ChrisWeigant.com

Can Anybody Beat Biden?

[ Posted Monday, June 3rd, 2019 – 16:14 UTC ]

Although it is still pretty early in the process, the first phase of the 2020 Democratic nominating contest is going to hinge on one simple question: Can anybody beat Joe Biden? At this point, the former vice president has such a commanding lead that the race could wind up resembling the last hotly contested primary race -- that of the Republicans in 2016. Back then, even though most of the media refused to acknowledge it until far too late, there was one clear frontrunner all along who was challenged -- unsuccessfully -- numerous times by the underdogs. Donald Trump, of course, won that race because his support never really faltered all that much and the rest of the field was busy bickering with each other. Again, it's far too early to predict such an outcome for the 2020 Democrats, but at this point it seems pretty probable that much of the beginning of the race is going to see a lot of jockeying among the underdogs, all arguing that they'd be better than Biden in the general election.

This may wind up being wildly premature, of course. Such is the nature of political prognostication. Early favorites often stumble badly once the race really heats up. Remember Jeb Bush? Or Hillary Clinton in 2008? Early dominance of the polls is no guarantee of ultimate success, obviously. But so far, Biden has been doing an admirable job of keeping his head above the fray.

Let's examine the current state of the race, as measured by the polls. When you take a look at the Real Clear Politics graph of the Democratic race, it's pretty obvious that Biden is going to be hard to beat. He currently has a rolling average of 35.3 percent in the polls, which is more than twice what his closest competitor has (Bernie Sanders, at 16.8 percent). Nobody else is even in double digits. But even Sanders hasn't really made a dent in Biden's support -- since Biden announced, he has led Bernie by a whopping 17 points or better, which is a pretty commanding lead.

Sanders, though, has owned second place since polling began -- and he's solidly held this position without ever really being challenged for it. Only one other candidate has ever registered at 10 percent or better, but after her initial bump from her campaign announcement, Kamala Harris has slowly slipped back. Two other candidates have come very close to hitting double digits -- Beto O'Rourke managed 9.5 percent when he was enjoying a bump in the polls, and Elizabeth Warren was at 9.8 percent last week. But as things stand now, Warren has fallen back a bit to where she now only has roughly half of Bernie's support, at 8.5 percent. This means that the current third-place candidate has less than one-fourth of Biden's support.

There are really only four candidates other than Sanders and Biden who have done even moderately well in the polls. But while they've all had small bumps at one time or another, none of them has managed a really impressive spike in the polls, and most of them have seen such bumps fade away. Warren, as mentioned, is back to 8.5 percent, Harris is now at 7.2 percent, and while Pete Buttigieg has been a media darling for weeks, he's only managing 6.2 percent support. The last name on this list has fallen the most from his initial bump, as Beto O'Rourke is currently only pulling in 3.7 percent.

Below this pack only two other candidates are even above a single percentage point -- Cory Booker at 2.7 percent and Amy Klobuchar at 1.5 percent. Exactly two-thirds of the Democratic field -- a whopping 16 candidates -- are now polling at one percent or below.

The big question the pundits were initially asking about Biden was whether his appeal would fade away immediately after he announced. Biden enjoyed his largest lead over Sanders right after jumping in the race (besting Bernie by an impressive 26.8 points), but Sanders has recovered somewhat while some of Biden's bump went away. Still, while Biden rose above 40 percent after tossing his hat in the crowded Democratic ring, he has only slipped back to 35 percent (he was polling at roughly 30 percent before announcing). So he's retained roughly half of his initial bump, which no other candidate has managed to do.

Of course, you wouldn't know any of this by just reading all the political commentary in the mainstream media. They have anointed various media darlings at various points, but none of them has remotely managed to live up to the hype when measured by actual voter support. Amy Klobuchar was going to be a powerhouse candidate. Then it was Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg, and, most recently, Elizabeth Warren. Many stories were written about how Warren was stealing support from both Bernie and Biden over the past two weeks, but when you look at the actual numbers, this bump was barely even visible. The pundits wrote about this mainly because Warren was the only one bucking the trend -- all the other candidates saw their support go down after Biden's announcement. But while Warren slowly crept up from 6.5 percent (before Biden announced) to 9.8 percent, this represented less than a four-point rise.

Throughout all of this period, the media has either outright ignored Bernie Sanders or dismissively pooh-poohed his chances. Again, for all the ink spilled over Warren's rise in the polls, it took her weeks to manage a 3.3 percent gain, when after Biden's initial bump faded a bit Bernie picked up some of the slack, rising from 14.6 percent to 18.8 percent in less than a week (from 5/12 to 5/18). But if there were any news stories written about Sanders gaining 4.4 percent in a week's time, I must have missed them.

Turning from what has already happened, when you take a look at what could happen over the next eight or nine months, one thing is abundantly clear. In a crowded field, holding on to 35 percent (or even 30 percent) support could very well prove to be enough to win the party's nomination. Donald Trump proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt, in fact, last time around. And Trump's support among Republican voters didn't even match what Biden has already achieved with Democrats.

This time four years ago, Jeb Bush was the heavy favorite. Trump didn't jump in the race until July. But when he did, he immediately turned all the conventional wisdom on its head. Trump's initial bump in the polls took him up to 30 percent, after which he dropped back to around 25 percent (all these numbers are taken from the Real Clear Politics 2016 GOP graph, I should mention). He very slowly climbed up to 35 percent, had some ups and downs in the polling, but he never managed to hit 40 percent until the nomination was almost in his pocket. Trump didn't first hit 40 percent until March 19, 2016 -- after many states had already voted in their primaries.

This time around in the Democratic race, Joe Biden has already managed to post numbers above 40 percent. They've fallen back a bit, but that's a remarkable achievement to hit so early, it must be said.

But back to the 2016 Republican race. Only four GOP candidates ever even came close to challenging Trump's standing. Or five, if you count Jeb Bush, who was the favorite when Trump announced. But Jeb's numbers began a slow downward slide the minute Trump jumped in the race, and they never recovered, meaning he never really was all that much a challenge to Trump at all.

Only one candidate -- Ben Carson -- ever bested Trump during the entire campaign. Carson had his moment in the sun when he managed to rise a scant 0.2 percent above Trump's numbers. This lead lasted only three days, however, and Carson then faded fast, beginning a steep slide downward that he never recovered from. Only three other candidates ever even managed to get above 15 percent in the polling, and none of them really ever got close to Trump's numbers. Ted Cruz was the only one with any sort of chance of beating Trump at all, as he emerged as the "anyone but Trump" candidate fairly early in the primaries. Cruz, at his best point (which was after many of the other candidates had dropped out) managed to get above 30 percent -- but Trump stayed anywhere from five to ten points ahead of him. The other two candidates who managed to post numbers above 15 percent were Marco Rubio, who hit 20 percent at one point but was still only in third place behind Cruz, and John Kasich, who stayed in the race after everyone else but Cruz and Trump had given up. Kasich also managed to get just above 20 percent, but by that time Trump was heading north of 40 percent. By the time even Cruz got close to Trump's numbers, however, the race was being measured in delegates won rather than popular support, and we all know how that turned out.

If you look back even further to another large field of primary contenders, you can see that a similar dynamic played out for Mitt Romney in 2012, although he had a much rougher time of it than Trump did. Romney was challenged by four other candidates who all managed to best Romney in the polls at one point or another (something that never really happened with Trump), although Romney did wind up winning the nomination in the end.

Will a similar dynamic play out for Democrats this time around? Will Biden be the candidate to beat, while the other candidates struggle to cut into his lead? The past isn't always a good indicator, of course, but it's not that hard to picture Biden either coasting to the nomination as Trump did, or fighting hard for it against others who momentarily have their day in the lead only to fade, as Romney managed to do.

The only other option is for one of the other Democrats in the race to have a breakout moment and start a meteoric rise while Biden stumbles with the voters. That obviously hasn't happened so far, but we haven't even had the first debates of the season yet. It's still incredibly early in the process, in other words. But no matter what eventually happens, as we begin the real campaign with the first debates -- where the voters begin to pay a lot more attention -- the race can currently be boiled down to a single question: Can anybody beat Biden?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

61 Comments on “Can Anybody Beat Biden?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Here's one prediction I feel safe making: LizM is going to like today's column.

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Safe bet, CW.

    As you frequently state, although not in this column, it is mostly name recognition at this point in the race.

    Biden is a strong candidate. Not my favorite, but there is no major issue with him from my perspective.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Democrat candidate Booker...

    “Listen to me, the people dying in Chicago, the people dying in Newark are not being done with law-abiding gun owners. We do not need to go after the guns.”
    -Senator Cory Booker, 2012

    As to Biden??

    IF he wins the nomination..... (and that is a BIG 'if') 2020 will simply be a retread of 2016..

    President Trump wins...

    It's THAT simple..

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I like ALL the columns.

    But, especially ones like this. :)

    It's the first time Biden has come this close and the third time must be the charm!

    I'll answer the question with a prediction of my own:

    Nobody will beat Biden by lying about, misstating or just plain misunderstanding his record or by lacking the courage to name him.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Hillary Clinton is no Joe Biden so don't expect a "retread" of 2016.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    He means a "repeat" of 2016, which, for several reasons, isn't gonna happen.

    But he can dream about it, I suppose.

    In the real world, Biden's already got Pennsylvania locked up. Democrats now have Governors in Wisconsin and Michigan. This race will be very different.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Am I an idiot?

    English is my first language, you know. :)

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was talking Democratic campaigns ...

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which will also be very different, if you know what I mean.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary Clinton is no Joe Biden so don't expect a "retread" of 2016.

    In the context of an ESTABLISHMENT vs NON-ESTABLISHMENT election, Biden certainly is Hillary..

    Plus the question will come out.. How much did Biden know about Obama's plans to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016???

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the real world, Biden's already got Pennsylvania locked up.

    That's funny.. Kick said the EXACT same thing in the run-up to 2016.. :D

    And only a FOOL would think that a state locked up NOW, even if it were factually accurate, has any bearing on it's status in Nov of 2020...

    Democrats now have Governors in Wisconsin and Michigan.

    I have already pointed out (with facts) that Michigan, in the here and now, belongs to Trump..

    This race will be very different.

    Yea, whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru your day... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, considering that Democrats just lost.. AGAIN.. in having their court case against Trump thrown out of court??

    :D

    2020 is looking better and better.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    AND we're seeing anti-trust cases being opened up against bastions of Dumbocrat support and propaganda outlets..

    So, Democrats aren't going to have Bezos and Zuckerburg in their corner.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    DEMS: DENIED
    Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall

    Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make a legal case.

    Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction.

    Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress."

    But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-house-dems-lawsuit-trump-emergency-military-funds-border-wall

    Poor Dumbocrats.. They simply CANNOT catch a break... :D

    This is how their court cases are going to go.. All against the Democrat Party.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    First we have Cory Booker saying that guns are not the problem...

    NRA responds to Gillibrand put-down by posting her 2008 letter praising gun-rights group

    One day after Kirsten Gillibrand slammed the National Rifle Association (NRA) as the "worst organization in this country," the group on Monday posted an effusive letter it received from Gillibrand in 2008 in which she praised "the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights" and said she hoped to work with it "for many years in Congress."

    At a fiery Fox News town hall in Dubuque, Iowa Sunday, Gillibrand charged that the NRA cares "more about their profits than the American people" and "lies" for the sake of profit. But the NRA has countered that Gillibrand, whose campaign has attracted at most 1 percent support in national and early voting state polls, was a cynical political opportunist trying to gin up support for her candidacy.

    "Gillibrand called us the worst org in the country, but when she represented NY20, she wrote us: 'I appreciate the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights, and I look forward to working with you for many years,'" the NRA wrote on Twitter. "Now that she’s looking to crack 1%, she’ll say anything."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nra-fires-back-after-gillibrand-points-to-her-2008-letter-praising-gun-rights-group

    Now we have Gillibrand professing her love for the NRA and their wonderful work..

    "Now that she’s looking to crack 1%, she’ll say anything."

    oh SNAP!!! :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Mueller's report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected.… If it's important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released?

    Mueller is making the political suggestion that the President should be impeached on allegations of obstruction of justice for which Mueller and his team of hot-shot lawyers found no proof. This is a clear example of a prosecutor who is trying to get an outcome regardless of evidence. In desperate pursuit to keep the bogus Russia collusion narrative alive, Mueller is turning to Soviet-style tactics."
    -Sean Davis

    Mueller scoo'ed da pooch.. Plain and simple...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    We knew who Trump was but elected him anyway. We can’t impeach him for that.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-knew-who-trump-was-but-elected-him-anyway-we-cant-impeach-him-for-that/2019/06/02/c803a294-83cf-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.ef78f71006af

    A thoughtful, logical and rational commentary..

    From WaPoop of all places!!

    Who would have thunked it..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    PIERS MORGAN: The real big baby in London this week is Mayor Khan - a petty little pipsqueak who'd shamefully rather mock and humiliate the President of Britain's greatest ally than honor the D-Day heroes of both our nations

    Mayor Khan also authorized, again, the flying of a giant orange Trump baby blimp over the Houses of Parliament during the visit, specifically designed to mock and humiliate the President.

    By doing all this, Khan knew exactly what he was doing, and that was to create a firestorm of hatred towards the American leader and to whip up bigger protests against him than might otherwise have occurred.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7099055/The-real-big-baby-London-week-Mayor-Khan-whod-shamefully-mocking-Trump.html

    Khan is a muslim.. Of course he created a firestorm of hatred against the American President..

    Hysterical cries of MICHALE IS A RACIST!!! in 3.... 2.... 1....

    :eyeroll:

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Khan says that the President Of The United States is a fascist..

    Yet Khan ALSO claims that Louis Farrakhan is a great man..

    Apparently, Khan is a moron who's opinion can be discounted...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    But so far, Biden has been doing an admirable job of keeping his head above the fray.

    There is a reason for that..

    It's because he has been keeping his head (and the rest of him) out of the race..

    Skipping Democrat events all over the place..

    Apparently, Joe Biden's campaign is trying to protect itself from Joe Biden... :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's examine the current state of the race, as measured by the polls. When you take a look at the Real Clear Politics graph of the Democratic race, it's pretty obvious that Biden is going to be hard to beat.

    So, would you say that the RCP polls are the poll-standard for Weigantia?? :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's the first time Biden has come this close and the third time must be the charm!

    The problem with Biden winning the nomination is it will totally and utterly decimate the Democrat Party talking point that they are a diverse Party...

    I mean, look at it from a reality point of view..

    The Democrat Party has been going on and on about how they are the Party of minorities and the Party of women..

    And when the rubber hits the road, when it comes time to choose their champion Trump Slayer...????

    They choose an old white guy..

    WOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHH

    That's the sound air wooshing out of the entire Democrat Party platform...

    Never again will the Democrat Party be able to claim it's the Party of women.. That it's the Party of minorities...

    They will prove to the world that, when push comes to shove....

    They are the Party of old white guys...

    So, once again, it's a win-win for me.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perpetually Outraged Celebrities Boycott Georgia, Remain Silent On China

    While Hollywood boycotts Georgia, its cozy relationship with China fails to stoke the outrage of our perpetually outraged celebrity class.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/03/perpetually-outraged-celebrities-boycott-georgia-remain-silent-china/

    The blatant and unrepentant hypocrisy of the Left Wingery... :eyeroll:

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Joe Biden the Walter Mondale of the 2020 presidential candidates?

    Joe Biden opened his much hyped 2020 presidential campaign last month by proclaiming the “first thing” he would do if elected is to repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means the middle class would see a tax increase. Does that sound eerily familiar? It is because Walter Mondale made a similar promise when he ran for president against Ronald Reagan.

    “First thing I would do is repeal those Trump tax cuts,” Biden said during one of his first campaign rallies in South Carolina. “Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I,” Mondale said at the Democratic National Convention in California back in 1984. Can you hear the similarities? Biden did not just make his threat to repeal the tax law once, but he has said it on the trail at least five times since announcing his run. That is no slip of the tongue.

    If Biden repealed the tax law, millions of low and middle income workers would again be burdened by the ObamaCare individual mandate tax. A family of four earning the median income of $74,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase, and utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the increase in the corporate rate. The standard deduction would be slashed in half, forcing millions of households to itemize deductions and keep track of every expense. The child tax credit would also be lowered by half and taxes would rise for every income level in every single district.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/446604-is-joe-biden-the-walter-mondale-of-the-2020-presidential-candidates

    1984 repeats itself in 2020.... :D

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "If you believe in fairies- then clap your hands."
    -Tinkerbell song
    Peter Pan

    Let's face reality.

    Both the Cult45-ers and the people supporting Biden are trying to keep their fairy alive by clapping their hands to show they believe.

    And the media does their part by pretending that the fairies have the magic to solve our problems when all they have is the illusions that are causing the problems in reality.

    Unfortunately, many people are more interested in finding someone to validate what they want to believe so they won't have to admit they have fucked up and change what they do to get a different result and the big money Democrats and Republicans are willing to deceive them so they can keep working for the big money interests creating problems and then using those problems to manipulate people instead of actually solving the problem- which is the big money interests, and the politicians and media that work for them.

    Who gives a shit what some stupid poll says aboot the show?

    That is nothing more than another layer of bullshit used by the big money interests and their media lackeys to validate the lies.

    One issue, however, has been consistent in polling since before the 2016 election and has such overwhelming support that it is beyond suspicion of manipulation by the pollsters- 80% or more of citizens want the big money out of our political process.

    Yet you refuse to speculate aboot the possibility that even 10-20% of eligible voters would be willing to stop or already have stopped believing in fairies and would use their vote inn 2020 to achieve the goal of getting the big money out of politics even if it takes more than one election cycle to achieve the goal.

    The you have no other choice lie and empty promises aboot future legislation to solve the problem of big money in our political process instead of taking action now by running a small donor campaign is just not believable to anyone that is not looking to validate their past mistakes by repeating them.

    40% of eligible voters register in the November poll every four years that they are not fooled by the show by not voting. Who knows how many of the 60% that do vote are not fooled by the show but feel they have no other choice because that is all they are offered by the big money politicians and media lackeys.

    As long as people like you, CW, keep perpetuating the lie instead of offering the information citizens need address and effect reality, we will continue to be destroyed by the show.

    Do the job a journalist is supposed to do and inform citizens aboot One Demand.

    If you believe in democracy there is no other choice than to inform citizens aboot this opportunity.

    It's not aboot who can beat Biden or even who can beat Trump- it's aboot who can beat the big money interests that THEY BOTH WORK FOR.

    And the only answer to that question is ordinary citizens demanding small donor candidates.

    Give citizens the tool they need to accomplish this goal, One Demand, instead of perpetuating the lie that prevents democracy from succeeding.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both the Cult45-ers and the people supporting Biden are trying to keep their fairy alive by clapping their hands to show they believe.

    I am reminded of the time that Odumbo did his "mic drop" moment, slamming President Trump...

    At the time, Odumbo believed that it was a faery tale that Trump would ever be President...

    Apparently, faery tales DO come true... :D

    So, whose to say??

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here is an article from last year that is interesting:

    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/worsening-inequality-urban-rural-major-cities/576175/

    The premise (if you can't be bothered to read it) is that the rural/urban investment and wealth divide is widening.

    The author identifies a solution, one that has been successful in the E.U. - basically a team of experts identifies a key strength of a rural community, and promotes investment in that.

    This, he contrasts, to America, where e.g. Wisconsin just gave Foxconn a huge tax break with no understanding why Foxconn would be a key differentiator for the community. Louisiana also dishes out tax breaks in a haphazard fashion (they seem to like poisoning their kids down there - must be a Republican thing I don't understand).

    What the author forgets is that a well researched economic stimulus will be seen as "rampant socialism" by rural voters, who yet again are voting against their interests.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 2020 election is going to be either a rerun of 1984 with the Dem nominee taking the role of Mondale or it's going to be a rerun of 1996 with the Dem nominee taking the role of Bob Dole...

    Either way, it's going to be a slaughter of the Dem candidate..

    "The sport ends. The massacre begins.."
    -Grand Primus T'Cael, THE FINAL FRONTIER

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    The author identifies a solution, one that has been successful in the E.U. -

    "Successful" and "EU" are mutually exclusive terms and should NEVER be uttered in the same sentence..

    Anyone who wants to make the US more like the EU does not have this country's best interests at heart...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    The premise (if you can't be bothered to read it) is that the rural/urban investment and wealth divide is widening.

    The problem with the Left's "solution" to inequality is that it wants to tear the higher side down, rather than help the lower side rise...

    The far better solution is a hand up (not a hand out) to the lower side and show them how to become part of the higher side..

    Democrats want equality for the masses.. But at the LOWER end of the scale, not the higher end..

    Of course that doesn't include them.. They are just happy in their ivory towers...

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil[27],

    First off, that was a great post! It's the kind of post that rises to the level of excellence set by this blog.

    The premise (if you can't be bothered to read it)…

    It's not good blog etiquette to post a link and not say anything about it.

    I'm actually going to click on your link, not that I have the gist of what it speaks to ...

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Further, when posting a link, it's always a good idea to be clear about whether you're posting it to start an enlightened discussion or to bolster your opinion.

    Either way, it encourages more clicks!

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [31]

    Please change 'not' to 'now'.

    Thank-you.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … in the last sentence, that is … :)

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did somebody say something about a time-limited edit function?

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did somebody say something about a time-limited edit function?

    Disqus :D

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Have you told Chris about this?

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have you told Chris about this?

    Every chance I have gotten.. :D

    To be fair to CW, it's likely an expensive package.. Add to that, it would be a major undertaking to switch things over.. Wordpress is likely integrated into CW's hosting package.. Disqus would most likely require a buttload of set up to bring online..

    But it's a VERY nice package.. Can set up editing windows and put in inline pics and videos seamlessly...

    Also has muting and blocking capability so those Weigantians who just can't handle the facts could easily set things up to ignore the facts and reality...

    All in all, a good package..

    https://www.scottadamsfans.com/content/blog.aspx?id=277

    Here is an example of it in action..

    https://www.scottadamsfans.com/content/blog.aspx?id=277

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have you told Chris about this?

    Every chance I have gotten.. :D

    To be fair to CW, it's likely an expensive package.. Add to that, it would be a major undertaking to switch things over.. Wordpress is likely integrated into CW's hosting package.. Disqus would most likely require a buttload of set up to bring online..

    But it's a VERY nice package.. Can set up editing windows and put in inline pics and videos seamlessly...

    Also has muting and blocking capability so those Weigantians who just can't handle the facts could easily set things up to ignore the facts and reality...

    All in all, a good package..

    https://www.scottadamsfans.com/content/blog.aspx?id=277

    Here is an example of it in action..

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    To be fair to CW, it's likely an expensive package.. Add to that, it would be a major undertaking to switch things over.. Wordpress is likely integrated into CW's hosting package.. Disqus would most likely require a buttload of set up to bring online..

    Couldn't he just add the function to what he has?

    As for the cost, Chris could make it an issue for the next fundraiser, along with all the kittens, of course. I'll do my part - I actually owe him as I didn't contribute last year, my personal annus horribilis, if I may say.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I checked the blog you linked to. I don't like all the bells and whistles or the set up.

    I really like the set-up here, mostly because it's always been this way and I don't adapt well to big changes. Of course, after a while I'll forget how is was in the first place. :)

    Anyway, best option for me is just add the function to what Chris is using now. If that can't be done, then just use the damned preview button and to a little proofreading, for God's sake!

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    One way to look at Wisconsin giving the tax breaks to Foxconn is they had no understanding of how it would be a key differentiator for the community.

    Another way to look at it is that a team of "experts" identified a key strength of the community- big money politicians Foxconn could exploit.

    That's a Democratic and Republican thing of voting against their own interests by voting for big money candidates that I just don't understand.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    One way to look at Wisconsin giving the tax breaks to Foxconn is they had no understanding of how it would be a key differentiator for the community.

    Why would Wisconsin give tax breaks!!!????

    Why not just take all those billions of dollars that they are giving away to FoxConn and just spend it on socialist endeavors or give it away to poor people!!???

    WHY!!!???? WHY!!!!???? WHY!!!!!???

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hope Hicks is latest former Trump aide to be subpoenaed by House Judiciary Committee after chairman

    Jerry Nadler says her boss DID commit crime
    Former White House Counsel Don McGahn defied a subpoena to appear before House panel Tuesday on White House instruction

    McGahn has said he refused repeatedly Trump requests to push out special counsel Robert Mueller

    House later the committee issued a subpoena for Hicks and former McGahn chief of staff Annie Donaldson

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerold Nadler says obstruction instances examined by Mueller constitute a crime

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to caution members against the risks of impeachment

    Other House Democrats are pushing to begin an inquiry now

    Impeachment might provide a rationale in court for the need to pursue information
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7054049/White-House-tells-Hicks-not-Democrats-government-documents.html

    Hope Hicks is the latest Trump official to give Nadler and the Dumbocrats the finger.. :D

    Hay Nadler!? Does the word IMPOTENT mean anything to you!?? :D hehehehehehehehe

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, haven't read the comments yet, but here's an interesting link, a Politico article that approaches my theme here from a different direction. It had one great quote in it that I thought worth sharing:

    Unlike other candidates, said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic strategist and publisher of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which handicaps elections in the state, “Joe Biden does not need to come to California to introduce himself to the people in that hall.”

    “He does not need to come to that convention and engage in a scrum with all those other candidates,” Sragow said, “because to some extent, the justification for his candidacy is we have an incredible array of candidates who are all duking it out, they’re all beating each other up on the playground, and at some point Uncle Joe, or Grandpa Joe, has to show up on the playground and say, ‘Now, now, let’s get down to business.’ And that’s his candidacy.”

    That's a pretty good analogy, I have to admit!

    Full article:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/03/joe-biden-2020-primaries-california-1351101

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    “He does not need to come to that convention and engage in a scrum with all those other candidates,” Sragow said, “because to some extent, the justification for his candidacy is we have an incredible array of candidates who are all duking it out, they’re all beating each other up on the playground, and at some point Uncle Joe, or Grandpa Joe, has to show up on the playground and say, ‘Now, now, let’s get down to business.’ And that’s his candidacy.”

    That's a pretty good analogy, I have to admit!

    It is a pretty good analogy...

    But it's very similar to the thinking that Hillary used about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania etc etc..

    The minute you take a state for granted is the minute that Karma starts thinking that it would like to biatch slap ya across the face.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I dunno, Mike. Do ya really think that Trump's gonna see Biden's missing the activists convention in California as a mistake?

    I don't. It was a Warren/Bernie crowd for sure, and while I'm sure that those folks are gonna be vital later, for now they're just fine in that lane.

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    can biden stop a pie with his face? i think he can, and it would be delicious.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I dunno, Mike. Do ya really think that Trump's gonna see Biden's missing the activists convention in California as a mistake?

    Who's talking about Trump??

    I simply point out that the LAST time a Dem candidate took a state for granted, it didn't work out too well for the Dem candidate..

    I don't.

    You also didn't see a problem with Clinton skipping Pennsylvania and Wisconsin..

    How'de that work out for ya?? :D

    If there is a flaw in my logic, by all means.. Point it out...

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But it's very similar to the thinking that Hillary used about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania etc etc..The minute you take a state for granted is the minute that Karma starts thinking that it would like to biatch slap ya across the face.. :D

    Well, you know this isn't the general election campaign.

    If Biden runs a general election campaign like Hillary did, then he will deserve to lose.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, you know this isn't the general election campaign.

    And yet, Joe is campaigning as if it is.

    Irregardless, the same logic applies whether it's primary or general..

    You take a state for granted at your own risk..

    I would submit, it's MORE of a danger for Joe in the primary..

    CA is a FAR Left state.. Joe's middle of the road may not go over well in CA... He'll have a primary fight on his hands in CA...

    More reason to put in appearances..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Biden runs a general election campaign like Hillary did, then he will deserve to lose.

    I dunno if I would go THAT far..

    But I agree it's undeniable that it was HILLARY that lost the 2016 election..

    Not Comey, Not the Russians, Not anyone...

    Hillary's to blame.. Pure and simple...

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale ... that 2 comments in a row that I pretty much agree with.

    I think Biden will spend a lot of time in California, just not at the venue with all the wanna-be-Democratic nominees. :)

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of Comey, I'd like to see him appointed Attorney General.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know, I know … only in my wildest dreams. He would be an excellent candidate and AG.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, it would drive Trump nutso ipso facto. Heh.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've never know Biden to be a middle of the road guy. He's not going to start now.

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ..it would drive Trump nutso ipso facto. Heh.

    It would!

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Biden was wise not to go to the convention with all the other candidates in CA...it could only serve to hurt his candidacy, not help it. Biden is so far ahead of the others, even an amazing performance wouldn’t do much to improve his numbers. His being there would have given all of the other candidates a chance to have their performances graded directly against Biden’s...and that can only hurt Biden.

    You don’t have to worry about Biden “ignoring” important states like Hillary was accused of doing — this is still the primary and we are talking about CA! No one is risking losing that state!

    My money is on Biden already having secured Stacey Abrams as his running mate, as well. While I am still torn between Mayor Pete and Elizabeth Warren as my second choice (I am not sure that Warren would not be best used in the Senate ), and the thought of a Warren/Mayor Pete ticket would truly rock, I cannot see Biden blowing this.

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ..it would drive Trump nutso ipso facto. Heh.

    i for one would prefer the president to be less nutty, not more.

    sic transit gloria.
    i didn't know gloria was sick!
    ~mel brooks, history of the world, part I

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, he wouldn't be president if Comey is the AG, right?

    Have some pie!

Comments for this article are closed.