ChrisWeigant.com

The Staying Power Of Biden And Bernie

[ Posted Tuesday, January 7th, 2020 – 17:46 UTC ]

At the start of the Democratic presidential primary season, some pundits latched onto what they considered a fun way to label how the race was shaping up -- the "killer Bs." You had [Joe] Biden, Beto [O'Rourke], [Cory] Booker, Bernie [Sanders], [Michael] Bennet, [Steve] Bullock, and even [Pete] Buttigieg. That's a lot of Bs, to be sure (a whole hive, maybe?), and it's not even the full list. It was also (as you can tell) a fairly silly way to frame the race, but whatever. The funny thing is, with less than a month to go before the first votes are cast, we've still got a swarm of Bs. Four of the top five candidates still qualify: Biden, Bernie, Buttigieg, and newcomer [Michael] Bloomberg. The only odd woman out is Elizabeth Warren, although it wouldn't surprise me if some pundits started trying to call her "Beth," just to fit her into this strained metaphor.

Silliness aside, however, I'd like to focus today on two candidates who haven't been getting the recognition they deserve from the punditocracy. Both have shown amazing consistency in the polls, even though neither has ever been what you could accurately call a "media darling." If anything, this should show the limited influence of the pundits in the real world of the voters. While much media attention was showered on other candidates (Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, etc.), this roving spotlight has never bothered to shine on either Bernie or Biden for long -- and when it does, it is usually to cast negative aspersions on their chances of winning. But none of that seems to matter all that much, at least to the voters who are paying attention.

Currently, the media have two favorites: Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. Both are held up as examples of who the pundits think the voters really should be backing, but neither one currently has even double-digit support in the polls. Buttigieg made a splash a few weeks back, but his poll average never even hit 15 percent at the peak of this surge -- and now it has fallen back to the high single digits once again. Amy Klobuchar has never gotten close to even 10 percent (she struggles below the five percent mark, in fact), which doesn't stop story after story being written about how perfect a candidate she really would be if the Democratic voters would only wake up and realize it. This is the height of wishful thinking, although both of these candidates have at least qualified for the next debate, currently scheduled for next week.

Instead of living in Fantasyland, however, let's take a look at the reality of the situation as it stands. Joe Biden is dominant. He always has been. He has only been dethroned from his position at the top of the polls once, by Elizabeth Warren -- and this only lasted for a single day. Every other day of the entire race Biden has led, and usually by a very comfortable margin. Biden was the only candidate to get a big spike in the polls when he first announced, although that quickly dissipated. But even without this temporary bounce, Biden had been leading the polls before he even announced his candidacy. Once his numbers stabilized (after his announcement bump), they have stayed incredibly stable ever since. Biden's floor -- the level which he never has fallen below -- is around 26 percent. His ceiling, for the past six months or so, has been in the very low 30s, at best (his numbers have mostly stayed in the 26-30 percent range). In a race with only three or four candidates, that might not be all that impressive, but in the wide field the Democrats have endured this time around, it has been nothing short of a commanding lead. You can count the other candidates who have even broken 20 percent on the fingers of... well... two fingers. Only Warren and Sanders have ever even gotten within shouting distance of Biden.

Bernie Sanders hasn't enjoyed quite as impressive levels of support, but he has matched Biden in terms of consistency and staying power -- even after suffering a heart attack on the campaign trail. After Biden's entry into the race, Bernie has seen poll numbers above his own floor of 14 percent, with a ceiling of around 20 percent. Bernie has mostly stayed in the 15-19 percent range throughout all the ups and downs other candidates have seen. Again, only two other candidates have even ever been competitive with Bernie for second place -- Warren and Kamala Harris.

In fact, only a handful of candidates other than Biden and Bernie are even worth discussing, because they're the only ones who have budged the polls at all so far. Kamala Harris peaked very early on, after a good debate performance, but she never was able to capitalize upon it. To the contrary, she shot up to just over 15 percent -- and then couldn't even sustain the bounce to any meaningful degree. She then slowly lost ground as the voters decided to consider other candidates. This mostly benefited Elizabeth Warren, and Harris became the first major candidate to withdraw from the race altogether.

Warren has had the most interesting trajectory in the polls because she has shown the most movement of any candidate to date. While Bernie and Biden are the picture of consistency, Warren has clawed her way up, then fallen back, and is now trying to regain her momentum. Warren started down in the single digits, then on the strength of her campaign (her plans for everything as well as her on-the-ground campaign effort in Iowa and elsewhere) rose to running neck-and-neck with Bernie for second place. After Harris spiked up and then down and after Warren had a few good debates, Warren began to rise in a big way until she topped Biden at the peak of her own surge, becoming only the second candidate to hit 25 percent support. This, however, didn't last long -- she then slipped back to fighting for second place with Bernie, a race she is currently losing. For the past month or so, Bernie's been besting Warren and he's currently about five points ahead of her. But Warren is still clinging on to roughly 15 percent support, which is a lot more than most of the other candidates have ever been able to claim.

Buttigieg's rise has been more in stature than in polling (at least on a nationwide level -- he's been doing much better in Iowa and New Hampshire, to be fair). The media loves him and can't get enough of him, but most voters are still pretty skeptical. His national bump wasn't all that big, although compared to every candidate in the field except for Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris, it has been the biggest spike of the race. Mayor Pete picked up some of the voters moving away from Warren after her peak, but not all of them. He's been on the wane over the past month or so, though, and is now struggling to get back above 10 percent once again.

But as Buttigieg shows, we're now at the stage of the race when looking at national polls isn't the best way to see what's about to happen. Iowa and New Hampshire are about to officially kick off the primary season, and what happens there will undoubtedly influence the national poll standings. Currently, the race for Iowa is in a three-way tie among Biden, Sanders, and Buttigieg (the latest poll put them all at 23 percent). Warren is hanging in there in fourth place (at 16 percent), and Klobuchar is fighting to be seen as relevant as well. Klobuchar is from a state which borders on Iowa, but even with all her Midwestern cred, she's still only pulling in seven percent right now. New Hampshire is also bunched up among the four frontrunners (although Bernie is currently taking the lead there), meaning anyone who has a breakout win in Iowa could be poised to build on it in New Hampshire as well.

This year we will see a political experiment play out in the Democratic primaries as well. It's like a textbook thought exercise in a political science textbook, in fact: "What would happen if a candidate with at least decent national name recognition decided to skip the first four primary states -- but then had an unlimited amount of money to spend on the Super Tuesday states?" Discuss in a 500-word essay, and yes, this will be on the test. Michael Bloomberg is looming over the Democratic field, and although he can be completely ignored for the first four states, nobody has any clue what's going to happen afterwards. Bloomberg just announced that he's going to personally write a check for $10 million to run a 60-second Super Bowl ad -- something that doubtlessly struck both fear and envy into the hearts of all the other Democratic campaigns. Bloomberg is going to be the ultimate wildcard, but because of the unprecedented nature of his campaign it's hard to draw any conclusions before we see how many votes he can actually buy.

Democratic primaries have two built-in rules that are going to become increasingly important as time goes by. The first is that unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't big fans of awarding an entire state's delegates to the overall vote-winner. Republicans do run early primaries somewhat proportionally, but then they move on to "winner takes all" contests later on. This is designed to avoid a split field and any possibility of a contested convention. Democrats keep with the proportional primaries, though, which could increase the chances of a brokered convention.

But the second important primary rule will likely be the more crucial one. In a Democratic primary, no candidate gets awarded any delegates if they don't hit the 15 percent mark. In Iowa, this happens during the caucuses themselves, as any candidate with less than 15 percent of the crowd gets eliminated and their supporters must choose another candidate to support before the results are made final. In the end, only candidates with 15 percent support even emerge from each individual caucus. In the primary election states, this process isn't as dynamic, and every candidate on the ballot will have a vote total announced after they're all counted. But any candidate with less than 15 percent of that total won't get a single delegate.

If you consider that threshold when looking at the national polling, it's pretty clear that a whole bunch of the candidates still running are just never going to win any delegates at all. People like Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang can claim moral victories for pulling in six or eight or even twelve percent in any one state, but they will not be one step closer to actually winning the nomination.

The most important thing to keep an eye on during the next two months is the movement from "undecided" to any of the candidates, though. We're getting to the point where the voters either have to start supporting one candidate over all the others, or just decide to stay home and not vote. Up until now, supporting a candidate has been more of a theoretical exercise, but when the votes start to be counted it's going to get a lot more concrete.

But while support has been pretty soft for four of the top six candidates (including both Klobuchar and Bloomberg), it has been remarkably stable for the other two. This indicates that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have supporters who are pretty solidly convinced that they're the best candidates for the job. Bernie is currently on the upswing, topping 20 percent in his national polling average for the first time since Biden announced he was running. Biden is also at the top of an upswing at around 30 percent. These could be temporary blips in the way the national averages are computed, though, since there weren't a whole lot of polls in the field over the holiday season. However, the deadline for entry to the next debate is midnight Friday, so we could see a raft of new polling before then. But whether Bernie and Biden continue their upswings or whether they fluctuate back a bit, both are still likely to retain their base of support within the party. While an outsized amount of media attention has been paid to the flash-in-the-pan candidates so far (and those whose flash has never quite gotten lit yet, to boot), this could be the real untold story of the Democratic primaries so far. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders seem to have locked in at least 25 and 15 percent, respectively. That might not sound like a lot, but stacked up against all the other candidates it is in fact incredibly impressive. And what's even more impressive is how consistent these support levels have remained over the course of the entire campaign so far.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

58 Comments on “The Staying Power Of Biden And Bernie”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The punditocracy, let alone the broad-based media and largely inept blogosphere - present company excepted without hesitation - have never taken Biden seriously and I don't expect them to start now.

    They will always be looking for that elusive Biden "gaffe" and never understanding the context of anything Biden has done or voted upon.

    Just today, the NYTimes ran a story about how Elizabeth Warren is highlighting her great experience on the bankruptcy issue and contrasting her "for the people" stance with Biden and his vote for the 2005 Bankruptcy bill, perhaps even calling it "his" bill.

    Well, let me say one thing about Elizabeth Warren and her expertise on bankruptcy - she still believes that, in the midst of the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression, the best way to go about resolving the AIG issue was … wait for it … bankruptcy law. UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE! We'd still be suffering the greatest impacts of that financial crisis if she were running things.

    But, back to the Times story - absolutely no context provided as to what Biden's positive role in that bill was nor was there any analysis of the politics that ensued at the time. PATHETIC piece of "journalism" so typical of the asinine media storyline on Biden for the better part of a half century of thankless service to the country.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I must say that I am actually quite satisfied with how Biden's campaign is going and quite pleased with how Democratic voters are assessing this race.

    Having said that, I think the way Americans settle on their nominee and president is wholly counterproductive to deciding which candidate will be the most effective president.

    Fundraising, campaigning - and debating, as it were - do not properly distill down the qualities and attributes and breadth of knowledge of the candidates that will allow for a serious assessment as to who might be the most effective president.

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I believe Warren’s drop in popularity has more to do with the Uber-wealthy’s displeasure at the thought of Warren actually holding them to a fair standard for taxing their wealth.

    A few reporters who once were very impressed with Warren now seem to be looking for reasons to criticize her, often over the stupidest of arguments — WaPost’s Jennifer Rubin is one that comes to mind. Granted, she is a conservative and so it isn’t surprising how she has put all her love into the more moderate Mayor Pete. I have to wonder if Bezos didn’t “encourage” less love being poured on Warren’s campaign.

  4. [4] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Having said that, I think the way Americans settle on their nominee and president is wholly counterproductive to deciding which candidate will be the most effective president.

    Fundraising, campaigning - and debating, as it were - do not properly distill down the qualities and attributes and breadth of knowledge of the candidates that will allow for a serious assessment as to who might be the most effective president.

    I agree. Personally, I wish we could get candidates to provide a list of their “dream team” staff — the folks they feel would be great in the different advisory positions and that they intend to ask to be on their staff if elected.

    I think we would learn far more about the candidate’s from seeing who the people are that they respect and who they would want to work with.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think Elizabeth Warrens popularity, or lack thereof, is due to far more than just the "Uber-wealthy".

    I think she has alienated a lot of regular-type people who may have some relatively small exposure to the stock and bond markets and mutual funds and the like as a way to secure their retirement, for example, and just don't like the way she comes across as the one with all the answers but no explanation of how she will get half the stuff done.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think we would learn far more about the candidate’s from seeing who the people are that they respect and who they would want to work with.

    Yep. That would tell a lot. But, I wouldn't want to have, say, Biden telegraph everyone he would want working with him until after he won the general election. He might pick someone who ill-informed voters would derail his election.

    Now, someone who hasn't the background and knowledge base that would leave you quite comfortable having those specifics left until after the election - like a Pete Buttigeig - might want to telegraph that very thing just to prove how wise he was in picking those people.

    That's probably about as clear as mud ...

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think she has alienated a lot of regular-type people who may have some relatively small exposure to the stock and bond markets and mutual funds and the like as a way to secure their retirement, for example, and just don't like the way she comes across as the one with all the answers but no explanation of how she will get half the stuff done.

    Sorry, but I gotta disagree! Warren may be one of the best people at being able to break down complex financial matters into words that anyone can grasp. And she, more than any of the other candidates, has provided details on how her ideas would work and how they would be funded. Big Banking definitely fears her becoming president! If anything, she’s been too specific on her policies; which might be info overload for some people.

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Biden has already asked Stacey Abrams to be his VP if he wins the primary, he might want to let that be known soon. I know Joe is pretty popular with the black community, but she might help secure him a lot more votes. It would also let voters know what the ticket they are essentially voting for will look like. For voters wanting a more diverse ticket than the standard two white guys, this would help their confidence in voting for Joe.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden is not going to pick Stacey Abrams to be his vp. Period.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Warren may be one of the best people at being able to break down complex financial matters into words that anyone can grasp.

    Well, Secretary Geithner ate her for lunch at the hearings during the financial crisis and its aftermath.

    Of course, the news media reported that she won. Whatever. Geithner turned the economy around and we are where we are thanks to his efforts to save Main Street … and my registered retirement savings plan (RRSP), thanks in no small part to his efforts, I might add.

    I would be happier than a pig in mud if Biden tapped him to be secretary of the Treasury again. It would take no small effort at persuasion, though, on Biden's part!

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, there I go - I've tapped out too much ...

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Big Banking definitely fears her becoming president!

    Yeah, and everybody who banks with big banking. :)

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know, this reminds of what I think Democrats must do to win the next presidential election.

    They need to make the case that they are the best stewards of the economy. They are repeatedly having to clean up the economic messes created by Republican economic ideology and policy, as it were.

    If they can't do this, then I predict a Trump victory. You heard it here first!

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Addendum to [13],

    Democrats must also admit to their mistakes when it come to their economic prowess … they needn't worry, there aren't that many.

    And, they have a fairly easy economic case to make …

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why the heck aren't they making it?

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You know what has even more staying power than Biden and Bernie?

    Your bullshit and propaganda.

    "We're getting to the point where the voters have to start supporting one of the candidates over all the others, or just decide to stay home and not vote."

    That statement is undeniably untrue.

    Citizens that do not like any of the candidates enough to support one can go to the polls and cast a write in vote. Even citizens in states that do not allow write in votes can try to cast a write in vote and/or protest to build a legal case for write in voting in future elections rather than just stay home.

    But since the whole bullshit two party big money system is predicated on the you only have two choices argument you not only pretend there are no other choices- you tell an outright lie that you know is not true to perpetuate the deception.

    What a crock of shit.

    Have you no decency? Have you no morals?

    People like Bloomberg may or may not be able to buy the Democratic nomination, but it sure seems as though the people contributing to the CW.com fundraising drive have been able to buy at least one member of the media.

    But please, CW, prove me wrong and do your fucking job and tell the truth for a change by informing citizens about One Demand and other options.

    Get Real and become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is no place here for that kind of language and disposition, Don. Shape up or leave.

  18. [18] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [1]

    Don't ever take anything I write as an endorsement of Warren, but I'd point out that what Geithner, Paulsen, etc. did for and to AIG during the financial crisis was simply bankruptcy by another name.

    The company was basically sound (as an insurance company), they just ran out of cash going into the gambling business (and making a lot of very bad bets) and had to undergo what amounted to a de-facto bankruptcy reorganization. Basically, same thing as Gen Motors and Chrysler.

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Actually the place it fits perfectly is comment 16.

    A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet and bullshit and lies should be called bullshit and lies so there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

    It is my opinion and if you are offended by the way I express my opinion you will either have to deal with the heat or stay out of the kitchen.

    Why are the only comments you have about my comments are comments complaining about how I comment on the occasions when I exceed your tolerance and never about the content of my comments?

    Are you okay with CW telling a purposeful lie about citizens not having other choices and CW withholding information about other choices from citizens?

    Can you make a case that he is not being deceptive?

    That would be a real discussion of the kind that you seem to find lacking here in the comments section.

    Yet you choose to instead only comment on how I comment.

    Get Real and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. :D

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the REAL question is which candidate supports pie. shame on you CW for not including pie in the conversation.

    it's a lie to leave out pie.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    First, NO ONE is mourning Soleimani in this country.

    Yea?? And yet, you have Democrats like Rose McGowan APOLOGIZING to Iran...

    Trump insults our intelligence agencies

    Only the ones who tried to stop him from becoming POTUS..

    He refuses to say anything even remotely critical of Putin’s actions...he might say something about Russia, but NEVER Putin! He called Putin to let him know about the plan to kill Soleimani before he let Congress know!

    Which was the tactically sound thing to do..

    You DO realize you have a McCarthy-esque fixation with Russia, don't ya Russ??

    The Russia-Trump connection is dead.. Your golden boy, Mueller, killed it..

    You sound exactly like a Birther..

    Trump ordered the State Dept. to NOT issue a statement calling out Russia for ramming an Ukrainian tug boat and taking its crew captive after the story broke.

    I cannot think of anything Trump ever did that was “rough” on Russia. OK, there was that one time when Trump laid out a bunch of sanctions against Russia — which made him look tough — at least it did until he refused to have our government put those sanctions into action. Yeah, they were never implemented, despite being passed! Ohhhh, Trump is so tough!

    Facts to support?? ANY facts at all??

    No?? Of course not...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is a FOOL!

    And what does that say about Democrat's chosen champion who got beat down big time by that "fool"??

    Again, I have to point out how hilarious it is that you Democrats **LOVED** Donald Trump when he had a -D after his name.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    OOOOoooo Iran Retaliated!!!

    Do you know how HARD it is to fire 15-20 ballistic missiles and targets and NOT cause any casualties...???

    As I predicted, Iran employed a face saving measure that was designed NOT to cause American loss of life..

    Iran capitulates with a whimper...

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that!!???

    Oh.. wait.. :D

    Sorry Democrats.. You don't have a hundred dead Americans you can use to bash President Trump over the head with..

    Aren't ya'all so bummed....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Feehery: Trump is holding all the cards this November

    If you have played poker, you have played against a guy like my friend Woody.

    Woody talks a big game, makes big bets, relentlessly raises the stakes at all kinds of inappropriate times and usually walks away with the biggest pot at the end of the night.

    President Trump is like Woody.

    He would be a nightmare to play poker against.

    He is always on offense. He is always making a big show of his big bets. When he does fold, he does it so quietly, nobody really notices, because he is on with his next big bet.

    Predictability used to be the hallmark of America’s international policy. But Trump has changed that equation.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/477039-feehery-trump-is-holding-all-the-cards-this-november

    Democrats and other Trump foes constantly underestimate President Trump.. They think that conventional rules apply..

    That's why they always lose and President Trump always comes out on top..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    How good is President Trump??

    The president has plenty of trump cards up his sleeve as he moves forward on his campaign to reelection this year.

    He pulled one of them when he authorized the assassination of one of America’s toughest foes, Qassem Soleimani.

    Sure, it was a gamble, and we don’t know how exactly it will play out.

    But we do know that the man who had masterminded death and destruction for decades in the Middle East is permanently retired, and Trump’s decisive action has put everybody on notice, from Kim Jong Un to Bashar Assad that he doesn’t mess around when it comes to protecting American interests.

    Trump’s move to kill this Iranian terrorist has roiled the Democratic primary, caused the left to embrace him as a martyr and sent the mainstream media into conniptions.

    President Trump has DEMOCRATS defending Sillyman.. Democrats are saying Sillyman should have been allowed to live and should have been allowed to go on killing Americans by the boatload..

    As I have asked...

    Are Democrats **TRYING** to lose the elections in Nov??

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump: Iran missiles fired at US were paid for with money released by Obama administration

    President Trump took direct aim at former President Barack Obama on Wednesday, blaming the last administration for giving Iran money that he claimed was then used by Tehran to pay for missiles that were aimed at U.S. troops in Iraq.

    “The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration,” Trump said from the White House, referring to settlement money the U.S. paid to Iran in 2016.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-iran-missiles-obama-administration

    OOOOBBBAAAMMMMAAAA Whaaat it is he's good for..
    Absolutely nothing..
    Sing it again...

  27. [27] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Why the heck aren't they making it?"

    1) Democrats already know this and are going to vote for the Democrat no matter what anyway.

    2) Republicans will never believe this no matter how many actual facts you throw at them, can never be persuaded and will never vote for anyone other than Trump.

    Trump promised economic growth of 4, 5, 6 percent, yet has never achieved more than 3 percent. The economy's growth is due more to the leftover effects of Obama than anything Trump has done. The huge Republican tax cut did nothing, zip, nada to long term economic growth except saddle the economy with with more debt.

    But will Republicans believe that? No, to them Trump is the Second Coming. So why bother?

    3) The only case to be made is to the small percentage of swing independent voters. And honestly, Democratic resources might be better spent on fighting voter suppression and get out the vote efforts of the Democratic base rather than on trying to persuade a small handful of independent swing voters.

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    [23] Michale wrote:

    "Do you know how HARD it is to fire 15-20 ballistic missiles and targets and NOT cause any casualties...???"

    Actually its VERY HARD. If you know anything about missile guidance systems and trying to control ballistic trajectories!

    Funny also how Iran comes off as more reasonable than Trump in trying to deescalate things!!!

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hispanic Border Patrol agents rip media: 'They make it feel like it's wrong'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/hispanic-border-patrol-media-coverage-lara-logan

    I swear.. Demcorats and their media puppets..

    They simply have no shame..

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually its VERY HARD. If you know anything about missile guidance systems and trying to control ballistic trajectories!

    Not hard at all.. Think Las Vegas shooting.

    With ballistic missiles fired into a crowded base, it's hard NOT to hit or kill someone..

    Funny also how Iran comes off as more reasonable than Trump in trying to deescalate things!!!

    So you side with Iran against your own country..

    Yep... That's what I figured..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course Iran wants to de-escalate things..

    President Trump could wipe them off the map with a single order..

    Iran tweaked the tale of the tiger but had no plan in place for dealing with the teeth of the tiger..

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    All because Trump could not stand that Obama had mocked him during the WH correspondents dinner years ago...

    I seem to recall Odumbo making the claim, "Donald Trump will NEVER be President Of The United States" or words to that effect..

    So, it's obvious to all but the most virulent Trump/America haters that Donald Trump.... excuse me.. PRESIDENT Donald Trump got the last laugh at Odumbo's expense.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
    -Ensign Hikaru Sulu

    :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let’s be clear — Iraqi’s attacked the US consulate in Iraq. They may have been backed by Iran, they may have been funded by Iran; but it was Iraqi’s that did the damaging and attacking!

    And one again.. Iran appeasement is the way of the Democrats..

    The attack was planned, funded and approved by Iran..

    Using your reasoning, the guy who hires the hitman to kill is completely innocent and blameless and only the hitman is to guilty...

    You DO realize that THAT is complete and utter bullshit...

    Right??

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran’s foreign minister on Wednesday clearly signaled that his nation had made its point and is now looking to step back from the brink of a full-blown war. After the firing of ballistic missiles at Iraqi military bases that housed U.S troops, Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that Iran had “concluded” its attacks on American forces and “did not seek escalation or war.”
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/08/trump_hails_iran_standing_down_vows_new_sanctions__142107.html

    Brave Sir Robin Ran Away..
    Bravely Ran Away.. Away...
    When Danger Reared It's Ugly Head..
    He Bravely Turned His Tail And Fled...

    It's really simple, people..

    Don't mess with the US..

    "Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.."
    -Toby Keith

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justice will be served and the battle will rage
    This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
    And you'll be sorry that you messed with
    The U.S. of A.
    'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
    It's the American way

    Hey uncle sam put your name at the top of his list
    And the Statue of Liberty started shakin' her fist
    And the eagle will fly it's gonna be hell
    When you hear mother freedom start ringin' her bell
    And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
    Brought to you courtesy of the red white and blue

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "Do you know how HARD it is to fire 15-20 ballistic missiles and targets and NOT cause any casualties...???"

    Well, it is pretty tough to cause casualties when you aim at areas that are known to have very few people in the area and, just to be safe, you also call ahead to warn the ones there to get out ASAP! Iran wasn’t looking to escalate this matter...which is why they aimed their missiles where they did and called Iraq to warn them when & where the missiles were going to strike.

    Yea?? And yet, you have Democrats like Rose McGowan APOLOGIZING to Iran...

    OMG! Seriously, this is the best you could do?!?! Rose McGowan (I had to look her up because I knew the name, but could not figure out from where) is an Independent, and she is best known as the replacement for Shannon Doherty on the TV show Charmed...that ended in 2006! She is no politician. But I guess when you are as desperate as you apparently are to find someone to paint all Democrats as being just like to fit your dishonest assessments, you really cannot be too picky!

    Little secret I will share with you... We can all tell when you are desperate to defend Trump but there just isn’t anything for you to use to do so because you use the old, “You loved my master when he had a “-D” after his name, bullshit line that has been thoroughly debunked by just about every person on this site. It’s just filler that wreaks of desperation!

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And one again.. Iran appeasement is the way of the Democrats..

    Only if you now call our pointing out your lies “Iran appeasement”.

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What on God’s green Earth is Mr. Trump supposed to do in response to such an attack?

    Write a check for more than $1 billion and give it to the mullahs? Send a plane under the cover of darkness carrying pallets of $400 million in unmarked cash for the ayatollah? Wipe out effective sanctions so that Soleimani might sow even more terrorism around the world?

    Let’s be clear — Iraqi’s attacked the US consulate in Iraq. They may have been backed by Iran, they may have been funded by Iran; but it was Iraqi’s that did the damaging and attacking!

    Do you know why Iran received that pallet of cash? It is because that was THEIR money that we had frozen in their US bank accounts. They were able to get that money back after they agreed to the demands that WE had set for them!

    Why did they agree to our demands? Because they had suffered for decades under the sanctions we had imposed on them and realized the best thing for their country’s people was to agree to what we were demanding. Their economy could not grow and get stronger unless they got out from under our sanctions. They signed the nuclear agreement with us and four other countries — agreeing to our terms in exchange for removing the sanctions on them — and suddenly Iran was not the world’s leading bad player anymore! With the sanctions removed, Iran’s economy improved greatly.

    They were happy. We were happy. The world was happy.

    Then Trump got elected and decided that Iran was lying to us and were not following through on their promises. Trump had no proof that Iran was not keeping its word (And Trump cannot be taken seriously anytime that he dares to complain that someone else is lying!). In fact, every time you ordered your people to find evidence of Iran lying, they came back and reported that they could not!

    So what was the stupidest thing someone in Trump’s position could do? Walk away from the deal, breaking our word and telling the world that the US cannot be trusted to keep its word. No agreement, no treaty, no “you have our word” will ever carry the same weight that it once did. Trump dumped the old sanctions back on Iran, but not before making them harsher, for not agreeing to the conditions that they had agreed to!

    Iran had finally caved into our demands after decades of sanctions crushing their economy. There was peace where it had not been in decades...but Trump chose to undo that! Iran is back to their old tricks now. Iran was no longer working towards creating their nuclear arsenal... now they are again! All because Trump could not stand that Obama had mocked him during the WH correspondents dinner years ago...

  40. [40] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As a result of Trump’s bellicose and incoherent foreign policy, a president promising to end “forever wars” soon will have deployed 18,000 more troops since his “maximum pressure” campaign began in 2019. (As Time magazine reported: “The Pentagon announced the deployment of about 3,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division to Kuwait, an ‘Immediate Response Force’ that joins the 15,000 American troops sent to the Middle East since the situation with Iran began to deteriorate last spring.”)

    How does Trump’s base feel about that?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/08/trumps-war-mongering-with-iran-wont-be-political-winner/

    18,000 more US military personnel have been sent to the ME in response to Trump’s mishandling of Iran!

    And doesn’t seem out of character for Trump not to be boasting about that imminent attack that he saved us from? I mean, the man tried to say he was down there with the first responders on 9/11, so it is really odd that he would refrain from sharing every heroic detail at length with the American public. I am guessing that Trump is unable to create a scenario in his head that terrorist experts wouldn’t laugh him out of the room if he claimed was their plan.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it is pretty tough to cause casualties when you aim at areas that are known to have very few people in the area

    Except Iran was aiming for US Military bases..

    OMG! Seriously, this is the best you could do?!?! Rose McGowan (I had to look her up because I knew the name, but could not figure out from where) is an Independent, and she is best known as the replacement for Shannon Doherty on the TV show Charmed...that ended in 2006! She is no politician. But I guess when you are as desperate as you apparently are to find someone to paint all Democrats as being just like to fit your dishonest assessments, you really cannot be too picky!

    Actually, Rose McGowan is famous for taking down Harvey Weintein after he payed her off a couple hundred thousand..

    She is also a dyed in the wool Democrat and Trump America hater..

    But I wouldn't expect you to know THESE FACTS...

    We can all tell when you are desperate to defend Trump but there just isn’t anything for you to use to do so because you use the old, “You loved my master when he had a “-D” after his name, bullshit line that has been thoroughly debunked by just about every person on this site. I

    ANd not a single one of ya'all have been able to refute it..

    Of course I trot out the winning arguments.. I love making ya'all (NEN) look foolish.. :D

    Only if you now call our pointing out your lies “Iran appeasement”.

    No, I call lifting sanctions and give Iran billions of dollars so Iran can continue to fund their terrorist activities 'appeasement'...

    Democrats.. The Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done..

    The vast majority of Americans are behind President Trump in his dealings with Iran.

    And the Democrat Party is, once again, the APPEASEMENT PARTY...

    Nov 2020 is going to be an utter WIPE OUT for the APPEASEMENT Party...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW..

    McConnell just ate Pelosi and Schumer's lunch

    (CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer have been bested by Mitch McConnell yet again. The two Democrats attempted to create impeachment leverage where none existed by withholding the Articles of Impeachment passed last month against President Donald Trump.

    But like your Aunt Frieda threatening not to bring her awful fruitcake to Christmas Dinner, their plan didn't work. Nobody wanted it in the first place.

    McConnell won this round against his Keystone Cops opposition because he has something Schumer and Pelosi don't: a reasonable argument.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/opinions/mcconnell-impeachment-pelosi-schumer-jennings/index.html

    Even CNN gets it right once in a while...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The days of Pelosi being hailed as some next-level genius impeachment strategist I guess will have to come to an end for the liberal pundit industry. Her plan to withhold the articles of impeachment to create that "leverage" over McConnell failed spectacularly. No Republicans were harmed, pressured, or otherwise inconvenienced in the making of this sad, sad film.

    Under the rules pushed by McConnell, same as for Clinton, the US Senate will begin the impeachment trial by listening to presentations from the House managers and the President's lawyers. Then there will be a question and answer period for senators to get information from the presenters.

    And then the Senate can decide what it wants to do about witnesses. Maybe they will want to hear from some. Maybe they won't. Even if they do, don't bet on a quick resolution. No matter what former National Security Adviser John Bolton says about being willing to testify under subpoena from the Senate, it is likely the White House would invoke executive privilege to try to prevent his testimony.

    Democrats are looking more like incompetent fools every day... :eyeroll:

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bolton's announcement won't change McConnell's thinking on how to process this impeachment, and underscores what a blunder it was for Pelosi and Adam Schiff to have failed to subpoena Bolton in the first place.

    And now McConnell has exposed them for what they are -- desperate partisans who aren't interested in using impeachment the way the founders intended, but rather as just another tactic to be deployed in the hopes of trapping some Republican senator in a vote that can be used in an attack ad.

    They failed to convince a single Republican in the House that impeachment was necessary. They failed to pressure Mitch McConnell's conference to do their homework for them.

    And they will fail to remove President Trump from office when all is said and done, instead delivering him to a perch of exoneration from which he will bludgeon them for weeks.

    This could not have gone more poorly if the Democrats had tried. Any Republican senator on the ballot this year knows it would be suicide to join Pelosi or Schumer's hapless crusade now. Better to let the people decide Trump's fate in November than allow the Washington partisans to try in January.

    These are YOUR Democrats people... You simply CANNOT tell me that ya'all approve of the Democrats' handling of impeachment...

    Is there no one here who can speak facts and reality instead of partisan bullshit and Party slavery??

    Anyone???

    "Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler???.."

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    If this was Iran's response, then killing Soleimani was a major victory for Trump

    Should the missile attack on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops turn out to be the extent of Iran's response, then the operation to kill Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani will turn out to be a major victory for President Trump.

    Though the Pentagon has yet to release a full damage assessment, preliminary reports suggest that Iran's action resulted in no U.S. casualties. After days of tough talk and chants of, "Death to America," Iranian officials are now claiming that they have no interest in further escalation if the United States does not retaliate. This could be it.

    If this is indeed the case, there is no doubt that the U.S. dealt a far more devastating blow to Iran than it absorbed in return. Soleimani was one of the most important figures in Iran and the architect of its regional strategy to extend the regime's influence from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. He directed global terrorist attacks, targeted U.S. troops in Iraq, aided Bashar Assad in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people, supported the terrorist group Hezbollah, and fueled the civil war in Yemen by supporting the radical Houthi movement.

    Analysts of all ideological stripes argued that Soleimani was irreplaceable to Iran and that his death was a devastating blow to the regime. The major debate concerned whether the benefits of killing Soleimani were worth the risks of triggering an Iranian response that would eventually escalate into a bloody war.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/if-this-was-irans-response-qassem-soleimani-killing-was-a-major-victory-for-donald-trump

    President Trump takes out a *MAJOR* Iranian player and terrorist..

    All Iran got out of it was a few bomb craters in empty areas of Iraqi bases that house American operators..

    Once again...

    PRESIDENT TRUMP RULES

    His enemies, both foreign and domestic drool... :D

    Who could have **POSSIBLY** predicted that Iran would just resort to a token response as an attempt to save face...

    Oh.. Wait... :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    By taking out Soleimani, Trump not only undermined Iran's capabilities in the region, but he reestablished deterrence by demonstrating that the U.S. had the means, the intelligence assets, and the will to strike Iran hard. Barring casualties, this attack can be shrugged off by the U.S. The cost-benefit analysis is not even close.

    President Trump done did good..

    Whomsoever cannot admit this is simply a Trump/America hater...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    OOooooo Opie/Richie Cunningham gets bitch slapped by his fellow actors.. :D

    Ron Howard, director of ‘Solo: A Star Wars Story,’ tried for some easy points on Twitter by slamming US President Donald Trump, but he got a rude awakening… including from one of his past actresses.
    If you’re an artist in modern Hollywood and you’re looking to score some easy brownie points with fellow celebrities and the mainstream entertainment press, a pretty good bet is to call out Trump. It’s easy, low-hanging fruit and it seems to work for C-list celebs like Alyssa Milano and Bette Midler, so why not?

    Howard, a former child star who grew up to be a director, tried for one of those Trump slams on Twitter, but things did not seem to exactly go according to plan.

    Maybe the worst zinger came from Robbin Young, a former Bond actress and Playmate who'd worked with Howard back in the 1980s.

    “Says, Ron Howard, my ‘Night Shift’ director who described the majority of the film industry. BTW, Ron, is there still rampant drug use and adultery in your film trailers and offset, by film execs and cast?!” Young tweeted at Howard.

    Other artists were also quick to push back against Howard’s theory about Trump.

    “Yea, that’s why he gave it up, donates his entire salary to charity, and puts up getting trashed in the liberal controlled media over every petty little thing. Trump is a patriot, he supports and understands the average American, and he has given us the best economy of our life,” actress Mindy Robinson tweeted at the director.

    “Nice audition, Ron! We have a lot of other people in Hollywood just exactly like you that we are considering. But your seeming sincerity and your vicious hyperbole comforts us that you are TRULY 'one of us!' We'll be in touch!” quipped actor and director Nick Searcy.
    https://www.rt.com/usa/477348-ron-howard-trump-twitter/?utm_source=miximedia&utm_medium=miximedia&utm_campaign=Miximedia

    Love it when ignorant, know-nothing Trump/America haters get their well-deserved come-uppance from REAL patriotic Americans.. :D

    It restores my faith in humanity.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    "IF DONALD TRUMP IS ELECTED PRESIDENT, HE WILL DESTROY THE ECONOMY. WALL STREET WILL BE DESTROYED!!!!"
    -Trump/America Haters, 2016

    Stocks rise, lifting Nasdaq to a record, after Trump’s comments on Iran attack ease tensions

    Stocks rose on Wednesday after President Donald Trump’s comments on the Iran conflict eased worries of further escalation in U.S.-Iranian tensions.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 161.41 points, or 0.6% to close at 28,745.09. The Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.7% to 9,129.24 and notched intraday and closing records. The S&P 500 climbed 0.5% to 3,253.05and hit an intraday all-time high.

    The Dow was up as much as 282 points, or 1%. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq gained as much as 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively. In the final minutes of trading, the major averages came off their highs amid unconfirmed reports of explosions near Baghdad’s Green Zone.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/08/stock-markets-today-us-futures-fall-following-attack-in-iraq.html

    I swear, Trump/America haters should simply shut up and let people THINK their morons..

    Rather than opening their mouths and spew bullshit and remove ALL DOUBT that they are morons...

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    She is also a dyed in the wool Democrat and Trump America hater..

    But I wouldn't expect you to know THESE FACTS...

    Yeah, unlike you, I don’t keep lists of every person who disagrees with the President. Nor do I believe everyone who disagrees with the President hates him. That’s the reactionary-emotional thinking of a petulant 4 year old that eats paint chips.

    And if you believe holding the President accountable for his actions and investigating him when the evidence warrants it makes someone an “America hater”, then it further demonstrates that you must be pleasuring yourself to images of Trump and writing pro-incest fan fiction while you are posting to this site.

    And since you’ve never been able to refute this, it must be a winning argument! Right?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, unlike you, I don’t keep lists of every person who disagrees with the President.

    I don't either.. But some really bad Trump/America haters stand out..

    Rose McGowan is one of those.. She took hundreds of thousand of dollars from Weinstein to remain silent and allowed Harvey to victimize dozens of more women..

    Rose McGowan is the quintessential Democrat...

    And if you believe holding the President accountable for his actions and investigating him when the evidence warrants it makes someone an “America hater”,

    That's just it. The evidence DOESN'T warrant it..

    That's why ya'all lose in your Russia Collusion delusion..

    That's why ya'all will lose this faux impeachment coup..

    The evidence ONLY warrants it in your deluded hate filled psyche..

    And since you’ve never been able to refute this, it must be a winning argument! Right?

    The problem is, with your claim, there are no FACTS to support.. Just your hate-filled bullshit and bigotry..

    On the other hand, I have OODLES of facts that PROVE Democrats fawned over Democrat Donald Trump, gave him all sorts of awards and such...

    That's the difference between ya'all and me..

    I have FACTS to support my claims..

    All ya'all have (NEN) is hate filled bigotry and bullshit..

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [48]

    What is really odd is that for the most part, only right-wing media outlets report on famous people’s political opinions. You give it importance, you make it into news! Seriously, YOU are the only one claiming that past-their-prime one-time-actors-now waiting-tables speak for all Democrats.

    Fox News loves articles pointing out the political musings of anyone who has ever been in TV show or movie. Conservatives love their reality TV, which is not based on reality at all...which explains their love for the GOP! You don’t mind being lied to, you just want it to entertain and comfort you!

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,
    [48] is an article from russia today. that alone doesn't make it invalid, but the source is certainly enough to put one on guard.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so it's not really right-wing american, in any case. in their own words, that's "the Russian view on global news."

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    NEVER AGAIN!!!
    http://sjfm.us/pics/NeverForget.jpg

    hehehehehehehehe

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    [48] is an article from russia today. that alone doesn't make it invalid, but the source is certainly enough to put one on guard.

    It's a factual report of Ron Howard's twit and how he was slapped down by REAL Patriotic Americans..

    Are the FACTS in question??

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is really odd is that for the most part, only right-wing media outlets report on famous people’s political opinions. You give it importance, you make it into news! Seriously, YOU are the only one claiming that past-their-prime one-time-actors-now waiting-tables speak for all Democrats.

    Exactly.. Left Wing media (95% of US media) think it's not news because they fully agree with morons like McGowan..

    Thank you for conceding my point..

    ! You don’t mind being lied to, you just want it to entertain and comfort you!

    Yea, I already addressed this lame BS point..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/01/08/looking-forward-to-a-democratic-foreign-policy-debate/#comment-151396

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Are the FACTS in question??

    where russian media is concerned, always.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]