to grasp the most basic of simple concepts.

    I'm sure that many slaveholders were not interested in ending slavery and many men were not interested in allowing women to vote, but that didn't stop people from keeping at it even when they got no for an answer.

    You're seriously portraying yourself and your endless effing trolling of this forum in search of free advertising for your failed political venture wherein voters are actually encouraged to self-disenfranchise and comparing it to the suffragists' fight to secure voting rights and the tearing apart of this nation that occurred for the emancipation of colored persons from being bartered and sold as human chattel?

    Spew alert. And with that nugget there, you have demonstrated your delusion so much better than I ever could. :)

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Donald Trump, Jr. has been subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Those damn Democrats! *laughs*

    It seems Junior lied. I hate when that happens. :)

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    In addition to today's news (YAY House Judiciary Committee - well done!):

    NEW: The FBI will hold a classified briefing with members of the Florida congressional delegation next week about suspected Russian hacking during the 2016 election, following revelations that Russians hacked into a statewide voter registration database.

    Say it with me everyone: HRC lost coz she didn't go to Wisconsin one last time...NOT because of Russian interference, hacking, voter suppression, Comey's press conference... That, at least, is what a lot of people with various axes to grind want to cement as conventional wisdom.

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Damn you're stupid.

    I did not misinterpret anything. You may not have wrote what you meant to say, but what you wrote is what I responded to.

    Just because you say not interested is an answer doesn't mean that it is.

    It does not address why CW is not interested.

    But you are not interested in making rational arguments- just being an asshole.

    And yes, I am in the sense that I believe I am right and am not giving up, I do equate myself with those that opposed slavery and worked to get women the right to vote.

    And I am equating you with the slaveholders and those that opposed women voting.

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    . That, at least, is what a lot of people with various axes to grind want to cement as conventional wisdom.

    I am completely with you on that score, Paula.

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Can you cite me any precedence where Grand Jury information was released to Congress?

    Sure. Every time they've asked for it. I couldn't find any exceptions.

    See: Watergate, Iran-contra, Clinton Scandal, etc.

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it seems to be the pattern of the trump white house: hide everything, regardless of whether or not there's actually anything to hide. act guilty even when you're innocent. sheesh.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    40

    Trump lost some money in business ventures.. Just like every other business man in the HISTORY of business men...

    When you are to the point where you're writing into comment boxes explaining how every businessman in the history of business has lost billions just like Your Orange Worship, then thank you for the written confirmation that you've bought "all in" to the Trump con.

    Oh, sure... a $1.1 billion dollar loss in a decade happens all the time to small businessmen; that's exactly how they know they're so great at it. It's totally normal for every "successful" billion dollar plus loser to acquire/start a business enterprise, obtain bank financing, pull in investors/bondholders with promises you don't intend to keep, contract vendors to perform work for you with no intention of paying them, then squeeze the money out of the business, don't pay your investors/vendors/employees, and walk away with the cash... then lather, rinse, repeat.

    Sure... that's perfectly normal business behavior... when you're a con... when you're a fraud. Donald Trump is the ultimate con artist; it's what he does. Then when you can no longer con American banks/investors out of their money, you set up Trump University and con Joe Citizen out of his hard-earned cash and get him to run up credit cards bills via your real estate course scam, and you welcome those Russian investors looking to launder their money through your real estate ventures except you're not exactly a builder anymore... you just sell your brand and launder other people's money.

    So, let Democrats run a person who has NEVER lost money in a business venture...

    Ya think ya can find one!???

    Not a problem, actually, there are millions of people who have never lost money in a business venture and even more multimillions that aren't con artists. But, hey, whatever the Trump sycophants have to tell themselves to delude themselves to make it through their day.

    :eyeroll: Jeezus, I am surrounded by delusional morons in here..

    Everyone already knows that Shithole is full of delusional morons, and I got bad news for you: Everywhere you go, you're still going to be surrounded by yourself. :D

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    58

    Damn you're stupid.

    You just keep telling yourself that, m'kay? Keep reminding yourself how everyone else has a problem because they can't see the brilliantness of your "idea" and it's everybody else's problem for not flocking to your side and devoting columns all across the Internet to Don Harris. Just keep trolling the forum and reminding yourself how it's everybody else's problem for not seeing your wonderfulness and devoting multiple columns to advertising for your "idea" that is so great that no one but you can see it. Hell, how smart can Ralph Nader really be if he's not singing the praises of Don Harris after being given ample opportunity to do so?

    I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system. ~ Don Harris

    Hey, just one more properly worded comment to CW or Ralph Nader. Then they'll all come around!

    It does not address why CW is not interested.

    Perhaps he simply read your bio and stopped right there. That bio of yours combined with your daily trolling comments are very convincing, you know. In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually read any of your handiwork who isn't thoroughly and completely sold on your admitted ignorance.

    But you are not interested in making rational arguments- just being an asshole.

    How does one have a "rational argument" with an admitted moron with the bio to prove it? You admittedly lack the ability to have a "rational argument," any whenever multiple commenters on this board have tried repeatedly, they are dismissed by you and simply informed how stupid they are and how they can't see the greatness of Don Harris... which your bio combined with your repetitive trolling for free advertisement makes abundantly clear does not exist.

    And yes, I am in the sense that I believe I am right and am not giving up, I do equate myself with those that opposed slavery and worked to get women the right to vote.

    You equate yourself with those that opposed slavery, yet it is you who states repeatedly that a journalist has an obligation to shill for you and that you're going to troll his forum repeatedly and curse him on a regular basis until he does his "job" for you for free.

    You also equate yourself with those who worked to get women the right to vote, yet your failed political venture is the ultimate exercise in encouraging both men and women to self-disenfranchise in the vast majority of states in America.

    And I am equating you with the slaveholders and those that opposed women voting.

    The ridiculous notion that an author owes anyone free advertisement and a slogan that contains the words "lose our votes" isn't exactly my "thing," but you might recognize those because they are indeed yours.

    As for me personally: I expect no one to perform their "job" for me for free, and I damn sure urge every eligible citizen to vote at every chance I get, and I even go so far as to encourage them to tell anyone like yourself who would endeavor to disenfranchise them in any way whatsoever to sod off and go fuck themselves. :)

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula|Balthasar

    That, at least, is what a lot of people with various axes to grind want to cement as conventional wisdom.

    The data they hacked and exchanged and attempted to manipulate gets worse from here.

    I am completely with you on that score, Paula.

    Me three. :)

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    See: Watergate, Iran-contra, Clinton Scandal, etc.

    Watergate?? Clinton?? yea.. That was impeachment.

    Nothing with Iran Contra.. yer full of shit..

    So, ALL Nadler and your Dumbocrats have to do is proceed with impeachment and they can see the full un-redacted Mueller report..

    Why don't they impeach??

    Because they know it will HELP President Trump..

    Once again.. You lose :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    it seems to be the pattern of the trump white house: hide everything, regardless of whether or not there's actually anything to hide. act guilty even when you're innocent. sheesh.

    And watch Democrats chase their tails and whine and wail hysterically and do nothing about actually governing..

    Yep, Democrats are dancing to President Trump's tune..

    :D

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    61

    it seems to be the pattern of the trump white house: hide everything, regardless of whether or not there's actually anything to hide. act guilty even when you're innocent. sheesh.

    There's plenty to hide. The "we never met with any Russians" goalposts have been moved all the way down to the end of the field, and there's nowhere else to move them. So they're down to stalling and more obstruction of justice, and it will do them no good in the long run. :)

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (63)-
    Asshole.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    68

    Yes, Don... I've already agreed you're an asshole, and I would wager I'm not alone in that assessment. You being a demonstrable and admitted "asshole" is yet another very good answer to your question of "why not":

    Q: Why not?
    A. You're an "asshole." :D

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    [59] Balthasar, [64]Kick: Thanks!

Comments for this article are closed.