ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Elizabeth Warren Getting More Electable

[ Posted Monday, September 16th, 2019 – 17:08 UTC ]

It seems like Elizabeth Warren is getting more electable by the day. The more voters see of her, the more they seem to like her, and the more they are tending to support her candidacy. This already has supporters of Joe Biden concerned, although it's not quite a two-person race yet. Bernie Sanders still has virtually the same level of support as Warren, as the two have been locked in a race for second place for months now. But Sanders may not have the ability to broaden his base as much as Warren, who is increasingly seen as somewhat of a compromise between the Democratic Socialism Sanders champions and the incrementalism of Biden.

Statistically, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, Warren won last week's debate. She entered the debate in a strong position, and then improved the most, according to the people polled immediately after watching the debate. On metric after metric, Warren came out in a better position than she had going in, while Biden and Sanders either didn't budge or slipped back a bit. The biggest loser of the debate, according to this polling, was Julián Castro, which isn't all that surprising. Direct attacks on Biden have a way of backfiring, and in Castro's case this backlash was immediate.

Warren is improving on likeability, which is why she seems also to be getting more electable. Of course, "electable" is kind of a fuzzy term, usually meant to indicate how much voters think other voters would support each candidate. Biden's been at the top of the electability heap for a while, but Warren seems to be gaining on him the more voters hear from her.

Perhaps this is why Biden supporters in Massachusetts are trying to make the exact opposite case -- that Warren is not electable, specifically among working-class voters in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They wouldn't be bothering to make such a case unless they were getting a wee bit worried about Warren's rise, to state the obvious.

Warren has three major advantages in her campaign style: the appearance of utter competence, her life stories about her humble beginnings, and her ability to connect with audiences on very esoteric subjects. These are all strengths for her. Political wonks may find it hard to believe, but Warren is still in the process of introducing herself to the public, most of whom (even Democratic voters) didn't know her name before the campaign began. So far, she's doing a pretty admirable job of making her first impression with such voters.

The real question is where Warren goes from here. There still isn't enough post-debate national polling to tell if her debate performance resonated all that much (such numbers will be trickling in all week long). So far, she has been the only candidate in the field who has seen a gradual rise in her polling numbers without also seeing her numbers slip backwards after a momentary bump. Her rise has been sustainable, unlike anyone else's. But she's at a rather critical point in this process, because assuming she doesn't slip backwards (since she hasn't yet), there are two ways the next couple of months could go for her. She could continue improving and eventually start truly eating into Biden's commanding lead, or she could continue to hover (with Bernie Sanders) just below 20 percent.

If Warren does continue her slow climb while Bernie stays steady, then eventually the race will be seen as a two-person race between her and Biden. The pundits in the media are already framing the race this way, due to their blanket policy of either downplaying or outright ignoring Bernie Sanders as a viable candidate (this is a holdover attitude from 2016, it bears pointing out). Since some in the media are already talking about a Biden-Warren two-person race, it might eventually become the reality. That's if Warren's polling continues to improve, though. If Warren can top 20 percent and start working her way through the low 20s, it is almost certain that this rise will begin to come at the expense of Biden's standings. Up until now, that wasn't true, since there were still a whole lot of undecided voters out there. But as the undecided pool shrinks (as the voters pay more and more attention to the race), any major improvement will have to come at the expense of some other candidate's standing, at some point. We may not be at that point yet, but we're getting very close to it, at the very least.

If Warren makes it into the low 20s, then Biden may slip to the high 20s. He's already done so in a number of recent polls, although others still show him in the low 30s where he's been for a while. If Biden slips solidly below 30 and if Warren climbs solidly above 20, then that completely resets the dynamics of the contest. Up until now, Warren first had to climb up to the level of being at roughly half of Biden's support. Currently, she's a bit above this, but the average gap is still greater than 10 points. That dynamic is one of Biden dominating the standings, and his closest competitor still at only half his level of support. But if it becomes "Warren at 23 percent, Biden at 28 percent," then she will rightly be seen within catching distance of Biden. She also will be seen as directly eating into Biden's support, and no campaign likes to see headlines about how their numbers are slipping. Warren will be seen as on the rise while Biden will be seen as slipping backwards, which may further the trend of Biden voters reconsidering their choice.

Or maybe not. So far, that 20 percent barrier has been a tough one to hit for any Democrat not named Joe Biden. Warren's rise in the polls has tapered off for the past month or so, meaning there's no guarantee it'll continue. She may hit a ceiling of support at some point, and be unable to rise above that level. That's the other way things could play out in the next month or so, which will leave the dynamics roughly where they have been for a while: Biden dominating, with Sanders and Warren duking it out for second place, far behind Biden, with neither able to top 20 percent.

One of the most interesting things in all of those FiveThirtyEight.com charts is the grid of who voters would consider as a second-choice candidate. Only two candidates really dominate this chart: Biden and Warren. Both are seen by a large portion of the voters as acceptable in the event that their first choice can't make it. Warren scores much higher than Sanders in this metric, which shows that her brand of progressivism may be seen as a safer harbor than Bernie's by the voters. What it also shows is that if Biden ever slips in a big way, Warren is the one best poised to pick up his lost support.

More and more voters are getting comfortable with the concept of Warren being the Democratic nominee. She's still got a long way to go to get there, and Biden is still far and away the frontrunner in the race. But unlike the other candidates in the field, Warren seems to be the only one significantly improving both her favorability and her electability with the voters. Her folksy stories mixed in with her obvious competence and wonkiness seem like a good mix for this particular race. Nobody (other than Trump, of course) is still talking about the "Pocahontas" thing any more, and Warren seems like a much safer bet than Bernie Sanders for an increasing number of voters surveying the field. That's a pretty good position for any candidate to be in, at this point.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

83 Comments on “Elizabeth Warren Getting More Electable”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    She's live on C-Span right now, Washington Square, NY. Electrifying speech, large crowd: https://www.c-span.org/video/?464314-1/senator-elizabeth-warren-campaigns-york-city

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Just finished watching her speech and WOW!

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Warren Campaign says the had 23k rsvps for this rally; they stopped counting at 20k coz she began her speech.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    this is an interesting question, whether liz warren is "electable" in a general election. for me, warren is sort-of a dream candidate. sure, i'd love it if she became president, possibly even moreso than biden because of her stance on consumer financial protection. however, i'm sure folks also thought that about the last two massachusetts senators to win the democratic primary.

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Leftist Democrats always do this: put up a candidate, and then try to convince the country that their candidate is the best one. Lots of buzz.

    But of course, as the primaries drag on, that candidate is lost in the dust of the centrist candidate. Happens every time.

    "But, Obama!" I hear you say. Yes, but he was actually a centrist candidate, who garnered support from the left. That's the same left that abandoned him in 2010, because he wasn't leftist enough.

    That said, I hate to pour cold water on Warren's plans (so to speak). She might yet make the jump over to centrist positions on some things. There's plenty of time for that.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    By the way, by "centrist", I mean center-left. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no centrists left in the Republican party.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems like Elizabeth Warren is getting more electable by the day. The more voters see of her, the more they seem to like her, and the more they are tending to support her candidacy.

    Let's show some reality here, CW.. The more DEMOCRATS see her the more they seem to like her..

    Fauxchohantos will NEVER appeal to Independents or NPAs..

    NEVER.. EVER...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Statistically, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, Warren won last week's debate.

    Yea, and statistically, Hillary had a 66% chance of winning the election..

    We know how THAT worked out, eh?? :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    this is an interesting question, whether liz warren is "electable" in a general election. for me, warren is sort-of a dream candidate. sure, i'd love it if she became president, possibly even moreso than biden because of her stance on consumer financial protection. however, i'm sure folks also thought that about the last two massachusetts senators to win the democratic primary.

    You are factually accurate..

    Warren is only electable by the Democrat Party...

    There is simply no way that Independents or NPAs will break for Warren..

    Her BAN Fracking and Free HealthCare for Crimmigrants positions alone will make Independents and NPAs run for President Trump by the tens of millions..

    The fact that she supports slavery reparations when only 26% of Americans do is another reason Warren is unelectable...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    That said, I hate to pour cold water on Warren's plans (so to speak). She might yet make the jump over to centrist positions on some things. There's plenty of time for that.

    Not possible..

    She has moved too far to the Left and probably can't even FIND the center anymore.

    And if she tried walking back her far Left positions, started saying things like "Well, I really didn't MEAN that I wanted to give full and free health care to crimmigrants" and "No, I think we need to study FRACKING more because it IS really good for our economy.."

    It's a perfect storm of unelectability..

    If she DOES backpedal on her positions to appeal to Independents and NPAs, her base will drop her like a hot potato and stay home by the tens of millions or even Vote Trump because they are so pissed off..

    If she holds firm on her Far Left positions, then she won't see a SINGLE Independent or NPA vote.. Practically ALL of those votes will go to President Trump..

    So, no matter WHAT Warren does, she is un-electable..

    How AWESOME is that!!?? For patriotic Americans and this country, I mean.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Leftist Media has lost it's mind..

    Remember the dunking-kid meme from a couple of years ago? Little kid runs up to his tiny basketball hoop, dunks the ball, turns around to flex and holler. Meanwhile he doesn’t see that the whole backboard is wobbling and about to collapse on his head. When it does, he looks confused.

    Congrats, New York Times! And Politico. And CNN. You’re all the Dunking Kids. You keep throwing down on the Trump administration. The backboard of truth keeps falling on your head. The rest of us laugh.

    The New York Times just issued its most spectacular correction since my personal favorite, from Nov. 7, 2012: “An earlier version of this article misspelled the singer’s surname in a number of places. He is Bruce Springsteen, not Springstein.”

    This Sunday’s correction cut the legs out from under its big Saturday scoop about a supposed new sex scandal about Brett Kavanaugh involving a woman who supposedly had Kavanaugh’s penis shoved into her hand when they were both at Yale. The Times’ gobsmacking correction noted that in the book from which its Saturday report was derived, “the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

    Backboard of truth meets skull.
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/16/the-media-has-officially-lost-its-damn-mind/

    And it's people like ya'all who are the root cause..

    Ya'all are SO HYSTERICAL for slams and attacks on President Trump, ya'all don't CARE if it's factually accurate or not..

    We see all the falsehoods and outright bullshit paraded thru here as if it was the gospel truth..

    I guess it's true what Biden said.

    Ya'all don't give a rip for facts.. Ya'all are only about TRUTH.. Biden forgot to add that ya'all are ONLY about YOUR TRUTH...

    And YOUR TRUTH, more often than not, turns out to be complete and utter felgercarp...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    This capped off a week in which the Times had to delete a tweet praising Mao Zedong, one of history’s greatest mass murderers, as “one of history’s great revolutionary figures” and another tweet saying that what happened on 9/11 was that “airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.” Times editors doubtless thought that mentioning radical Islamists were the ones who aimed those airplanes would play into Trump’s hands.

    Meanwhile, Politico was sticking with a bonkers attempt to make a scandal out of Air Force members paying a cheap $130 a night to stay at a Trump resort in Scotland called Turnberry while they were refueling their planes at a nearby airport Trump does not own or profit from.

    Politico solemnly reported that “up to 6 percent” of Air Force members had stayed at the Trump property while refueling at the airport. So the resort is affordable, service members have been staying there since the Obama years and at least 94 percent of those staying in the area stay at some other hotel. Politico tried to frame this as a violation of the Emoluments Clause that forbids presidents from cashing in on their position while in office. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    And ya'all wonder why normal rational patriotic Americans roll their eyes when asked about the Democrat Party..

    It's because of all the bullshit that the Democrats spew..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just a few days earlier, CNN issued a report on the circumstances around an American spy being taken out of Russia that was so wrong, the Times felt moved to contradict it: The decision to extract the spy was made while Obama was president, the Times reported, yet CNN blamed Trump for endangering the agent and forcing his extraction.

    This isn’t just a story of media bias. It’s a story of utter unbe-frickin’-lievable obliviousness by the media. CNN doesn’t bother putting a fig leaf on anything anymore: A glance at CNN’s homepage on any given day is like looking at an assortment of Democratic Party press releases.

    Any news that might be happening that can’t be weaponized against Trump is of little interest. Any news that might make Trump or anyone on the right look bad is eagerly pushed through, ordinary standards of fairness and checking be damned.

    The media think Trump’s sometimes overblown attacks on them are making it more vital than ever. But what’s really happening is that the media is beclowning itself trying to end Trump. One recent survey found 95 percent of Americans saying they were troubled by the current state of the media, and two-thirds think journalistic ethics will get worse during the election season. Ow, media. Backboard, head.

    You guys like polls, right??

    What's your opinion of the polls that "prove" Americans hate the media more than they hate President Trump??

    Oh, that's right.. Ya'all will ignore those polls.. :eyeroll:

  14. [14] 
    dsws wrote:

    We're Democrats. We find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's _what_ _we_ _do_.

    So I'm not going to believe that Elizabeth Warren has a shot at the nomination until and unless Liz somehow convinces me that Biden is as strong a general-election candidate as conventional opinion says.

    Biden is a lousy nominee, so that's who we're nominating.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're Democrats. We find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's _what_ _we_ _do_.

    So I'm not going to believe that Elizabeth Warren has a shot at the nomination until and unless Liz somehow convinces me that Biden is as strong a general-election candidate as conventional opinion says.

    Biden is a lousy nominee, so that's who we're nominating.

    After all, it's what ya'all did in 2016, right??

    Go with what works.. :D

    Seriously, I still believe Party Purity is going to win out over electability...

    But irregardless of that, the US of A is much too good of place under President Trump to replace him.

    President Trump will coast to re-election.. That seems to be the consensus of at least FIVE of us here.. :D

    Nice ta be on the majority's side.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The problem is that Warren or any candidate becoming "more electable" usually means they are also becoming less worthy of being elected because it is the big money interests that control the definition of electable.

    And they do it with endless articles like this one aboot the show.

    If this happens, it could mean this. Or it could mean that. We really don't know or care. As long as we keep spewing out bullshit aboot the false choice instead of offering citizens information on other choices then we are doing our part to maintain the status quo.

    "All in all you're just another brick in the wall"
    -Pink Floyd

    Do you do it on purpose, CW, or is it more like the Tull song, "Thick as a Brick"?

    Get Real.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I need a little help here..

    In exchange, I will limit my postings today.. Give ya'all a break..

    I am thinking of a movie scene. Could be a TV show...

    In the scene there is a kid or two.. They are saying something like "I still think we should stick with the plan" or something like that..

    And then the "hero" type grabs something out of a knapsack or packing up a knapsack and says something like "Yea, I think you should go with that.. Follow your instincts" or words to that affect. But the hero type is saying that in a ridiculing manner, laughing at the kid.. In my head, I see the "hero" as Dwayne Johnson type, but that could be because I am re-watching the new JUMANJI..

    Anyone help me out with this as it's driving me batty.. It'll be worth 12 hours of No Michale comments..

    :D

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Dsws-
    Did you mean to say "...that Biden is "NOT" as strong a general election candidate..."?

    Or were you trying to say that Dems will only nominate someone that is not electable?

    If it is the second one, then you are right in saying "It's what we do." That's their part in the show.

    "All the world's a stage and we are merely players."
    -people quoting Shakespeare

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We had better wake up and do something aboot it quickly or we may end up with no other choice than using another Shakespeare quote:

    "First, kill all the lawyers."

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem is that Warren or any candidate becoming "more electable" usually means they are also becoming less worthy of being elected...

    That's one helluva trueism.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I think that scene is in just aboot EVERY movie with a "Hero".

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that scene is in just aboot EVERY movie with a "Hero".

    heh

    Yea, actually I think it's the "kid" that is the actual protagonist in the movie.. The sarcastic Hero has just appeared and is a bit player..

    I can picture the line, but I can't get anything before or after that would tell me what the movie is..

    It's driving me to drink!!! We'll, THAT is actually more of a short walk, but you get the idea..

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019-09-16/what-george-carlin-taught-us-about-media-propoganda-omission-bernie-sanders

    It's time for more than a partial score from the west coast.

    Otherwise you are closer to Les Nessman reporting on "Ch-eye Ch-eye Rodriguez" than Edward R. Murrow.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Jaelen Ramsey wants out.

    Pat Shurmer has not committed to Eli starting for the Giants this week.

    Could this be signs of a trade?

    With Jacksonville playing on Thursday it would give a few extra days before week 4 to get Eli ready to play for Jacksonville.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I give up. I finally get it right but from here it is a "security risk" when it is not from my computer.

    It was supposed to be Les Nessman.

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Statistically, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, Warren won last week's debate."

    I think that is overstating the evidence presented in the 538 Article.

    Warren is top of hill with regards to charts 1, 2 and 3, but none of these are decisive, as they are simply measures of debating skill/style rather than electability. I would go farther by saying that the first chart is close to irrelevant with regards to the political big picture.

    Biden does substantially better than Warren, or any other candidate, in chart 4, which asks the all important question "Who is most likely to beat Trump?"

    Chart 5 is courser grained look at electability than chart 4, and Biden is number one again, with Warren and edging closer and Sanders dropping farther behind Biden a bit, with respect to the previous debate.

    Chart 6 examines likeability as opposed to electability, and again Biden is at the top of the heap, if not by very much, with both Warren and Sanders edging closer.

    Bottom line, it's a complicated race, with instantaneous position, velocity and acceleration all being important to the final outcome.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jaelen Ramsey wants out.

    Naw, there was a slight tiff but Jalen is all JAGS.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOT IT!!!!

    "This pond is all fished out.."
    "Oh I dunno.. My instinct tells me there's something more."
    "Yea?? Well, go with that.. Served you well in the past, right? hahahahaha"

    -Bruce Almighty

    :D Whew.. Now I can rest easy.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Paula wrote:

    It took 4 hours for EW to reach the end of the selfie line after her terrific speech in Washington Square. She generated the largest turnout in the primary process to-date and it's early AND she has 9+ competitors.

    Someone tweeted that her selfie-process signals to people that they are worth the time to her - that they have value to her. And waiting for a long time causes people to invest in her - they want her to do well. Someone else noted that people share their selfies widely (I love seeing them), which is voluntary & genuine, and isn't reliant on some kind of "viral moment".

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

    It took 4 hours for EW to reach the end of the selfie line after her terrific speech in Washington Square. She generated the largest turnout in the primary process to-date and it's early AND she has 9+ competitors.

    Funny how you ignored and continue to ignore all the rock star rallies that greet President Trump...

    Warren has yet to attract a QUARTER of the crowds that wait to see President Trump..

    In other words, Trump is a rock star..

    Warren's a folk singer.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Daunted by Trump's Success, Dems Want the Border Crisis Back
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/17/daunted_by_trumps_success_dems_want_the_border_crisis_back_141266.html

    President Trump is kicking the Democrat's asses on illegal immigration response..

    And now the POTUS has the SCOTUS..

    Democrats are toast!! :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump’s immigration policies are steadily curbing the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border — but some Democrats are determined to keep the humanitarian catastrophe going for as long as possible for political gain and at America’s expense.

    Border Patrol agents are currently projected to apprehend approximately 843,000 illegal immigrants this year. Although that number is still unacceptably high, it’s significantly below the projections that were being made as recently as June, when we were on pace to apprehend well over 1 million illegal immigrants through the end of the year.

    This drop reflects the fact that the number of apprehensions per month has been trending sharply downward this summer — in August, immigration enforcement agents caught about 51,000 illegal immigrants at the Southwest border, 56% fewer than in May, when the number of apprehensions peaked at 133,000.

    President Trump rules... Democrats drool.. :D

    I told ya'all.. There would be LOTS of gloating when Democrats were getting their asses kicked Left and Right.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, our broken immigration system isn’t repairing itself. The progress we’ve made in recent months is entirely due to the tireless efforts of President Trump, who has managed to implement a variety of effective policies to better protect the U.S.-Mexico border despite the Democrat Party leadership’s best efforts to obstruct his agenda in Congress. Even after he fulfilled one of his core campaign promises by securing funds to construct more of the border wall using his executive authority, the president has continued to pursue other impactful initiatives to address the border crisis in the absence of congressional action.

    In June, for instance, he successfully persuaded Mexico to assist the U.S. in curtailing illegal immigration. The Mexican government not only agreed to expand the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum-seekers to stay on the Mexican side of the border while they await their U.S. court hearings, but our neighbor to the south also deployed thousands of additional police and National Guard troops on its southern border to intercept illegal immigrants trying to traverse Mexico from Central America.

    The White House later reached another breakthrough deal with Guatemala that is designed to reduce fraudulent asylum claims, and plans to formalize similar deals with other Central American countries by October.

    Immigration experts widely credit these diplomatic breakthroughs — the enforcement deal with Mexico, in particular — with alleviating the crisis on the border and reducing the rate of illegal immigrant apprehensions.

    Immigration experts give credit where credit is due...

    No matter WHICH metric ya'all want to use, President Trump is continuing to win the Illegal Immigration Battles.. :D

    This is documented FACT.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some Democrats were already seething over a series of recent court rulings that upheld President Trump’s border initiatives, and now that the success of those initiatives has become apparent, they’re anxious to hamstring our enforcement efforts and reverse our recent progress. According to Politico, some House Democrats are looking for “payback” for Trump’s immigration tactic, raising concerns that open-borders hardliners in the Democratic caucus might try to block funding for immigration enforcement agencies, such as the Border Patrol and ICE.

    “There is a greater and greater sense in the Democratic Party that any support of the administration’s policies is giving cover to moral wrongdoing,” Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna explained.

    Remarkably, the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates are even more radical on immigration than their colleagues in Congress. For these extremists, obstructing President Trump’s border security agenda is small potatoes — their explicit objective is to “decriminalize” illegal immigration, turning America into a country with, in effect, no borders at all.

    As if that weren’t radical enough, on the second day of their presidential primary debate in June, every Democrat on the stage openly admitted that they would support providing “free” (i.e., taxpayer-funded) health care to every single illegal alien in the country.

    And Democrats are apoplectic that President Trump continues to dominate the Democrats in this area..

    Funny how not a SINGLE commentary around here mentions ALL of the court losses that Democrats have sustained at the hands of President Trump..

    Too painful?? Yea, I can see that.. I mean, who wants to acknowledge the FACTS and reality when they paint such a grim picture for the Democrat Party...

    But 'ss OK... That's what ya'all have me for.. To bring the FACTS and REALITY to your eyeballs.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, one of the many candidates seeking the party’s nomination, has admitted that it’s “fair” to describe some of her competitors as favoring open borders, saying, “If you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re pushing for, it is essentially open borders.”

    Donald Trump’s success in combating the illegal immigration crisis and securing the border is anathema to the open-borders Democrats who now thoroughly dominate their party’s agenda. They want their crisis back, no matter how much human suffering that entails.

    No matter HOW ya'all want to slice it.. Democrats are losing.. And losing big.. :D

    One day soon, ya'all will come to acknowledge the FACTS and reality... Or just fade away because the "truth"... the REAL and FACTUAL "truth" is simply too hard to bear..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure glad no one helped me with that movie quote/scene..

    I would have exploded from all the facts and reality I have to share today.. :D

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The decision to extract the spy was made while Obama was president, the Times reported, yet CNN blamed Trump for endangering the agent and forcing his extraction.

    I just love how your posts seem to only report half of the story. Yes, while Obama was President, the CIA thought the asset needed to be extracted, but the asset refused — feeling that they could still work without being found out by the Russians.

    However, it wasn’t until Trump became President and proved to be such an intelligence risk that the asset agreed that he and his family needed out of Russia ASAP!

    Trump is a counterintelligence living nightmare! He was compromised long before he took office, and he’s only gotten worse.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj0ccJgJsPA&feature=youtu.be

    Oh SNAP.... President Trump just demolished Joe Biden's "electability" claim..

    And President Trump did it with the words of ALL Democrats...

    DEVASTATING AD... VERY devastating ad..

    GAME Over for Joe Biden ad..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, it wasn’t until Trump became President and proved to be such an intelligence risk that the asset agreed that he and his family needed out of Russia ASAP!

    ZERO FACTS to support that claim..

    ZERO FACTS.. NONE.. NADA... ZILCH.... ZIP...

    As usual....

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Even Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, one of the many candidates seeking the party’s nomination, has admitted that it’s “fair” to describe some of her competitors as favoring open borders, saying, “If you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re pushing for, it is essentially open borders.”

    All that this shows is that Gabbard is just as ignorant as Republicans are as to the definition of “open borders”! Not sure how she is still even in this race.

    This is one area that I admit Democrats have allowed Republicans to take over the immigration conversation. By not clearly defining what “open borders” are, the Democrats have allowed the GOP to keep lying to their base about what the Democrats’ positions actually are. Since Republicans never offer any plans to solve our nation’s problems, they have to lie about the Democrats plans to prevent their base from turning on them.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    All that this shows is that Gabbard is just as ignorant as Republicans are as to the definition of “open borders”! Not sure how she is still even in this race.

    No, it's the fact that EVERYONE KNOWS that decriminalization = open borders but you can't admit that because you KNOW that it will make the DIM candidate un-electable..

    By not clearly defining what “open borders” are, the Democrats have allowed the GOP to keep lying to their base about what the Democrats’ positions actually are

    Not lying at all.. If you decriminalize illegal border crossings, you are making it LEGAL to cross the border..

    Just like when you decriminalize pot you are making pot LEGAL..

    You want to play word games because you KNOW how devastating the Open Borders fact is to your Dim candidate..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still waiting for your FACTS to prove your bullshit Russian agent claim..

    {{cccchhrrriiiipppp}}} {{{ccchhhiirrrrppppp}}}

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    However, it wasn’t until Trump became President and proved to be such an intelligence risk that the asset agreed that he and his family needed out of Russia ASAP!

    ZERO FACTS to support that claim..

    ZERO FACTS.. NONE.. NADA... ZILCH.... ZIP...

    As usual....

    You first! Where is the proof that the decision to pull the asset was made by the Obama administration? From a news source? Gee, that’s where I got mine, too!

    Funny that you do not deny that the asset wasn’t extracted until after Trump had the Russians visit him in the Oval Office where only the Russian press was allowed in the meeting! Yes, the asset could have come to the US sooner, but he believed his cover was safe — that was until Trump displayed how desperate he was to please the Russians.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    You first! Where is the proof that the decision to pull the asset was made by the Obama administration? From a news source? Gee, that’s where I got mine, too!

    My proof came from NAMED sources within the CIA, OFFICIAL CIA spokespeople as reported by WaPoop and the NY GRIME..

    YOUR sources came from ANONYMOUS sources..

    So, you are disputing your OWN propaganda sources?? You are claiming that WaPoop and NY GRIME is carrying water for President Trump??

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Funny that you do not deny that the asset wasn’t extracted until after Trump had the Russians visit him in the Oval Office where only the Russian press was allowed in the meeting! Yes, the asset could have come to the US sooner, but he believed his cover was safe — that was until Trump displayed how desperate he was to please the Russians.

    Once again, you have ZERO FACTS to support your bullshit claims..

    AS IS usual for you..

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “Open borders” would mean there would be no one working at border crossings, no visa program, no passports needed to enter the country. It would send us back to how the country was run prior to the 1920’s!

    What Democrats propose is to make being in this country without documentation a civil matter, not a criminal matter. If someone attempts to cross without proper documentation, they will be stopped and turned away. If they are seeking asylum, then they will be granted a civil hearing on the matter, but will be allowed in the country and released to family members or to immigrant groups that specialize in assisting new immigrants seeking asylum while they wait for their court date.

    The program the Obama administration had implemented had close to a 98% success rate of making sure asylum seekers showed up for their hearing...but that program was scrapped by Trump because it worked so well and he can’t stand being compared to Obama.

    But hey, if you need to keep lying to yourself over what the Democrats positions really are in order for you to believe Trump is doing anything that benefits the country, well..., that’s just pathetic, honestly!

    Supposedly Trump’s next big push will be to stop homelessness...not by assisting the homeless by addressing what caused them to fall on such hard times, but by having them rounded up by local police and thrown into detention centers out of the public’s view. I guess he liked how well the private detention centers worked with asylum seekers that he’s going to give them more business! Screw due process!

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Please, by all means, name your sources and show their quotes!

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Just like when you decriminalize pot you are making pot LEGAL..

    that's also not necessarily the case. removing federal penalties for marijuana possession would not stop states from enforcing their own anti-drug laws.

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Once again, you have ZERO FACTS to support your bullshit claims..

    I claimed that you were not denying that the asset did not get extracted until after Trump’s meeting with the Russians in the Oval Office. Your lack of a denial is my proof. I cannot show you what isn’t there to be shown.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's also not necessarily the case. removing federal penalties for marijuana possession would not stop states from enforcing their own anti-drug laws.

    Since such an exception only happens when states have a say in the issue, it's a distinction without a difference in the issue of immigration..

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Open borders” would mean there would be no one working at border crossings, no visa program, no passports needed to enter the country. It would send us back to how the country was run prior to the 1920’s!

    And THAT is what Democrats want.

    Thank you for your concession...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Decriminalized = legal = open borders

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [36]

    I love seeing people’s posts after meeting her. One take away that I have read multiple people say is how impressed they were by how engaged she was with them in the short time they had together. Yes, there was a long line of people waiting, but Warren made them feel like she wanted to hear about them...and that the people in line would just have to be patient!

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can try to spin that fact away..

    It won't happen..

    But hay... It doesn't matter what you or I or even what DEMOCRATS think..

    It ONLY matter what Independents and NPAs think..

    And, like Russ said.. Thanx to the FACTS put out by the GOP... Independents and NPAs agree..

    Decriminalized = open border..

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Decriminalized = legal = open borders

    Chant this lie all you want, it doesn’t make it true. It makes sense, if you can look past all of the lies Trump and Republicans tell on a daily basis, one more isn’t going to matter, right?

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chant this lie all you want, it doesn’t make it true.

    Your right.. It doesn't make it YOUR truth..

    But it is factual nonetheless..

    And even your own Joe Biden says Democrat don't listen to FACTS and are only interested in Truth.. THEIR Truth..

    Democrat Party = NO FACTS party....

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't you want to talk about all the court cases your Dumbocrats have lost in the last couple weeks?? :D

    Because you are only interested in your TRUTH... NOT facts...

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Combative Lewandowski frustrates Democrats, as impeachment-probe hearing descends into disarray
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/combative-lewandowski-frustrates-democrats-as-impeachment-related-hearing-descends

    Dumbocrats have bullshit and that is all they have..

    And they know it!! :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll never get used to it..

    I start spewing facts and the place here becomes a ghost town.. :D hehehehe

  67. [67] 
    Paula wrote:

    [60] Listen: Yep!

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Comment #66
    I'll never get used to it..

    I start spewing facts and the place here becomes a ghost town.. :D hehehehe
    -Michale

    Comment #67
    "Yep!"
    -Paula

    Well, there ya have it!! :D

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Warren, before huge NYC crowd, touts herself as an heir to female pioneers
    https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Warren-before-huge-NYC-crowd-touts-herself-as-14444940.php

    Ahhhh...

    So the I AM A AMERICAN INDIAN bullshit didn't work..

    So, now Warren is trying to convince people she's a cowboy!! :D

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    After saying for years that they are NOT taking American's guns, Beto comes right out and says, HELL YES WE'RE GOING TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!

    That right there means, Democrats are un-electable..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even dozens of Democrats are on record, wishing that Beto hadn't let the cat out of the bag and blared out the Democrats TRUE agenda of gun confiscation...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems Propose First Gun Grab Since Lexington and Concord
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/06/dems_propose_first_gun_grab_since_lexington_and_concord_141187.html

    The cat is out of the bag.. Patriotic Americans finally have the PROOF that gun confiscation is the Democrat Party's ultimate goal...

    Let me lay it out for you people in the cheap seats..

    Democrats... UN ELECTABLE

    It's THAT simple..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    One wishes the media would stop using absurdly lazy phrases like "mandatory gun buybacks." Unless the politician they're talking about is in the business of selling firearms, it's impossible for him to "buy back" anything. No government official -- not Joe Biden, not Beto O'Rourke, not any of the candidates who now support "buyback" programs -- has ever sold firearms.

    What Democrats propose can be more accurately described as "the first American gun confiscation effort since Lexington and Concord," or some variation on that theme. Although tax dollars will be meted out in an effort to incentivize volunteers, the policy is to confiscate AR-15s, the vast majority of which have been legally purchased by Americans who have undergone background checks and never used a gun for a criminal purpose.

    The "mandatory gun buyback" exemplifies the impracticality and absurdity of do-somethingism. Democrats want to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for refusing to adhere to a law that retroactively transforms the exercise of a constitutional right into a crime.

    And they do it without any evidence that it would curtail rare mass shootings or save lives.

    Democrats have FINALLY come clean to the American people...

    Gun confiscation is their end game..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    While national confiscation would be unprecedented in American history, we already possess hard evidence that bans of assault rifles don't alter gun violence trends. Gun homicides continued to drop steeply after an "assault weapons" ban expired in 2004.

    It's also worth noting that in 2017, the last year of available FBI data, there was a near-historic low of 7,032 murders with handguns, and 403 by "rifles" of any kind, not only "assault weapons." To put that in perspective, there were 1,591 knife homicides during that same span, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking.

    You hear that, people??!!

    More people are killed by FISTS and KICKING than are killed by **ANY** rifle, including {sic}"assault" rifles...

    So, if Dumbocrats are TRULY about saving lives, they should ban feet and hands, right??

    Sounds stoopid and ridiculous, doesn't it??

    JUST as stoopid and ridiculous when ya'all push gun confiscation as a "solution" to Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    The District of Columbia v. Heller decision found that the Second Amendment protected weapons "in common use by law-abiding citizens." The AR-15 clearly meets both criteria. It's one of the most popular guns in America. Its semi-automatic mechanism is the same mechanism found in a majority of other legal firearms in the nation.

    The arguments for a ban on "assault weapons" -- a purposefully elastic phrase that allows the liberal legislator's imagination to run wild -- is centered on aesthetics, on the false claim that the AR is a "weapon of war," and on the firearm tastes of a handful of deranged, sociopathic murderers.

    Democrats and their allies like to mock these sorts of arguments as nothing more than semantics; mostly because they need to conflate and euphemize terms to make their arguments work. It's how they generate favorable polling. I'm sure you've heard about the popularity of gun-control measures. But like "Medicare for All," and other vaguely positive sounding policies, once voters learn what specifics entail, those numbers tend to settle along the usual partisan lines.

    Let me be clear.. There will *NEVER* be a ban on AR-15s and AK-47s..

    Why??

    Because those are simply names... ANY ban that is put forth MUST be based on SPECS and FIREPOWER and NOMENCLATURE..

    And, guess what??? Any ban based on that criteria would apply broadly to TOO many types of firearms to be allowable under the 2nd Amendment.

    THAT is why NONE of ya'all can propose an actual gun control law..

    Because ya'all know that ANY gun control law possible would not be allowable under the 2nd Amendment.

    Once again.. Democrats lose..

    NO Forced Gun Buy Back

    NO AR 15 or AK 47 Ban

    NO GUN BAN AT ALL...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you think you're going to have overwhelming support for "mandatory gun buybacks" when people learn that you're really talking about "the confiscation of 20 million guns," you're fooling yourself.

    WORD.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dem Rep. David Cicilline: Beto Calling For AR-15 Confiscation "Doesn't Help"
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/15/dem_rep_david_cicilline_beto_calling_for_gun_confiscation_doesnt_help.html

    Would LOVE to see a commentary on Beto's gun confiscation proclamation...

  78. [78] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paul Krugman cites support for Eliz Warren's tax plan:

    But last week two of my go-to tax experts, NYU’s Lily Batchelder and David Kamin, released a detailed paper titled “Taxing the Rich: Issues and Options” that, to my mind, answers many of these objections.

    Let’s be clear: Nobody serious claims that higher taxes on the rich would cripple the economy. That’s a zombie idea that has been refuted by evidence time and time again, kept alive only by the fact that billionaires lavishly reward people who push it. As Batchelder and Kamin say, there’s extensive evidence that higher taxes don’t even do much to deter either work or saving among the wealthy, in part because much of the .01 percent’s income comes from things like monopoly rents that aren’t determined by effort.

    On the other hand, the wealthy are quite successful at avoiding taxes. The estate tax raises much less money than you might expect given how big modern fortunes are. Capital gains tax receipts are quite sensitive to the tax rate, suggesting that raising that rate wouldn’t generate a lot more revenue.

    What Batchelder and Kamin argue, however, is that effectively taxing large fortunes isn’t impossible, or even that difficult. It only looks that way because our current tax system is riddled with loopholes. In particular, we tax income and wealth from different sources at very different rates, creating many opportunities for smart lawyers and accountants to make wealth disappear from high-tax categories and reappear elsewhere. Taxes without these loopholes, like Warren’s proposed 2 percent tax on large fortunes, would eliminate most of these tricks.

    And netting just 2% from rich folk can be liberating:

    And here’s the thing: There’s a lot of money at the top. Batchelder and Kamin suggest that various taxes on the wealthy could yield several trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade, perhaps on the order of 2 percent of GDP.

    Two Percent from rich folk does the trick. Not enough to even worry about. What do Republicants have to say about that?

  79. [79] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oop. That last paragraph shouldn't be bolded.

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The AR-15 and AK-47 are not slang terms that cover a broad range of firearms. They are very specific names for specific firearms. Congress could ban them if they chose to, as Scalia pointed out.

    The Atlantic published this letter from one AR-15 owning veteran:

    I read your suggestion that current assault-rifle owners (particularly of AR15 rifles or derivatives) might begin to recognize that the they don't actually need to own such a weapon and possibly even turn them in.

    I happen to own two similar weapons myself, and I readily admit that I do not need them. They are pleasurable to shoot, which I do not do all that often. Other than that, they lay in the top of my closet. My Revolutionary War reproduction Brown Bess musket gets far more use.

    It also happens that I am a school teacher. I spent yesterday afternoon in class assuring 14 -year-old students it was okay to text their parents that all was well, after I observed several students earlier in the day replying to anxious missives from parents.

    I told them their parents were a little freaked out. I told them I was a little freaked out also.

    I did not tell them that I was livid with anger. I did not tell them I had not been able to sleep the last two nights because I was alternating between depression and rage. I did not tell them that otherwise rational adults were now insisting that I and other teachers should now bring handguns into our classrooms and pretend to be infantrymen on a potential battlefield in school every day, because it was even more unthinkable to simply not sell any more weapons of war to civilians!

    I used to be a soldier. I served, mostly in the U.S. Army Cavalry, from 1992 to 1996. I was on guard duty at the front gate of our post in Tongducheon, South Korea, the night we went on war alert that we getting read to attack the North Korean reactor complex at Yongbyon. I carried an M60 machine gun while I was there, and I was the door gunner for my helicopter. That was a long time ago: before I was badly and permanently injured [in a civilian job], before earning [advanced] degrees, before earning a lot of grey in my hair. I turned 50 last year.

    Like I said, I enjoy shooting my rifles. I also said they mostly sit in my closet untouched. I don't need them. Nobody needs them. Many other people, like me, simply enjoy the hobby aspect of shooting them as I do. However, Red Dawn Wolverine fantasists who dream of Civil 2.0, and unreconstructed racists fending off the hordes of Michael Brown teens who menace their fever dreams are a very large part of the equation. They are the ones who largely drive the extreme margin of the gun rights debate.

    In any event, we know the truth. The truth is the gun lobby, many of their supporters, and their lap dogs in government will willingly sacrifice our children...my students...and me as well...to their atavistic god of American military myth rather than just live with only a lever action rifle or a bolt action deer gun.

    This is the sheer insanity of it. They want me to go back to being a soldier. They want my colleagues who never even went to boot camp to now be soldiers with me on the new classroom battlefield so that they do not have to even stop selling any more of these things. This is how deranged and perverse our debate has become.

    It won't do any real good to unilaterally turn my weapons into police at this point, although I would do so if that is what we decide to do as a society without hesitation. Few other owners of similar weapons would do so. All too many have been prepping themselves for their guerilla war against gub'mint tyranny for 35 years and they will certainly not cheat themselves of their shabby uprising if we hand them the opportunity.

    However...

    We cannot dissuade ourselves that we must, at the very least, stop additional sales now! No more AR platforms in gunshops. No more Kalashnikovs or H&K carbines or whatever. No more detachable magazines of more than ten rounds. No more pandering to the nuts who dream of their own movie that they star in every night. No more attention paid to their sophist arguments on how to define what an assault rifle means, or insistence that killers will always find a way, or that silly liberals don't know the difference between a real military weapon and (insert whatever AR clone here)...

    My teenaged son is not up for the gun sacrifice lottery. My students are not up the gun sacrifice lottery. My colleagues and I are not up for the gun sacrifice lottery. I am not going to go back to being a door gunner in the hallway of my school so that an 18 year old unstable kid, or a 30 year old angry man, can buy a weapon, come to my place of mentorship and learning and then kill my students and my friends.

    I'm not going to do that for you, fellow gun owners. I'm not going to do that for you, gun makers. I did my rifle carrying bit for the US of A. I am not going to do it now. My colleagues are not going to do it now. My students deserve a classroom where the threat is kept away in the first place. So do I and every other teacher.

    We are not going to shut up. We are not going to go away. We are not going to be nice or polite. That cow left the barn.

    We are angry, and we are going to make sure you know that we are angry. We are going to make sure you know that your right to buy a weapon of war does not outweigh our right to live and work in our classrooms.

    I can already hear the cries of hypocrisy directed at me, and maybe they are right. But I say I don't need the assault rifles I have, and I say that if we all need to turn them in, then we need to turn them in. That is a decision we need to discuss and make. We already banned sales once before however, and we can do that right now if we have the will. Whatever we do from here, though, we are going to be in your faces and telling you that it is time to stop the insanity.

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    instead of banning the guns, wouldn't it make more sense to just heavily tax the ammunition?

  82. [82] 
    dsws wrote:

    Or were you trying to say that Dems will only nominate someone that is not electable?

    Yes. Hillary Clinton, Martha Coakley, whatever. We as a party will do whatever it takes to lose.

  83. [83] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Poet [81]

    Probably not. That would sorely affect the guys who burn a lot of powder, but the big powder burners are not often the mass murderers.

    It only takes a dozen or fifteen rounds to commit a mass shooting.

Comments for this article are closed.