ChrisWeigant.com

Picturing Democrats Debating Trump

[ Posted Thursday, December 12th, 2019 – 18:51 UTC ]

One week from tonight the top Democratic presidential candidates will gather once again, for another televised debate. There will be fewer of them on the stage this time around, since as of this writing only seven of them have qualified. After the first of the new year, the debate schedule will accelerate, as we'll get four debates in January and February, one in each of the early-voting states. Taken together, these five debates may be the most influential yet, since voters will assumably be paying more attention. But throughout the whole process, my metric has always been to picture each of the candidates on a stage not with their fellow Democrats, but with Donald Trump. Because that is precisely what they're all vying for -- the chance to take on Trump in the general election.

This is why, unlike some, I have not been disappointed when the Democratic candidates get into debate dustups with each other. I have in fact been most interested in these moments, because after all this is not supposed to be a "gather 'round the campfire to sing Kumbaya" event, it is supposed to be a debate. Each of the candidates is, in essence, presenting the case why they would be the best possible one to take on Trump, and that is simply not possible if all the candidates are patting each other on the back and agreeing with one another.

Donald Trump is not going to be seeking to "get along" with the Democrat he eventually faces. Far from it. We know exactly what he's going to do, because he already did it the last time around in both in the many Republican debates and in the general election debates against Hillary Clinton. He is going to play the role of the biggest, baddest playground bully that ever was. He's going to be flinging nonstop insults, sneering at his opponent, and denigrating the entire Democratic Party in the basest possible terms. He's going to show precisely zero restraint. That's what the Democratic hopefuls face, and that's why I want to see the best possible opponent when the general election debates happen. And that boils down to a question of personality. Trump will be a gigantic personality on stage, and Democrats had better nominate someone who has the ability to counter that if they have any hope of beating him.

So today, one week out from the next Democratic debate, I'd like to take a look at each of the five top Democratic candidates, and attempt to grade them on how they'd be on a debate stage against Trump. So let's take a look at the top five, from lowest in the polls to highest in the polls, to see how they might stand up to Trump.

 

Michael Bloomberg

It's harder to judge Bloomberg than any of the others, since we have not seen him debate yet. We will not be seeing him next week, and unless the Democratic National Committee drastically changes the criteria for inclusion, we probably won't see him in January or February either. Bloomberg is buying his way into the race, plain and simple, but he's a purist about doing so because he is refusing donations and footing the entire bill for his campaign himself.

Just on seeing his other appearances on television, and knowing his political style from his New York City mayoral days, Bloomberg could indeed be a potent opponent against Trump on a debate stage. There are two New York-style Democrats running, in fact, both of whom could easily be pictured in a screaming match with a Big Apple cabbie who just cut them off in traffic. That's the kind of energy that is needed to counter Trump's own New York-style politics.

Unlike the other Democrats in the top tier, Bloomberg could take on Trump from a unique angle. Trump likes to see himself as a self-made billionaire, but this is largely a false impression (he got most of his startup money from his daddy, after all). Bloomberg, however, is the real deal. He's much wealthier than Trump, and he built his media empire out of nothing. So Bloomberg could attack Trump for being a phony, while positioning himself as what Trump pretends to be. That could be very effective at rattling Trump's cage.

Donald Trump is, at heart, a very insecure man. A big part of this insecurity is the fact that he's never been accepted by the Manhattan elite as one of their own, no matter how much money he brags about having and no matter how many buildings he slaps his name on. Bloomberg, however, is definitely a card-carrying member of the Manhattan elite club, and so Trump getting sneered at by Bloomberg opens old wounds for Trump that run very deep.

Bloomberg is not afraid of a fight, either. He wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, although he would likely strenuously object to that metaphor, since one of the things he's been fighting hard for is better gun control legislation. Bloomberg wouldn't crumple under a direct Trump attack, instead he'd give it back to Trump just as viciously as can be imagined. It would be a New York City political deathmatch for the ages, in fact.

Again, this impression is based on just seeing Bloomberg in his own appearances on television and knowing his style from his previous political experience. Therefore, it is supposition to assume he'd be just as feisty on a debate stage these days, but I feel it's a pretty fair assumption to make, at least until I see any evidence to the contrary.

 

Pete Buttigieg

I really hate to say it, but I'd have to give Mayor Pete the lowest marks of any of the top five when it comes to picturing him on a debate stage with Trump. Oddly enough, this is because Buttigieg (for all his youthful exuberance) seems mired in the past. Buttigieg seems to think that the normal rules of politics still apply, which in any other year against any other opponent would probably put him at the front of the pack. But not against Trump's bluster.

Buttigieg, even when he has gotten into infighting in the previous Democratic debates, seems to think he's still in a college debating society where all the brilliant points scored are added up at the end of the night to determine the winner. He is wonky and knows his stuff, to be sure, but even under pressure he seems to be too calculating and cautious. What's missing is the emotional intensity that will be necessary to stand up to Trump.

Remember that one of Trump's most memorable lines from his debate with Hillary was: "I'm not the puppet -- you're the puppet!" His most memorable lines from the Republican primary debates were all the times he ridiculed his opponents with put-downs any fifth-grade bully would be proud of. That's how Trump makes his mark, and that's what he'll be unleashing. Now picture Pete Buttigieg trying to make cogent wonky points against such a hurricane of bile, and you can see why I am ranking him the lowest. I just can't see Mayor Pete dishing it out or even countering Trump in any meaningful way (by "meaningful" I mean "in a way voters will remember the next week").

I mean no disrespect towards Buttigieg. In fact, I think that Barack Obama would quite likely fall short in a debate with Trump for the very same reasons I give Buttigieg low marks. I just don't think Obama's cool and calm personality would stand up well in the age of Trump, for obvious reasons. So I'm not putting Buttigieg down as a politician or as a Democrat, I just think that his particular style is much more suited to ten years ago than now.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is, in a word, scrappy. She's not a heavyweight, she's more of a wiry bantam that has more endurance than anyone would have thought. She has the ability to throw a punch and land it, but her style is markedly different than Trump and the other New Yorkers in the race.

Warren is the tough-as-nails schoolmarm. She's the librarian that the class clowns were terrified of, way back when. She will put you in your place without ever even raising her voice. And she'll do so in such a way that will have everyone else laughing at you afterwards.

That would make an interesting contrast to Trump. Warren could very likely weather the storm of attacks Trump throws at her with aplomb, and instead of being fazed by it turn the whole thing back on Trump. We all know he's going to call her "Pocahontas" right to her face, but by the end of the debate, I'd be willing to bet even his own supporters would get a little tired of it. Warren's response would essentially be (perhaps not in these exact words): "Really? That's all you got?"

Warren would fight back against Trump's playground insults by being witheringly contemptuous. She'd point out in no uncertain terms how Trump had lied to his followers on pretty much everything he had promised them. She would outline what would really help average Americans, rather than merely scapegoating immigrants. She would expose his fake populism for what it is and contrast it with all her plans for improvements.

By the end of the night, Warren would be seen as the adult while Trump would be exposed for the petulant little man-child that he is. Warren's combination of wonkiness and scrappiness would likely be more than a match for Trump's bluster.

 

Bernie Sanders

I have to admit, this would be the most amusing matchup possible. Bernie's signature shouting versus Trump's signature shouting would definitely drive up the ratings, that's my guess at any rate. Must-see TV!

Seriously, though, as with Bloomberg, although Bernie Sanders now hails from Vermont, he's still at heart a New York City streetfighter when it comes to politics. Bernie has a way of laughing off opponents' attacks and then pivoting on a dime to his own preferred attack issues. And he's got his lines down pat, since his political positions have not changed one iota in the past three or four decades. He knows where he stands, and he has heard every argument against his positions by now. He knows what works when challenged, and he's ready to turn the argument around against such attacks.

He's also, as mentioned, just as loud and blustery as Trump. That is no small thing. Unlike Bloomberg, Bernie would be attacking Trump's wealth from the grassroots, and his in-your-face style is guaranteed to rattle Trump at least a few times during any debate. Bernie can be scathing, and you can bet he would be as scathing as possible when facing Trump.

Bernie would expose -- even more so than Elizabeth Warren, although in a different way -- how Trump's false populism was never anything more than a big, fat lie. Bernie's progressive populism is the real deal, and Trump's history of empty promises would not stack up well next to such authenticity.

Bernie also has the ability to pivot well. Unlike some of the other Democrats, he can keep up with a fast-moving back-and-forth. His use of humor is also underrated, but would be up to the challenge of Trump's putdowns. Bernie versus Trump would, in my estimation, prove to be a debate for the ages, on entertainment value alone.

 

Joe Biden

Joe Biden has a different style than the other Democratic candidates, but it would indeed be an interesting matchup with Trump's style. Biden can match Trump's "everyman of the people" shtick better than any other Democrat, because Biden has always prided himself on being in touch with the working class. He speaks the language, and he does so better even than Trump can manage.

Biden would also be able to match Trump in one important respect as well: emotion. Trump's emotional palette runs from anger to hatred to paranoia, but Biden is working with a much wider range. As he's already shown during the debates so far, Biden can get annoyed when attacked, but when this happens he fights back as hard as he can. That could be a very valuable trait when facing Trump in a debate, to state the obvious.

Both the media and Trump himself will be waiting to pounce if Biden stumbles or comes up with a gaffe, of course. Trump is likely not smart enough to recognize these on the fly, though, which would be a help during the actual debate. Trump is much more likely to rip into Biden later on Twitter, after Trump hears someone explain to him on television why Biden made a gaffe. This would lessen the impact somewhat.

But Biden would benefit greatly from the fact that he's facing Donald Trump in this respect. Trump is almost guaranteed to get so many things wrong in the debate that stacking his gaffes and lies and misrepresentations up against any Biden stumbles would be almost laughable. Trump has lowered the bar for accuracy so far that it barely even exists anymore, which means that he can never take advantage of an opponent's stumbles because that opponent will rightfully point out his own.

All in all, I think Biden would be a lot better in a debate with Trump than many Democrats now might realize. Biden is feisty, and he is not one given to weathering attacks without pushing back. He could easily hold his own even against Trump's worst attacks.

 

Conclusion

While writing this, I had an idea, so allow me to just toss it out there before my final ranking of the Democratic candidates versus Trump. If I were the campaign manager for any of these Democratic candidates, I would advise them to try a gimmick in the first debate with Trump.

Imagine, if you will, the first time Trump says something that is just flat-out wrong. Now picture the Democrat pulling out a large index card (or even a small whiteboard) and writing in big letters at the top of it: "TRUMP LIES." Then below this, making a mark for the first one, and turning the card to the cameras and propping it up right in front of his or her microphone.

Throughout the night, every time Trump drops another whopper, make a silent show of picking up the card and making another mark on it. Every fifth mark would be crossed, to allow people to easily see the total.

My humble guess is that this would get under Trump's skin and drive him bonkers by the end of the night. In the closing statements, the Democrat could state: "Tonight, the president of the United States lied to the American people [reach for card, and tally it up] a total of twenty-eight times. I promise that if elected president, I will not lie to the American people, period. I would hope that I would only be found in error fewer than Trump's total tonight in my entire first term in office. A vote for me is a vote to return to the truth."

OK, as you can see, I just had to get that off my chest. But getting back to this article's purpose, during next week's Democratic debate I will once again be watching through the lens of: "How will each of these candidates stand up to Trump in a future debate?"

Overall, I am fairly confident that most of the top tier of Democratic candidates would be able to hold their own against Trump. At the bottom of my list would be Pete Buttigieg, who I just think would have a deer-in-the-headlights problem when facing Trump's hurricane-force bluster.

Next highest would be Michael Bloomberg, for two reasons. First, I haven't actually seen him in a debate yet, so he's still somewhat of an unknown factor. Second, I think that while attacking Trump for not being a real billionaire would indeed set Trump back on his heels, I kind of doubt that's exactly what the Democratic electorate is really yearning for this time around.

The top three are very hard to separate because their styles are so different and their overall strengths against Trump are so varied. I think that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden could each give Trump problems in a head-to-head debate, in very different ways.

If Trump were a normal politician and these were normal times, I would probably rate Warren the highest, since she will likely make the best and most realistic case for steering the country in a drastically different direction than Trump. But these are not normal times, so I guess I'd have to rate her in third place.

I say this because the top two on my list would likely prove to be more entertaining than a Warren-Trump debate. This normally would be a minor consideration, but not in the Trump era. Countering Trump's media manipulation is going to be a major factor in the general election, therefore providing an entertaining debate has to be a big part of that.

In second place, I would put Bernie Sanders, who could take all of Trump's New York City swagger and throw it right back in his face. And in first place, I would put Joe Biden for being able to both fight back against Trump's attacks while also having the ability to pivot to softer emotions when the subject matter demanded it. Biden's authenticity would be a stark contrast to Trump's false front, and Trump likely wouldn't know how to react to Biden suddenly talking about the loss of his son (to give just one example).

As I said, my top three are so close in my estimation as of now that they are almost interchangeable. I can see any of them easily holding their own against Trump, albeit in different ways. I wouldn't quibble if someone else listed these top three in reverse order, or pretty much in any order. At this stage of the race, that is actually a pretty good place for Democrats to be in. The field is getting thinned out, and many of the candidates who have fallen by the wayside would simply never have been up to the task of facing Trump one-on-one.

Sooner or later one of the people on stage next Thursday is going to get the chance to take Trump on in person. Democrats' chances of winning the election will depend at least in part on how they do when this does happen. This is a strange metric to use, since in normal times being able to face down a playground bully wouldn't even enter into the equation. As I said, I have my doubts that even Barack Obama -- the most successful Democratic politician of the past 20 years -- would fare all that well against Trump. You'll notice that minor differences in Democratic ideology didn't even factor into this metric at all, because I don't think that's really going to matter much in a debate against Trump. A special kind of personality is going to be required for this task, and that's precisely what I'll be looking for once again, next week.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

19 Comments on “Picturing Democrats Debating Trump”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've been wondering … thinking about something … well, wondering if it is at all possible or just something that can't be helped … like it has to be done, no matter what … which is to say, or ask if it's a doable thing to talk about Biden without bringing up 'gaffe' … I'm also just wondering if gaffe still means inconvenient uttering of a truth or, or what?

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    is the fact that he's never been accepted by the Manhattan elite as one of their own, no matter how much money he brags about having and no matter how many buildings he slaps his name on.

    Not factually accurate..

    President Trump was perfectly acceptable, nay even sought out, by the "Manhattan elite" when he had a -D after his name...

    And, to be perfectly honest, I don't think President Trump gives 2 shitz about what those "Manhattan elite"s think about him now..

    President Trump has 63+ million reasons not to care what the elites think about him..

    Bloomberg is not afraid of a fight, either. He wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, although he would likely strenuously object to that metaphor, since one of the things he's been fighting hard for is better gun control legislation.

    Which is why Bloomberg will NEVER get my vote and why he will never be elected POTUS..

    Bernie would expose -- even more so than Elizabeth Warren, although in a different way -- how Trump's false populism was never anything more than a big, fat lie.

    There are no facts to support the claim that President Trump's populism is anything but genuine..

    I have posted fact after fact after fact from interviews in fly-over country that proves President Trump's bona-fides as a true populist...

    If one cannot acknowledge the factual strengths of one's opponent, one cannot hope to defeat said opponent..

    And THAT has been the story about this since Jun of 2015...

    Always ridiculing Trump's support of the people and never acknowledging his real and tangible strengths...

    Everyone on the Left, including here, has ALWAYS underestimated President Trump and his appeal to Americans..

    This latest faux impeachment coup is a PERFECT example.. Democrats thought that once a case was made, even if it's the most flimsiest and hazy and nebulous case possible, the people would rally and stand up against President Trump..

    Howz that werkin' out so far??

    Democrats can't win against President Trump because Democrats are *CONSTANTLY* under-estimating President Trump.. Are *CONSTANTLY* under-estimating President Trump's supporters..

    If there is a flaw in that logic???

    "I'm all ears"
    -H Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debate

    Bernie also has the ability to pivot well. Unlike some of the other Democrats, he can keep up with a fast-moving back-and-forth. His use of humor is also underrated, but would be up to the challenge of Trump's putdowns. Bernie versus Trump would, in my estimation, prove to be a debate for the ages, on entertainment value alone.

    Bernie's problem is one of health.. Maybe pre-heart attack Bernie might have been able to keep pace with President Trump..

    Post-heart attack Bernie?? I don't think Bernie could do it..

    Both the media and Trump himself will be waiting to pounce if Biden stumbles or comes up with a gaffe, of course. Trump is likely not smart enough to recognize these on the fly

    There are almost 20 GOP candidates who would likely differ with you..

    Like I said.. Underestimating President Trump is the worst thing that can be done..

    All in all, I think Biden would be a lot better in a debate with Trump than many Democrats now might realize. Biden is feisty, and he is not one given to weathering attacks without pushing back. He could easily hold his own even against Trump's worst attacks.

    All things being equal, I would probably agree with you..

    But, before the Biden/Trump Debate happens, there is going to be the Joe/Hunter Biden trial in the senate.. That's going to really chip away Biden's armor..

    As an aside, what kind of Democrat names his kid "HUNTER"??

    Imagine, if you will, the first time Trump says something that is just flat-out wrong. Now picture the Democrat pulling out a large index card (or even a small whiteboard) and writing in big letters at the top of it: "TRUMP LIES." Then below this, making a mark for the first one, and turning the card to the cameras and propping it up right in front of his or her microphone.

    Given the pass ya'all have given Adam Schiff over all of his lies, such a tactic would definitely backfire...

    You can't claim the moral high ground on LIES if you refuse to hold your own accountable..

    All in all, a pretty good synopsis.. But it's all a rosy picture.. It's the best case scenario with not a hint of reality.. Basically you are saying, "Trump will be an asshole and Bernie/Bloomberg/Biden will bitch slap him down and win the debate. Taaa daaaa.

    You and I both know that THAT is not the reality..

    Every time... **EVERY** time President Trump has won (and there are a PLETHORA of examples) it's because Democrats have underestimated President Trump and President Trump's supporters..

    This latest bonehead faux impeachment coup is a perfect example.. Democrats assumed they would be greeted as liberators by the American people once they actually started the impeachment...

    And look what happened.. Democrats are LOSING in the Independent/NPA polls...

    If one can't acknowledge President Trump's strengths, one will never have a hope in hell of defeating President Trump..

    No matter what the platform... Debate... Campaign... Life...

    "Good talk.."
    -Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE ATLANTIS, McKay & Mrs Miller

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Careful, CW. With Trump's childish behavior picturing Trump in a debate could be considered child pornography. :D

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anti-Semitism and Brexit shatter Corbyn’s dreams of global far-left revolution

    Labour leader attracted young supporters but wider public failed to warm to him over his refusal to take a position on Brexit, accusations of Jew hatred and sympathy for terrorists

    LONDON (AFP) — Jeremy Corbyn had hoped to become the vanguard of a global socialist movement but will step down in humiliation after overseeing his party’s worst election defeat since 1935.

    To his supporters, the 70-year-old offered a chance to deliver a radical leftist agenda, shaking up the economy and reversing a decade of Conservative public spending cuts.
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitism-and-brexit-shatter-corbyns-dreams-of-global-far-left-revolution/

    The forces of the Left are on the run all over the world..

    It certainly is not a good time to be a Left Winger, eh??

    I'm just sayin'...

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But as long as you are reaching for what ifs in the future so far this week, why not a what if Trump and the big money Democratic nominee had to debate with a small donor independent or third party candidate that qualified for the debate and the big money congressional candidates being challenged by small donor candidates because citizens were informed about One Demand and some decided to participate?

    You might even find it stimulating to actually have to think about this situation and not just rely on the standard political rhetoric/deceptions to make your case.

    Why are the only what ifs you consider are what ifs that maintain the status quo and not anything that might be able to change it?

    What if One Demand could work is a legitimate question. So is: Wouldn't it be a good thing if it could and it did?

    It's time you provided a legitimate answer to those questions.

    Get Real.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Trump was perfectly acceptable, nay even sought out, by the "Manhattan elite" when he had a -D after his name...

    sure they took his money, but even then they laughed at him behind his back.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure they took his money, but even then they laughed at him behind his back.

    There are no facts to support that claim.

    On the other hand, it's well documented that Trump was invited to all the hoity-toity Democrat shindigs as a guest of honor.. Including Chelsea Clinton's wedding, if I am not mistaken.

    There is, of course, all the honors that were heaped up Democrat Donald Trump.. By the likes of Jesse Jackson etc etc..

    It's all there in black and white.. Donald Trump was the Democrats' cat's meow when he had a -D after his name..

    Donald Trump and the Democrat Party.. It's like a newlywed couple..

    When they are first married, they can't get enough of each other and cannot sing the praises high or loud enough..

    Once the divorce proceedings starts, it's the diametrically opposite.. They can't say enough low and hurtful and hateful things about each other...

    That is what it's all about here.. And that's why it's hard to take seriously... Because the *facts* clearly prove it's all about the -D/-R..... All else is secondary..

    Here. Let me show you..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg was given a glowing review.. Hit all the good points about Bloomberg... Not really anything bad to say about him..

    But all President Trump has to say is, "STOP AND FRISK" and Bloomberg will be reduced to a stack of blubbering jello..

    THAT is the reality...

    And if the reality looks bad for Democrats, it's ignored..

    There are additional examples...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats Agree on One Thing: They’re Very, Very Nervous
    https://dnyuz.com/2019/12/13/democrats-agree-on-one-thing-theyre-very-very-nervous/

    Very good article.. Illustrates perfectly the disconnect between the delusion EVERYTHING IS AWESOME and the Oh-Shit This Is BAD reality...

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    if one can believe what donald said, and that's a big if, his own perception in the 1980's was that the elites didn't like him.

    “The people that I do best with drive the taxis. You know, wealthy people don’t like me because I’m competing with them all the time. And I like to win. I go down the streets of New York and the people that really like me are the workers.”
    ~donald trump, 1988

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-decade-when-donald-trump-became-a-celebrity/422838/

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really can't draw a logical conclusion regarding an entire era from a single quote..

    And I was really referring to the "elites" who are, yes, wealthy people. But not the overall cocktail circuit I was referring to..

    The hate that permeates the soul of the Left Wingery regarding Donald Trump today was simply NON-EXISTENT when Trump had a -D after his name..

    That's my point and there are plenty of facts to backup that point..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg calls for closing all coal-fired power plants to combat climate change
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-calls-for-closing-all-coal-and-gas-fired-power-plants-to-combat-climate-change

    Welp... Bloomberg, and anyone who thinks like Bloomberg can kiss Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
    Illinois, Montana, Texas and Indiana goodbye

  13. [13] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Prior to the 2016 pres. campaign, I never had reason to think about Trump's political inclination, party affiliation, etc. In fact it never occured to me that he had any interest in politics. Of course, I also never had any interest in him, my only connection being TV, and I'm not a fan of "reality" TV.

    So, for purposses relating to this blog, I just Wikipedia-ed him. Their entry on him seems to indicate that his ever-changing party affiliation appears to be far more closely related to expediency than to ideology.

    As with most people, I was astounded that he won the Rep nomination.

  14. [14] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    That could be true, but economics appears to be doing it whether any politicians are for it or not.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    That could be true, but economics appears to be doing it whether any politicians are for it or not.

    Which is at it should be..

    When the technology allows the economics to make the desired changes, there are minimal societal impacts..

    But to unilaterally shut down our electrical grid without have ANYTHING to replace?? Which is what many Left Wingers are suggesting...

    That's ridiculous... crossing the border into insanity...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden and his allies are seizing on the left's crushing defeat in the UK as proof that only a centrist can beat Trump
    https://news.yahoo.com/joe-biden-allies-seizing-lefts-111804366.html

    Looks like Joe Biden and I are on the same page.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    'CATASTROPHIC WARNING’

    Boris Johnson’s landslide UK win sends socialist chill through 2020 Democratic field

    Corbyn's bloodbath defeat in UK election sends 'catastrophic warning' to 2020 Dems
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/corbyns-bloodbath-defeat-in-uk-election-sends-warning-to-2020-democrats

    It's looking worse and worse for Dems.

    My previous advice for Dems to just forget about 2020 and concentrate on 2024 is looking very prescient given the facts and reality..

  18. [18] 
    andygaus wrote:

    This column presumes that Trump will consent to debate his Democratic opponent. Have you considered that he may forgo all debating and just stick to his rallies? His opponent, of course, would call him a coward, but wouldn't have the opportunity to call him a coward to his face.

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    2

    President Trump was perfectly acceptable, nay even sought out, by the "Manhattan elite" when he had a -D after his name...

    Wrong. The Manhattan elites can't stand Trump because they know he's a fraud and a con artist. They'll never accept him or his spawn, and the Trump Trash would like nothing more than to be accepted by them.

    And, to be perfectly honest, I don't think President Trump gives 2 shitz about what those "Manhattan elite"s think about him now..

    To be perfectly honest, you are incorrect. Trump gives a great deal of shit about what everyone thinks of him, particularly the elites to whom he wants nothing more than to belong. That's why Trump lies incessantly and makes shit up constantly. Trump is a con artist who lies and cheats to get ahead... always has been and always will be.

    There are no facts to support the claim that President Trump's populism is anything but genuine..

    You should pay better attention.

    Everyone on the Left, including here, has ALWAYS underestimated President Trump and his appeal to Americans..

    Wrong. I believe everyone here has acknowledged that there are stupid people who have bought "all in" to the Trump con. Trump is a con, a pathological liar, and a cheat.

    This latest faux impeachment coup is a PERFECT example.. Democrats thought that once a case was made, even if it's the most flimsiest and hazy and nebulous case possible, the people would rally and stand up against President Trump..

    Your rhetoric is ample proof as to why you fell for the Trump con.

    Democrats can't win against President Trump because Democrats are *CONSTANTLY* under-estimating President Trump.. Are *CONSTANTLY* under-estimating President Trump's supporters..

    Wrong. We know gullibility and ignorance when we see it... just like we know liars/cons and cheats like Trump.

    Like I said.. Underestimating President Trump is the worst thing that can be done..

    Wrong. Falling for the Trump cheater and con is far worse. It's proof of your gullibility and inability to spot fraud when it's obvious to the majority.

    But, before the Biden/Trump Debate happens, there is going to be the Joe/Hunter Biden trial in the senate.. That's going to really chip away Biden's armor..

    You're so gullible that you believe Trump's trial will be a trial of Joe Biden. Now how stupid is that?

    As an aside, what kind of Democrat names his kid "HUNTER"??

    Duh. Joseph Biden and his wife Neilia Biden named their second son after his grandfather. Neilia's maiden name was Hunter; she was named after her father, Robert Neil Hunter, and she named her second son Robert Hunter Biden after her father.

    Given the pass ya'all have given Adam Schiff over all of his lies, such a tactic would definitely backfire...

    You can't claim the moral high ground on LIES if you refuse to hold your own accountable..

    The guy who idolizes the pathologically lying Donald Trump explaining "moral high ground on LIES" is a laugh riot of the highest order.

    Every time... **EVERY** time President Trump has won (and there are a PLETHORA of examples) it's because Democrats have underestimated President Trump and President Trump's supporters..

    You seriously taking credit for the Trump con? Okay.

    This latest bonehead faux impeachment coup is a perfect example.. Democrats assumed they would be greeted as liberators by the American people once they actually started the impeachment...

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Trump impeached himself by breaking multiple laws. Nancy Pelosi did not want to impeach Trump, but he left her no choice. Full stop.

    And look what happened.. Democrats are LOSING in the Independent/NPA polls...

    *laughs* Your gullibility is sweet and stupid all rolled into one.

    If one can't acknowledge President Trump's strengths, one will never have a hope in hell of defeating President Trump..

    He's a great con artist, and ignorant people will believe damn near anything they're spoon-fed by a con. Meanwhile, Trump has been illegally laundering money for Russians for decades. Your icon is a con, and you're a sucker who's obviously been snowed by the con.

    He'll be impeached, and I have no doubt he'll claim it's what he wanted... and he'll be lying about that too, and you'll believe him because you're gullible. #SSDD :)

Comments for this article are closed.