ChrisWeigant.com

Post-Debate Polling Trickles In (And Our New Contest)

[ Posted Tuesday, August 6th, 2019 – 16:46 UTC ]

We're beginning to see some polling which reflects the impressions the voters got in the second round of Democratic debates. It's still early and these trends won't become really solid until we see at least another week's worth of polling, but it's still worth taking a look to see where the Democratic field apparently now stands. So far, there hasn't been a whole lot of dramatic movement in the polls. There are really only three mini-trends to watch, and two of them really began before the debates even got started.

Joe Biden now stands at 32.0 percent in the Real Clear Politics rolling daily average of polls. This means he has now fully recovered from the dip he experienced after the first debate, but this trend was well underway before his second debate performance (which was widely seen as better than his first). Biden dipped roughly five points right after the first debate, but he is now back to the same commanding lead he held before the candidates started facing off in the debates. Voters worried about Biden after that first debate are now back on his side, to put it another way.

The second noticeable trend is that Bernie Sanders has also recovered from a smaller dip after the first debate. Bernie's polling, since Biden entered the race, has hovered between about 15 percent and 19 percent. After the first debate, Bernie briefly sank below 15 percent, and then plateaued right at 15. But since the second debate, he is doing better, and is now up to 17.2 percent, which is right in the middle of his current range. It is also slightly better than he was before the first debate, meaning like Biden he has also recovered his support.

The third trend, unlike Bernie's, was also well in place before the second debate even started. Kamala Harris saw a huge spike upwards after her first debate, but this has been fading away ever since. This downward trend continued after her second debate performance (which was nowhere near as standout as her first), and she is currently polling at only 9.3 percent. This slips her back down into the single digits, after briefly besting both Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to stand in second place, right after the first debate. She's still doing better than she was before the first debate happened, but her current trendline is heading down, which must be worrisome for her campaign. They have failed to lock in all the interest her first debate performance raised, and it seems her second debate didn't do her any favors in this regard.

There's a fourth trend worth noting, but it's barely what you could call a "trend" because it is merely the continuation of a flat line. Elizabeth Warren slowly built support beginning even before the first debate aired, until she was running roughly on a par with Bernie at 15 percent. She may, however, have hit a ceiling, at least for now. She is still exactly at 15.0 percent, but she has failed to move that needle at all over the past few weeks. The debates didn't help her, but also didn't hurt her. She has yet to translate good debate performances (and she was almost universally seen as the big winner of the second debates) into any appreciable bump in support. But her trendlines have also been more gradual than others, so we'll have to see. Also, her current standing in the average may be influenced in an outsized way by one outlier bad poll, which (if true) will correct itself upwards over the next few weeks. Warren may still see a debate bump, but it may be late in showing up on the chart, in other words.

There are two other candidates running far behind the front four, but also appreciably in front of the rest of the pack. Pete Buttigieg, like Warren, has held very steady throughout the debates so far. He's at 5.3 percent, which has not changed much at all over the past few weeks. Beto O'Rourke is now in solid possession of sixth place with 3.0 percent, which is an improvement for him because he briefly dropped into the horde below him polling at two percent or less. O'Rourke's debate performance may have helped this trend develop, but it's such a small trend that it's kind of hard to tell.

Below the top six are three more candidates who are at least keeping their numbers over a single percentage point: Cory Booker (1.8 percent), Andrew Yang (1.3), and Julián Castro (1.2). Everyone else is polling below one percent. The top five of this pack (those polling above a half a percent) are: Tulsi Gabbard (0.8 percent), Tom Steyer (0.8), Amy Klobuchar (0.7), John Delaney (0.7), and Tim Ryan (0.7). Everyone else is doing worse.

Of course, the big question now is who will make it into the third debate. The bar for entry is higher, and candidates have to post four national polls with at least two percent support. This isn't all that high, but if you look at the current standings you can see it's going to exclude a whole lot of people, including some governors and U.S. senators. Currently, eight candidates have qualified for the third debates: Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Sanders, and Warren. Two more are within one good poll of making it: Castro and Yang. Two others need more than just one good poll, but still could manage to make it: Gabbard and Steyer. This means there could only be a total of perhaps 12 candidates on stage, which brings up an interesting question. If there are an even dozen, will they split it into two nights of only six candidates each or will they put them all on the same stage? Either way has its benefits, since what the pundits are all hoping for next time is to see Biden face off with the real progressives, Warren and Sanders. But two debates with only six candidates (and without most of the gadfly candidates) might be a lot more interesting, because they'd all get more time to explain what their candidacies were all about.

We also have a footnote and -- heck, why not? -- a new reader contest to announce. Mike Gravel has now become the third Democratic candidate -- out of a total of 27 who ran -- to officially drop out of the race. Gravel is throwing his meager support behind Bernie Sanders, and will donate any money his campaign has left to charity. He follows Richard Ojeda and Eric Swalwell to a place on the sidelines. Which means there are only (!) 24 candidates left in the race.

So our new contest: Who else will drop out before the third debate? Name the candidates you think won't be around by then, in the order of when they drop out, and we'll see what awards we can hand out right before the third debates happen. Please refer to the Wikipedia page which lists all the current candidates (because you will never remember all 24 of them) when making your choices. And remember -- candidacies often end when the accountant gives the bad news that they are completely out of money. So it's not just a matter of fire in the belly, but rather who is still able to keep the lights on at campaign headquarters.

Just to get the ball rolling, I'll offer up my guess as to who won't be around for the third debate, in the order that I think they'll drop out:

John Hickenlooper

Steve Bullock

Michael Bennet

Seth Moulton

Bill de Blasio

This might surprise some, because the list is mostly made up of politicians whose stature should have meant they had a shot at the nomination (with the exception of Moulton, who didn't). Some of them -- Hickenlooper and Bullock in particular -- will drop out in order to clear the decks to run for other offices instead of continuing a failed presidential bid. Bill de Blasio, on the other hand, will eventually realize that the rest of the country looks askance at New York City politicians in general, and at him in particular. So he'll slink back to the Big Apple to do his day job of running the city.

There is a long list of others that wouldn't surprise me at all if they dropped out, but for one reason or another I think they'll stick around until after the third debate. This could be because their campaign is self-funded (no bad news from the accountant, in other words, just a request to write another check), their campaign has always been a vanity project in the first place, or that they've still got such strong (and possibly delusional) convictions that sooner or later the voters are going to fall in love with them. My list of other possible dropouts would include: John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jay Inslee, Wayne Messam, Tim Ryan, Joe Sestak, and Marianne Williamson. But for some reason I think all of these will stick around, even if they wind up dropping out right after the third debate.

In any case, those are my picks. What are yours? Which names will be gone by the third debate, and in what order will they drop out? Let everyone know below, in the comments!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

52 Comments on “Post-Debate Polling Trickles In (And Our New Contest)”

  1. [1] 
    dsws wrote:

    The bar for entry is higher, and candidates have to post four national polls with at least two percent support.

    Do you know where these rules can be found? I had read that it could be either national or state polls.

  2. [2] 
    dsws wrote:

    Ok, as cited by Wikipedia:

    Polling Threshold. Candidates must receive 2% or more support in at least four polls (which may be national polls, or polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada) meeting the following criteria ... .
    https://democrats.org/news/third-debate/

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    This could make a difference. For example, I picked Bullock as the one who looks best on paper. He's been working on getting endorsements in Iowa in particular. He may get 2% in some Iowa polls, even though he has no chance at 2% nationally.

    Of course, he can't meet the number-of-donors criterion, so the polling is moot in his case. But the idea is the same, if one of the ignored candidates does have enough.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    These people must all be athiests, 'cause "They ain't got a prayer". At least they wouldn't have against a qualified incumbent president.

    Of course, there is a definite question about whether they have a "qualified incumbent" to worry about? Maybe that gives them hope.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW So our new contest: Who else will drop out before the third debate?

    In this order:

    1.
    2.
    3.

    I don't think anybody will drop out before the third debate. Why should they? The criteria to make the fourth debate in October are exactly the same as the third debate with all that additional time to qualify, and 2% is just low enough of a threshold for them to hang in there and hope for a miracle.

    Having said all that, I sincerely hope there are about 2/3 of them that drop out before the third debate and prove me wrong. :)

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    Not off the top of my head, sorry. But I'm pretty sure it's national. In fact, the real language is "a national poll the DNC has approved of" or something similar. National polls not on their list don't qualify.

    Like I said, I don't have an official link, but here's a Politico story talking about the difference between the third and the FOURTH debate entry criteria...

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/06/dnc-2020-democratic-debate-1448871

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What the polls tell me is that it's never a good idea to underestimate the political savvy of the American people.

    Seriously.

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    Well, OK, I'll believe Wikipedia -- haven't really ever seen the official language, I admit, but I did see one recent NH poll which was specified as "does not qualify" for debate status, so maybe I just projected from that.

    All I know for sure is the DNC is in full control of what counts and what doesn't. There was a stink over a poll for either the first or the second debate run by Washington Post (with someone else, ABC maybe?) that didn't qualify because the pollster didn't read a full list of candidates off -- it was just open: "which candidate do you support?" with no names. The WashPost argued that this was actually HARDER for candidates to qualify in, which I thought made sense, but the DNC didn't relent and the next WP poll asked the question both ways, so the part where they named the candidates would qualify.

    Maybe check the DNC's own website, they might have the actual rules posted somewhere...?

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey there LizM!

    Did you mean "the political savvy" of the American people? Usually when I hear that sentence from foreigners it reads "the stupidity"... heh. Of course, it's hard to argue (see: Donald Trump, Dubya Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc.).

    :-)

    But I gotta admit, Biden's still looking pretty solid!

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Things are getting too serious to have more than four or five candidates by the time of the next Democratic debate.

    That is not to say that the rest of the candidates don't have a lot of good things to say and they should be a big part of Democrats winning big in 2020.

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    One thing I am sure about is that in the third debate the criteria is "BOTH polling numbers AND donations." In the first two debates, it was "either/or."

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Chris … yes, I did indeed mean to write and say political savvy. :)

    I used to be one of those idiots who used stupidity in that sentence but, Biden eventually convinced me of my error.

  13. [13] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    The polling criterion closes weeks before the third debate. Meaning many candidates will be aware they didn't make it (as well as the media). Some might choose to drop out before then rather than "be forced off the stage" as it were, to keep a modicum of a shred of respect about the process of quitting the race.

    Knowing that, would you like to change your entry?

    Personally, I am betting the most heavily (an extra 500 Quatloos!) on Hickenlooper and Bullock dropping out to launch Senate campaigns, personally. The others, I'm not so sure...

    -CW

  14. [14] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [10] -

    Whoops! Been forgetting to include reference numbers to previous comments. Sorry it's been so long since I've done this...

    Yeah, well, 8 have qualified, and I could accept a few more. It's still early days. However, by the 5th debate they better be down to 6, maximum...

    :-)

    [12] -

    Oooo! Nice comeback!

    Heh.

    -CW

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Of course, it's hard to argue (see: Donald Trump, Dubya Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc.).

    You know, I bet you could make a pretty good argument in each of those cases for "political savvy" without lifting a finger! :)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting to note how the DNC is once again, trying to put it's fingers on the scales..

    The DNC is trying to prevent Yang from participating in the Sep debates, even though he meets the criteria..

    I guess the DNC is racist against asians.... Color me shocked.. :eyeroll:

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    @CW

    Just to point out from the previous commentary..

    Not only did I give you kudos for your giving credit to President Trump, I even posted it to my other forum.. :D

    That's the most impressive change in gun law since 1986, and -- again, to his credit -- it came from Donald Trump's administration.
    -chrisweigant.com

    Color me gabber-flasted :D
    https://www.scottadamsfans.com/content/blog.aspx?id=348#disqus_thread

    What I DID fail to mention (both here and there) is that you not only gave credit to President Trump, you did so TWICE!!!

    I hope this giving credit where credit is due (even if it's to President Trump) is a trend... :D

    It would go a LONG ways in settling things down here...

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders, Warren gain on Biden in New Hampshire
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/456317-sanders-warren-gain-on-biden-in-new-hampshire

    As predicted..

    Party Purity is what's in..

    Electability is out...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Vice President Joe Biden has a small lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, but Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted solid gains and are closing the gap on the front-runner, according to a new poll.

    The latest Suffolk University-Boston Globe poll finds Biden at 21 percent support, followed by Sanders at 17 percent and Warren at 14 percent. No other candidate has double-digit support in the Granite State.

    Personally, I would LOVE to see Warren get the nod..

    Because I know for a FACT that she will NEVER appeal to Independents, NPAs or Trump voters..

    So, Warren as the Dem nominee means a definitive President Trump re-election...

  20. [20] 
    dsws wrote:

    CW:

    There was a stink over a poll for either the first or the second debate run by Washington Post (with someone else, ABC maybe?) that didn't qualify because the pollster didn't read a full list of candidates off -- it was just open: "which candidate do you support?" with no names.

    Sounds like Bullock, for the first debate. If I remember right, he had qualified, and the DNC de-qualified him by changing its mind about the poll he'd qualified with.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    and the DNC de-qualified him by changing its mind about the poll he'd qualified with.

    DNC seems to be doing that a lot lately... :^/

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the election..

    FX dismisses critics of Clinton scandal miniseries timed for 2020 election
    https://ew.com/tv/2019/08/06/fx-slams-clinton-impeachment-miniseries-election/

    A docu-drama, produced by Monica Lewinsky, about the Clinton's *BIGGEST* scandal 6 weeks before the 2020 election..

    PERFECT... :D

    "God loves the infantry"
    -Terrorist, DIE HARD

    :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is nothing that Trump would like more than to turn the homestretch of 2020 into a revisitation of the Clintons. Don't do this, @FXNetworks. It's a disservice to our fragile political system and to the talented people involved in this show.
    -Mark Harris

    hehehehe... :D

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    13

    The polling criterion closes weeks before the third debate. Meaning many candidates will be aware they didn't make it (as well as the media).

    Yep.

    Some might choose to drop out before then rather than "be forced off the stage" as it were, to keep a modicum of a shred of respect about the process of quitting the race.

    A shred of respect!? Respect? You mean like:
    R-E-S-P-E-C-T
    Find out what it means to me
    R-E-S-P-E-C-T
    Take care, TCB.
    Oh, sock it to me, sock it to me...

    Ahem. Got carried away there. Where were we?

    Knowing that, would you like to change your entry?

    Hmmmmmmmmm. *music from Jeopardy*
    Ummmmmmm…

    Nope!

    Most of these people have been polling in the dirt for months already so what's a few more weeks? They're all going to cram into Iowa and New Hampshire and hang on forever! Nobody's leaving before September 12; they're never, ever leaving!

    The show must go on. :)

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    7 Democrats didn't get a single supporter in this New Hampshire primary poll
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/857286/7-democrats-didnt-single-supporter-new-hampshire-primary-poll

    Ouch!! That's gotta hurt... :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Usually when I hear that sentence from foreigners it reads "the stupidity"... heh. Of course, it's hard to argue (see: Donald Trump, Dubya Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc.).

    Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, etc etc

    Carter is just too easy...

    Clinton, getting a blow job in the oval office. Leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth AND leaving evidence for Lewinsky to retain.. BEYOND stoopid..

    Barack Hussein Obama, thinking he could get away with such blatant lying?? Not as stoopid as Clinton, but still up there...

    As with most everything else.. Stoopid is in the eye of the beholder.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the socialist candidates..

    Socialists issue long list of bans at convention: ‘Aggressive scents,’ ‘shortcut’ doors, ‘gendered language,’ ‘talking to press or ‘MAGA a**holes’
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-dem-socialist-convention-derailed-by-noisy-chatter-gendered-language-aggressive-scents/

    About as UN-American as one can get.. :^/

    Democrats expect to attract Independents, NPAs and Trump voters with crap like this!??

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic Socialists of America convention rules:

    ???? No “aggressive scents” in the quiet room
    ???? No misuse of doors
    ???? No interacting with cops
    ???? No talking to the press

    BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  29. [29] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is encouraging: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/7/1877392/-Feel-Good-Story-of-the-Year-Poll-Shows-the-GOP-Is-Fkd?utm_campaign=trending

    Stan Greenberg is a top Democratic pollster. He just released the results of a phone survey that cuts through the clouds of media dust and shows who’s leading the presidential horse race—and why:

    "Most commentators are failing to read how ordinary Americans, independents, some Republicans and Democrats, are responding to President Trump and how determined they are to bring an end to his presidency and its defining fight against immigration and a multicultural America. Voters are paying intense attention to politics, and their conclusions indicate a landslide win for the Democrats in 2020, whether they nominate somebody like Vice President Joe Biden or somebody like Senator Elizabeth Warren."

    He looks at trends such as immigration and intensity (especially anti-Trump intensity), all of which point toward an even larger blue wave in 2020. He has Biden over Trump 49-41 and Warren over Trump 49-43, with Amash taking 7 and 4, respectively. While Dems still won’t win white working class men and women, they won’t lose them by nearly as much as they have. And GOP enthusiasm is flagging among secular conservative and moderate Republicans, presumably because these people want to be able to show their faces at block parties and not have their houses egged on Halloween.

  30. [30] 
    Paula wrote:

    It occurred to me to wonder, today, whether Repub leaders are being threatened by Blotus/thugs a la Putin, who goes after people's families.

    My first instinct is to assume Repubs are sticking with DJT and/or ducking responsibility & refusing to act because they are lying cowards but even I have trouble believing their dishonesty & cowardice extends to the level we're at now.

    There was a panic on Times Square last night when a motorcycle backfired and people thought a shooting was happening. People stormed a theatre looking for cover, disrupting the play and terrifying everyone. That's where were at.

    This morning on Raw Story was a report about an interracial couple in Ohio who's house was blown up last night by monsters who left swastikas etc.

    Repubs started all this, nurtured it and now get to see the fruits and the fruits are ugly. There's also the potential for backlash, which had Repub leaders/media whores all screaming about Julian Castro releasing a list of GOP donors last night, saying it incited violence against the donors.

    Isn't that interesting? Repubs worrying they may be subject to the same kind of violence they've been energetically and irresponsibly and reprehensibly heaping on others?

    Meanwhile the despicable pustule that is Blotus polluted Dayton with his presence today, to be greeted with the baby balloon and protestors. Sherrod Brown wasn't going to be there, but changed his mind & said he would ask Blotus to...whatever it was. Tell #MoscowMitch to move on the House bill or something. Doesn't matter. Even if Blotus agrees, Steven Miller will stop him. Brown shouldn't bother. You can't work with liars.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is encouraging:

    Only because it says what you want to hear..

    :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile the despicable pustule that is Blotus polluted Dayton with his presence today, to be greeted with the baby balloon and protestors.

    Yea.. Nice.. Assholes ruin a solemn remembrance of the victims of the AntiFa shooter...

    Democrats disgust me..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was a panic on Times Square last night when a motorcycle backfired and people thought a shooting was happening. People stormed a theatre looking for cover, disrupting the play and terrifying everyone. That's where were at.

    Yea.. Thanx to AntiFa terrorists.. :eyeroll:

    Only a moron would mistake auto backfire for gun fire..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    And we also come to find out that the El Paso Crowd Based Mass Shooting was not caused by President Trump's rhetoric, but rather it was caused by **DEMOCRAT** rhetoric...

    So, BOTH CBMSs, in El Paso and the AntiFa scumbag in Dayton were caused by Democrats...

    Figgers...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Department..

    Joaquin Castro outed one of his own donors in bid to shame Trump supporters
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joaquin-castro-outed-one-of-his-own-donors-in-bid-to-shame-trump-supporters

    I swear, it must be a pre-requisite that Democrats don't have 2 brain cells to rub together!!! :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    That list was posted on Twitter by Castro, who is the campaign chairman for his brother, 2020 presidential hopeful Julian Castro. The Texas congressman sought to link them to a "campaign of hate" in the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

    “Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump," Castro tweeted. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”

    Harwell rejected the allegation.

    “I think some of the Democratic rhetoric is more hateful than some of Trump’s rhetoric,” he said. “I think the San Antonio community needs to take a real deep look at what Castro is doing. Why is he doing this?”

    He added: “If he wants to play in Washington, he needs to move to Washington. If he wants to play in San Antonio, he needs to at least be sensitive. The rest of the community is sensitive. We’re sensitive to both Republican and Democrat views. A lot of us here in San Antonio are independents.”

    Harwell said Castro was drawing “hard lines,” and said that was “not helpful.”

    Typical Democrat.. Nothing but a Party slave...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:
  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc45835350f71d1fb2f0862df0aa3a24515a1a8427bc6b952b4cad397ad92f8f.jpg?w=800&h=450

    Finally, a REAL Patriot as President Of The United States..

    Thanx Paula.. I wasn't going to go off topic in this commentary thread..

    But, since you opened the door.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump's no racist, as past acts and presidential record prove
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps-no-racist-as-past-acts-and-presidential-record-prove

    When one looks at the FACTS, and not Democrat hysterical bullshit, there is simply no way anyone could HONESTLY believe that President Trump is racist..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump is no racist. I have known him since 1973 and have never seen any indication or any form of racism. In fact, quite the contrary.

    When I was Manhattan Borough president and president of the New York City Council, I asked him numerous times to help black or Hispanic groups, and he always came through, many times without publicity. When a hurricane ravished Puerto Rico in the mid 1980s, I asked many big companies to give various forms of assistance — but the problem was how to get all of this aid down to Puerto Rico. I called Donald Trump, and he provided us with a 727 jet to take all of the donated material down to the island, and he didn’t ask for any publicity for that generous act.

    My friend, Rev. Floyd Flake, the minister of the largest black church in Queens, asked for some help for his senior center. Again, I called Donald Trump and he wrote a big check.

    One day I met an African American woman on the street with her two adorable young kids. She was homeless, and I gave her some money — and then asked Donald to get her into some low-income housing in Queens. He came through, and did so without any fanfare.

    When President Trump recently attacked Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), he was not doing so because Rep. Cummings is black but because the president is a counter-puncher. And he is right that Cummings has been a congressman for 22 years and that Baltimore, part of which is in his congressional district, is a mess. The city has gotten worse during his tenure: more poverty, more drugs and more crime.

    The president is honest and doesn’t parse his words, like most politicians, and that drives the media crazy. But his honesty is refreshing, and he is usually right, if not always diplomatic.

    African American and Hispanic unemployment under his presidency is the lowest it has been in 60 years. The president pushed through criminal justice reform and has created empowerment zones that help economically distressed communities — and their poorer residents — through tax incentives and grants. In short, he has done more for minorities in three years than President Obama did in eight, and he deserves credit instead of rebuke.

    Once again..

    FACTS... vs whatever you call what ya'all have..

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Another One Bites the Dust

    I am remiss in updating because this is getting to be a regular "thing."

    Another Texas lawmaker announces his retirement; Kenny Marchant of TX-24 will not seek reelection. I cannot say as I blame Kenny since he barely won reelection in his heavily gerrymandered district by a mere 3% in the 2018 midterms. While Kenny did not get washed out in the Blue Wave of 2018, he took on a whole lot of water.

    Before the gerrymandering/redistricting of Texas after the 2000 census, the district of TX-24 -- comprised of the suburbs of Dallas County, Tarrant County, and a small part Denton County -- had been represented by Martin Frost (D) for 26 years and looks to turn Blue again real soon.

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:

    Republicans

    AL-02 Martha Roby
    GA-07 Rob Woodall
    IN-05 Susan Brooks
    MI-10 Paul Mitchell
    TX-11 Mike Conaway
    TX-22 Pete Olson
    TX-23 Will Hurd
    TX-24 Kenny Marchant
    UT-01 Rob Bishop

    Democrats

    IA-02 Dave Loebsack
    NY-15 Jose Serrano
    _______________

    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House; the insiders are predicting Blue.

  42. [42] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hi CW - I'm too out of touch with the "extras" in the production to identify which are going to leave, let alone in what order.

  43. [43] 
    dsws wrote:

    This is encouraging

    Only because you believe it. It's based on how some stuff looks now. From the moment Biden has enough pledged delegates for the nomination, right through to election day, there will be a news hook every single day that relates to stuff that Democrats and Democratic-leaning apoliticals don't like about him. You can't have turnout for a Democrat with his history. No matter what the generic ballot polling looks like now.

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I have to say after reading all these that I expected more entries from you folks!

    C'mon, put your Quatloos where your mouth is... or something...

    Heh.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only because you believe it.

    hehehehehehe

    That's EXACTLY what I have been telling Victoria!! :D

    You can't have turnout for a Democrat with his history. No matter what the generic ballot polling looks like now.

    EXACTLY!!!

    If Biden is the nominee, Progressives will stay home by the millions..

    End Result: President Trump wins re-election easily..

    And, if Democrat nominate a Party Pure candidate, Independents and NPAs will vote Trump or stay home by the millions.

    End Result: President Trump wins re-election easily..

    The logic is sound...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Stat-Boi??

    Where did ya go???

    Don't go away mad... :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I have to say after reading all these that I expected more entries from you folks!

    I know.. Annoying iddn't it.. :^/

    C'mon, put your Quatloos where your mouth is... or something...

    As you well know, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, as you know..

    But hay... I'll participate.. :D

    I was going to say DeBlasio is definitely going to bow out.. But I am not sure his ego will allow him too..
    I think political pressure from his day job might force him too..

    So, I'll put DeBlasio on the BOW OUT list..

    Messam and Moulton are definitely going to disappear before the next debate..

    Sestak & Bennet round out my list of "I'M OUTTA HERE" candidates...

    20,000 Quatloos to win... :D

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    42

    Only because you believe it. It's based on how some stuff looks now.

    "How some stuff looks now"!? Your political commentary is rather juvenile. The article Paula posted wasn't even mainly about Joe Biden but about voters and how the GOP is "Fkd."

    From the moment Biden has enough pledged delegates for the nomination, right through to election day, there will be a news hook every single day that relates to stuff that Democrats and Democratic-leaning apoliticals don't like about him.

    Wrong. That shit will start long before then as it always does.

    You can't have turnout for a Democrat with his history.

    There were a lot of stupid people who made the same claim about the political ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden. Twice. :)

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were a lot of stupid people who made the same claim about the political ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden. Twice. :)

    For example...????

    Barack Hussein Obama was elected precisely because he DIDN'T have Biden's kind of history..

    Duh...

    The simple fact is, Joe Biden will not be the nominee..

    Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together and not enslaved by Party or ideology knows this to be true..

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, a factual interlude.

    dsws was right. State polls (the ones the DNC officially approves of) do count. Yang has now qualified for the third debate. More info from the article on others:

    In addition to Yang, two other candidates picked up a poll toward qualifying for the debate stage. Billionaire Tom Steyer was at 3 percent, his third qualifying poll for the fall debates. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was at 2 percent, her first qualifying poll for the fall stage.

    The Monmouth University poll was conducted Aug. 1-4, surveying 401 likely Democratic caucus-goers. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

    Qualification for the September debate closes on Aug. 28. Other candidates who are in the mix for qualifying include Julián Castro and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Both Castro and Gabbard have hit the donor mark, while Castro needs one more poll and Gabbard needs three. Neither Steyer nor Gillibrand have publicly said they’ve hit the donor mark.

    Here's the link:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/08/andrew-yang-qualifies-democratic-debates-1453030

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong. That shit will start long before then as it always does.

    Actually.. DSWS was right..

    YOU were wrong...

    Deal with it...

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The simple fact is, Joe Biden will not be the nominee..

    Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together and not enslaved by Party or ideology knows this to be true..

    if you're so sure, are you going to pledge here and now that you'll vote for biden in the general if he's the dem nominee? assuming you're right, such a pledge would be a meaningless thought exercise. but i suspect you're just blowing hot air on this one.

    ;)
    ~JL

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.]