ChrisWeigant.com

Debate Draw Will Be Crucial

[ Posted Thursday, May 16th, 2019 – 16:59 UTC ]

So it finally looks like the Democratic 2020 presidential field is set -- at a whopping 24 candidates -- with the addition (today) of Bill de Blasio and (a few days ago) Steve Bullock. Well, I should say that the field is hopefully set at least up until September, when Stacey Abrams has said she'll make up her mind about a presidential bid. But it's probably not going to change any further before the first round of debates happens. Which all means who gets on which debate stage is going to become pretty crucial.

The Democratic National Committee is running the debates, so they get to set the rules. They have been bending over backward to avoid the appearance of favoritism (after what happened last time), so they have set the entry criteria for the first two debates awfully low. This means that almost everyone running may qualify on at least one of the two main criteria -- raising a certain number of donations from a wide variety of states and donors, or hitting at least one percent support in three accepted national polls. This is lax enough that almost everyone will clear at least one of those hurdles, with the possible exception of those candidates who are either running vanity campaigns or those who jumped in too late to raise enough donations or register in the polls in time to qualify. Still, there's a good chance that at least a few candidates will have to be cut, since the D.N.C. has limited participation to the top 20 candidates.

Each of the first two debates will take place over two nights, with 10 candidates on the stage at once. To avoid the mistake made last time by the Republicans, Democrats will not separate the two debates by who is leading at the polls (leading to a secondary "undercard" or "kiddie-table debate," which few people watched), but rather by random selection. These draws are going to be pretty important, to both the minor candidates hoping to make a name for themselves and for the major candidates as well.

It's going to be tough for the D.N.C. to resist the temptation to assign at least the top two candidates with (shall we say) less than truly random selection. But then again, either way it works out could be advantageous, so perhaps this won't be an issue. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are so far out in front of the rest of the pack that at least the first debate may be defined by which night they both draw. If they are both on stage together, then the other night may wind up being a sort of de facto "kiddie-table debate" anyway (this will also depend on where the other top five or six candidates land, to a lesser extent). However, if Bernie and Joe draw different nights, then we won't get a chance to see them directly take each other on. So you could make a case for either scenario being better, for the quality of the debate itself as well as for the entertainment factor to draw in a bigger viewing audience.

Personally I'm not a big fan of talking about the primary race in terms of "lanes," since that didn't really work out as planned last time around, for the large Republican field. As it turned out in 2016, there were really only two such GOP lanes -- Donald Trump, and whichever candidate was closest to him in the polls. So far, that's how the Democratic race has played out, but then again it is still very early in the contest. Joe Biden is still enjoying the huge bump in the polls he got after his announcement, and Bernie Sanders has been the only other candidate who has broken the 20 percent barrier, so at this point it really shakes out as: Joe, then Bernie, then everyone else.

Of course, all the other candidates are hoping to change that dynamic in the first debates. They're all looking for that magic "breakout moment" where they shine so brightly that the voters all take note and the polling shifts as a direct result. But there are really only two ways they will be able to do this -- by either taking the fight directly (and impressively) to Donald Trump himself, or by taking on one or both of the current frontrunners and showing them up in some way.

Biden, so far, has used the "take Trump on directly" strategy the best. Due to his lead, he has the luxury of essentially ignoring the rest of the Democrats and making the case that the race is only about who is the best person to defeat Trump next November. So any other Democratic candidate who tries to co-opt Biden's strategy will wind up being in direct competition with Biden -- whether the two are on the same debate stage or not. "I have a better chance of beating Trump and here's how I will do it" will be the essence of their argument, and it'll be held up in contrast to Biden's similar claim.

Other candidates looking to have a big moment and rise in the polls might instead decide to make the case that they are a better choice than either Bernie or Joe to win the primaries. This tactic will differ depending on who is being targeted, though. If a Democrat makes the case that they can appeal to more undecided voters (especially in the Midwestern states Trump won last time) and that they are therefore more "electable," then they'll be directly taking on Joe Biden. If, on the other hand, a Democratic candidate makes the case that they are the most progressive candidate and have the smartest and most effective plans to effect real and lasting change and that because of this they will excite the base so much that increased voter turnout will win the day, then they will be challenging Bernie Sanders.

Of course, the debates will likely be more lively if the challengers match up with the frontrunner they are targeting. Again, there may be temptation at the D.N.C. to arrange the groups to assure such an outcome. If things weren't random, and I was given the task of deciding who would appear on which night, I would probably divide things up to match similar candidates with a frontrunner. On the first night, I might have Bernie Sanders together with candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, Jay Inslee, Kamala Harris, and Andrew Yang. The debate would likely focus on who was more progressive than whom, obviously. On the second night, I would line up Joe Biden against Amy Klobuchar, John Hickenlooper, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, and Steve Bullock. This debate would center on who could claim to be more "electable," and why.

The lineups will probably not be this neatly divided, however. This means that some progressive candidates will be on stage with Biden and some others vying for the "electability" prize, and vice versa on the other night with Sanders. Or it could wind up with both Biden and Sanders duking it out on the same night, which might take the pressure off candidates appearing on the other night a bit, as they'd only be competing with other low-polling Democrats.

No matter how things work out, the draw is going to determine the flavor of both nights of debate. This early on, voters who are interested enough to watch will likely watch both nights, to see the entirety of the Democratic field. Later on, it will be harder to get people to watch if their own favorite candidate isn't on stage, but at this point there's still enough curiosity about who is running that this likely won't be an issue. Nobody (outside Iowa or New Hampshire, that is) has likely seen all these candidates speak, at this point, so that should be interesting enough to draw the viewers in.

Of course, at some point, the D.N.C. is going to have to start tightening up the criteria for who is invited. This enormous field must be winnowed, and who gets in the debates is going to have a large impact on the culling. If a candidate is shut out from multiple debates in a row, then their campaign will likely soon end after that (whether they admit it and formally drop out or not). Sooner or later, the D.N.C. is going to have to shrink the field enough so they can all appear on one stage on one night, too. This will be the most brutal cut of the field, most likely. After all, why would anyone support or donate money to a candidate who isn't even popular enough to make the debates?

But that's all in the future. For now, we've got the two-night format, with a random draw determining who will have to face whom. This could lead to two successive exciting debate nights, or it could lead to one debate obviously being more lively than the other. No matter which candidate you now favor, the candidates they will be debating may become crucial. You can either hope that they'll draw similar candidates (whether progressive or "electable") so that your candidate has the chance to stand out from the pack, or you might hope that they face dissimilar opponents so that they have a clearer field to make the case that their strategy is the better way to win. Like most voters interested at such an early stage, I'll be watching both nights to see the fur fly. And I'll be very interested to see the two lineups, after the draw is announced.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

50 Comments on “Debate Draw Will Be Crucial”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think they should alternate candidates based on polling - i.e. the #1, #4, #5, #8, etc on one night and #2, #3, #6, #7, etc on the other night.

    After two such iterations they should pare down the numbers to 8 per night using the alternate process, then all 12 top polling on one night.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's all easy to predict..

    A circular firing squad
    -Barack Odumbo

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, the FACTS definitely indicate that Dumbocrats should concede 2020 and concentrate on 2024....

    But since when have Dumbocrats EVER paid attention to FACTS...

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I think that for the first debates all the candidates should be put in waterproof booths and every time they spout the party line bullshit more water is added.

    This will either eliminate the party line bullshit or the candidates spouting it.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Governor Jay Inslee is my pick for MIDOTW award, for what it's worth ...

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The debates should pretty much clear the field, I should think ...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The debates should pretty much clear the field, I should think ...

    The debates didn't last time..

    It took the efforts of the DNC to clear the field..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller Testimony to Congress Stalled by Executive-Privilege Claim
    Legal questions could limit special counsel from commenting on matters beyond redacted version of his report

    wsj.com/articles/mueller-testimony-to-congress-stalled-by-executive-privilege-claim-11558041535

    Looks like Dumbocrats AREN'T going to get their requested do over!! :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama spymasters point fingers amid Russia probe review: ‘Throwing each other under the bus’

    The launch of a formal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation -- being led by one of the Justice Department’s toughest prosecutors -- has touched off a new round of behind-the-scenes finger-pointing among Obama administration officials who could have some explaining to do about efforts to surveil the Trump campaign.

    A key dispute that flared this week concerns whether then-FBI Director James Comey or then-CIA Director John Brennan -- or both of them -- pushed the unverified Steele dossier containing claims about President Trump and his relationship to Russia. The dossier’s more sensational claims were never substantiated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team.

    DISPUTE ERUPTS OVER WHETHER BRENNAN, COMEY PUSHED STEELE DOSSIER

    “Amazing—James Comey says that in 2016, John Brennan insisted on including the dossier in their IC assessment. But Brennan says: no no, COMEY wanted to use the dossier,” North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, a Republican who has long demanded answers about the origins of the probe, tweeted Thursday in reference to a prior Fox News report.

    Meadows added: “They know the truth is coming. And now they're all throwing each other under the bus.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-spymasters-point-fingers-amid-russia-probe-review-throwing-each-other-under-the-bus

    Heh

    The rats are leaving the sinking ship and hanging each other out to dry... :D

    This is going to be a LOT of fun!!

    Buy popcorn futures.. You'll be rich!! :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hannity: 'Deep State' officials running scared 'and they are now turning on each other'

    On a recent episode of the Yahoo News podcast "Skullduggery," FBI general counsel James Baker said he and others were so concerned about Comey briefing Trump on Jan. 6, 2017 on Russia's interference in the election as well as the controversial Steele Dossier that "analogies" were made to J. Edgar Hoover, the former FBI director who famously abused his power to blackmail individuals.

    "The information came in and there was a lot of detail with respect to a lot of different types of activities that were allegedly going on," Baker said. "And so, I guess the way I have phrased it, we took it seriously, we didn't necessarily take it literally, that it was literally true in every respect. But it was something that we were obligated to deal with and obligated to assess, given what we understood, what I understood to be the source of the information, Christopher Steele at that point in time. We were obligated to take it seriously and look at it, try to figure out whether it was true or not."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hannity-deep-state-running-scared-i-warned-comey

    Get that??

    The FBI's own general counsel compares Comey to J Edgar Hoover...

    The rats are going down!! :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Didn't you say something about women are keeping their abortions secret??

    Alyssa Milano to share ‘personal abortion’ stories of social media followers on new podcast ‘Sorry Not Sorry’
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alyssa-milano-to-share-personal-abortion-stories-of-social-media-followers-on-new-podcast-sorry-not-sorry

    Apparently, you are not aware of the trend Dumbocrats have of shouting about and bragging about their abortions..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    KLAVAN: The Narrative Descends Into Crisis As America Does Fine

    The disparity between the news and reality has become so great that it is news in itself. You only have to turn on the TV or pick up whatever you use for a newspaper to find out that America is in a crisis, and you only have to turn the TV off or put the newspaper down to bring that crisis to an end. American journalists and Democrats — but I repeat myself — are now engaged in creating a fantasy world in hopes it will supplant the reality they can no longer bear.

    I suppose this transformation of journalism into imaginative fiction was bound to happen sooner or later. All the elements were in place. One party — the Democrats — controls both the news industry and the entertainment industry. The same party is convinced that human nature, moral truth and reality itself can be transformed by transforming the stories we tell about them. And for eight years, that party and its media tried to prove that point by telling us a story about Barack Obama. He wasn’t a Chicago machine hack who knew jack-all about how foreign policy and the economy work. No, he was, in fact, the “next messiah,” a “light-worker,” “above the country, above the world… sort of God,” in the words of various journos.

    But now, reality, as is it's wont, is reasserting itself. And in reality, we find that even mean, nasty, very bad Orange Man Donald Trump can do a better job of being president than Obama ever could.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/47031/klavan-narrative-descends-crisis-america-does-fine-andrew-klavan

    As with the Global Warming hysteria, Democrats are finding out that FACTS and REALITY won't cooperate with the Democrats' hysterical fear-mongering THE SKY IS FALLING agenda..

    Life is good and America is awesome again.. :D

    Thank you, President Trump!! :D

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    What is the purpose of these debates? Are they popularity contests? Are they intended to set party policies? Are they free (for-all) advertising? I don't think they accomplish any of the above very well. (I'm being nice here).

    Televised Presidential debates have devolved into something that is uncannily similar to the Upper Class Twit of the Year Competition. Entertaining at best, frighteningly random at worst. To semi-paraphrase a commercial eatery - No rules - Just Wrong.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxSM5y7Pfs

    Every four years, I bring up the notion of structuring the debates with a seeded bracket system, like basketball or tennis tournaments. I'm not about to set up a web page plugging this idea, or flooding the comments section with long, repetitious rants - but with a starting field of two dozen candidates becoming routine for the party-out-of power, a bracket system seems increasingly plausible and attractive. Give the Major Parties something useful to do when they don't have an Incumbent in the WH.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    NANCY? Pelosi unsure of day, who she’s speaking to — ends with awkward brain freeze
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nancy-pelosi-unsure-of-day-who-shes-speaking-to-ends-with-awkward-brain-freeze/

    Yea.. Pelosi has got it all together.. :eyeroll:

    She just keeps forgetting where she puts it...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Study: Many Democrats Exaggerated Mental Distress After 2016 Election
    https://www.studyfinds.org/many-democrats-exaggerated-mental-distress-after-2016-election/

    So, basically, Dumbocrats were full of kaa-kaa..

    Shocking.. Positively shocking.. :^/

  16. [16] 
    John M wrote:

    [3] Michale

    "Once again, the FACTS definitely indicate that Dumbocrats should concede 2020 and concentrate on 2024....

    But since when have Dumbocrats EVER paid attention to FACTS..."

    Actually, the Repukes should just concede 2020 and 2024 and concentrate on picking up the pieces in 2028 after the bad taste memory of Deranged Donald starts to fade away.

    But then, when have Repukes ever paid any attention to REALITY.

  17. [17] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale

    "CULTURE WAR 2020: Alabama governor signs abortion ban...
    Missouri Senate passes...
    Louisiana next...
    More states coming.."

    New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont have all advanced bills through at least one chamber of their legislature so far to protect abortion rights. More states coming...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont have all advanced bills through at least one chamber of their legislature so far to protect abortion rights. More states coming...

    Yes, baby killing zealots are pushing their murderous agenda that allows babies to be killed even after birth..

    But, seriously..

    Is that something you REALLY want to brag about?? Really???

    Irregardless, it will all be moot when the SCOTUS rules that infanticide is against the US Constitution..

    So, keep dreaming that states will be able to protect infanticide rights....

    It's not going to happen..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Men are afraid to mentor women after #MeToo and it hurts us all: study
    https://nypost.com/2019/05/17/men-are-afraid-to-mentor-women-after-metoo-and-it-hurts-us-all-study/

    Congrats Dumbocrats.. Ya'all just scrooed yerselves..

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah, the Republicants want us to think that it's all peaches and cream under Trump. Look at the numbers!

    Yes, let's look at the numbers:

    https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fchuckjones%2Ffiles%2F2019%2F02%2FTRUMP-EMPLOYMENT-DATA-THROUGH-DECEMBER-2018-JOEL-SHORE-GRAPH.jpg

    Here's on from Forbes, which shows the fact that Trump's numbers are just more of Obama's recovery.

    Oops. Maybe these facts lie. Or maybe our Republicant thinkers aren't seeing (or talking) straight.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's on from Forbes, which shows the fact that Trump's numbers are just more of Obama's recovery.

    Whatever you have to tell yerself to make it thru your day..

    But the FACT is, yer ODUMBO denied that such a recovery was even POSSIBLE..

    Odumbo said those jobs were not coming back..

    Odumbo said that manufacturing growth was GONE..

    Odumbo DENIED it was even POSSIBLE and now you want to give him CREDIT for it!!???

    BBBBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

    I won't even BOTHER pointing out that it was YOU PEOPLE who ALSO claimed that such a recovery wasn't possible under President Trump..

    YOU people claimed that a President Trump would "destroy" and "decimate" the US economy..

    Now that YOU PEOPLE have been proven COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ***WRONG***.... NOW ya'all want to TAKE CREDIT for it!!???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    No matter HOW you want to spin it, Blathy..

    You lost... Get over it

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But the FACT is, yer ODUMBO denied that such a recovery was even POSSIBLE..
    Odumbo said those jobs were not coming back..
    Odumbo said that manufacturing growth was GONE..
    Odumbo DENIED it was even POSSIBLE

    Don't know where that bullshit comes from, but the numbers speak for themselves. Maybe you're talking about mining jobs, which have declined since Trump took office. Sorry..

    If I recall, Trump had the dark vision. Now it's all sunny and light. Couldn't be because He's in power now, could it?

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    YOU people claimed that a President Trump would "destroy" and "decimate" the US economy..

    Economies move very slowly. Trump has indeed done many things that will hurt the economy in the long run. Right now, farmers are beginning to feel the Trump tariffs..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't know where that bullshit comes from,

    Are you denying that Odumbo said that those jobs weren't coming back??

    Because the FACTS say otherwise..

    Economies move very slowly. Trump has indeed done many things that will hurt the economy in the long run.

    But you didn't SAY "the long run" did you??

    You said that Trump would destroy this country.. You didn't say "Oh, but it might take a while.."

    You see your problem?? You were WRONG about everything and you can't admit it..

    That's why you will always lose and I will always win..

    Because you can't admit when you are wrong..

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How many kids died in US custody today?

  26. [26] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Are you denying that Odumbo said that those jobs weren't coming back?

    Obama said that SOME jobs weren't coming back, and damned if he wasn't right.

    But you didn't SAY "the long run" did you?

    Suddenly picky?

    You didn't say "Oh, but it might take a while.."

    Several economists said that. Guess you have to be spoon fed.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama said that SOME jobs weren't coming back, and damned if he wasn't right.

    No, he didn't.. He said "Those jobs are not coming back"...

    Once again, you have to spew bullshit because you can't handle the FACTS..

    Several economists said that. Guess you have to be spoon fed.

    But YOU didn't. NO ONE here said it.. Ya'all said that Trump would destroy the economy and you were WRONG..

    But you can't admit you were wrong..

    And THAT is why you are nothing but a Party slave.. A zealot who can't admit to ANY error..

    And THAT is why I will always win.. :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many kids died in US custody today?

    How many babies did Democrats kill today??

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    He said "Those jobs are not coming back"

    I guess I fail to see a distinction. What I do know is that Trump has tried and failed to save coal mining, and now the steel industry. It seems that some jobs are just gonna go.

    Ya'all said that Trump would destroy the economy

    C'mon, it's only been two years. Give him time.

    you can't admit you were wrong

    Sounds familiar.

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How many babies did Democrats kill today?

    None.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess I fail to see a distinction.

    Key word being "FAILED"...

    You have always failed in your predictions of Trump's demise..

    C'mon, it's only been two years. Give him time.

    Yea, you said the same thing about your Russia Collusion delusion..

    "Give it time, the facts will come out"

    The facts came out and you were WRONG...

    Sounds familiar.

    Yes it does.. With the exception of me and CRS and JL, NO ONE here can admit they are wrong..

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Key word being "FAILED"

    Nope. Key word being "distinction". There is no distinction between saying that some business are gonna go and saying that some businesses are gonna fail. Same difference, to anyone working there.

    The facts came out

    No, they didn't. In fact they were mangled so badly, that it will take time to un-mangle them.
    Luckily, Trump has a way of always making things worse.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, they didn't.

    Yes, they did.. Even JL conceded the facts..

    You can't admit you were wrong, so you ignore the facts..

    NO ONE here could admit they were wrong about Russia Collusion..

    No one except JL...

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    JL conceded the facts..

    Good for him. I don't.

    There's still a lot left on the table, and all of Trump's machinations won't stop it. It now appears, for example, that Mueller didn't do a counter-intel look at Trump at all! Was it secret, or was it killed?

    Lots of questions left. Eventually we'll get answers.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    34

    It now appears, for example, that Mueller didn't do a counter-intel look at Trump at all! Was it secret, or was it killed?

    It wasn't Mueller's mandate. There were officers on the inside doing that.

    Lots of questions left. Eventually we'll get answers.

    I got something for you. No longer under seal is the latest OSC filing where they have kindly removed a lot of those redactions contained in Mueller's Report.

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6007289/Notice-Other.pdf

    First there was Judge Jackson requesting the unredacted pages regarding Roger Stone and now this. Give these prosecutors some time, and they'll release the majority of the unredacted report via the Judicial Branch... and not by accident either.

    The answer to when we'd finally hear from Michael "Misha" Flynn is "now." For the life of me, I still cannot fathom why Flynn would cavort around with Russians so frequently and blatantly when he was in a unique position to know what type surveillance is performed routinely.

    And today we've got the Moron-In-Chief tweeting out to the rubes regarding how Flynn must have been under investigation and no one told Trump. *laughs* Like I said, I cannot fathom how stupid a person has to be to fail to grasp the simple concept that repeated contacts with representatives of Russia who are routinely surveilled is a surefire way to get yourself caught in a Crossfire Hurricane. :)

    It's getting close to breaking that one of the cases continuing "robustly" is the Trump and company conspiracy with WikiLeaks. Did Mueller have evidence of a conspiracy with the "Russian government"? Yes. Was it enough to attempt to prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? Not to him. Will Mueller be able to prove a conspiracy with Wikileaks? I would not bet against it. :)

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good for him. I don't.

    Exactly my point..

    You CAN'T concede you are wrong..

    There's still a lot left on the table,

    Yes, all your "whataboutisms"..

    But there is NOTHING left on the table regarding Russia Collusion..

    It was a delusion and Mueller completely, totally and unequivocally exonerated President Trump on that..

    And YOU can't handle that fact...

    Lots of questions left. Eventually we'll get answers.

    And, once you do, if they don't agree with your Party slavery, you will ignore THOSE answers to..

    You only believe what you WANT to believe..

    Not what the FACTS tell you..

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick:

    There were officers on the inside doing that.

    Have them call Rep. Schiff, please. Heh.

    No longer under seal is the latest OSC filing where they have kindly removed a lot of those redactions contained in Mueller's Report.

    See? That's what I'm talking about. It all comes out.

    I still cannot fathom why Flynn would cavort around with Russians so frequently and blatantly when he was in a unique position to know what type surveillance is performed routinely.

    Career guys get sloppy, sometimes. Maybe that's why Obama specifically warned Trump about him, too.

    Did Mueller have evidence of a conspiracy with the "Russian government"? Yes. Was it enough to attempt to prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? Not to him. Will Mueller be able to prove a conspiracy with Wikileaks? I would not bet against it. :)

    Hey, Mike, we've got another one! Me either.

    The evidence is piling up, and Trump can't stop it. Thing is, D.C. leaks whenever necessary.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    See? That's what I'm talking about. It all comes out.

    OK, so yer happy now and will shut up??

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Hey, Mike, we've got another one! Me either.

    Yes, you have another moron Party slave who thinks EXACTLY like you do..

    Congrats..

    But I'll trust the facts over Party slaves..

    The evidence is piling up, and Trump can't stop it. Thing is, D.C. leaks whenever necessary.

    Yea, you keep saying that..

    Yet, Trump is STILL President and yer STILL nothing but a Birther-esque Party slave...

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mike:

    No, I'm not going to 'concede' just when the battle is joined. You're joking, right?

    there is NOTHING left on the table regarding Russia Collusion..

    Oh, of course, I disagree.

    Mueller completely, totally and unequivocally exonerated President Trump on that..

    Really? You wanna take bets on what Mueller would say about that?

    You only believe what you WANT to believe..Not what the FACTS tell you..

    Funny, I was gonna say the same about you, but then I realized that you don't care about the facts, otherwise you'd be wondering why Trump seems to be so terrified of them.

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yet, Trump is STILL President

    Got me there.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Mueller, no McGahn and stalled investigations leave House Democrats frustrated
    lmtonline.com/news/article/No-Mueller-no-McGahn-and-stalled-investigations-13854965.php

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Dumbocrats LOSE AGAIN!!!!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOITkxy18dY

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:


    No, I'm not going to 'concede' just when the battle is joined.

    Dood!!

    The battle is OVER..

    Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion..

    The battle is OVER..

    You LOST...

    But, like Hillary... You simply CAN'T concede you lost..

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No Mueller, no McGahn and stalled investigations leave House Democrats frustrated

    So, just how long do you think that Trump can sustain this? Six more years? Two more? One more year?

    Eventually, Trump loses this. The Mueller Report is already prying itself free, and there are a dozen court cases behind it. Get ready, dude..

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mueller totally and completely exonerated President Trump on Russia Collusion..

    Dood! That's only the first shot! What'd you think we'd all go home, saying, "Well, if BARR says so.."?

    I'm just sayin' that if you don't get up and fight, there won't be anything left to fight about when you do...

    And Hillary is in retirement. Time that your side saw that, too.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what's so frakin' hilarious..???

    If ya'all simply conceded that ya'all lost, that President Trump is completely and utterly exonerated of Russia Collusion....

    I would have NO REASON to be here... :D

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If ya'all simply conceded that ya'all lost, that President Trump is completely and utterly exonerated of Russia Collusion..I would have NO REASON to be here.

    Well, then, we'll be seeing each other a lot.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    38

    Yes, you have another moron Party slave who thinks EXACTLY like you do..

    You don't know EXACTLY what I think, you benighted putrescent trailer trash. You should actually try thinking, but then that would necessitate a brain and some creativity versus the rote and mindless drivel you post ad nauseam as if it's new... same mindless shit over and over because that's what happens when you're incapable of reasoning and lack critical thinking skills.

    But I'll trust the facts over Party slaves..

    It is my experience that Trump cockholsters like yourself look for "facts" in all the wrong places. Hint: Fox News, Alex Jones, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and the Pathologically Lying Porn Star Payoff President known as "Individual-1" are purveyors of propaganda and conspiracy theories for rubes.

    Yet, Trump is STILL President and yer STILL nothing but a Birther-esque Party slave...

    Self-awareness isn't your strong suit, but it's hysterical that you'd choose to insult other posters by using a term that best personifies Donald Trump. I have to agree that it is infinitely insulting to be identified with the Fat Orange Birther Bastard. :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, then, we'll be seeing each other a lot.

    Yep.. Because ya'all are mentally ill..

    And I'm the cure.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Eventually, Trump loses this.

    Yea.. That's what you keep saying..

    And yer ***ALWAYS*** wrong...

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    48

    You match perfectly the profile of those deranged individuals who mistakenly believe that they are the savior of others... often referred to as a "God complex," "Jesus complex," or "messiah complex." It is notable that this type of narcissist generally doesn't subscribe to a belief in a divine savior but does wholeheartedly buy into their own grandiose fantasies that they possess special qualities and can "save" everyone else.

    I recommend psychological help. :)

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]