ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Three Big Developments In The Democratic Primary Race

[ Posted Monday, November 18th, 2019 – 18:13 UTC ]

In the midst of all the impeachment-mania, there have been several recent interesting developments in the Democratic presidential primary race in the past few days. We've now got one-and-a-half more candidates in the race, a major candidate either backed off (as her detractors would have it) or clarified (as her supporters will tell you) one of her main policy positions, and a poll out of Iowa has shaken up the frontrunner status in that state. So let's dig into all of these developments in an effort to see where the race stands, two days before the next nationally-televised debate.

 

One-and-a-half more candidates

I say "one-and-a-half more candidates" not to demean, but rather in confusion. Deval Patrick firmly tossed his hat in the ring, while Michael Bloomberg sort of dangled his hat over the ring while refusing to actually throw it. Bloomberg officially filed to get on the ballot in a few states that had the earliest filing deadlines, but he has yet to actually declare himself a candidate. However, he certainly is acting like one, as he recently made an attempt to insulate himself over the inevitable heat he's going to get for the "stop and frisk" policing policy he championed while mayor of New York City -- and long afterwards, as well. This doesn't go over too well with African-American Democratic primary voters, so Bloomberg publicly apologized for stop and frisk over the weekend, to an audience of black voters. "I was wrong" he unequivocally stated, which is a lot more direct than is normal for politicians' apologies. But one wonders how effective even this abject apology is going to be, in the long run.

Assuming Bloomberg is actually running, this means the field has now expanded back up to 19 candidates. Do either Patrick or Bloomberg have an actual path to winning? Well, maybe, but it's an awfully rocky one. Patrick is hoping that support for Joe Biden will collapse, and he'll be able to capitalize on it. This strategy is complicated by the fact that so far, Pete Buttigieg seems to be the frontrunner for picking up Biden's disaffected voters. Which means that Patrick will have to win South Carolina if he's got any chance at all of winning the nomination. If, say, Buttigieg wins Iowa and then Elizabeth Warren wins New Hampshire, then South Carolina could be crucial. Buttigieg is doing abysmally with African-American voters in South Carolina -- one recent poll put his support among black voters there at zero percent -- so if Biden is no longer seen as a viable candidate, then it is conceivable that South Carolina voters could coalesce around Patrick. Even if he wins South Carolina, though, he'd have to use it as a springboard to launch himself into the running in Super Tuesday, which is a very tall order. So while you can draw a path for a Patrick nomination, it's much more likely that it doesn't materialize. If he comes in third or worse in South Carolina, then he will have no chance at all.

Bloomberg, however, is going to test a political theory. Two theories, really. The first is whether having unlimited funds can actually win you votes. There's a point where television and other advertising just don't have an impact, if the voters aren't buying what you're selling. Professional campaign consultants will even admit that money isn't as important as it once was, because increasingly people just tune out all political ads, especially when they're being inundated with them. Bloomberg is going to find out whether this is true or not, as his stated strategy is to completely ignore the first four states that vote and just saturate the airwaves in every state that votes on Super Tuesday. This is the second political theory he'll be testing -- whether anyone can win even a single state after ignoring the four early-voting states. This has so far proved to be impossible in the past few decades, the most notable example being Rudy Giuliani pinning all his hopes on Florida after ignoring the early Republican states. Obviously, this didn't work out too well for him. But Bloomberg has an absolute fortune to sink into ads, so he may actually be the only Democratic candidate running ads in several of the Super Tuesday states. Super Tuesday is super-duper this year, with a huge number of states voting, including several that are outrageously expensive to run ads in (California and Texas, most notably). So even if another candidate gets a boost from the early states (as Patrick is aiming to do), it is quite likely they won't have the money to fully invest in Super Tuesday, while Bloomberg will have an absolutely bottomless campaign chest to spend, in every state that is voting. Will this be enough to launch him into viability? It remains to be seen, but it's rather doubtful. It's also quite likely that neither Bloomberg nor Patrick will ever qualify for a debate, which will limit the voters' exposure to the two of them.

 

Warren's risky Medicare For All move

Elizabeth Warren made a risky move a few days ago, and it remains to be seen whether it'll pay off for her in a big way or spectacularly backfire. It really could go either way, at this point.

Warren's risky move was to admit reality in the midst of a political campaign. Doing so is always risky, since politicians are supposed to "campaign in poetry and then govern in prose." This is a euphemistic way of saying that all campaign promises are not guarantees of full implementation. Most voters realize this, and they usually forgive grandiose promises made while campaigning later on -- such as Donald Trump not losing any support over the many campaign promises he has flip-flopped on. Voters generally know that campaign rhetoric usually dies a hard death when faced with the reality of trying to get Congress to do anything, to put this another way.

In the Democratic primary, both the candidates themselves and the media (to an almost-universal degree) have been peddling the fiction that every single campaign promise from every single candidate will automatically equate into that policy becoming law instantly after they take office. Just look at the questions surrounding healthcare reform, because it is far and away the best example of the media (most notably, the debate moderators so far) blithely taking for granted that every candidate will be able to enact their preferred policy without it changing one bit in the legislative sausage-grinder. This is obviously not just fiction but downright fantasy, but the debate moderators will never actually admit it. They're so invested in getting the candidates to beat each other up that it overrides the actual truth, which is that no candidate -- not Bernie Sanders, not Elizabeth Warren, not Joe Biden -- is going to get everything they ask for from Congress. Compromises will inevitably have to be made.

Senator Warren, with her move on her Medicare For All plan, is openly admitting this truth. I fully expect her to get beaten up for this during the upcoming debate, by both her rivals and by the media themselves. The "purity versus incrementalism" fight has been such a fun one for everyone involved that Warren pouring cold water on it is almost certainly going to be attacked from all sides.

Warren's new stance is that while she still wants to see Medicare For All enacted during her first term, she's going to wait to make the legislative push for it until her third year in office. In the meantime, she'll make all the improvements to the system that she can, both on her own (by executive order) and with Congress (by using budget reconciliation rules to avoid the Senate filibuster).

How you see this move depends on how invested you are in the purity of Medicare For All. Bernie Sanders is the most invested in this, so he is almost surely going to attack Warren as being insufficiently behind the Medicare For All idea. Bernie will accuse Warren of backing down and refusing to fight to the bitter end, before the fight has even begun. This is quite likely going to hurt Warren to some degree among the most progressive voters, who value purity above all else. Bernie supporters have already been painting Warren as insufficiently progressive, and her new stance is only going to fuel more such attacks.

Warren is betting, however, that she'll be able to increase her support with more-moderate voters as a result of admitting political reality. Somehow, it has been Warren (and not Sanders) who has been painted by the moderate candidates as someone who refuses to compromise. Both Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have directly attacked Warren as having an elitist "my way or the highway" attitude, while Biden makes a similar case against her (while mostly avoiding that particular phrase). By admitting that she's not going to get Medicare For All through Congress in her first 100 days, Warren is attempting to defuse this accusation. "See?" she'll likely say during Wednesday's debate, "I'm not the uncompromising extremist they've been falsely portraying me as -- I'm actually a realist."

Candidates like Buttigieg and Klobuchar will likely paint Warren's latest move as "getting on board with my public option plan," and claim it as a political victory. But in doing so, they won't be able to continue attacking Warren for being uncompromising (although they may just start attacking Bernie for the same thing, which is a much more accurate charge than it ever has been against Warren).

How it all plays out among the voters remains to be seen. Most Democratic voters are pretty much right where Warren is now -- they know that Medicare For All (or true single-payer) is an aspirational goal that is worth moving towards, but at the same time they realize that getting it through Congress is unlikely to happen any time soon, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. Will Warren be rewarded for her practicality and realistic approach? Or will she start losing support from dyed-in-the-wool progressives? This is the gamble Warren has decided to take, and it's a pretty big one.

 

Mayor Pete leads Iowa poll

The third major development in the primary race was a rather shocking poll from Iowa, which showed Pete Buttigieg not only leading the race, but way out in front of the pack. Buttigieg had an impressive 25 percent while Biden, Warren, and Sanders are all essentially tied for second place, almost ten points behind Mayor Pete. That's a pretty healthy lead, obviously, and it is quite likely that Buttigieg's ad campaign in the state is paying off for him. While Buttigieg has been running a distant fourth in national polls, he also has raised a huge amount of money for his campaign, which he has now started spending in Iowa. This ad campaign appears to be working wonders for him, at least right now. In fact, one has to wonder if this poll had been released two weeks ago whether Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg would have even decided to enter the race. Of course, it's only one poll, and things could change, but it certainly is the most impressive poll for Buttigieg to date, anywhere.

The most immediate effect this is going to have is to paint a target on Buttigieg in Wednesday's debate. Up until now, Mayor Pete has largely been ignored by the other candidates, except for a few minor debate dustups. That is about to change in a big way. Personally, I expect to see Klobuchar, Biden, and perhaps other candidates vying for the "moderate lane" attempt to take Buttigieg down a few pegs. I'm not sure exactly how this will happen, since the moderates and centrists all have pretty similar platforms. There aren't any huge areas of daylight between them all, so it's difficult to predict how the others will attack Mayor Pete. Biden will likely remind everyone that he has the highest support (so far) among African-American voters, while Buttigieg has virtually none. But it's harder to see how someone like Klobuchar will take on Buttigieg.

Even in such a crowded field, there may only be a maximum of four "tickets out of Iowa." Perhaps five, at the absolute most. Candidates that come in sixth or worse will have to take a very hard look at their campaign's prospects, and it is almost certain that at least a few big names won't even make it to New Hampshire (Kamala Harris is the most obvious, but she's certainly not the only one). Other candidates who are running vanity campaigns may continue, but those who realistically want to win the nomination will have to come to the hard conclusion that 2020 just isn't their year. With Buttigieg leading the Iowa polls, he's going to be an obvious target for the lower-polling candidates who want to make a big splash in this week's debates.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

44 Comments on “Three Big Developments In The Democratic Primary Race”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Buttigieg is doing abysmally with African-American voters in South Carolina -- one recent poll put his support among black voters there at zero percent --

    There is a reason for that.. :D

    such as Donald Trump not losing any support over the many campaign promises he has flip-flopped on.

    Or Odumbo also flip-flopping on many campaign promises and didn't lose any support.

    Remember.. REALITY based.. :D

    Great analysis, CW..

    It's funny how your commentaries that don't hysterically berate and attack President Trump are pretty much ignored by rank and file Weigantians..

    I find the psychology fascinating.. :D

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Generally a "pivot" comes after wrapping up the nomination. I wonder whether liz warren changed course as a calculated risk or a gut feeling.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Generally a "pivot" comes after wrapping up the nomination. I wonder whether liz warren changed course as a calculated risk or a gut feeling.

    Question...

    Do you think any of the candidates can pivot back to the center, considering how far Left they have gone??

    What would such a pivot look like??

    Every candidate has stated they are for open/decriminalized borders and Free Full Healthcare to illegal immigrant criminals.

    How can you pivot from that and appeal to Independents and NPAs while not losing your base??

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    What I find psychologically fascinating is how voters just accept broken/unfulfilled campaign promises as something that candidate/legislators do.

    They say they support a candidate based on the promises, accept when the promises are not delivered and then vote for the candidates/legislators again in the next election based on the same promises.

    This is not how democracy is designed to work.

    And rationalizing this practice as just what candidate/legislators and voters do is not how journalism is designed to work.

    It's kind of like a broken campaign promise when you claim to present a reality based blog and then consistently publish articles that validate the fantasy.

    I guess birds of a feather flock together and you would rather flock with those peddling the deception
    and that makes you part of the problem.

    Get Real and become part of the solution.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ratcliff makes a good point..

    NO WHERE in the past 6 weeks does ANY witness use the word 'bribe' or 'bribery'..

    NOT A SINGLE WITNESS used the word..

    That word ONLY came about because Dumbocrats FOCUS GROUPED the word 'bribery'....

    Imagine that!! This "solemn" and "serious" proceeding... this "DUTY" that Democrats claim..

    MUST BE FOCUS-GROUPED to settle what EXACTLY the charge against the President should be..

    How utterly pathetic..

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    In the annals of "BLUE WAVE-dom"

    In a nearby city named Cuyahoga Falls (referred to by the entire region as "Caucasian Falls") a political tsunami occurred in last week's election:

    The Democrats prevailed in eight of the nine City Council races on Tuesday.

    You have to live around here to appreciate how shocking that is. There were four Dems on the Council - the four incumbent Ds were reelected and four repubs were knocked off.

    Cuyahoga Falls is reliably red.

    https://www.mytownneo.com/news/20191105/democrats-prevail-in-eight-of-nine-cuyahoga-falls-city-council-races?fbclid=IwAR0liEGZNZZ280W58p0QQlOwW78WNlJD2BW1MiBgPS63Z65QO2ozUCNGNXQ

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Now that firsthand witnesses have testified under oath about the president's actions toward Ukraine, the counter narrative had changed again, from "it's all third hand hearsay" to "they're calling it by the wrong name." No matter what it's called, and even if Donald is re elected in spite of it, it's still a very bad thing for a president to do.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that firsthand witnesses have testified under oath about the president's actions toward Ukraine, the counter narrative had changed again, from "it's all third hand hearsay" to "they're calling it by the wrong name." No matter what it's called, and even if Donald is re elected in spite of it, it's still a very bad thing for a president to do.

    No, NOW the narrative is that NO ONE has testified that bribery occurred, except as it relates to then VP Biden..

    I mean, com'on, Joshua!??

    You are defending a FOCUS-GROUP'ed impeachment??

    "Let's spin the wheel and see which charge is best against President Trump!!!"

    You are fine with such a PR-driven impeachment!??

    As I said..

    A far far FAR cry from what Weigantia USED to be like..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of the RIDICULOUSNESS of having an impeachment by Focus Group, the simple fact is this:

    "Democrats desperation to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to their confidence that they can beat President Trump at the ballot box."
    -Weigantian Wisdom

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    By Democrats' OWN WORDS...

    This impeachment is not legitimate...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to re-phrase....

    Regardless of the RIDICULOUSNESS of having an impeachment by Focus Group, the simple fact is this:

    "Democrats desperation to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to their confidence that they can beat President Trump at the ballot box."
    -Weigantian Wisdom

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    By Democrats' OWN WORDS...

    This impeachment is not legitimate...

    I don't want Liz jumping 10-8 in my shit.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that firsthand witnesses have testified under oath about the president's actions toward Ukraine, the counter narrative had changed again, from "it's all third hand hearsay" to "they're calling it by the wrong name."

    As opposed to the narrative changing from Quid Pro Quo to extortion then to bribery.. SOLELY based on a FRAKIN' FOCUS GROUP!!???

    If yer Dumbocrats change the narrative, isn't it ONLY logical and rational that the COUNTER-narrative changes along with it??

    Com'on, JL.. I expect better from you of all people..

    Funny how, in more than 35,000 pages of witness testimony, the ONLY ONE TIME that "bribery" is mentioned is when the witness was talking about VP Biden's actions..

    And you really think Dumbocrats can make Bribery stick??

    Of course not..

    Looks like Dumbocrats will have to organize a new focus group, eh!?? :smirk: :D

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Let's spin the wheel and see which charge is best against President Trump!!!"

    well, in a presidency so target-rich with violations of the public trust, it must truly be hard to pick just one or five.

    JL

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    well, in a presidency so target-rich with violations of the public trust, it must truly be hard to pick just one or five.

    And, funny thing.. With such a "target rich" environment..

    DUMBOCRATS KEEP MISSING!!!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    But seriously.. You dodged my question..

    Are you comfortable with a "solemn" and "sacred" duty as Democrats claim impeachment is...

    Are you comfortable with that solemn and sacred duty being decided by focus groups.. Being decided by MARKETING???

    I mean, as long as it gets rid of President Trump, right??

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    4

    What I find psychologically fascinating is how voters just accept broken/unfulfilled campaign promises as something that candidate/legislators do.

    It's not really so "fascinating" that voters accept a campaign platform wherein a candidate lays out their agenda and then works to achieve it while those who oppose that agenda are working against them to achieve their own agenda.

    They say they support a candidate based on the promises, accept when the promises are not delivered and then vote for the candidates/legislators again in the next election based on the same promises.

    This is not how democracy is designed to work.

    Wrong, Don; that is exactly how democracy is designed to work. The people choose their representatives based on whatever criteria they desire, and the candidates work toward achieving their stated agendas and vow to continue working to achieve those stated goals.

    Since it's football season, I'll try to help you connect the dots with the analogy that your New York Giants could be fulfilling all their promises of winning if only those pesky other players on defense weren't on the field stopping them from achieving those goals... yet their supporters keep right on backing the same team.

    And rationalizing this practice as just what candidate/legislators and voters do is not how journalism is designed to work.

    Journalism is basically free speech, although quite obviously not unlimited. I cannot fathom why anyone would keep whining that a journalist wasn't fulfilling an obligation that doesn't exist. There is no requirement that a journalist promote anyone's ridiculous idea of what constitutes democracy or even that journalists promote any sort of political agenda whatsoever.

    You seem blissfully unaware that it isn't a requirement that a journalist even cover political issues or that there are authors that do nothing but cover things like football, and I would wager there aren't too many dipshits out there whining that they're not fulfilling their obligation to shill for their fantasy team.

    It's kind of like a broken campaign promise when you claim to present a reality based blog and then consistently publish articles that validate the fantasy.

    "It's kind of like" obvious that your incessant bitching and moaning isn't because the author keeps verifying his own personal beliefs on his very own blog -- oh, the horror -- but because he consistently refuses to publish articles that validate your fantasy. :)

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    5

    NO WHERE in the past 6 weeks does ANY witness use the word 'bribe' or 'bribery'..

    NOT A SINGLE WITNESS used the word..

    They are fact witnesses there to testify regarding their knowledge of what they witnessed. Fact witnesses aren't there to make legal judgments, and it's ridiculous on its face that someone who claims to have investigative experience would suggest that a fact witness should make a legal determination. For instance, John Bolton referred to what Trump was doing as a "drug deal," and that word has used a lot by several witnesses.

    That word ONLY came about because Dumbocrats FOCUS GROUPED the word 'bribery'....

    Wrong. That word came about because the President of the United States withheld taxpayers' funds in order to bribe a foreign government to announce an investigation into his political opponent in exchange for things that are being testified about and written into emails and texts.

    Imagine that!! This "solemn" and "serious" proceeding... this "DUTY" that Democrats claim..

    MUST BE FOCUS-GROUPED to settle what EXACTLY the charge against the President should be..

    I hate to agree with John Bolton, but his description works for me; since those fact witnesses keep using that term "drug deal," that must be what it was. Good thing they didn't call it something else! *laughs*

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    I'll take by your silence that you are perfectly OK with this sacred, serious and solemn duty being decided by Focus Groups...

    As long as they are DEMOCRAT Focus Groups...

    As I said... The difference between Old Weigantia and New Weigantia is the difference between night and day...

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    6

    In a nearby city named Cuyahoga Falls (referred to by the entire region as "Caucasian Falls") a political tsunami occurred in last week's election:

    The Democrats prevailed in eight of the nine City Council races on Tuesday.

    The suburbs of Akron, Ohio. Go 'burbs.

    The suburbs of Cincinnati were doing some major flipping too and had a quite noticeable effect on the race for Governor of Kentucky.

    You have to live around here to appreciate how shocking that is. There were four Dems on the Council - the four incumbent Ds were reelected and four repubs were knocked off.

    It's a familiar story playing out from coast to coast. The GOP is losing the 'burbs all over the country... without abatement.

  18. [18] 
    Paula wrote:

    [17] Kick: Yep!

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    So the GOP is going to keep running with the ridiculous idea that Donald Trump was "fighting corruption" in Ukraine because Joe Biden's son worked halfway around the word several years ago when Biden served as Vice President of the United States... when meanwhile, right now, as anyone living and breathing can plainly see and attest, Donald Trump himself employs his very own daughter and her husband, his son-in-law, in his own administration.

    It truly takes a genuinely special kind of seriously stupid to believe that the guy whose daughter and son-in-law who have been employed in his own administration for nearly three years from 2017 to the present day is suddenly concerned about corruption in government halfway around the world by Joe and Hunter Biden from multiple years ago.

    Anyone gullible enough to believe that Donald Trump is all of a sudden concerned about corruption from Obama's administration while his fashion designer daughter and son-in-law who couldn't pass their multiple attempts to obtain a security clearance are working in Trump's own administration need to get busy and crack some books... because it's never too late to educate yourself. :)

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick: yep!

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Yep' all ya want, Balthy...

    But yer still gonna lose.. :D

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    i don't believe for a second that nancy pelosi called the president's actions bribery and extortion because of a focus group, and i'm curious where you got that notion in the first place. a more reasonable explanation would be that bribery is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable offense, so if the president's actions fit in that box it becomes much tougher for republicans to claim that they were somehow normal or harmless.
    JL

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't believe for a second that nancy pelosi called the president's actions bribery and extortion because of a focus group, and i'm curious where you got that notion in the first place.

    But that's not what I asked.. Assume for the moment that I am factually accurate.. (I am, but I'll play yer game)..

    What would be your response??

    a more reasonable explanation would be that bribery is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable offense,

    So why not start with bribery??

    Why mess with the bullshit of Quid Pro Quo and Extortion.

    Hell, CW did an ENTIRE commentary on QPQ... It's like ya'all's hysteria about 'collusion' and then, when President Trump was completely exonerated on it, then ya'all went "Oh, we really didn't mean 'collusion'.."

    Why the PR switch from QPQ to "Bribery"??

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the answer is because the purpose isn't PR, it's holding the house together. pelosi's goal right now is to hold her caucus together and possibly peal off a few moderate republican house members. the reason for the change is to pitch to those house members who see the evidence of wrongdoing but are on the fence about impeachment. she thinks what the president did, in CW's words, is clear, simple and wrong, and using the constitution to frame those actions is her best pitch to whip votes.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    she thinks what the president did, in CW's words, is clear, simple and wrong, and using the constitution to frame those actions is her best pitch to whip votes.

    In other words, Focus Grouped..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Pelosi ALSO said:

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”

    Basically you are agreeing with me that Pelosi and the Democrats are just throwing a bunch of shit up on the wall and seeing what sticks.. :D

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pardon to CW, i misremembered his words: what he wrote was that the president's actions were simple, obvious and indefensible.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/24/simple-obvious-and-indefensible/

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't believe for a second that nancy pelosi called the president's actions bribery and extortion because of a focus group, and i'm curious where you got that notion in the first place.

    Still waiting for you to address the "Focus Group" thing..

    Do you agree with it?? Or do you think it cheapens and de-legitimizes the entire impeachment, even more so than it already is...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    pardon to CW, i misremembered his words: what he wrote was that the president's actions were simple, obvious and indefensible.

    And yet, they WEREN'T "simple" and "obvious" because Democrats had to CHANGE the "actions" three different times!!!

    The Focus Groups told them that Bribery works best...

    Focus Groups.. For the "solemn" and "serious" and "sacred" duty...

    It is to laugh... :D

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i guess between compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan, she figured two out of three were good enough.

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and i still haven't seen any evidence that focus groups were in fact used for this purpose.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    and i still haven't seen any evidence that focus groups were in fact used for this purpose.

    And you still haven't answered my question.

    It seems, whenever I provide facts ya'all clam up or suddenly have something better to do..

    SO I figured I would try it this way first..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    i guess between compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan, she figured two out of three were good enough.

    Except that BIPARTISAN is the key.. :D

    If it's not bi-partisan, it's not legitimate..

    So say Democrats.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems, whenever I provide facts ya'all clam up or suddenly have something better to do..

    SO I figured I would try it this way first..

    Oh very well...

    I know what will happen.. You'll nitpick and obfuscate.. Anything to avoid saying I was right..

    What the hell.. :D

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘extortion’ or ‘bribery’ was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct.

    According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found ‘bribery’ to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public.
    -WASHINGTON POST
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    sorry i can't stay here so consistently, life tends to intervene.

    you asked a hypothetical question, and provided no facts to support its use. if by some chance a focus group WERE used to frame the issue, what would i then hypothetically think about it? i'd probably shrug my shoulders and figure that was a stupid way to make decisions about impeachment. but that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the result. focus groups can occasionally arrive at the right answer too.

    JL

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't believe for a second that nancy pelosi called the president's actions bribery and extortion because of a focus group, and i'm curious where you got that notion in the first place.

    The fact that you "don't believe it for a second" illustrates the bias that you are operating under..

    A Focus Group is COMPLETELY consistent with the Democrat Party's hysterical insistence on nullifying a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election...

    Now..

    You now know that I was factually accurate..

    Can you grace me with the knowledge of how you feel about it??

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    okay, thank you for providing evidence. my opinion in 35 stands as i wrote it. it would be better to figure out what to say without running it by a focus group first, but the result is still a word that accurately describes what donald tried to do.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'd probably shrug my shoulders and figure that was a stupid way to make decisions about impeachment.

    OK... Now we're getting somewhere.. :D

    focus groups can occasionally arrive at the right answer too.

    Again, NOT THE POINT..

    If Impeachment is a solemn and sacred duty, does it make ANY kind of sense in trivalizing it with a Focus Group??

    I mean, it's not as if we're testing out the endings to the new McBain movie..

    We're talking about DISENFRANCHISING SIXTY MILLION AMERICAN VOTERS..

    You seem to have a problem with disenfranchising Democrat voters...

    Logic surely dictates that you would have a problem with disenfranchising 60 million voters..

    I'm just sayin'...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    okay, thank you for providing evidence. my opinion in 35 stands as i wrote it. it would be better to figure out what to say without running it by a focus group first, but the result is still a word that accurately describes what donald tried to do.

    So... Yer saying that, while not perfect, it's OK to arrive at what to say by a Focus Group than to arrive by.. oh.... I dunno..

    MAYBE FACTS!!!!

    Again, I am just sayin' that FACTS should dictate the charges..

    NOT a Focus Group..

    And, frankly, I am shocked as shit I have to even SAY it...

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    disenfranchising? hardly.

    not that it's at all likely, but if by some chance donald were removed from office for bribery and other crimes, it's not as if hillary clinton or nancy pelosi would then take over as chief executive.

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    okay i have to run now. ciao.

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Again, I am just sayin' that FACTS should dictate the charges..

    NOT a Focus Group..

    on this i agree. but there's no rule that says the two can't independently arrive at the same conclusion. to assume otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy.

    ok, NOW i HAVE to run.

    JL

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    It seems, whenever I provide facts ya'all clam up or suddenly have something better to do..

    Mike should allow himself to consider the fact that his bullshit is just generally being ignored by the majority. Whenever anyone provides facts and links, Mike just generally spews back the same basic shit over and over as if permanently stuck on stupid whining about "WaPoop and anonymous sources" ad nauseam rather than acknowledging anyone else is correct... anything to avoid saying we are right!

    I know what will happen.. You'll nitpick and obfuscate.. Anything to avoid saying I was right..

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘extortion’ or ‘bribery’ was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct.

    According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found ‘bribery’ to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public.
    -WASHINGTON POST
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-calls-trumps-actions-bribery-as-democrats-sharpen-case-for-impeachment/2019/11/14/0ee9a202-0702-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

    And now "WaPoop and anonymous sources" is suddenly good enough for Mike when it fits his agenda. Duly noted. *laughs*

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    38

    If Impeachment is a solemn and sacred duty, does it make ANY kind of sense in trivalizing it with a Focus Group??

    If you want to find out what the people think about different subjects, you talk to the people. It goes on all the time. For instance, Donald Trump has dropped his plans to outlaw the vaping that has killed so many Americans because the head of his campaign found out through focus groups and talking to the people that vaping is popular with many of the Trump ilk. Sad that the GOP would trivialize the seriousness of death and the death of so many young Americans by focus grouping death, but the GOP doesn't care if anyone else dies vaping and aren't going to do anything about vaping now.

    I mean, it's not as if we're testing out the endings to the new McBain movie..

    I mean, these are real people's lives too, and the GOP has trivialized every single one of their deaths by deciding to do nothing about it after finding out their ilk love them some vaping.

    We're talking about DISENFRANCHISING SIXTY MILLION AMERICAN VOTERS..

    No one stopped you from voting so you weren't disenfranchised in any way. Also, if our Founding Fathers had wanted to limit the time for which a POTUS could be impeached, they could have easily written that into the Constitution when they drafted it.

    Logic surely dictates that you would have a problem with disenfranchising 60 million voters..

    Your bitch is with the Founding Fathers and your own ignorance wherein you would equate impeachment of a president with not being allowed to vote. Moron.

Comments for this article are closed.