ChrisWeigant.com

Iowa Up For Grabs

[ Posted Tuesday, January 28th, 2020 – 18:19 UTC ]

In less than a week's time, we will have the first results of the 2020 Democratic primary season, from the Iowa caucuses. After more than a year of campaigning, the curtain is finally going to go up and we'll all be able to see what actual voters think about the remaining Democratic candidates. Or most of them, at any rate, since Michael Bloomberg won't be on the ballot at all until Super Tuesday.

Polling has been volatile, both in Iowa and nationally, meaning it is really anyone's guess what's going to happen next Monday night. Since this is true (at least to some extent), I'm going to offer up my own guesses as to which candidates actually have a chance to make a big splash, and which really don't.

There are really only five candidates worth talking about here: Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders. Given the fact that in Iowa candidates who garner less than fifteen percent support will even be counted in the final tally, it's just not realistic to talk of Andrew Yang or Tom Steyer (or any of the others) at this point. They may get some scraps in New Hampshire, but they quite likely won't win a single delegate next Monday night in corn country.

Let's run down each of the top candidates' Iowa chances, one by one:

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar has gotten a lot of love lately from the media. I'm not entirely sure why, but she's been touted as a sort of safe Midwestern alternative to Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Her own campaign leans heavily on the idea that she'll have the best chance of winning Midwestern states because she's done it so successfully in Minnesota. However, that argument is about to be put to the real test of whether actual voters buy into it or not.

Klobuchar seems on the brink of a big disappointment. She's not polling anywhere close to that 15-percent bar, which means she is in danger of being shut out after the first round of caucusing. Perhaps she'll break through in certain precincts, but statewide it seems she may be in for some pretty dismal results. She has experienced a modest rise in polling over the past few weeks, but it may not be enough to get her beyond that crucial 15 percent.

Klobuchar's argument that she and she alone knows the magic of winning over Midwestern states could, as a result, be about to collapse. If that's her claim to being the strongest candidate and she fails to actually win over Midwestern votes, then she'll be left with a pretty weak argument.

The real question is going to be where her voters go after that first round. When forced to make a second choice, will they flock to Pete Buttigieg or Joe Biden? If Klobuchar is pulling in anywhere from five to fourteen percent, this could be enough to boost one of the other moderates significantly in the second round. Some of her voters could move to Elizabeth Warren (those supporting the idea of a woman candidate), but it's hard to see many of them moving over to Bernie Sanders.

Of course, lightning could strike and Klobuchar could place as high as third or fourth, if one of the other candidates badly stumbles. If Klobuchar makes it past the first round while Warren misses it, then she might just pick up those votes too and have a surprisingly good night. But the chances are that even if Klobuchar does better than expected, she won't get any higher than fourth place.

 

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg may have peaked too early in Iowa, but then again he could rebound on caucus night. For around two months, Buttigieg was leading the state-level polling and handily beating everyone else. That shows some support that has now considered other options, but then again Mayor Pete is one of the two frontrunners who have had Iowa all to themselves all week long, so that could help him out in the end.

Buttigieg is currently polling in third place, behind both Biden and Sanders but ahead of Warren and Klobuchar. He will probably easily clear the 15-percent hurdle, so he'll be looking to pick up second votes from those candidates who don't. And at least some of those voters were his supporters not that long ago (when he was leading the field), so he's well positioned to be the second choice of many of them. Ideologically, he would be a comfortable choice for Klobuchar voters, but he also may reap some Warren voters if she fails to qualify for delegates.

That may sound odd, since Warren voters are pretty progressive as a whole. But nobody really knows how the dustup between her and Bernie is playing out in voters' minds, so if some of Warren's supporters harbor bad feelings towards Sanders as a result, they may be looking for someone else to support if Warren doesn't top 15 percent.

Pete Buttigieg is one of the toughest candidates to figure odds for, at this point. He could easily place anywhere from first to fourth (I seriously doubt Klobuchar would beat him out for fourth place, putting Pete down at fifth). Perhaps some of his supporters will come back to him on caucus night, defying the recent polling and confirming the earlier polling. That could lead to a surprising victory next Monday. Iowa polls aren't set in stone, and the caucus process tends to scramble things, so he could easily beat current expectations.

At this point, my money would be on Buttigieg to place either second or third, most likely third. That would be a pretty impressive showing for a small-city mayor, to be sure, and it would allow him to continue making his electability argument throughout February.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has seen her poll numbers drop in Iowa, as they indeed have nationwide. I really have no clue why this is, because she's the same candidate now as she was a month or two ago. I have a hard time believing that the media-fuelled dustup with Bernie has truly hurt her all that much, but if the polling plays out then it may be offered up as the explanation for her not doing as well in Iowa as previously expected.

Currently, her poll average in the state is in dangerous territory, below 15 percent and falling. But then again the polls may not be correct -- that's certainly happened in Iowa before. If the polls are right, it will mean that Warren will miss the bar in the first round of voting in many precincts, forcing her supporters to choose another candidate. Because the 15 percent threshold is for each individual caucus, though, it's possible she does well in some while missing the bar in others, which would lead to a mixed result overall.

However, Warren may surprise everyone and do much better than the polls now show. She could even emerge as the overall winner, in fact. I say this because of something the polls can't really measure, which is the "ground game." Warren's campaign has been almost universally seen -- even by the other campaigns, when they're being honest -- as the best positioned in terms of doing all the hard groundwork necessary to boost her support everywhere in the state. She's had more boots on the ground than anyone, they've been very effective to date, and they might just prove to be the decisive factor on Monday no matter what the polls show. Also, if Warren does make it past the first round, she'll be poised to pick up some support from Klobuchar and the minor candidates, which could help her even more.

Because of all this, like Buttigieg, Warren could place anywhere in the top four. Once again, it's hard to see even Klobuchar beating her out for fourth place, so I doubt she'd place lower than that. Right now she's running in fourth in the polls, but I wouldn't be all that surprised to see her place higher due to a superior ground game on caucus night. If I was placing a bet, I'd probably put it on either third or fourth place, though.

 

Joe Biden

Joe Biden has led the national polling pretty consistently until just recently (Bernie has edged him out in a few recent polls). However, he hasn't been as dominant in Iowa, and currently polls in second place in his statewide average. But these polls have been volatile, so they may not prove to be correct.

Biden, of course, is the "safe choice" candidate. He's seen as being the most electable nationwide, which is why many voters are supporting him. He doesn't inspire the same amount of excitement that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and even Pete Buttigieg do, but his strength in Iowa may well prove to be the relative age of his base. Old people are for Biden in a big way, while the younger set is for Bernie Sanders. The other three candidates aren't quite as divided in the age brackets, but if the turnout on Monday skews to older voters, then Biden is in for a good night. Historically, older voters tend to vote more regularly than younger ones do, so this could be decisive.

Biden is also a pretty safe second choice as well, meaning he may reap the benefits of other candidates not clearing the bar in the first round. If for some reason Pete Buttigieg doesn't make the cut, Biden would clearly benefit from a voting base pretty ideologically similar to his own. It's far more likely, though, that Biden sweeps up a whole lot of Klobuchar voters who get disappointed in the first round.

This could boost his totals considerably, depending on how much support Klobuchar actually has (and whether most of it migrates to Biden, of course). But Biden seems best positioned to pick up Klobuchar's support, and even Buttigieg's, should Mayor Pete stumble in any individual caucuses. It's more doubtful that Biden would pick up much of Warren's support, should she fail to qualify, but he could pick up at least a portion of it.

Biden being the safe choice candidate might just garner him a whole lot more support in the first round than anyone expects, too. There are still a lot of Iowa voters who are currently undecided, and if they walk into the caucus next Monday in the same state of mind they might just decide that Biden's the best option.

Biden could place somewhere in the top three slots with ease. I don't expect him to do worse than that, although anything's possible I suppose. Right now, I'd bet that he finishes in either second or third place, with second being more likely (due mostly to picking up second-round votes).

 

Bernie Sanders

Astonishingly enough, Bernie Sanders is now the frontrunner in Iowa, and he seems to be surfing on top of a late-breaking wave. That is the ideal spot for a candidate to be in, heading into caucus night. Not only might it give him the outright lead, but his relative strength might just convince a bunch of undecided voters to take a chance on him. It could also convince second-round voters that he's in the strongest position and therefore deserves their support.

Again, as with Warren's recent slump, it's hard to point to any one thing that is causing Bernie's recent rise. Did the media's dustup obsession actually win Bernie some support? It seems pretty farfetched, but it could be one reason why he's surging. Now, once again, the polls could prove to be wrong and Bernie could do a lot worse than expected next Monday. That caveat must be acknowledged. But right now he seems in the best position to walk away with the Iowa win.

Since Bernie's doing so well, it's doubtful that he'll have to worry about meeting the first-round threshold in many places. Instead, he'll be poised to possibly pick up support from candidates who don't do as well. Here, he might be helped by some of the minor candidates (Andrew Yang in particular). He likely won't pick up a whole lot of second-round votes from Klobuchar voters, since she's centered her campaign around how unrealistic Bernie's ideas are. But if Warren stumbles, Bernie might be in for a rather large windfall.

This might be the test of whether the dustup was real or not in the voters' minds, in fact. If Warren doesn't make it out of the first voting round, then ideologically Bernie is the obvious choice for her supporters to make. There's very little daylight between the two candidates' agendas, after all -- the differences are mostly ones of emphasis and style. Progressive Warren voters who get disappointed in a first-round loss could easily move over to Bernie's camp on caucus night -- but this is in no way guaranteed, if the "Warren versus Bernie" thing is more real than I'm giving credit for. If Warren voters truly do hold a grudge against Bernie, then they'll migrate to other candidates out of spite. But it remains to be seen whether this will actually happen (and Warren isn't going to stumble in every caucus in the first round).

But Bernie might just have garnered enough support in the first round for this not to matter much. Right now, he's the obvious favorite for winning the state outright. He could slip down to second place or possibly even third, but personally I'd be shocked if he doesn't place in the top two (being edged out by Biden, most likely, if this turns out to be true).

 

Conclusions

There are, famously, only a limited number of "tickets out of Iowa." However, the field is still pretty large, so while we can expect to see a few minor candidates decide to hang up their spurs after Iowa (John Delaney, maybe Deval Patrick and others), the top five will likely stay in the race at least until after New Hampshire votes.

Does that really mean there are five tickets out of Iowa? Will we still be facing a field of six major candidates (with the addition of Bloomberg) on Super Tuesday? Well, anything is possible this year, but I kind of doubt it. I think that sooner or later Amy Klobuchar is going to have to face the reality that her rhetoric about being the most electable won't mean much if she's placing fourth or fifth in the actual voting.

The real battle heading into New Hampshire may in fact be between Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg for third place. If the race does wind up being a two-person contest between Biden and Sanders at the top, then no matter how many tickets out of Iowa there are, there will likely be fewer tickets out of New Hampshire. Buttigieg knows he's going to do terrible in South Carolina, so he has no real backstop to look forward to. If Warren truly has entered a fatal tailspin of support, then most of her voters may decide that Bernie's got a much better shot at dethroning Biden. So if the race does turn into Bernie-versus-Joe at the top, then the race for third is going to get very intense between Warren and Buttigieg, even though they are so ideologically different.

I should close by mentioning that I'll be making my first official picks for the Iowa race next Monday (posted before the caucuses finish), but wanted to share how I'm seeing all five top candidates now, one week out from the first election day of the 2020 cycle.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

83 Comments on “Iowa Up For Grabs”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, what question would you like to ask professor Dershowitz? Oh, right … just kidding.

    Who should Biden pick as his running mate? Yikes, it's bit early, I know, not to mention presumptuous.

    Seriously, I could live with a second or third place finish in Iowa. We longtime Biden supporters could dread worse, in Iowa, you know.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Trump going to solve the unsolvable Middle East Peace Process before the first caucuses in Iowa?

    I mean, seriously!?

  3. [3] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I'll be curious how much of the press will decide on the morning after that Iowa "doesn't count" because the Caucus system, and the state itself, is so completely unrepresentative of the current nominating process (primary elections), Democratic electorate (highly diverse and urban), and national election landscape (declining manufacturing states as the battleground between Trump and the Dem. nominee).
    As you acknowledged in the latter parts of your analyses, the question of exit tickets seems more applicable to New Hampshire rather than to this faintly comic process in Iowa; but I would hope that Super Tuesday, for all its flaws, would be regarded as the real test of which of these heroes is actually a national-scale contender for the presidency.

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    As it seems there are two "lanes" in the Dem primary, the "Moderate" lane with Biden, Mayor Pete & Amy, and the "Progressive" lane with Bernie & Elizabeth. Ideology & style are, of course, important. But the overwhelming top priority of Dems is beating Trump (or Pence - see below) in November.

    Whether 'tis Moderate or Progressive

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [4]

    ...the overriding goal of Democrats is to defeat Trump (or Pence - see below) in November. I believe that will influence voters to give more weight to "electability" than usual.

    I just don't see Amy making many waves in Iowa and I don't think she'll be viable after New Hampshire. I think the majority of her supporters will migrate to Mayor Pete, because those who support a woman appear more likely to jump over to a young, charismatic Pete over boring Joe Biden - sorry Elizabeth Miller, but Joe's time (if ever existed) has passed.

    I also believe that this whole "spat" between Elizabeth & Bernie is a big nothing burger, flogged relentlessly by establishment media who appear very afraid of the true Democratic wing of the Democratic party, the Progressives.

    My money is on the following: Bernie will win Iowa & New Hampshire. Biden & Elizabeth will finish second & third, respectively, in both states. I think the YangGang folk will mostly go to either Bernie & Elizabeth. Tom Steyer's supporters seem more likely to migrate to Bernie & Elizabeth as well, given his Progressive bona fides - Need to Impeach, climate change, etc. Tom has truly put his money where his mouth is.

    As previously stated, there will be no PUMA nonsense this time around.

    If Joe places as I predict he will certainly be viable as we roll into North Carolina, due to his support in the black community. But he is in danger of not performing up to expectations in this, his "firewall state." Ultimately I feel Joe is too old school, utters too many gaffes and has too much baggage to successfully surf the Progressive wave that has deepened since 2016. I just don't think he'll be able to handle Trump in a debate format, and I see him as just as uninspiring as was Hillary.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [5]

    Up until 48 hours ago.I thought there was no chance that the Senate would vote to remove Trump from office. Trump's defense team obviously thought so as well - they really mailed it in, thinking that the rubes who support our fake President would keep the GOP Senate in line. I think their overconfidence is going to come back to haunt them.

    Trump, who has spent his life screwing people over, finally screwed over one guy too many in John Bolton. Bolton just blew up Trump's "it's all hearsay" defense and his willingness to testify before the Senate has put enormous pressure on the Senate to allow witnesses and documentary evidence. It's fair to assume that if said witnesses and documents were of any help to Trump they would already be out there.

    This is where Trump's lack of character is going to kill him: Yeah, sure, the Repugs got yet another tax cut for the oligarchs and are rolling back decades of environmental protections, but everyone knows that Trump has no loyalty to anyone besides himself. He will throw anyone, any Party and/or our entire country under the bus to save his own skin or to fatten his bottom line. As such, I believe that (barely) under the GOP surface smolders an almost universal hatred of Trump & what he's done to the "Party that used to be Grand." Therefore Repugs would be perfectly happy to wash their hands of Trump & cut their losses. The one way the Repugs can limit damage to their individual careers and the Party as a whole is to vote unanimously in favor of removal. After all, where are Republican voters going to go if the GOP as a whole dumps Trump? They'll take their chances with a "throwaway candidate" in Mike Pence because they know they're gonna get killed (as Ford was after he pardoned Nixon.) But hey, after Carter's 4 years the GOP enjoyed 12 years of White House residency, so there's that comfort.

    Again, this is likely a long shot, but this scenario has moved from the "impossible" category to the "not only possible but it would solve a lot of problems for everybody on both sides of the aisle" category.

    May we live in interesting times, indeed.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    And yes, sports fans, MtnCaddy is bapping this out on a smart phone. With a cracked screen. I guess you really gotta want it.

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [1]

    Elizabeth Miller should Joe or Mayor Pete or any white male besides Bernie prevail, my money is on Kamala Harris as VP. As a whip smart, youngish female person of color she checks a lot of "balance the ticket" boxes and would be reassuring to the Democratic establishment.

    Should Bernie or Elizabeth win the nomination I hope s/he picks the other as their running mate. Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie, it's all good.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    OMG I just pulled a Michale!

    "Somebody...stop me!"

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    If the Pandora's box of witnesses and documents is opened and the Repugs want to call Hunter Biden I think the Democrats should call Stormy Daniels.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC...

    It's still impossible that the Senate will remove President Trump.

    Do you HONESTLY believe that 25 GOP Senators will join with Democrats??

    If you do, you must live in a state where marijuana is legal and have been partaking WAY too much..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the witnesses go, here is how it will play out..

    The Senate will adopt the same witness rules that the House used.. IE the Majority Party has final say on witnesses that the Minority Party wants to call..

    Further, the GOP will list it's witnesses (Bidens, WhistleBlower, Schiff) and the Dems will get ONE witness...

    If the Dems don't want to agree to that, then there are no witnesses and this trial is over.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, this is likely a long shot, but this scenario has moved from the "impossible" category to the "not only possible but it would solve a lot of problems for everybody on both sides of the aisle" category.

    No, MC.. It's STILL in the IMPOSSIBLE/Trump-America Haters Wet Dream category...

    At least 5 Democrats are on record as voting for acquittal... That means that 25 GOP'ers will have to vote GUILTY..

    Impossible... Wet Dream....

    It's THAT simple...

    The ONLY bi-partisan is in President Trump's favor.

    Think about THAT...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Is Trump going to solve the unsolvable Middle East Peace Process before the first caucuses in Iowa?

    I mean, seriously!?

    Of course he is..

    The REAL question is, will Trump/America haters give President Trump any credit for it??

    Or will they side with terrorists against their own country??

    THAT's the question that needs to be asked and answered..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    If the Pandora's box of witnesses and documents is opened and the Repugs want to call Hunter Biden I think the Democrats should call Stormy Daniels.

    According to Democrat House rules, Democrats will only get to call whomever the GOP Senate LETS them call...

    How do ya like THAT!!?? :D

  16. [16] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    If Joe places as I predict he will certainly be viable as we roll into North Carolina, due to his support in the black community. But he is in danger of not performing up to expectations in this, his "firewall state." Ultimately I feel Joe is too old school, utters too many gaffes and has too much baggage to successfully surf the Progressive wave that has deepened since 2016. I just don't think he'll be able to handle Trump in a debate format, and I see him as just as uninspiring as was Hillary.

    Interesting assessment. I agreed with most everything until you said that Joe is too old school, and you think that is a fatal flaw for him. I believe that is his greatest strength in battling Trump. Biden is everything that Trump isn’t: kind, able to show sympathy and empathy, warm, willing to admit to his mistakes, generous.... I think you get the picture.

    I see Biden as an old golden retriever you’ve had for 8 years — loyal, protective, and sometimes a little goofy. I see Trump as a....well, as just himself. Trump is a narcissistic sociopath, and those don’t exist in the animal world as far as we know. There was that one hamster in Germany, but it just ate its young and didn’t want to have sex with them... so it doesn’t quite fit for Trump’s spirit animal.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP will call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Adam Schiff-head and the Whistleblower...

    Democrats will be allowed to call the White House janitor that has been on sick-leave for the last 2 years..

    Per Democrat Rules, that's as fair as possibly could be..

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see Biden as an old golden retriever you’ve had for 8 years — loyal, protective, and sometimes a little goofy.

    A golden retriever that likes to sniff the crotch of women young enough to be his grandaughters..

    Yea.. That's about your taste.. :eyeroll:

  19. [19] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [11]

    It's still impossible that the Senate will remove President Trump.

    Do you HONESTLY believe that 25 GOP Senators will join with Democrats??

    If you do, you must live in a state where marijuana is legal and have been partaking WAY too much..

    "Impossible" means that it CANNOT happen. It CAN and WILL happen if the GOP seizes the opportunity to dump Trump, whether 'tis to save their own hides or because they finally decided to put country over Party. The point is that Repugs have as much upside to removing Trump as do Democrats.

    In fact, I live in California and have been a dedicated weed smoker for decades. But I always thought my methamphetamine habit was more likely the real problem. Heh.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Impossible" means that it CANNOT happen.

    And what you are dreaming about CANNOT happen..

    It CAN and WILL happen if the GOP seizes the opportunity to dump Trump, whether 'tis to save their own hides or because they finally decided to put country over Party.

    That's your spin.

    The FACTS are that the GOP are putting country before Party by supporting the 65 million Americans who VOTED for President Trump.

    Funny how you ignore that point..

    In fact, I live in California and have been a dedicated weed smoker for decades.

    THAT explains a lot.. heh :D

    But I always thought my methamphetamine habit was more likely the real problem. Heh.

    Touche' :D

    The point is that Repugs have as much upside to removing Trump as do Democrats.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP wins closely watched Texas special election

    AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Republicans won handily a closely watched special election Tuesday to keep hold of a suburban Houston district that President Donald Trump won easily four years ago, fending off a national blitz by Democrats in a Texas legislative race.

    The victory by Republican Gary Gates, who put more than $1.5 million of his own money into his run for state House District 28, is sure to bring a sigh of relief for the GOP in a race that was being tracked far beyond Texas. By the final weeks, the race had escalated into the first big special election of 2020.

    In final unofficial results, Gates polled 58% of the vote to 42% for Democrat Eliz Markowitz.

    Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren had endorsed Markowitz, and outside groups flooded the race with six-figure checks and television ads. Beto O'Rourke practically made the district a second home after ending his own presidential campaign in November, spending weekends knocking on doors in Katy's affluent neighborhoods.
    https://news.yahoo.com/gop-wins-closely-watched-texas-041946934.html

    Remind me again how Texas is turning Blue?? I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS that prove otherwise.. :D

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [12]

    As far as the witnesses go, here is how it will play out..

    The Senate will adopt the same witness rules that the House used.. IE the Majority Party has final say on witnesses that the Minority Party wants to call..

    Further, the GOP will list it's witnesses (Bidens, WhistleBlower, Schiff) and the Dems will get ONE witness...

    If the Dems don't want to agree to that, then there are no witnesses and this trial is over.. :D

    Not, because half the country wants Trump removed and way more than half the country wants a REAL Impeachment trial with witnesses and documents. It's no longer politically feasible to sweep Trump's crimes under the rug.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Parts of Texas will flip; of that there is zero doubt. Democratic candidates in Texas defeated longtime GOP incumbents in Houston and Dallas in the 2018 midterms,
    -Victoria

    And the GOP just kicked the shit out of the Dumbocrat in Houston..

    Kinda deflates your bullshit wet dream, eh? :D

    "Nobody likes you. Everybody hates you. You're gonna lose.. Smile, ya fuck.."
    -Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

    :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not, because half the country wants Trump removed

    So?? Then they can remove President Trump in 10 months, per the Constitutionally mandated process..

    and way more than half the country wants a REAL Impeachment trial

    Yer gonna get the REAL impeachment trial that DEMOCRATS created the rules for..

    What could be more fair than that??

    Regardless, even DEMOCRATS concede that this is not a legitimate impeachment..

    It's no longer politically feasible to sweep Trump's crimes under the rug.

    Crimes?? WHAT crimes?? Democrats can't even charge REAL crimes in the Articles Of Impeachment..

    What part of THERE ARE NO CRIMES do you not understand???

    If Democrats had the FACTS to support actual crimes, then actual crimes would have been the Articles Of Impeachment.

    The FACT that Democrats can't charge any crimes, PROVES there are no crimes to charge..

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk...

    I only got 2 hours of sleep last night so I am staying home from work..

    "I can do this all day..."
    -Captain America

    :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FACT that Democrats can't charge any crimes, PROVES there are no crimes to charge..

    I mean, honestly.. THINK about it.

    You have a DA that allegedly has the FACTS that prove MURDER beyond ANY doubt..

    And that DA decides to charge the scumbag with An Overdue Library Book..

    What's the ONLY logical conclusion??

    That the DA is full of shit when he claims he has the facts to prove his case..

    Try to ignore politics and think RATIONALLY...

    It's an eye-opener...

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [13]

    No, MC.. It's STILL in the IMPOSSIBLE/Trump-America Haters Wet Dream category...

    Impossible... Wet Dream....

    It's THAT simple...

    The ONLY bi-partisan is in President Trump's favor.

    Think about THAT...

    Why do you say "Trump/America haters?" Do you really believe that hating Trump is the same as hating America? In fact, do you really believe anybody who lives in America hates America? If so, you've drank the "Party that used to be Grand" koolaide. The Repugs have done a splendid job of dividing one half of the country against the other so that they can keep giving the economic elites tax breaks that they don't need to the detriment of the rest of us. So do you think of Trump as your "Dear Leader?" Kinda sounds like you got a little proto-facism thing going on there, partner.

    At least 5 Democrats are on record as voting for acquittal... That means that 25 GOP'ers will have to vote GUILTY..

    Um, there hasn't been a vote yet, so nobody is on record yet.

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [15]

    According to Democrat House rules, Democrats will only get to call whomever the GOP Senate LETS them call...

    How do ya like THAT!!?? :D

    What do House Democrat rules have to do with Senate rules? Don't forget that your Dear Leader refused to defend himself in the House. The Senate rules are whatever the Senate decides, and we've passed the point where Repugs can just sweep Trump's crimes under the rug.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do you say "Trump/America haters?" Do you really believe that hating Trump is the same as hating America?

    I really do..

    For Trump/America haters to hate on President Trump as much as they do??

    For Trump/America haters to side with terrorists and terrorist regimes SOLELY because President Trump is against those terrorists and regimes??

    There HAS to be a healthy hate for this country as well as the President..

    In fact, do you really believe anybody who lives in America hates America?

    If you don't, you must have lead a sheltered life..

    I spent over two and a half decades in military, security, FSO and LEO...

    Believe me, I have seen the HATE that Americans can have for this country..

    Hell, your Democrats APOLOGIZE to Iran because President Trump killed the #1 terrorist in the world...

    Howz THAT for America hate???

    Um, there hasn't been a vote yet, so nobody is on record yet.

    There is a record of intent..

    But continue to split hairs.. :D

    What do House Democrat rules have to do with Senate rules?

    Because it's the same impeachment??

    What's wrong??

    You don't want to use the Democrat rules now?? How come??

    Because NOW those rules interfere with the Trump/America hate agenda...

  29. [29] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [24]

    What crimes? Just off the top of my head:

    (1) Secretly paying off the various Playmates and porn stars to supress Trump's extramarital affairs violates campaign finance laws.

    (2) Accepting any help from foreign countries, especially adversaries such as Russia and China is illegal.

    (3) Holding monies Congress has appropriated to Ukraine and not meeting Zelensky until he ANNOUNCES an investigation into the Bidens and a debunked Russian-launched whacko theory that Ukraine interfered with our election to somehow aid Hillary is illegal. I think it's a 1974 law called the "Impound Act."

    (4) Emouluments issues all over the place (e.g. Saudis renting scores of rooms at Trump properties and not even using them).

  30. [30] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [29]

    Whoops...
    (2) Accepting any help from foreign countries to influence an election, especially adversaries such as Russia and China is illegal. This was a great concern of our Founding fathers.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    What crimes? Just off the top of my head:

    Then why weren't ANY of those crimes charged in the Impeachment??

    Why MAKE up "crimes"??

    I'll tell you why..

    Because the FACTS don't support what's off the top of your head....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    (2) Accepting any help from foreign countries to influence an election, especially adversaries such as Russia and China is illegal.

    Actually, it's not..

    This was a great concern of our Founding fathers.

    Facts to support??

    Now the FACTS prove that the founding fathers were VERY concerned with preventing charges of 'maladministration'..

    Fancy word that means policy disagreements..

    THAT is why the Constitution says HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

    President Trump hasn't been charged with ANY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS..

    Ergo, even if you ignore the bi-partisan requirement, this impeachment is STILL illegitimate..

    An illegitimate impeachment is an illegal impeachment..

    An illegal impeachment is a coup..

  33. [33] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [21]

    Methinks you're getting nervous about Texas if you're celebrating the fact that a Repug held his Texas seat.

    So I guess the Blue wave in 2018 was simply a figment of America's imagination, eh?

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Methinks you're getting nervous about Texas if you're celebrating the fact that a Repug held his Texas seat.

    Actually, it was an open seat... And the Dumbocrat couldn't win it..

    So much for the claim that Texas will turn blue..

    So I guess the Blue wave in 2018 was simply a figment of America's imagination, eh?

    It wasn't a wave, it was a trickle.. And the ONLY reason Dims won because they ran as GOP Lite...

    :D

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what i want to know is where iowa stands on the issue of pie. since 90% of the electorate likes pie, it stands to reason that taking a firm stance on pie will serve to put one candidate over the top, if only he or she has the courage to do so.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Methinks you're getting nervous about Texas

    And, for the record, I have **NEVER** been nervous about Texas...

    It just gives me a hearty belly laugh when I hear ya'all claim Texas will go blue.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    since 90% of the electorate likes pie,

    I would like to see yer substantiation.. :D

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [20]

    The FACTS are that the GOP are putting country before Party by supporting the 65 million Americans who VOTED for President Trump.

    For the record Trump received 63 million votes while Hillary got 65.9 million votes.

    Your argument is silly - nothing will ever change the fact that while Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, due to the archaic Electoral College Trump was elected President. Yeah, the Rooskies helped him, Comey's October Surprise helped him yada yada yada, but the results of 2016 will always stand.

    Nowhere does our Constitution say that Impeachment in any way invalidates an election. Rather, our Constitution offers Impeachment as a way to get rid of an official who fails to uphold his oath of office. If Trump isn't removed for his crimes against America then what future President will be constrainted from illegal behavior?

    Trump must be removed before the election because he's trying to steal it.

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Gee. It seems there is no way to know how the horse race will turn out. The polls are not as predictive as they used to be because citizens not normally voting have been voting and even some previously predictable voters are not as predictable.

    One thing that does not need polls to determine is that whoever wins it will be a big money candidate as all the candidates are big money candidates.

    One thing about that that can be clearly determined as it has been verified by years of polling is that 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics.

    All the people that support one or whichever ends being the nominee because defeating Trump is all that matters are missing the point.

    The reason Trump was elected is because the Democrats are just as corrupted by big money as the Republicans.

    But rather than seize this opportunity to make a clear distinction between the two parties (and the other primary candidates) by commiting to running small donor only campaigns the Democratic hopefuls are all running big money campaigns.

    So the "the only thing that matters is defeating Trump" mantra is a lie.

    A small donor only candidate would blow Trump out of the water.

    So the only thing that really matters is ensuring that the Democrats will also offer a big money candidate so that the choice for citizens is between two big money candidates.

    Mtn Caddy said Steyer has put his money where his mouth is.

    Actually all the candidates are putting their mouth where the big money is.

    What citizens need to do is put their votes where the big money isn't.

    Electability should be about more than just which candidate is better at pretending they are not beholden to big money- it should be about whether they are worth electing at all.

    But rather than take the path that would make them worthy of being elected the candidates have chosen to perpetuate the lie.

    I know, CW, that you just LOVE these horse race articles but you really could just skip ONE of these articles to speculate about what might happen if Bernie or any of the candidates were to announce now they would be running a small donor only campaign in the general election.

    After all, if you are one of the "the only thing that matters is beating Trump" crowd why would you pass up an opportunity to not only blow Trump out of the water but actually make real progress at getting the big money out of our political process which is the main cause of the symptom of Trump winning in 2016?

    The only reason that makes any sense is that beating Trump is less important to you than preserving the big money domination of our political process.

    Just like the candidates that are taking the big money it doesn't matter what you say- it matters what you DO.

    It time for you to stop doing the voodoo that you do not do very well (as evidence by the transparent beating Trump is all that matters while ignoring the opportunity to blow Trump out of the water) and Get Real.

    Why not try being useful to our country and ordinary citizens instead of just continuing to be a useful idiot for the big money interests?

    They already have Trump and the Democratic hopefuls. They don't need you.

    But ordinary citizens do need you.

    Will you finally answer the call from ordinary citizens or continue to only answer the dinner bell from the big money interests?

    To be or not to be- that is the question.

  40. [40] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [20]

    The FACTS are that the GOP are putting country before Party by supporting the 65 million Americans who VOTED for President Trump.

    For the record Trump received 63 million votes while Hillary got 65.9 million votes.

    Your argument is silly - nothing will ever change the fact that while Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, due to the archaic Electoral College Trump was elected President. Yeah, the Rooskies helped him, Comey's October Surprise helped him yada yada yada, but the results of 2016 will always stand.

    Nowhere does our Constitution say that Impeachment in any way invalidates an election. Rather, our Constitution offers Impeachment as a way to get rid of an official who fails to uphold his oath of office. If Trump isn't removed for his crimes against America then what future President will be constrainted from illegal behavior?

    Trump must be removed before the election because he's blantly trying to steal it.

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "If Trump isn't removed from office for his crimes against America then what future President will be constrained from illegal behavior?"

    And anyone asking that question should also be asking this question:

    If the legislators that take big money to run their campaigns are not removed from office for taking big money to run their campaigns by voters no longer voting for them and voting against big money candidates, then what future candidate will stop taking big money to run their campaign?

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    .

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    That was the list of candidates.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Your argument is silly - nothing will ever change the fact that while Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, due to the archaic Electoral College Trump was elected President.

    No.. It's YOUR argument that is silly because the Vanity Vote is completely irrelevant. Basically, yer bragging that you got the most field goals in a football game, but the winner is determined by the score...

    The Vanity Vote is completely irrelevant because President Trump didn't run the race for the Vanity Vote...

    . Yeah, the Rooskies helped him, Comey's October Surprise helped him yada yada yada, but the results of 2016 will always stand.

    Yes it will..

    Your candidate got her ass handed to her..

    Trump must be removed before the election because he's blantly trying to steal it.

    Again, NO FACTS to prove that..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    but the results of 2016 will always stand.

    Yes it will..

    Your candidate got her ass handed to her..

    And THAT is forever :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS

    Biden isn't picking a VP. He's picking a running mate.

    Troo Dat... :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    So.....when are we going to see Trump’s tax returns?

    Never..

    Because it's well established that Trump/America haters will illegally use those to attack President Trump..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Off topic Star Trek news:

    Patrick Stewart was on the View today to offer Whoopi a place in Picard season 2!!! This was one of the few times I have seen Whoopi go speechless with joy, and it was beautiful to see. She brought up a good point that I believe few people (including myself) know...Guinan was Gene Roddenberry’s last character that he personally created for the StarTrek universe. And while Whoopi has chosen to go with gray with her braids, skin wise she has barely aged in the last 20 years! Picard looks 18 years older...because he is 18 years older; but Guinan is hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

    Thanx for the update..

    I would love to see Q return...

    ANY Q episode of Trek is awesome..

    But John DeLancie must be getting on in years...

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    As I don't really expect you to speculate about Bernie or any other candidate declaring to run a small donor only campaign in the general election for that reason alone, please consider speculating about something you love- polls and the possible outcomes in the primaries.

    You could title it "The poll you will never see" (which could turn out to be incorrect if the article actually inspires citizens to demand such a poll).

    You could start with how there are many polls comparing the candidates against each other and against Trump but no polls comparing the candidates to themselves.

    Wouldn't it be interesting to speculate about what difference a poll might show between the small contribution Bernie against the other Democrats in the primaries and Trump in the general election vs. a Bernie committing now to run a small donor only campaign in the general election against the other Democrats in the primaries and Trump in the general election?

    Wouldn't it be interesting to speculate about whether it would make any difference for Buyed'im to instead be Biden and committing to be a small donor only candidate in the general election?

    I for one would like to know ACTUAL poll results of those questions about all the candidates.

    And as you recently said, voters still have a choice so now would be a good time to do what you love and speculate about these questions so that there is a possibility that voters will have this vital information available to them when they have to make their decision.

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And any Democrat that believes the most important thing is beating Trump should want to know which candidate has the best chance to beat Trump.

    We can't know how the voters would answer the question until the question is asked.

    So let's get the ball rolling, ask the question and find out if a small donor candidate would do better against Trump than a big money or small contribution big money candidate.

    You owe it, CW, to all the citizens you are always writing about that believe defeating Trump is the priority to help them find the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    find the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump.

    None of the Democrat field can beat President Trump..

  52. [52] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [16]

    Listen...

    I agreed with most everything until you said that Joe is too old school, and you think that is a fatal flaw for him. I believe that is his greatest strength in battling Trump. Biden is everything that Trump isn’t: kind, able to show sympathy and empathy, warm, willing to admit to his mistakes, generous.... I think you get the picture.

    I see Biden as an old golden retriever you’ve had for 8 years — loyal, protective, and sometimes a little goofy.

    Agreed. I should have defined "old school" better.
    I personally like Joe Biden and I think Joe's geniality harkens back to a time before Newt Gingrich's GOP declared war on bi-partisanship & compromise. The Repugs seemingly couldn't stand the fact that a Democrat finally won the Presidency after 12 years of Reagan/Bush the Elder, even though Bill Clinton offered a Reaganism®-lite agenda to the American people (aka "triangulation.") But bi-partisanship only exists when both parties want to play! After 40 years of Reaganism's® war against the New Deal/American Dream we need a LION like Bernie Sanders rather than a "go along to get along" guy like Joe and all of the Moderates. You simply don't compromise with the Devil if you want to keep your soul.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, yer a Bernie Bro, MC... :D

    There is one group that Democrats hate more than Trump Supporters..

    That's Bernie Bros :D

  54. [54] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [28]

    Hell, your Democrats APOLOGIZE to Iran because President Trump killed the #1 terrorist in the world...

    Howz THAT for America hate???

    For Trump/America haters to side with terrorists and terrorist regimes SOLELY because President Trump is against those terrorists and regimes??

    Since you like to abuse the word FACTS please tell the class which Democrats "APOLOGIZE to Iran" or "side with terrorists." Saying you saw it on Facist News network or OANN without citing a reality based news source won't cut it. Please enlighten us with names, dates & quotes.

  55. [55] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [28]

    I spent over two and a half decades in military, security, FSO and LEO...

    Believe me, I have seen the HATE that Americans can have for this country..

    Please enlighten us with specific examples. I'm hungry for learning.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you like to abuse the word FACTS please tell the class which Democrats "APOLOGIZE to Iran" or "side with terrorists."

    Michael Moore apologizes to Iran on behalf of the American people for airstrike that killed Soleimani
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/michael-moore-apologizes-iran-us-airstrike-qassem-soleimani-trump

    Rose McGowan apologizes to Iran over US airstrike on general: 'Please do not kill us'
    https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/476655-rose-mcgowan-apologizes-to-iran-over-us-airstrike-on-general

    Will you concede the point?? :D

    Saying you saw it on Facist News network or OANN without citing a reality based news source won't cut it. Please enlighten us with names, dates & quotes.

    I just did...

    Your turn... :D

    Please enlighten us with specific examples. I'm hungry for learning.

    Do the 60s mean anything to you??

    Maybe Michelle Obama who said she was never proud of her country..

    The list is endless..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you like to abuse the word FACTS please tell the class which Democrats "APOLOGIZE to Iran" or "side with terrorists."

    Michael Moore apologizes to Iran on behalf of the American people for airstrike that killed Soleimani
    foxnews.com/entertainment/michael-moore-apologizes-iran-us-airstrike-qassem-soleimani-trump

    Rose McGowan apologizes to Iran over US airstrike on general: 'Please do not kill us'
    thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/476655-rose-mcgowan-apologizes-to-iran-over-us-airstrike-on-general

    Will you concede the point?? :D

    Saying you saw it on Facist News network or OANN without citing a reality based news source won't cut it. Please enlighten us with names, dates & quotes.

    I just did...

    Your turn... :D

    Please enlighten us with specific examples. I'm hungry for learning.

    Do the 60s mean anything to you??

    Maybe Michelle Obama who said she was never proud of her country..

    The list is endless..

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "You simply don't compromise with the devil if you want to keep your soul."

    But if you're looking for Bernie Sanders to not be a go along to get along guy it's going to have to be more than just the current PAPER lion version.

    There is no difference between Bernie taking 2000 dollars from one donor in many small contributions and Buyed'im taking 2000 dollars from one donor in one contribution.

    The small contribution numbers Bernie keeps touting are just a paper trick manipulating the contributions to appear as if the donors are all small donors.

    If Bernie were really a lion he would be running a small donor only campaign rather than running a scam to appear as though he has not compromised with the devil.

    Perhaps the devil is in the details! :D

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And both CMPs have no problem with BUY-partisanship.

    And that buys the bi-partisanship you don't hear about- both CMPs working together where you're not looking to benefit the big money interests while they keep you distracted, divided and arguing over emotional issues that they never seem to be able to solve because they are the same issues they have been using as a distraction for decades.

  60. [60] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [53]

    So, yer a Bernie Bro, MC... :D

    There is one group that Democrats hate more than Trump Supporters..

    That's Bernie Bros :D

    At last! Something we can (almost) agree on! While there's no way even establishment (read "big money" Democrats) hate us Bernie Bros more than #CorruptDonnieLittleHands it's probably closer than I'd like to think. Of course you have to include Warren supporters & the Yang Gang in with us Bernie Bros.

    For 40 years Repugs have been screwing 90% of America while (enough, at least) establishment Democrats have been going along with it. "Let the fools argue over social issues so long as they don't notice us racing to the bank." In my mind this is the main reason that the GOP masses chose outsider-shake-things-up Trump over 16 establishment Repugs, and it's why Trump even had a chance to beat "more of the same thing" Hillary.

    I also think Trump winning the Electoral College is the best thing to happen to the Progressive movement. Hillary winning would have led to a lot of complacency to the Left.

    For the record I really had to hold my nose to vote for Hillary, just as I'll have to hold my nose to vote for one of the Democratic Moderates if it comes down to it. Almost voted for Jill Stein, in fact, but I suspected that she was a Russian tool so I just couldn't go there. Remember, I live in the deep blue People's Republic of Country-Cali so I knew that my voting decision meant a whole lot more to me than it would to the final result.

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "None of the Democratic candidates can beat Trump."

    You are entitled to that opinion and you may be right.

    Of course, it could just be the current candidates that may not be able to beat Trump.

    It could be that polls may show a small donor only Democrat would actually do better against Trump than the current field which would make a small donor only candidate the candidate these voters should want as their nominee.

    You would think anyone here that really wants Trump defeated would want to find that out and get the added bonus of proving your opinion wrong.

    But it seems (at least so far) that just like they are less concerned with big money in our political process that caused Trump than they are with the symptom of Trump they are also less concerned about defeating Trump and proving you wrong than fixing the problems that caused Trump and finding out if small donor only candidates could fix the problem.

    They must be too afraid that my opinion that small donor only candidates could make a difference is right to take a chance on proving me wrong.

  62. [62] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [39]

    Don Harris

    For the record I am in agreement with you that "we have the worst system of democracy that money can buy," as the saying goes. I would love a Constitutional Amendment to roll back Citizens United - God damn the big money Supreme Court for inflicting this abomination upon us! I like the idea of publicly financed elections and/or small doner financed candidates, but how do we get from here to there? Bernie, Elizabeth and Andy Yang(?) are eschewing big doner meet and greets, which is probably of little more than symbolic value - ain't no big money going to the Progressives, ya dig?

    Even with public campaign financing how would we choose which 2, 3, 4 or whatever candidates would qualify for said financing. The "primary before the primary" to date has greatly limited the choices available. That's why Bernie and the true Progressives are such a breath of fresh air.

    Also, I would respectfully suggest that repeatedly bleating "Get Real" at CW is not serving the cause as well as we'd like.

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i am in favor of pie-partisanship

  64. [64] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [56]

    Okay, I read the (first) Fox news article titled,

    "Michael Moore apologizes to Iran on behalf of the American people for airstrike that killed Soleimani"

    The article said that "according to an automatic Twitter translation" Michael Moore's Farsi tweet reads,

    "Sir , I deeply regret the violence on our behalf by a man that most Americans have never voted for. Avoid power. A sincere man, Michael Moore"

    That's not an apology but rather a plea for peace, hello? My curiosity aroused, I then copy/pasted the original tweet in Farsi into Google Translate, which said it reads,

    "By a man whom the majority of Americans have never voted for, I want you not to respond violently but to act bravely instead and allow us, the American people, to refrain from power. Man

    Honestly
    Michael Moore
    American citizen"

    That's even less of an apology and more of a plea for no war. But a casual Fox News consumer looking at that misleading article title likely wouldn't take the extra step of, ahem, FACT CHECKING the article.

    Now if you really think that Google and Google Translate are some kind of Libtard Lie Factory then there's no helping you. G & GT are search and translation engines that have no political agenda whatsoever. They'll help a fella find Daily Stormer and even translate Mein Kampf from the original German. Unless you concede, of course, that Colbert was right when he said, "Reality has a well known Liberal bias."

    Thence to the second article titled,

    Rose McGowan apologizes to Iran over US airstrike on general: 'Please do not kill us'

    I found Ms. McGowan on Twitter and here 'tis:

    Ok, so I freaked out because we may have any impending war. Sometimes it’s okay to freak out on those in power. It’s our right. That is what so many Brave soldiers have fought for. That is democracy. I do not want any more American soldiers killed. That’s it.

    Again, where's the apology? This gal, like Mr. Moore, doesn't want to get into yet another Republican hot war in the Middle East.

    Interestingly, your the hill.com article continues,

    Actress Rose McGowan apologized to Iran after the Pentagon confirmed Thursday night that President Trump ordered an airstrike that killed Qassem Soleimani, one of the country's most powerful generals.

    “52% of us humbly apologize," McGowan tweeted late Thursday. "We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani."

    ADVERTISING

    Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani pic.twitter.com/YE54CqGCdr

    — rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) January 3, 2020
    The strike in Iraq killed Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, at Baghdad International Airport alongside Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the Iranian-backed Iraqi militia Popular Mobilization Forces. It sent shockwaves through the region, and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that a “harsh retaliation is waiting” for the U.S.

    McGowan continued tweeting late Thursday and early Friday, insulting Trump and responding to critics.

    Thanks a lot, dickhead @realDonaldTrump

    — rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) January 3, 2020
    I do not side with Iran, but I most definitely do not side with the USA #TeamStayAlive https://t.co/ShWtvgWYqj

    — rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) January 3, 2020
    The frequent Trump critic also said, “I will never vote Republican. I want the Democrats to win because we are less likely to die."

    I will never vote Republican. I want the Democrats to win because we are less likely to die. I am a conscientious objector to the USA, it’s policies, lies, corruption, nationalism, racism, and deep misogyny. It is our right and duty as citizens to dissent.

    — rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) January 3, 2020
    McGowan also tweeted that she is a registered Republican in California, saying “I will not vote Republican, but I cannot vote Democrat.”

    I’m a registered Republican in California. I loathe the Clintons. I hate Trump. I will not vote Republican, but I cannot vote Democrat. I’d rather know what evil I’m getting, so I’ll go Republican. This is about WWIII, so none of that shit matters anyway. #TeamStayAlive #RoseArmy

    So I'm confused.Not only is there no apology but is she a Republican who hates Trump? Or does she hate Democrats? And... who the hell is Rose McGowan and why does anyone think that she represents anyone's view (the Democratic Party) besides her own?

    It's called FACT CHECKING, Tovarishch.

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-

    At least you are asking the right question- how do we get there from here?

    Unfortunately, it won't be through constitutional amendments or legislation.

    The big money legislators will not pass amendments or legislation to get the big money out of politics as the big money interests have no interest in doing so.

    The only way to pass amendments or legislation would be to first replace the big money legislators with small donor legislators. The problem has to be solved before legislation to solve the problem can be passed.

    That is an undeniable reality.

    There are many citizens that work together on many different issues to influence candidates/legislators.

    Some work together and only vote for candidates that oppose abortion. Some work together and only vote for candidates that do not oppose abortion.

    Some people will only find a candidate acceptable if they believe in the War on Habitat. Some will only find a candidate acceptable if they do not believe in the War on Habitat.

    Yet the majority of those people most likely agree that they want the big money out of politics.(80% of citizens, around 60% of Republicans)

    So if these smaller groups of people can work together and have an influence then we should be able to get enough of the 80% to work together demanding that candidates run small donor only campaigns to earn our vote and enforce that demand by voting only for small donor candidates and using a write in vote when there are no small donor candidates on the primary and general election ballots to register a vote against the big money candidates and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates.

    That is how democracy is designed to work.

    When the politicians don't do what you want then you don't vote for them and register votes against them.

    Otherwise they have no incentive to change their behavior.

    This does not have to wait for legislation or amendments, it can happen right now.

    Citizens can sign up and participate in One Demand.

    Of course, if you don't believe that democracy can work then you won't believe that One Demand could work.

    But you can't believe in democracy and believe that One Demand can't work.

    So if you believe in democracy then you should participate in One Demand and encourage people like CW and Ralph Nader to inform citizens about this opportunity to use democracy to save democracy.

    As for the Get Real not being productive or encouraging- absolutely true.

    However, as CW ignored reasonable posts I was advised to try something different. And the only times CW responded in any way on One Demand was after just such comments.

    Ignoring reasonable posts and and responding to a post that may have crossed a line that was caused by ignoring reasonable posts is no way to encourage reasonable posts.

    So in this very thread I have presented CW with a choice.

    There is no "Get Real " moment in posts 49, 50.

    Please join me in encouraging CW to encourage reasonable posts by responding to reasonable posts.

    You can't use the excuse that you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar when you don't respond to the honey and are then offered vinegar.

  66. [66] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [63]

    Okay Michale I caught the "52% of apologize for..." down in the continuation of her Twitter thread, but again what does her opinion have to do with the Democratic Party? It's the equivalent of saying "ALL Republicans are Racists because David Duke likes Trump, eh?

  67. [67] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I got maybe 3 three hours of sleep this early morning and am not proofreading very well, so I'm gonna take a break from this for a moment. Keep up the good work Weigantians!

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Sir , I deeply regret the violence on our behalf by a man that most Americans have never voted for. Avoid power. A sincere man, Michael Moore"

    Yes... That is an apology...

    Okay Michale I caught the "52% of apologize for..." down in the continuation of her Twitter thread, but again what does her opinion have to do with the Democratic Party?

    You asked for quotes from Democrats..

    I gave you quotes from Democrats..

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This might be the test of whether the dustup was real or not in the voters' minds, in fact. If Warren doesn't make it out of the first voting round, then ideologically Bernie is the obvious choice for her supporters to make.

    We've discussed this before, but allow me to reiterate that polling exists on this topic... in fact, "rolling polling" that is released once a week by Morning Consult.

    https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

    If their polling is remotely in the ballpark of being in the ballpark [does that make sense?], their data currently shows as follows:

    Second Choices:
    Warren Supporters

    Bernie Sanders... 32%
    Joe Biden............ 23%
    Pete Buttigieg/
    Amy Klobuchar... 11%

    Progressive Warren voters who get disappointed in a first-round loss could easily move over to Bernie's camp on caucus night -- but this is in no way guaranteed, if the "Warren versus Bernie" thing is more real than I'm giving credit for.

    Also, knowing that Sanders is their primary "progressive" competitor from sea to shining sea, a lot of them might be savvy voters who want to keep their candidate Warren alive and well in order to fight another day -- a day like "Super Tuesday" -- so that the last thing they'll wish to do is to voluntarily become the "kingmakers" of Bernie Sanders (or any of the other "front-runners" ) in Iowa.

    All these "second choices" and different scenarios are what make the Iowa caucuses hard to predict. Add to that, for 2020, the Iowa state party has approved 87 new additional "satellite caucuses" that follow an identical structure as the regular caucuses but will take place at different times and locations all across the globe so that caucus voters who can't make it to a "regular" caucus due to work or other facts can now participate. So there are now an added 60 in-state locations in Iowa, and -- get this -- 24 caucuses outside Iowa located in 13 states and Washington, DC and also 3 international sites in (1) Glasgow, Scotland, (2) Paris, France, and (3) Tblisi, Georgia).

    So with all this new "stuff" going on, all this mess is fixing to get real -- real fast -- and what in the world could possibly go wrong? :)

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    9

    OMG I just pulled a Michale!

    "Somebody...stop me!"

    Don't.
    Stop.
    Don't stop. *laughs* Post or don't post; you decide.

    I don't agree with all that, of course, do agree with some of that, but I just wanted to say I am impressed with the effort. Awesome effort. :)

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    16

    Trump is a narcissistic sociopath, and those don’t exist in the animal world as far as we know. There was that one hamster in Germany, but it just ate its young and didn’t want to have sex with them... so it doesn’t quite fit for Trump’s spirit animal.

    *laughs* Have I told you lately that I love you? XOXOXO

    My spirit animal is a honey badger.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Badgers? We don't need no steenking badgers."
    -Carlos
    UHF

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    21|23

    Remind me again how Texas is turning Blue?? I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS that prove otherwise.. :D

    Sure, no problem; although, you seem to have answered your own question in your quote at 23 where I was discussing the flipping of seats in Texas at the Federal level. Just read it again since you've admittedly forgotten:

    Parts of Texas will flip; of that there is zero doubt. Democratic candidates in Texas defeated longtime GOP incumbents in Houston and Dallas in the 2018 midterms, and there are six other Republican House members who won reelection to their districts in 2018 by five points or less. Of those six House members, Reps. Will Hurd, Kenny Marchant and Pete Olson have chosen to retire, and Reps. Michael McCaul, Chip Roy and John Carter will face tough reelections they used to take for granted.

    Texas has a lot of transplants from California and other Blue states, and the demographics are changing fast. It's not a matter of if Texas will flip but when Texas will flip, and regardless of when the GOP will take a whipping and Texas will be flipping, it's going to take a whole lot of money and an inordinate amount of time to defend her that the GOP is used to spending elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, New York and California show no signs whatsoever of moving even a scintilla so when Texas flips, the GOP as we know it will be gone, and they know it. :)

    And the GOP just kicked the shit out of the Dumbocrat in Houston..

    Incorrect. Fort Bend is not Houston... however, close. The GOP did just hold onto a Red Texas state seat in Fort Bend... TX House District 28 (which you posted). Good for Gates; although, it did cost him $1.5 million of his personal fortune, as noted in the article you posted. That's not money they're used to having to spend to defend those GOP heavily gerrymandered districts they drew up... cha-ching... money that could have been better spent elsewhere in 2020 to defend other seats. I hope Mr. Gates has his checkbook ready for later in the year.

    But enough about Fort Bend; as for Houston, there actually was also a special election yesterday in TX House District 148 (which you didn't mention at all) which actually is in Houston, and Democrat Anna Eastman won that one by about a 2-1 margin... because Houston is deep-deep Blue with a blueberry on top. Eastman is succeeding Democrat Jessica Farrar who had held that seat in Houston for the past 25 years... because Houston is deep-deep Blue.

    So those seats in those two special elections held yesterday remain Red and Blue, respectively, but as for that reminder you asked for about Texas turning Blue, I reposted the federal level information in the blockquote above, and as for the Texas state level information:

    In the Texas state senate, the GOP lost their supermajority status in November 2018 after failing to hold onto the minimum 21 seats necessary to do so. In the Texas state senate, 15 out of the 31 seats were up for election, and the Republican majority was reduced:

    21-10
    19-12

    One GOP incumbent was defeated in the primary, and two more GOP incumbents were defeated in the general election.

    In the Texas state representatives elections, all 150 seats were up for reelection in 2018, where the Republican majority in those elections was reduced:

    93-55
    83-67

    So, as I said, Texas is flipping Blue, and as for Houston, it is Bluer than a blueberry pie with blue sprinkles on top and has been for multiple decades and likely shall remain ever thus. :)

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    36

    It just gives me a hearty belly laugh when I hear ya'all claim Texas will go blue.. :D

    The dumb asses in the Texas GOP were laughing it up too... until they lost their supermajority and a whole lot of seats at the state representative level and contributed two of the 40 seats to the Blue Wave of 2018 at the federal level. Poor Will Hurd... barely held onto a huge chunk of Texas on the Eastern border... 800 miles... bigly chunk of big Tex. I wouldn't want to be Will Hurd in 2020... oh, wait! I am being told Will Hurd is retiring... seems a little young for that, but okay. *laughs*

    So to recap:

    The dumb asses in the Texas GOP ain't laughing no more, their candidates are retiring to spend more time with their families. #Texodus

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    52

    Reaganism®

    You are required to explain how you did that "thingy" on this website.

    Reaganism's® <--- that "thingy"

  76. [76] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Maybe Joe Biden would be the best candidate for the Democrats to pick because he’s an older, white, heterosexual man. Look at the remaining candidates in the Democrats field and they each have something the Republicans will focus on to claim is the reason that they will not work with him.
    Warren and Klobuchar are women...do you think the Republicans will do anything that would help a female president succeed?

    Obama showed us that the Republicans will not risk someone that isn’t a carbon copy of how they view “real Americans” doing great things in their leadership of our country out of the fear that it would lead to their own base’s acceptance of those the GOP needs their base to fear and hate in order to win re-election.

    Bernie’s long associating as a “socialist” will keep the GOP using out-dated definitions of “socialism” to justify opposing his every move.

    And Mayor Pete... well, let’s just point out the obvious — there are too many self-loathing closet-case-cowards in the GOP to ever follow him as president. Their acceptance of his openness concerning his sexual orientation would only serve as a constant reminder of their choosing to deny their true selves from ever living their lives honestly and openly.

    And that leaves Joe Biden. He’s WonderBread white. He looks like them. His family looks like their families. He’s lost the love of his life like some of them have, he’s buried children who died too soon too..

    .Joe Biden’s greatest strength might be the fact that he can blend in at any Republican function without their detecting his liberal views. He can push a liberal agenda that they can feel safe about supporting. Seriously, Joe might be the only candidate that has any chance of getting any bipartisan legislation passed.

    I hate to think that this is really where we are in our world today, but conservatives prejudices might just be too powerful for them to accept anything more than their own mirror images

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Maybe Joe Biden would be the best candidate for the Democrats to pick because he’s an older, white, heterosexual man.

    That is most decidedly NOT why Biden might be the best candidate.

    Seriously, Joe might be the only candidate that has any chance of getting any bipartisan legislation passed.

    You're getting a bit closer.

    I hate to think that this is really where we are in our world today, but conservatives prejudices might just be too powerful for them to accept anything more than their own mirror images.

    Now, you're way off base, again.

    Senator Biden is not, has never been, and never will be the mirror image of conservatives or their prejudices.

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    76

    And Mayor Pete... well, let’s just point out the obvious — there are too many self-loathing closet-case-cowards in the GOP to ever follow him as president.

    Ain't that the truth; we're looking at you Miss Lindsey.

  79. [79] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Senator Biden is not, has never been, and never will be the mirror image of conservatives or their prejudices.

    Not what I was saying. A mirror can only show the physical similarities, not what is on the inside. Conservatives are more frightened by the differences in us than anything else. My point was that Biden looks like them, making him the least threatening Democrat to conservatives. Remember, these are the least informed people in this country.

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    *laughs* Have I told you lately that I love you? XOXOXO

    My spirit animal is a honey badger.

    Not as much as I love you, darling! Devon is starting to get jealous I think.

    My spirit animal is the Fox from the Masked Singer.

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    Ain't that the truth; we're looking at you Miss Lindsey.

    I actually feel sorry for her...I remember how horrible it was living in fear that somebody was going to expose me and my secret. Granted, at the time I was working for a company that made employees sign a document stating that we would refrain from any homosexual activities (yet they had a male flag dancer perform for the entertainment at one of our conferences — seriously, I swear they were completely oblivious to the irony!).

    I imagine the Russians have plenty of video from Lindsey’s time in Palm Springs that they’ve used against him. Honesty is the best policy...which is why the Republican Party is perfect for closet cases!

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    80

    Not as much as I love you, darling! Devon is starting to get jealous I think.

    No worries, my lovelies; anyone who is a bona fide crime fighter has all my love too.

    My spirit animal is the Fox from the Masked Singer.

    The costume......... or the fox inside the Fox? ;)

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    81

    I imagine the Russians have plenty of video from Lindsey’s time in Palm Springs that they’ve used against him.

    Well, Miss Lindsey was informed by the FBI in August 2016 that his email was hacked by Russia in June 2016. Yes, sir.

Comments for this article are closed.