ChrisWeigant.com

Democratic Field Realigns

[ Posted Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 17:09 UTC ]

As I write this, the Iowa Democratic Party has now reported 85 percent of the caucus returns. Perhaps after a full 48 hours we'll know the full results, but at this point I wouldn't bet on it. But while heaping scorn on Iowa is amusing, the results as they stand are realigning the entire Democratic presidential field, so it's worth taking a look at how everything is shifting.

The Iowa caucuses really had one big winner and one big loser. Pete Buttigieg outperformed expectations and is quite likely to win the largest haul of Iowa's "delegate equivalents," which is the yardstick that has always been used to proclaim who won the state. He also appears to have edged out Bernie Sanders in the final round of voting, although Sanders still holds the lead in the first round of voting. So Bernie unquestionably had a good night, but he is going to ultimately be denied bragging rights over "winning" Iowa to Mayor Pete.

On the losing side of the equation was Joe Biden. Biden came in fourth place, and he wasn't all that far ahead of Amy Klobuchar in fifth. This is not the way to prove you are the most electable candidate, obviously. Biden won't have a state race where he's the heavy favorite until South Carolina, either, which means that in both Nevada and New Hampshire he'll be struggling to beat his showing in Iowa.

To be fair to all, let's run down exactly what Iowa meant for the six top Democratic candidates, one by one.

 

Pete Buttigieg

While it was mostly lost in all the meta-stories about the breakdown of the reporting on caucus night, Pete Buttigieg successfully pulled off a political feat that equals anything Bill Clinton or Barack Obama managed. He has now vaulted from being the mayor of the 300th-largest city in the country to the current frontrunner in the Democratic race for president -- a rise that might well be described as "meteoric." In beating Bernie for the popular vote in the second round (this may not hold true -- the totals are still very close), he will have denied a bragging point to Sanders as well, since Sanders will now have to qualify any statements about "winning the most votes." Buttigieg had an awesome night, and while it is still uncertain he could wind up using it to launch himself to the very front of the race nationally.

This is going to depend a lot on how he does in New Hampshire and (to a lesser extent) Nevada. If Pete comes in third or fourth in either state, it will blunt his Iowa victory. If he can manage to hold onto at least second place, it could soon become a two-man race between him and Bernie -- at least until South Carolina votes.

South Carolina is going to be a severe test for Buttigieg, however. This is where we'll find out if he has really wrested the mantle of "leading moderate" away from Joe Biden or not. If Biden is seen as falling too far behind, then Buttigieg has an excellent chance of picking up a large share of his voters. But this is in no way guaranteed, because Pete's biggest weakness is with voters of color. If the African-American voting base in South Carolina sticks with Biden, then that will lessen Pete's claim to moderate frontrunner status.

It's already being noted that Buttigieg is largely following the Barack Obama playbook: be intelligent and calm, but don't get caught up in too many specifics. Use some soaring rhetoric, but portray yourself as a blank page as much as possible so that voters can project their own hopes upon you. This worked wonders for Obama, and it's starting to do the same for Mayor Pete.

 

Bernie Sanders

Bernie also had a very good night in Iowa, although it hasn't gotten as much media attention as Buttigieg's win. Remember, the biggest argument against Bernie is that he only appeals to the tree-huggers on the liberal coasts, and there's no way he can win in the Midwest or anywhere rural. He just proved he's got a lot more support in the Midwest than he's given credit for (which, ironically, he's still not getting much credit for).

Bernie's got the best path forward, at least for the next few weeks. He's an odds-on favorite in New Hampshire, which will be discounted "because he's from the state next door." But then again, so is Elizabeth Warren, and she's not the odds-on favorite to win the Granite State. But at this point it's all about expectations and the expectation currently (backed up by a lot of polling) is that Bernie's going to chalk up a win here, perhaps a decisive one. If he does, then the media will largely shrug its shoulders and move on. If he fails to win, however, then that will be a big story "because he didn't meet expectations."

Bernie's also got a very solid shot at taking Nevada as well. Nevada, due to all those Las Vegas hotels, is a strong Union state. Bernie's always been very strong with the rank and file of many Unions, and Unions know how to turn people out to vote. Also, Bernie has very quietly been boosting his Latino outreach efforts, and Nevada was chosen to be an early-voting state precisely because it has a high proportion of Latino voters. So all around, Bernie looks pretty good in the Silver State. The media routinely ignore Nevada (it has the least amount of polling of the first four states as well), but this time around could be different. If Bernie wins New Hampshire then he and Buttigieg will be tied at one-apiece heading into Nevada, which always makes for an interesting storyline.

If Bernie wins both Nevada and New Hampshire after placing a very close second in Iowa, then he may emerge (at least until South Carolina votes) as the absolute frontrunner of the Democratic race. If he stumbles in either state, however, this likely won't happen.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren placed a solid third in Iowa no matter which way you measure it, but this kind of got lost in all the reporting. The close race between Bernie and Pete at the top was balanced by Biden possibly getting beat by Amy Klobuchar at the bottom, which left Warren's third place finish mostly out in the cold in the stories written about the Iowa results.

The standard political rule of thumb is that there are only "three tickets out of Iowa." Warren, even though few noticed, solidly claimed one of those tickets this year. The adage is being stretched this time around to cover possibly four or even five tickets, but while more attention is being paid to the longshots, Warren has proven she is still a force to be reckoned with.

Warren may have been lucky to escape the media's attention, though, since she was expected to do much better. But she peaked too early in Iowa, as she peaked too early nationally as well. In the end, her superior ground game did secure her a top-three finish, but the expectation was that she would do even better.

Warren has an excellent shot at second place in New Hampshire, although with Pete newly ascendant she may wind up in third once again. A second and a third is a lot better than two bronze medals, obviously, but either way it goes this will likely keep her viable in the race for some time to come.

Warren's greatest danger now is that her supporters start taking a serious second look at Bernie Sanders. Part of Warren's main campaign theme is that she's a more-reasonable version of Bernie. She's more wonky and would be better at convincing more-moderate Democrats to support her agenda, according to this formulation. She's less grumpy and has more friends in the Senate, and could thus get more done as president than cranky old Bernie. She is more, in a word, electable.

This argument kind of falls apart, however, if Sanders is routinely beating her at the voting box. If Sanders is actually the stronger candidate with the voters themselves, then Bernie is by definition more electable. If this perception sets in (as it might, if Sanders wins New Hampshire and Nevada), then many Warren supporters may want to give the strongest progressive in the race their vote, in the hopes of defeating the moderate wing of the party.

She's still got time to turn this around, of course. If she placed second in New Hampshire or Nevada, that would go a long way towards keeping her campaign viable even with Sanders ahead of her. But if she starts struggling to even maintain third place, then she may start a real downward spiral she cannot recover from.

 

Joe Biden

Speaking of downward spirals....

OK, that's probably too harsh. Joe Biden did not have a good night in Iowa, that's pretty obvious. But that doesn't mean he's down and out quite yet. It does, however, undercut his main rationale for being the nominee: that he's the most electable one of the whole bunch.

Biden was expected to do a lot better in Iowa, and some polls even had him leading the field. These did not translate into votes, however. A smaller turnout was supposed to help Biden as well, but even though it is looking like the turnout was pretty average (not a record-setter, in other words), this also didn't help Biden out. Clear weather was supposed to help Biden, but even the absence of blizzards didn't do it for him. Biden didn't even clear the 15-percent threshold in a number of individual caucuses, which itself is kind of surprising (and for Biden, not in a good way).

Why was there such a last-minute movement towards Buttigieg at Biden's expense? We'll probably hear more about this as the data are fully parsed. But it's pretty clear that everywhere Pete did great were pretty much the places Biden was expecting to rack up big vote totals. The two are pretty close ideologically, so perhaps it was the youth factor which worked in Buttigieg's favor? Or maybe the whole Hunter Biden thing hurt Joe worse than he thought? For whatever reason, Biden fell short here.

The danger for Biden is that the next two contests aren't especially friendly to him. If he places only third in them, it's going to hurt. If he continues to place fourth (or, even worse, fifth), then he will be facing a disaster. His donations will likely dry up, his supporters will begin gravitating towards Buttigieg (and possibly even Klobuchar), and he could spiral into irrelevancy.

Or maybe not. He's still got his South Carolina firewall, and chalking up a very big win there would go a long way to quieting the doubters, just before Super Tuesday dawns. Biden is still awfully strong nationwide (although that could soon change), and he's the strongest among both older voters and African-American voters, two very important demographics in the party's base. If Buttigieg stumbles somehow in the next few weeks, Biden will be able to regain the lead for the moderates of the party pretty easily.

But it's beyond argument that Biden exits Iowa in weaker shape than he was in previously.

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar had a stronger night than many (including myself) expected. For a while she was even nipping at Biden's heels for fourth place, although that now looks completely out of reach for her. Still, her fifth-place finish was a lot stronger than you might think. While Bernie and Pete between them pulled in just over half the total votes, Warren and Biden and Klobuchar were only separated by three-percentage-point gaps. Warren beat Biden by roughly the same margin as Biden beat Klobuchar, to put it another way. It's doubtful that anyone but Warren in this group is actually going to walk away with Iowa delegates to the convention, but this was a lot better than if Klobuchar had been a very distant fifth.

Klobuchar's problem now is that Biden stumbled, but not by enough to really help her all that much. Even though Biden did struggle, he still beat Klobuchar. And fifth place is so far off the lead that she's still going to be the first one to get calls to exit the race (to give both Biden and Buttigieg a better chance at solidifying the moderate voters behind them). If she improves her standing -- even to fourth -- in either New Hampshire or Nevada, this could change, however. At this point, it seems certain that Klobuchar will stay in the race at least until Super Tuesday -- something that was not clear before the Iowa results.

 

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg wasn't even on the ballot in Iowa, nor will he be in New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina. But he still had a pretty good night, because if Biden truly has slipped then he is in a pretty good position to jump in and claim the moderate mantle. However, now he'll have to defeat Pete Buttigieg to do so, and that won't be as easy as it once may have sounded.

Bloomberg announced after the Iowa results were in that he was doubling his ad buys in the Super Tuesday states. This is jaw-dropping because the other candidates have not been able to afford much of any advertising in these states (some of which, like Texas and California, are incredibly expensive to advertise in). Bloomberg may actually participate in two of the debates before Super Tuesday (although he won't be in the next one, this Friday night), which the other candidates should actually welcome.

Think about it. Bloomberg's out there saying anything he wants in his ads. None of it is being challenged by other Democrats. And plenty of it is worth challenging, because Bloomberg has all kinds of weaknesses to exploit. If none of the other candidates has the money to even begin to challenge Bloomberg's advertising (and they don't), then how else are they going to knock down his claims? In the last debate we had, Bloomberg's name wasn't mentioned even once. Having him on the stage would mean he'd have to face challenges from other Democrats directly, which is only likely to weaken him overall (many Democratic voters know no more about his record than what he's bragging about in his ads, after all). So, like I said, the other Democrats should welcome the chance to debate Bloomberg before Super Tuesday.

 

Conclusions

This Friday's debate is going to be the liveliest and most consequential of the entire process so far. That is a pretty easy conclusion to draw, at this point.

This time around, Pete Buttigieg will have the biggest target painted on him, and should expect the most incoming fire. Others have sat in this hot seat before, and some of them have suffered as a direct result (most notably, Kamala Harris, and to a lesser extent Elizabeth Warren). Others have done better, however -- it could really go either way. But everyone on the stage will be looking to blunt Pete's edge a little bit (perhaps knock him down to just "Boot-edge"? OK, I apologize for that, but I just couldn't resist...). This is the price you pay for being in the lead.

Also for the first time in the upcoming debate, Joe Biden will not be a big target, and will instead be the one desperately attacking others rather than playing only defense. So far, Biden's done a pretty good job of defending his positions against all comers, but it remains to be seen how he'll handle attacking a fellow moderate. There's not a whole lot of daylight between Biden's agenda and Buttigieg's, so it'll be interesting to see what form this conflict will take.

Some things will be the same, however. Amy Klobuchar will still desperately be launching attacks, although this time perhaps mostly at Mayor Pete. The divide between the moderates and the progressives might not be so prominent (as two of the moderates gang up on the third), but it'll still be present to some degree.

In the end, at some point the Iowa results will be fully known. When they are, it's already evident that Pete Buttigieg had the best night of anyone. Whether he can use this as a springboard to launch himself into first place in the national race still remains to be unseen, but it is a real possibility that didn't really exist pre-Iowa. Joe Biden is not quite on the ropes yet, but he certainly took some body blows by his fourth-place finish in Iowa.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

89 Comments on “Democratic Field Realigns”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But it's beyond argument that Biden exits Iowa in weaker shape than he was in previously.

    Well, he's done a lot worse in Iowa before.

    In other words, this ain't the firs Fiasco in Iowa, you know.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    When asked tonight on the CNN townhall what he would do to save social security, Biden talked about removing the cap without saying he would remove the cap.

    When will you write more about this?

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: While it was mostly lost in all the meta-stories about the breakdown of the reporting on caucus night, Pete Buttigieg successfully pulled off a political feat that equals anything Bill Clinton or Barack Obama managed.

    So you're saying Buttigieg way outperformed his polling numbers!? If only someone had heard this from multiple people and given this forum a heads-up. :P

  4. [4] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Democratic Field Realigns Deck Chairs on the Titanic

    There. Fixed it for you.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And the band played on....

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Repeating the top 40 playlist over and over is getting us nowhere.

    It's time to change format and say to the big money Democrats in the words of the immortal Dr. Johnny Fever:

    BOOOGER!

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You really can't continue to show less of an understanding of politics then Les Nessman's understanding of sports.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    FUN FACT

    Only three politicians have won a contested Iowa caucus and become president:

    * Jimmy Carter
    * George W. Bush
    * Barack Obama

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hey maybe you should change the MIDOTW to the Silver Sow award.

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Fun fact:

    They were all big money candidates.

    Un-fun fact:

    They were all big money candidates.

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [2] -

    Huh? Was he talking about just raising the cap, or doing away with it altogether?

    Sometimes Dems want to build a weird donut hole, where (for instance) everything up to about 125K is taxed, but everything from 125-250K is not, and then everything above 250K is taxed again. Was that what he was talking about?

    Kick -

    Anecdotes are anecdotes (and little lambs eat ivy)...

    I prefer to wait for actual numbers before drawing conclusions.

    :-)

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    11

    I prefer to wait for actual numbers before drawing conclusions.

    You don't say!? ;) *laughs*

    I'm just juiced that my sources nailed it; I had no idea what was actually going on. I was literally in the hospital with my phone ringing off the hook and no TV.

    I wish I could have heard all those victory speeches. I actually thought y'all were joking about that. :)

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Huh? Was he talking about just raising the cap, or doing away with it altogether? Sometimes Dems want to build a weird donut hole, where (for instance) everything up to about 125K is taxed, but everything from 125-250K is not, and then everything above 250K is taxed again. Was that what he was talking about?

    I'm afraid so. But, he used the $400,000 figure. He's not a bleeding heard liberal, you know. :)

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Why don't Democrats talk about whether the cap should just be scrapped.

    I'm sure there are good reasons for it ...

  15. [15] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I see Don The Lesser has wasted no time in offering a full-throated denunciation of Mitt Romney for not wanting to double-cross his saviour.

    Speaks volumes to the atheist mind, it nakedly showcases the Trumpian view of religious people and how they regard people of faith the moment they step a foot out of line.

    Even while Moscovy Mitch was giving his closing sermon, admonishing the leftwing for operating within their bubble of loathing all things Trump, DTL is twitter-baying for Romney's blood, apparently not getting the memo from senate leadership that it's the Dems not the GOP who are trying to dilute the American experience with their bloody-minded partisanship.

    Historically, it's never turned out well for the system that demands absolute fealty from its membership and devours those that dare express individuality. They used to be called Fascists or Communist...Authoritarian would be the blanket designation.

    This will be Trump's undoing, there's only so many people you can coerce into your schemes or con into your camp and then unceremoniously jettison in a shower of abuse and ridicule. Even the thinnest of character can see that their public life forever hangs in the balance while Trump bounces from one scandalous machination to the next while they blunder about covering it up.

    Makes you wonder if the likes of Graham, Pompeo and other close Trump conspirators ever envision themselves on the business end of a Trump twitter swipe when their number comes up for a good solid tossing under the bus.

    The perceived temerity of Mitt Romney with his denunciation and vote against Trump will stick in his craw, he won't waste any opportunity to harangue Romney and his family, and in doing so could easily find himself at odds with millions of eager right-wing Mormon voters, Romney has been the Mormon at the heart of government, and their standard bearer for years, Utah could easily slip through Trump's fingers if the wrong buttons are pushed.

    LL&P

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    The 125K - 500K demographic is where the lion's share of political donations come from (stands to reason, they have disposable income...), so some politicians are leery of raising their taxes.

    Bernie and Warren and a few others talk of just scrapping the cap altogether, though...

    Kick -

    To his credit, everyone says Pete's victory speech was the best of all of them.

    To everyone -

    UPDATE

    Bernie's catching up. With 95% of the precincts in, he's retaken the lead in second votes, meaning he doesn't have to qualify "I won the most votes." He's also closing on Mayor Pete in SDEs as well, currently only 0.7% behind. He started at 1.9% behind, but with 95% in, he's running out of votes so he probably won't wind up with the win. Like 2016, he'll have to settle for a VERY close second (Hillary beat him by 0.2% in SDEs).

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Well, that's not a very good reason for not talking about removing the cap.

    Why don't Democrats take a page from the Jerry Brown playbook where he literally ended the chronic California budget crisis overnight when proposition 30 was passed.

    If Democrats study how Brown achieved that, then they have their answer to not only how to save social security but how to beat Trump.

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    fun fact: pie is yummy.

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, it's not technically a fact, but if it could be, it would.

  20. [20] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    CW...It's academic how Sanders does in the primaries, Unless he fields a rabid left-wing base equal and opposite to Trump's, he's going to get run over by Trump and the Ugly American juggernaut that is his relentless greed fuelled pan-Americanism. The mere mention of socialism sends shivers down the spine of people who don't understand that there's Putin/Maduro/Erdogan versions of socialism, the corrupt kleptocracies, and then there's the English, French, German, Aussie and Canadian versions that maintain social safety nets, universal healthcare and childcare as a central theme of the system, regardless of who's in office.

    I'm not sure America can go from the extremes of Trump to the extremes of Sanders in one Presidential cycle, it's too much of a heavy lift, given the present climate, it would polarise American politics to the point of no return. The US will need a decade of gradual easing into healthcare for all, once people have had five or six years of not worrying about how to pay for cancer treatment, giving birth, and quarterly visits to their DR, they will have forgotten the Neolithic system of pay as go medicine. And all it will cost is a reshuffling of the insurance industry workforce...I like the Golgafrinchan solution personally, round up the useless section of society, the paper pushers and insurance brokers and fire them off into the cosmos, with no landing instructions, naturally.

    LL&P

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think pie is yummy and THAT is a fact

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not you, too!?

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    15

    Utah could easily slip through Trump's fingers if the wrong buttons are pushed.

    Just so you know, you're speculating about one of the most conservative states in America. The day Utah "easily" slips through Trump's fingers would definitely be a day that Utah would be the least of Trump's worries... I promise you. :)

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    James T. Canuck [20] -

    Don't forget the public telephone box sterlisers [no sic, intended Britspelling...]. Unless I've mixed up my sci-fi references, that is. And weren't they shot into the heart of the sun, not just "the cosmos"?

    Heh.

    As for socialism, we may be about to find out whether the rhetorical ghosts of the Cold War still haunt the American electorate. Personally, I wonder how many people are still left alive that remember how it was demonized "back in the day"...

    For everyone -

    UPDATE:

    With 97% in, Bernie's definitely catching up. It now stands (SDEs) at Pete 26.2, Bernie 26.1. It's within reach, in other words, much to my surprise. Maybe Bernie will have ALL the bragging rights, come sunrise tomorrow...

    :-)

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    'nuck,

    This will be Trump's undoing,

    {{{YYYYAAAAWWWWNNNNN}}}

    Another TRUMP IS TOAST...

    What's so hilariously cute is that you actually think you have ANY credibility.. :D

    Hay, wait a tic.. Weren't you one of those morons around here who said President Trump would be removed from office???

    Lost another, eh?? :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, CW.. But yer wrong..

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/iowa_democratic_caucus_results.html

    Sanders is still in the lead in Iowa and Victoria's "peeps" (IE the voices in her head) are still full of kaa-kaa..

    :D

    Just the facts..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those who don't want to click on links..

    Candidate Votes Percent 2nd Round Percent SDE Delegates
    Sanders 42,672 24.7 44,753 26.5 547 11
    Buttigieg 36,718 21.3 42,235 25.0 550 11
    Warren 32,007 18.6 34,312 20.3 381 5
    Biden 25,699 14.9 23,051 13.7 331 0
    Klobuchar 21,896 12.7 20,525 12.2 255 0

    Hopefully ya can make sense of this...

    Sanders is ahead of Buttagig by almost 10,000 votes in the 2nd Round..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The word of the day is MAGA

    My
    Ass
    Got
    Acquitted

    Read 'em and weep, people.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders is ahead of Buttagig by almost 10,000 votes in the 2nd Round..

    Amend that to read

    Sanders is ahead of Buttagig by almost 3,000 votes in the 2nd Round..

    My bust...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    He has been acquitted, but it was a political decision rather than a judicial one, sure as it was in the cases of Johnson and Clinton.

    President Trump's acquittal would HAVE to be a political decision because the impeachment itself was ALSO a political decision..

    So, one would naturally follow the other..

    And even judicial acquittal is not a statement of innocence, only a finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    An American is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.. For the purposes of impeachment, the Senate is a de-facto in a court of law..

    Until such time as President Trump is ruled guilty by the courts or by the Senate, President Trump is *INNOCENT* of all charges against him..

    You may not like that, but it is nontheless factual..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    well, it's not technically a fact, but if it could be, it would.

    Exactly..

    Just like President Trump is going to win re-election..

    Technically, it's not a fact.. But it will be.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    On another note, I was wrong yesterday on the Senate votes against Clinton.. Those were House votes I posted.

    My mistake..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since I know ya'all love polls.. :D

    U.S. Economic Confidence at Highest Point Since 2000
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/283940/economic-confidence-highest-point-2000.aspx

    Again, I have to point out that President Trump was wrong..

    Real Patriotic Americans will never tire of WINNING!! :D

  34. [34] 
    dsws wrote:

    [60] of the previous thread Michale wrote:

    (quoting [52] of that thread)Here's a fact: it's the first of history's 3 presidential impeachments with a vote to convict from the president's own party.(end inner quote)

    Sorry, JL.. That is NOT factually accurate....

    Five Democrats (Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm and Gene Taylor) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge.

    Those were votes in the House, to impeach. Not votes in the Senate, to convict.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those were votes in the House, to impeach. Not votes in the Senate, to convict.

    Yep, I already acknowledged that mistake in #36 to JL above.

    But thanx for pointing that out.. I appreciate yer efforts to keep me factually correct..

    So, when I DON'T hear from ya ( or anyone else ) the facts are acknowledged..

    Thanx again. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, I know.. I know..

    Insufferable, ain't I?? :D

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] James T Canuck

    "The perceived temerity of Mitt Romney with his denunciation and vote against Trump will stick in his craw, he won't waste any opportunity to harangue Romney and his family, and in doing so could easily find himself at odds with millions of eager right-wing Mormon voters, Romney has been the Mormon at the heart of government, and their standard bearer for years, Utah could easily slip through Trump's fingers if the wrong buttons are pushed."

    NOT just Utah. It could have an even bigger impact on Arizona, where Romney has a lot of supporters also. Both in the electoral college, where Arizona is already expected to be a close swing state, because of the influx of people moving from California, and in the even more crucial vote for Arizona Senator. Watch out Martha McSally, your vote to acquit Trump along with Romney's vote to convict, just might come back to bite you in the ass.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOT just Utah. It could have an even bigger impact on Arizona, where Romney has a lot of supporters also. Both in the electoral college, where Arizona is already expected to be a close swing state, because of the influx of people moving from California, and in the even more crucial vote for Arizona Senator. Watch out Martha McSally, your vote to acquit Trump along with Romney's vote to convict, just might come back to bite you in the ass.

    Facts to support?? None??

    Awww right, so it's just another Wet Dream..

    You were wrong about the impeachment, JM..

    Wanna put down some quatloos/bragging right on Nov?? :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hearing ya'all claim that Dems are going to take Utah is about as funny as ya'all claiming Dems were going to take PA in 2016..

    But not NEARLY as funny as ya'all claiming Dems are going to take Texas...

    THAT is hilarious.. :D

    And what makes it even funnier is that ya'all who spew such BS actually BELIEVE it!!! :D

  40. [40] 
    dsws wrote:

    [Trump calling someone "Pocahontas" doesn't scare off Pennsylvania centrists the way someone calling himself a Socialist does.] She is more, in a word, electable.

    This argument kind of falls apart, however, if Sanders is routinely beating her at the voting box.

    How does that work? It's no surprise that Democratic primary voters aren't terrified of having the government own its own snow plows. (Oh no, socialism.) Alas, it's an indisputable fact that swing-state swing voters are.

    If we nominate Bernie Sanders, we will probably lose. If we nominate Elizabeth Warren, we will probably win. Of course, that's partly because we could nominate him in a fit of self-destructiveness, but we definitely won't nominate her unless she's better at this than she's been looking lately.

    Nationally, I think Biden is still the one and only front-runner.

    [11]
    Anecdotes are anecdotes (and little lambs eat ivy)...

    Loll. Best line I've seen in a while.

  41. [41] 
    dsws wrote:

    Doggone it, I have got to start hitting preview.

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    [38] Michale

    "Facts to support?? None??"

    I have a lot of facts to support. But why bother with you??? Since you never acknowledge facts that prove you wrong anyway....

    "You were wrong about the impeachment, JM.."

    Actually I was not wrong. Trump was impeached. And the vote to convict him was bipartisan. You can't now deny either of those. Also, I never said that Trump would ever be removed from office. Most of us knew that was never going to happen. So I was not wrong there either.

    Seems like you are zero for three there Michale.

    "Wanna put down some quatloos/bragging right on Nov?? :D"

    Sure! How many you want? Since I already gave you my list of predictions in response to yours in a previous post if you'll remember.

    1) The Democrats keep the House

    2) The Democrats take the Senate

    3) Trump loses

    Name your quatloos.....

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    [39] Michale wrote:

    "But not NEARLY as funny as ya'all claiming Dems are going to take Texas...

    THAT is hilarious.. :D"

    What's hilarious is that you keep staring the future in the face and still remain in denial. That day is coming when Texas turns blue, we just don't know exactly when that will happen, 2024? 2028? But it IS coming. Keep an eye on Georgia too, with the growing liberal Atlanta suburbs.

    As for 2020, in the meantime we will settle for possibly flipping: Arizona, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina into the blue column... all eminently doable and well within the realm of possibility. Take even one of those, and any TWO of the three that were lost before: like Michigan and Pennsylvania, and we won't even need to get Wisconsin back.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a lot of facts to support. But why bother with you??? Since you never acknowledge facts that prove you wrong anyway....

    Actually, I am the only one here who DOES acknowledge ya'all's facts..

    It just SEEMS like I don't because ya'all rarely HAVE any facts..

    But I promise to acknowledge your facts and concede if they are actually facts and actually accurate..

    Or you can choose your normal course of action and run away..

    Actually I was not wrong. Trump was impeached.

    You said he would be removed from office.. You were wrong.. You just can't admit it.

    1) The Democrats keep the House

    2) The Democrats take the Senate

    3) Trump loses

    Name your quatloos.....

    1 million quatloos..

    And, something substantial for the forum.. If you are wrong, you take a picture of yourself holding a large sign saying "MICHALE WAS FACTUALLY CORRECT.. MICHALE IS ALWAYS FACTUALL CORRECT"..

    Stakes too high?? :D

  45. [45] 
    John M wrote:

    [44] Michale .

    "Actually, I am the only one here who DOES acknowledge ya'all's facts.."

    PROVE IT

    "You said he would be removed from office.. You were wrong.. You just can't admit it."

    PROVE IT. Repost MY quote where I said that.

    "And, something substantial for the forum.. If you are wrong, you take a picture of yourself holding a large sign saying "MICHALE WAS FACTUALLY CORRECT.. MICHALE IS ALWAYS FACTUALL CORRECT"..

    Stakes too high?? :D"

    NOT AT ALL. DEAL. But in RETURN, if I am right and YOU are wrong, you have to do the following:

    If you are wrong, you take a picture of yourself holding a large sign saying "MICHALE WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.. MICHALE IS ALWAYS FACTUALLY INCORRECT".

    Stakes too high for you? :-D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's hilarious is that you keep staring the future in the face and still remain in denial. That day is coming when Texas turns blue,

    Yea.. Ya'all said "the day was coming" when Mueller busted President Trump for Russia Collusion..

    "The day was coming" for President Trump being removed from office on impeachment..

    The day was even coming when we would have President Hillary clinton..

    With you people, it's ALWAYS "the day is coming"...

    But it's hilarious that THAT particular day... NEVER ARRIVES..

    How funny is that, eh!? :D

    As for 2020, in the meantime we will settle for possibly flipping: Arizona, Iowa, Florida, or North Carolina into the blue column...

    Wet dreaming still, I see.. :D

    It won't happen, JM... You really need to accept the reality..

    You won't win the White House...

    You won't win the Senate...

    Yer gonna lose the House...

    These are the facts and the reality..

    You'll save yourself a LOT of angst and listening to me gloat if you acknowledge these facts now..

    Take even one of those, and any TWO of the three that were lost before: like Michigan and Pennsylvania, and we won't even need to get Wisconsin back.

    Then take the wager.. You debase yourself by admitting I am factually accurate and post the pic for all to see..

    If yer so sure, I mean.. :D

  47. [47] 
    John M wrote:

    [46] Michale

    "The day was coming" for President Trump being removed from office on impeachment.."

    What makes you think Trump will ONLY be impeached once???

    "The day was even coming when we would have President Hillary clinton.."

    And yet, it was razor thin close.

    "You won't win the White House...

    You won't win the Senate...

    Yer gonna lose the House..."

    Like all your predictions Michale? Must I remind you?

    1)The Democrats were toast and going to lose the Mid-terms. Didn't happen.

    2) Doug Jones was going to lose the Senate race in Alabama, didn't happen.

    3) Democrats were going to lose in Virginia, didn't happen.

    These are the facts and the reality..

    You'll save yourself a LOT of angst and listening to me gloat if you acknowledge these facts now Michale..

    "Then take the wager.. You debase yourself by admitting I am factually accurate and post the pic for all to see..

    If yer so sure, I mean.. :D"

    I am absolutely sure. Wager taken. :-D

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    What makes you think Trump will ONLY be impeached once???

    Because I am fairly certain that Democrats are NOT so stoopid as to stab themselves in the eye again..

    Are you saying they ARE that stoopid???

    And yet, it was razor thin close.

    No, it wasn't.. President Trump DECIMATED Hillary..

    I am absolutely sure. Wager taken. :-D

    OK..

    Here's the deal..

    I'll even be magnamous towards you..

    Your claim is that Dems will take the White House, take the Senate and retain the House..

    I'll give you 2 out of 3.. If any 2 of those happen, you win..

    If 1 or none of those happen I win..

    I already outlined your consequences.. You holding up a 3'x 5' sign in a PUBLIC PLACE that says MICHALE WAS FACTUALLY ACCURATE... MICHALE IS ALWAYS FACTUALLY ACCURATE

    Have a friend snap a pic and post it on the internet with a link posted here...

    If you get 2 of the 3 predictions factually accurate, I'll take what consequences (within reason) you deem appropriate...

    Just as a hint, T-SHIRTS have always been popular. : D

    Gotta run.. Back in a couple hours.. :D

  49. [49] 
    John M wrote:

    [48] Michale

    "What makes you think Trump will ONLY be impeached once???

    Because I am fairly certain that Democrats are NOT so stoopid as to stab themselves in the eye again..

    Are you saying they ARE that stoopid???"

    NO, but Trump IS that stupid!

    "And yet, it was razor thin close.

    No, it wasn't.. President Trump DECIMATED Hillary.."

    AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN, NOT THE FACT. Just proves what I said before. YOU DON'T ACCEPT facts Michale when they contradict you.

    "Here's the deal..

    I'll even be magnamous towards you..

    Your claim is that Dems will take the White House, take the Senate and retain the House..

    I'll give you 2 out of 3.. If any 2 of those happen, you win..

    If 1 or none of those happen I win..

    I already outlined your consequences.. You holding up a 3'x 5' sign in a PUBLIC PLACE that says MICHALE WAS FACTUALLY ACCURATE... MICHALE IS ALWAYS FACTUALLY ACCURATE

    Have a friend snap a pic and post it on the internet with a link posted here..."

    DONE. But remember what I said. YOU DO THE SAME IF YOU LOSE.

    "If you get 2 of the 3 predictions factually accurate, I'll take what consequences (within reason) you deem appropriate..."

    So I have YOUR WORD ON THAT.

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Congratulations to whichever of you turns out to be right on your predictions on whether the deck chairs will have red or blue covers when the ship goes down.

    You refuse to acknowledge the future that is staring you in the face of the iceberg that will soon be in the room.

    Make sure you grab on to the deck chair of the color you predicted when it becomes too late to discuss the iceberg in the room because it is already in the room.

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It's great that you can reach an agreement on accepting consequences with each other.

    But I guess you're used to that anyway as you accept the consequences of supporting the big money party you each support- consequences that are decided by the big money interests.

    Man the lifeboats! Big money interests and their lackeys first!

    Sorry, no room for the enablers. You have to die with the rest of the passengers that you screwed over by enabling us.

    Don't worry though, the ice cold water will numb you out and you will die before you suffer too much.

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    thank you for the acknowledgment. just for the record, romney is no hero, he's just a senator who bucked his party on the big stage and voted the way he felt like voting.

    @dh,
    why ride the titanic when you could ride the pie-tanic?

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You do indeed..

    As JL and Akhijadan can attest to, I am like the Lannisters..

    "Lannisters always pay their debts.."

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    thank you for the acknowledgment.

    'M pleasure.. When I am wrong, I am the first to admit it..

    just for the record, romney is no hero, he's just a senator who bucked his party on the big stage and voted the way he felt like voting.

    And yet, Democrats treat him like he's the second coming.

    Which is hilarious because they hated and despised Romney when he ran against Odumbo..

    It's all about the D v R....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Romney going against President Trump is like those stoopid and moronic couples who U-TURN a team on AMAZING RACE, solely because the team pissed them off...

    There is nothing tactical or strategic about it.

    They just let their emotions cloud their tactical thinking and react hysterically...

    Just like Romney...

  56. [56] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [24]
    Don't forget the public telephone box sterlisers [no sic, intended Britspelling...]. Unless I've mixed up my sci-fi references, that is. And weren't they shot into the heart of the sun, not just "the cosmos"?

    CW, Indeed, the useless one third of the population were duped into believing that once underway, the other two 'ark' ships would reunite with them and then all three would drone through the inky blackness of infinity until arriving at their designated new home...It was another quirk of fate that soon after all the public telephone sanitizers were hurled into the doomed ship, those who remained perished during a pandemic started by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty pay phone...

    I've been to Finland, I've seen Slarty's signature on the fjord....

    LL&P

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Doggone it, I have got to start hitting preview.

    At least until we have that time-sensitive edit function.

    But, I wouldn't worry about it - we all know what was meant. :)

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [33] Michale,

    You know what that poll really tells you?

    Time to get your money out of the stock market, that's what!

  59. [59] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [54] 'M pleasure.. When I am wrong, I am the first to admit it..'

    It must be an inner contemplative catharsis, because no such written proof exists.

    ...Technically, no one can admit it first when you are wrong, only you can admit you are wrong. A rookie redundancy gaff, one easily overlooked.

    LL&P

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Time to get your money out of the stock market, that's what!

    With respect, the Left has been plying that BS since before Nov 2016...

    The only way the stock market will tank is if Democrats get any more political power...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    It must be an inner contemplative catharsis, because no such written proof exists.

    Of course it does...

    The comment you quote IS written proof..

    So, once again, you are completely and PROVABLY wrong.. :D

    ...Technically, no one can admit it first when you are wrong, only you can admit you are wrong. A rookie redundancy gaff, one easily overlooked.

    And yet, here you are.. Confirming to all I have residence in your head.. It's awful lonely here, what with you having no brain cells and all..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    DNC chair calls for Iowa to recanvass caucus vote, says 'enough is enough'

    The results of Monday's Iowa caucuses were delayed after there were problems with a smartphone app.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/buttigieg-sanders-neck-neck-iowa-nearly-all-votes-reported-n1131261

    Because Bernie won, Democrats want a DO-OVER..

    What **IS** it about Democrats that they can't accept the will of the people???

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    26

    Sanders is still in the lead in Iowa and Victoria's "peeps" (IE the voices in her head) are still full of kaa-kaa..

    My eardrums are definitely located in my head, and when I listen to my lovelies on the phone, their sweet voices are definitely in my ears.

    Tell us more about caca, though, since we here in Weigantia aren't "like Mike" and the Trump Cult Vassals whose heads are jammed so far up inside Trump's ass that everything they hear is filtered through Demented Donald -- the self-described "Chosen One" -- who keeps insisting he is America.

    And please keep posting your updates about Bernie; it's always a bonus when you're the one highlighting repeatedly how stupid you are:

    Bernie is done.. His campaign is over..

    ~ Mike

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/10/04/ftp545/#comment-146328

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    As I said.. The FACTS clearly show that Bernie won Iowa...

    Those who have shit for brains cannot concede when they are wrong..

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    30

    An American is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.. For the purposes of impeachment, the Senate is a de-facto in a court of law..

    Like I said, it's always a bonus when you're the one highlighting repeatedly how stupid you are. If you run a red light, you aren't "innocent" of doing it whether or not you are found "guilty" in a court of law or even written a citation for said misdemeanor you definitely committed. Courts and juries across America do not determine "innocence;" they either determine you are "guilty" or "not guilty" of that for which you've been indicted/charged... unless, of course, you make a pretrial agreement with a prosecutor(s) or a Court.

    You wouldn't think that multiple posters on this forum would have to keep explaining legal issues to a self-described "law enforcement officer," but here we are.

    Until such time as President Trump is ruled guilty by the courts or by the Senate, President Trump is *INNOCENT* of all charges against him..

    There are no "charges" against him. Trump cannot be "innocent" of a charge that doesn't exist in a court of law. If he were pronounced "not guilty" by a Court... as he was in his impeachment trial before the Senate, it is a false equivalency to claim that "not guilty" is the same as "innocent."

    You may not like that, but it is nontheless factual..

    Said the so-called "law enforcement officer" who keeps repeatedly posting incorrect legal drivel while at the same time voluntarily making himself look ignorant and fraudulent. :D

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    37

    I agree with some of that and would just like to add:

    Don't bet against the astronaut. :)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dumbshits may try and confuse the issue with semantics and other hate-filled and bigoted comments.

    But the FACT is, President Trump is INNOCENT of all charges and INNOCENT of all accusations..

    This is a fact that no amount of hatred or bigotry or any combination of the two can erase..

    President Trump is COMPLETELY innocent..

    FACT....

    Deal with it, libtards

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nancy Pelosi should resign
    BY JONATHAN TURLEY

    The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. It has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address. However, Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.

    Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481598-nancy-pelosi-should-resign

    Sore luser...

    That's all Pelosi is.. A sore luser...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted for clarity...

    Nancy Pelosi should resign
    BY JONATHAN TURLEY

    The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. It has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address. However, Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.

    Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481598-nancy-pelosi-should-resign

    Sore luser...

    That's all Pelosi is.. A sore luser...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reposted for clarity...

    Nancy Pelosi should resign
    BY JONATHAN TURLEY

    The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. It has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address. However, Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address.

    Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481598-nancy-pelosi-should-resign

    Sore luser...

    That's all Pelosi is.. A sore luser...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    THERE... Finally...

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    we are all PRESUMED innocent, until proven guilty. a verdict of not guilty doesn't prove innocence, but it does maintain the presumption of innocence. those are very different things.

  73. [73] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    43

    What's hilarious is that you keep staring the future in the face and still remain in denial. That day is coming when Texas turns blue, we just don't know exactly when that will happen, 2024? 2028? But it IS coming.

    Exactly right. Texas will flip nationally, the only question is when it will happen. Parts of Texas have already flipped, and I expect more parts of it will flip in 2020. Ripe for the flipping: TX-23... a huge chunk of Texas on the border.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_23rd_congressional_district

    Will Hurd barely held onto it in the Blue Wave of 2018 and has decided to retire in the Texodus of 2020. The Texas Trumplicans are retiring in droves. :)

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    43

    Apologies, JM, I think the apostrophe in that link for TX-23 goobed it up so... behold... TX-23:

    https://tinyurl.com/t5x8v5w

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    we are all PRESUMED innocent, until proven guilty. a verdict of not guilty doesn't prove innocence, but it does maintain the presumption of innocence. those are very different things.

    You can tap dance all ya want.

    But President Trump is innocent of all charges and accusations..

    Just as Hillary Clinton is..

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    California will go red before Texas goes blue...

    It's that simple...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:
  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    As JL and Akhijadan can attest to, I am like the Lannisters..

    I too can attest Mike is exactly "like the Lannisters":

    * Little man who repeatedly enlists others to fight his battles
    * Slow to grasp the concept that his worship is a tyrant
    * Dumber than a box of rocks and doomed to perish under them

    and .........drumroll.......................................

    * Pure unadulterated fiction

    It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on its head. ~ Tyrion Lannister

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, the crack whore, Victoria, can't admit when she and the voices in her head are wrong.. :D

    Bernie won Iowa...

    Texas is red and will remain that way for the rest of our lifetimes..

    Oh.. And PA and FL went for President Trump...

    There were no bombshells are a Mueller hearing..

    President Trump is completely innocent of all accusations...

    Democrats royally frak'ed up the Impeachment and royally frak'ed up Iowa..

    President Trump will be elected for 4 more years..

    ALL FACTS that the crack whore, Victoria cannot accept.. :D

    Attacks on my lovely wife and grandchildren in 3... 2... 1....

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Poker tonight.. See ya'all later. :D

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    55

    Romney going against President Trump is like those stoopid and moronic couples who U-TURN a team on AMAZING RACE, solely because the team pissed them off...

    You have just tacitly admitted that Trump must not be questioned by anyone... even when he admits to doing that for which he was impeached and does it again on live television and then refuses to cooperate with the investigation.

    The GOP has become a Party of slaves to a man... not even your oft spewed drivel of "Party über alles"... everyone must bow down to The Don and kiss his ring or be ridiculed, stoned, and banished from the kingdom. How medieval is that?

    Romney is no hero, but it definitely takes a lot of courage to go against a tyrant when you know all the spineless vassals are going to come at you with halberds.

    They just let their emotions cloud their tactical thinking and react hysterically...

    Trump admitted he did it and then did it again in front of multiple news cameras... not complicated, and those pretending it didn't happen are the ones letting their emotions cloud their thinking. They don't want to get tweeted at by the big bully nor stung to death by the mindless drones protecting the hive.

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    64

    As I said.. The FACTS clearly show that Bernie won Iowa...

    I don't care, Mike; that's your argument with CW since it was him you were correcting while at the same time allowing me to live rent free in your empty head.

    Those who have shit for brains cannot concede when they are wrong..

    You were contradicting Chris Weigant while simultaneously allowing me a free ride on your lonely little brain cell, but I will say this in Chris's defense:

    * CW isn't the "shit for brains" who claimed Bernie's campaign was over.

    * Chris's update for which you took issue was 100% correct so there's really no need for him to admit he was wrong when most prolific poster of fiction to his forum questions his facts.

    Class dismissed, dipshit. :D

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    67

    Dumbshits may try and confuse the issue with semantics and other hate-filled and bigoted comments.

    Congratulations on your big breakthrough and admission of being a "dumbshit."

    But the FACT is, President Trump is INNOCENT of all charges and INNOCENT of all accusations..

    Damn, you're dumber than a box of rocks about legal concepts... and you insist you're a law enforcement officer! *laughs*

    This is a fact that no amount of hatred or bigotry or any combination of the two can erase..

    You mustn't keep allowing yourself to confuse pity with hatred... you'll just get angry and cloud even further what little judgment you have; they're counting on your perpetual anger and grievance combined with the perpetual victimhood. :D

    President Trump is COMPLETELY innocent..

    Nope. He was found "not guilty." Innocence and being found "not guilty" are two totally different legal concepts... and you call yourself an LEO! *laughs*

    FACT....

    Deal with it, libtards

    Now you're just proving my point about anger. :D

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    79

    Thank you ever so much for letting me know I got to you, Mike! :D

    Attacks on my lovely wife and grandchildren in 3... 2... 1....

    If all that useless drivel and prattling on and on in [79] was an effort to indulge your ridiculous conspiracy theories, I regret to inform you that no one on the forum is falling for it... least of all Honey Badger.

    Honey Badger don't give a shit! :D

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties.

    That anyone could write this without noting the epic irony of its message is beyond me!

    Pelosi should be removed from her speakership because she supposedly “shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever.” The President has done all of those things she is now accused of doing, but on an exponential level, yet she needs to be removed for the “good of the country”?!?

    Maybe Mr. Turley should reconsider resubmitting his article to include:

    The President is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The President represents not HIS PARTY OR HIMSELF but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, HE must transcend HIS own political ambitions and loyalties.

    If I exchange our past presidents’ last names in place of “president”, Trump is the only name that even my autocorrect knows does not belong for the sentences to be correct.

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    James T Canuck

    Makes you wonder if the likes of Graham, Pompeo and other close Trump conspirators ever envision themselves on the business end of a Trump twitter swipe when their number comes up for a good solid tossing under the bus.

    There is no IF — it is exactly this vision that has caused them to follow and defend Trump at every turn.

    I had hoped that we were gonna see a figurative repeat of Julius Caesar’s removal from power by our Senate, but what little hope I held that the party had not completely turned its back on our Constitution was dashed by their acquittal of Trump. History tells us Caesars reign ended after he was stabbed 23 times. It would require the votes of all the Democrats plus 22 more Senators to vote guilty to remove Trump. I just pray Trump doesn’t destroy our nation the way that Caesar’s narcissism destroyed the Roman Empire.

    This would have been the perfect opportunity for them to have removed Trump from office. If they voted unanimously that Trump was guilty of doing what Trump openly admitted he was guilty of committing, then its likely that Trump’s power over his base would have been severely crippled. The GOP would have claimed that they had been fooled by Trump until now, and that would have been enough for most of their supporters to not hold them accountable for Trump’s sins. But after this trial, the GOP cannot separate itself from Trump’s corruption. Refusing to hear testimony from witnesses made a mockery of the Senate trial. The GOP deserves any repercussions that they suffer from their blind devotion to Trump.

  87. [87] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws [40/41] -

    There, fixed it for you. And preview has never really worked (sigh)...

    Michale [44] -

    "MICHALE IS ALWAYS FACTUALL CORRECT"

    Heh. Heh heh. Irony is dead.
    (reminder: spellcheck is your friend)

    James T. Canuck [56] (and anyone else who knows British pop culture) -

    Heh.

    I remember a time (early 1990s) when I was listening to the BBC morning radio program and they started a serious discussion about "banning dummies" from Britain. This was in the rave era, I should mention. I turned to my then-girfriend and said "That's a great idea, but where are they going to put them all?"

    Heh.

    For Americans, we would have used the word "pacifiers." There was a fad of rave-goers using tiny pacifiers to stop the teeth-grinding from ecstasy, and apparently some babies had choked on the tiny ones (not the regular, baby-sized ones), so they were talking about banning the tiny ones.

    Still, it was pretty funny to me. I often got confused by the BBC morning news, as when there was a problem with the zebra crossings in London (oh, excuse me, "ZEB-ra crossings"). I though the zoo had had a breakout or something...

    Heh.

    Michale [62] -

    What **IS** it about Democrats that they can't accept the will of the people???

    BWAH hah hah! (Reminder: Hillary beat Trump by 3 million votes)

    [68] -

    Oh, that's pretty rich, too. Remember "You lie!" during an Obama SOTU? That's when SOTU decorum died.

    [75] -

    Just as Hillary Clinton is..

    OK, kudos to you for that. At least you're being consistent...

    [79 and others] -

    Careful what you say about TX remaining red. I thought the same thing about VA, and look at it now!

    Heh.

    Oh, and a final note: Dems (myself included) were happy to run against Trump in 2016, because we all thought he'd be the easiest one to beat in the general. So be careful what you wish for vis-a-vis Bernie.

    :-)

    -CW

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And preview has never really worked (sigh)…

    It works well enough unless you're too impatient to use it. :)

  89. [89] 
    dsws wrote:

    fixed it for you

    Thank you.

Comments for this article are closed.