ChrisWeigant.com

Democratic Realignment Continues Apace

[ Posted Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 18:03 UTC ]

There are now two early-voting states in the rearview mirror, after New Hampshire proved last night that it was far better at counting votes than Iowa. Otherwise, I would have had to wait a few days to write this article, but thankfully things went much more smoothly in the Granite State. So now we've got actual voters weighing in rather than just public opinion polling and punditry. And New Hampshire has shaken up the race even more than Iowa did, continuing the realignment of the Democratic presidential field.

This was, to be honest, long overdue. The polls for the past year have shown how incredibly stable this race has been, up until about two weeks ago. There was one big surge by Elizabeth Warren which fell back, one smaller and earlier surge by Kamala Harris which also fell back almost immediately, and a mini-surge by Pete Buttigieg which also diminished over time. That's it. Those are really the only graph lines which crossed -- or even appreciably moved -- during the entire year of campaigning before the votes actually started being cast. Throughout the whole time, Joe Biden had a commanding lead, Bernie Sanders held remarkably stable in second, and everyone else except Warren stayed well below double digits, for the most part. But now all that is not only changing, but changing very fast indeed.

After a paucity of graph lines crossing for a year, now we're seeing several such intersections show up simultaneously. And this is only the beginning, because while the reactions after Iowa are now clearly showing up in the new polling, the reactions after New Hampshire haven't even begun to show up yet (give it another week and they will start to). And these are all national numbers, meaning they have little bearing on how people are going to vote in the next two states, Nevada and South Carolina.

The biggest shift in the national picture is Joe Biden's decline, which can honestly now be described as "precipitous." Biden has fallen to second place in a number of polls now, trailing Bernie Sanders. And that was happening before the New Hampshire returns began coming in, mind you. Elizabeth Warren is also faltering nationally, putting her in fourth place. Pete Buttigieg's numbers have come up a bit, but still don't reflect his new frontrunner status, which is likely due to the mess Iowa made of announcing their results. Pete didn't get the big post-Iowa bump he really deserved, to put it another way. Amy Klobuchar's new rise is also not reflected in any of the polls yet, but will likely begin to show up in very short order.

Let's take a look at the top five candidates, ranked according to their placements in the first two primary contests. I should mention that I'm not even going to address Michael Bloomberg's candidacy today, because I have a full column on him planned for tomorrow. But I do have to mention that in the national polling, it is Bloomberg who is now showing the strongest upward spike, as he just passed Warren to take hold of third place, behind Sanders and Biden. If Biden continues to fall, Bloomberg may soon be in second place overall. That's a pretty dramatic shift for someone who hasn't even appeared in a debate yet, but again, we'll have plenty to say about Mike tomorrow. One other point worth making is that the official field is now down to manageable size, as three candidates hung up their spurs after New Hampshire -- Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet last night, and Deval Patrick today. This leaves only Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard in the race with the other six Democrats, meaning that a whopping 21 Democrats have now ended their presidential run.

 

Pete Buttigieg
[Finished: 1st and 2nd]

Pete Buttigieg is now one of the two candidates fighting for "frontrunner" status. Although his and Bernie's record is identical, with one win and one close second, Pete has racked up two more delegates than Bernie, which puts him in the lead by a nose for now.

Buttigieg seems to have benefited most from Joe Biden's collapse, which isn't that surprising since the two are ideologically pretty similar. If you like incremental change and generalized optimism that we can all get back to normal post-Trump, then Pete's now your man. He's beaten all expectations in both the states that have voted, which has merited him a second look from plenty of undecided voters (and there are still a lot of them out there).

Pete's biggest weakness may become apparent in the next two states, though. He does really well with white voters, but how will he do with Latino and African-American voters? So far, the polling shows he's got a long way to go, but then again nothing succeeds like success -- voters of color may now be giving Pete more serious consideration than they have been giving him up until now, and if Biden truly is going to collapse then that's going to leave a lot of black voters looking around for a second choice. Whether Buttigieg can convince them is going to be the biggest question of the next few weeks.

For the moment, though, Pete has to be seen as the strongest candidate in the race, even if he is polling down in fifth place nationally -- and only above 10 percent for the second time of the campaign season. His national numbers will likely soon catch up to his impressive showing in the first two states, though, or at the very least put him in the top three or four.

 

Bernie Sanders
[Finished: 2nd and 1st]

While some are now calling Sanders the real frontrunner, he's still only essentially tied with Pete Buttigieg. Both Iowa and New Hampshire were very close races -- the margins of both states added together will likely be less than two percent. That's close. But as I said, Pete's the one who is currently up in delegates so we have to rank Bernie second for the moment.

This could change after Nevada, if Pete doesn't match Bernie in the vote for a third time. This is quite plausible, since Bernie's been doing a lot more Latino outreach in the state (as well as nationally), while Pete is playing catch-up after focusing his resources more on the first two states. The difference between the two candidates is only (as it stands) two delegates -- 23 to 21. Bernie beating Pete for a total of plus-three delegates in Nevada will launch him into the lead, to put this another way.

Bernie is benefiting the most from Elizabeth Warren doing worse than expected, although not as much as you might expect. Not all Warren's supporters have abandoned her, for one; and for two, not all those who have abandoned her have moved to Bernie's column. Some have gone over to Pete or Amy Klobuchar instead.

The question for Bernie used to be whether he could ever get above 20 percent in the national polls. Now that he is doing so on a regular basis -- and even leading many polls, with the downfall of Biden -- the question has now become whether he can get above 25 percent. Bernie has shown a remarkably solid "floor" throughout the contest (even after a heart attack, which normally would have sunk any presidential hopeful), but how high will his "ceiling" prove to be? That is the question going forward for him, which is why he's doing a rather slow pivot to being a lot more inclusive in his remarks. He now often speaks of "the party coming together to defeat Trump, even if I am not the nominee," which is a subtle way of asking for more support for his own candidacy, in the name of party unity.

Right now, Bernie is the beneficiary of two simultaneous trends. The first is Elizabeth Warren's slump and the second is the split nature of the field for the moderate candidates. Even discounting Biden, there are still three strong contenders for the moderate crown: Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg. This splits the anti-Bernie vote three ways (three-and-a-half, counting Biden), while the progressive vote is split, at best, one-and-a-half ways between Bernie and Warren.

Bernie's got an excellent chance of winning Nevada outright, although the state can always dish up a surprise finish. The last poll from Nevada was taken over a month ago (Nevada, much like Rodney Dangerfield, don't get no respect). So nobody really knows what will happen, but Bernie seems like he's got a decent chance of doing well there.

 

Elizabeth Warren
[Finished: 3rd and 4th]

What happened to Elizabeth Warren? I honestly have no idea. At this point in the race, I fully expected to be writing about how Warren had wrested the progressive mantle away from Bernie and was taking it to new heights (since she didn't have Bernie's baggage from the 2016 race to drag her down). I fully expected Warren to be in the top three contenders, at the very least, and more likely in first or second place. Technically she still is in third place, based on her national polling and her Iowa finish, but the trendline for her doesn't look very good at all.

New Hampshire was supposed to be a friendly state to Warren, due to Massachusetts being right next door. Even if Bernie was expected to win, Warren was supposed to come in second or at the very least, third. This didn't happen, obviously, and it wasn't even close. Klobuchar's rise swamped Warren's chances in New Hampshire, plain and simple.

Can she recover? This is now in serious doubt. She could regain third place if either Pete or Amy stumble in the next two states, but it's hard to see her moving up into the frontrunner ranks at this point. The voters seem to be abandoning her at an alarming rate, and the flip side to the "nothing succeeds like success" coin is that nothing demoralizes your supporters more than seeing you do badly. Sadly, this is where Warren now finds herself.

If Warren were to start doing better, it might blunt Bernie's lead. This is still a very real possibility. If the progressive vote is more evenly split than it has been to date, then both candidates would struggle to reach even second place. Warren doesn't seem especially well-positioned for Nevada, since she has less money to spend right now than either of the two frontrunners. Her biggest hope is that Nevada is a caucus state (although the process is much simpler than in Iowa), so Warren could pick up a lot of second-round votes and do better than expected.

Still, she's got a long way to go. While officially still in third place, she seems now to be on a downward trajectory that is nowhere near as steep as Biden's, but it is still the wrong way to be heading at this particular point.

 

Amy Klobuchar
[Finished: 5th and 3rd]

Technically, Amy Klobuchar is in fourth place. In the national polls, she's doing even worse, because she's still way down in sixth place, behind both Biden and Bloomberg (as well as the other three already discussed). But realistically, she has now risen to third place in the psychological race, due to her breathtakingly good finish in New Hampshire.

Personally, I don't think I've ever seen any candidate get such an enormous bounce out of one debate performance. Again, I have no real idea why this happened, because to me her performance at the last debate was pretty similar to her performances in all the debates which preceded it. OK, she was a little less scripted and hokey, and a little more heartfelt. But not by a whole lot. She was the same Amy Klobuchar who showed up to all the other debates, but I guess this time the voters in New Hampshire really liked what they saw. Either that, or she just became the candidate of convenience for a lot of people who had been backing Biden and hadn't warmed to Pete at all. That could go a long way to explaining things.

For whatever reason, though, it is undisputable that Klobuchar now has a lot of momentum. From her dismal fifth place finish in Iowa (a state next door to her own, that she had invested heavily in), she sprang to a very impressive third place finish in the Granite State. She chalked up roughly twenty percent of the final vote, which is one out of every five voters. Even Pete and Bernie weren't all that much further ahead of this total, while Warren and Biden fell far behind it.

Can she capitalize on this newfound energy going forward? That is the question which awaits her now. Up until this point, she has been more notable for the attacks she has launched against the others during the debates rather than the attacks launched at her. That's all about to change. While Pete and Bernie duel for the top spot, all the other candidates in the debate will be taking aim at Amy this time around in the hopes of blunting her surge. It remains to be seen how she'll react to taking incoming potshots, and whether the voters react positively to however she chooses to fend off such attacks.

Klobuchar doesn't have the money the other top candidates do, so she's left scrambling to try to put together a winning team in Nevada and South Carolina (to say nothing of the Super Tuesday states), but with her big finish in New Hampshire, the donations are beginning to pour in, so if she can keep it up she can wind up being competitive. She has a similar problem with Pete, though, in having very low support (so far) among voters of color. Can she only do well in the whitest of states? We're all about to find out.

 

Joe Biden
[Finished: 4th and 5th]

Joe Biden -- stunningly -- announced he wasn't even going to stay in New Hampshire on election night to thank his supporters. Even more stunning was the fact that he made this announcement before the polls had even closed, and flew off to South Carolina instead.

Of course, now we know why. Biden wasn't expected to do all that well in New Hampshire, but few would have predicted even a few weeks ago that he'd be way down in fifth place. His entire campaign has been centered around the idea that he was the most electable Democrat running, and that he'd have the best chance of beating Trump because so many moderate Democrats and crossover independents would happily support him rather than all the riskier candidates running. That rationale now lies in tatters, although Biden is desperately trying to spin things as "you have to look at the first four states as a unit."

Well, no. That's not generally the way they are seen. Biden's supposed firewall in South Carolina is now in doubt, and even if he does manage a comeback win there it may do him little good going forward. Super Tuesday is only three days after South Carolina votes, meaning even a big Biden win wouldn't really have time to resonate with the voters elsewhere. And, like I said, there's no guarantee that Biden will pull off a victory in South Carolina. Tom Steyer has been stealthily campaigning there for the black vote and it seems to be paying off for him somewhat, and (even more surprisingly) Bloomberg is also now picking up a whole lot of African-American support. This may put Biden's strategy in serious doubt, although Biden still does poll the best with black voters.

In the last few debates, Biden has sounded almost desperate every time he boasts about how solid his African-American support is. If he were doing well elsewhere, it would have much more of a punch, to put it mildly. Since he isn't, it has now become the thinnest of reeds for him to cling to, and it shows. The guy that was supposed to be more electable than anyone has now chalked up a fourth place and a fifth place finish, which is remarkably bad news for his main argument.

I have to admit that, like Klobuchar's rise, I did not see this development coming. Biden had been doing so well for so long that I kind of took it as a given that he would be the one to beat. But this just hasn't proven to be true. Far from it, in fact.

Biden is still polling nationally in second place. But that is likely to change drastically over the next week, as indeed it already has over the past week. Biden's downward spiral is one of the steepest I've ever seen, and it shows no signs of bottoming out -- quite the opposite, after his dismal New Hampshire finish.

It stuns me to be saying this, but at this point the best thing Biden could do if he wants a moderate Democrat to take on Trump would be to quit the race. If Biden continues to pull in 10 or 15 percent, he will likely make it impossible for either Pete or Amy to have the breakout moment they may need to beat Bernie Sanders. Of course, if the voters completely abandon Biden then this won't matter, because his staying in the race won't be preventing anyone from voting for anyone else -- because they'll have already left him.

Of course, Biden's not going to quit before Super Tuesday. He is convinced his comeback will begin in South Carolina and then he'll pick up enough other Southern states on Super Tuesday to launch him right back into the front ranks. And this still could happen -- he might turn out to be right about the solidity of his African-American support.

Still, it's a pretty thin reed to be clinging to, at this point in the race.

 

Conclusions

The national polling chart is undergoing several simultaneous and pronounced upheavals (and downheavals too, to be strictly accurate). For the first time in the entire contest, we have five candidates polling above ten percent -- and that doesn't even count Amy Klobuchar, whose national poll numbers have yet to reflect her new standing in the race. Bloomberg is on the rise in a big way (again, more about him tomorrow), and we're about to see sharp spikes upwards for both Klobuchar and Buttigieg as well. Warren is slowly sliding down while Biden's numbers have gone off a cliff and are still in free-fall.

The race is still wide open. Anything could happen on Super Tuesday. But this is really a good thing, because it means that the vast majority of American voters won't be told by Iowa and New Hampshire who the next nominee is going to be. This is supposed to be a political campaign and not a coronation, after all. Super Tuesday should really be called Super -Duper Tuesday this year, because fully one-third of all the national delegates will be chosen on a single day. The states voting then are a mixed and varied bunch, from California to Texas to North Carolina and all points in between. Right now it's looking like Bernie and Pete have the best chances to do well, followed closely by Bloomberg and Klobuchar. But that could all shift again after Nevada and/or South Carolina.

Thankfully, we're down to only eight candidates, one of whom is no more than a gadfly (I would have said "two," but Tom Steyer may do better than expected in both Nevada and South Carolina, so for now Tulsi Gabbard is the only real gadfly still left in the race). The debate which will happen next week is going to be very interesting precisely because of the shifting dynamics of the race as it stands. The Democratic field is going through a major realignment, and it doesn't look like things have solidified into a new pattern yet. And after Klobuchar's amazing springboard from the last debate, the rest of the candidates are going to be seeking just such a standout moment in the next one.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

91 Comments on “Democratic Realignment Continues Apace”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Great summary... top to bottom. :)

    It stuns me to be saying this, but at this point the best thing Biden could do if he wants a moderate Democrat to take on Trump would be to quit the race.

    Well, it stuns me to be agreeing with you about Biden, but I do. The overriding factor you will hear when talking with a myriad of voters regarding the 2020 election is choosing the candidate who will:
    (1) beat Trump
    (2) fight like Hell... to beat Trump.

    Joe isn't fighting for it and is basically allowing Trump to defeat him with nary an effort on Joe's part and is out of the gate like a herd of turtles.

    It's now or never; either fish or cut bait.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Y'all heard it here first - if Biden is not the nominee, then prepare for Trump's second comin … err, term.

    And, good luck keeping your Republic.

    I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here, of course.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You do make a very salient point, Kick.

    But, that doesn't change the outcome.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    As for Bloomberg, when he initially announced his candidacy, I did not think he had a snowball's chance in Hell to win the nomination by skipping the first four state contests, but if something doesn't change and change fast, I'd say his chances will be improving exponentially because people want to beat Trump, and Biden thus far hasn't risen to the challenge while Bloomberg is building a campaign across multiple states where nobody else is yet.

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why do people think Bloomberg can beat Trump?

    I think that's hilarious.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I like Senator Klobuchar but, do you think she can beat Trump?

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    2

    Y'all heard it here first - if Biden is not the nominee, then prepare for Trump's second comin … err, term.

    Agree to disagree. There are several candidates who can beat Donald Trump, and I believe I have mentioned before that it might take a tag-team versus one candidate. One way or another, I believe the Democrats will unite at the end of this because there's too much at stake not to do so, and I believe Joe Biden will be involved in that effort whether or not he's the nominee. Joe knows what's at stake, and if he wants to be the nominee, he'll start fighting for it.

    And, good luck keeping your Republic.

    Luck will have very little to do with it, though; of course, you know that.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I will be very surprised if Dems don't unite, regardless of the nominee but, do you really think Trump will lose to Sanders or Buttigieg? Seriously?

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    5

    Why do people think Bloomberg can beat Trump?

    I'll give you the highlights... in no particular order:

    * Because he's got unlimited resources wherein he could spend billions of dollars in order to "get out the vote" in every state in America and mobilize a small army to go to the polls and force the GOP to spend bucket loads of money in order to defend a myriad of states they're used to taking for granted.

    * He's been a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent and could bridge the divide between multiple groups.

    * He didn't inherit his money and claim he was a self-made man; he's what Trump claims to be.

    * He's small, but he's wiry. ;)

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How successful do you think GOTV campaigns are, these days?

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    6

    I like Senator Klobuchar but, do you think she can beat Trump?

    Did you see the midterms? Any of the 5 listed can beat Trump; Bloomberg can beat Trump. Will they? It'll be easier for some of them than others, of course, but I think this election is going to be unlike any other in modern history.

    It'll be harder for a woman to win, sure, but it will be women who save our Republic:

    * The Iowa caucuses were 58% women, 42% men.
    * The New Hampshire primary was 57% women, 43% men.

    Meanwhile, Trump hasn't grown his base or made any effort to do so (to date). Trump's play thus far is to lull the American electorate into the feeling that he's inevitable or that he'll win by cheating so there's no reason to vote... that and his standard pathological lying that only works on spectacularly stupid people, and the standard GOP voter suppression.

    Trump barely won with it last time by threading the needle... so, we take away his needle. :)

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    8

    Oh, I will be very surprised if Dems don't unite, regardless of the nominee but, do you really think Trump will lose to Sanders or Buttigieg? Seriously?

    Yes and Yes.

    I think they could hold an election tomorrow, and Trump could lose to "Democrat Candidate To Be Named Later," but that's right now. Things change. Things change all the time, and what I think today could be wildly different that what I think tomorrow because stuff happens all the time in between now and later.

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    10

    How successful do you think GOTV campaigns are, these days?

    Did you see the midterms? That was a GOTV operation from start to finish and coast to coast. Worked out okay. ;)

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Some things change and, some things stay stubbornly the same.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Would you agree that, given what is knowable about the electorate, that the success of GOTV is heavily dependent on who the Democratic nominee is?

  16. [16] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As for Bloomberg, when he initially announced his candidacy, I did not think he had a snowball's chance in Hell to win the nomination by skipping the first four state contests, but if something doesn't change and change fast, I'd say his chances will be improving exponentially because people want to beat Trump, and Biden thus far hasn't risen to the challenge while Bloomberg is building a campaign across multiple states where nobody else is yet.

    Back in 2016, Devon said he thought a candidate would have a much better chance of winning the primary if they waited as long as possible to officially jump into the race...because those who jumped in the earliest rarely survive. It makes sense, as long as you do not wait too long to jump in. This way, you avoid a lot of the stupid bickering that the media loves to focus on, and it lets you jump in after many of the other candidates have burned themselves out. You come in big, with lots of fanfare right at the moment you need the excitement to turn into votes...not months before the first primary. Bloomberg seems to be attempting to prove Devon’s theory correct.

    But I think Bloomberg is simply proving that the majority of voters in America do not follow politics...but they watch lots of TV and are on social media all the time. Bloomberg’s flooding media and the internet with his ads. “The more you hear something repeated, the more you will believe it is true” is something that psychologists and sociologists have demonstrated works in countless experiments. Bloomberg is putting his name into people’s subconscious.... one ad at a time.

    Bloomberg can outspend Trump easily and he seems willing to spend as much as it will take. And not only is he flooding the markets with his ads — his ads are REALLY effective. Like his ads calling for “bringing ‘presidential’ back” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_eTbc0VfQ

    Great ad. He’s also been pushing ads that just call Trump out as a liar who lies about his obesity, his accomplishments, and his hair. Bloomberg knows how to get under Trumps skin, and Trump definitely seems intimidated by him. Bloomberg might buy his way into the White House, but it’s still better than having a Russian asset as president!

  17. [17] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Would you agree that, given what is knowable about the electorate, that the success of GOTV is heavily dependent on who the Democratic nominee is?

    While I believe that is normally the case, but for the 2020 election I think that I would have to disagree...Trump is the going to be the motivating factor that will push GOTV volunteers to register voters in larger numbers than ever. Republicans have used FEAR as a great motivator to get their base to vote...this year, the Democrats will use the fear of Trump to rid themselves of Trump.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The biggest shift in the national picture is Joe Biden's decline, which can honestly now be described as "precipitous.

    It's worse than that.. Donors are already talking about leaving Joe Biden..

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Party Purity would take precedence over beating President Trump???

    Oh.. wait... :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do people think Bloomberg can beat Trump?

    I think that's hilarious.

    As do I...

    If Bloomberg is the Dem nominee than all President Trump has to do is run Bloomberg 2015 quotes in campaign ad after campaign ad after campaign ad..

    Black Americans will flock to President Trump by the tens of millions.. :D

    Plus, just think of the glee I'll have in pointing out that Dems nominated an old white guy billionaire who bought the Democrat nomination.. :D

    Honestly, though.. ANYONE who thinks that Bloomberg has a iota of a snowballs chance in hell of beating President Trump is a stark raving moron of the highest order..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I believe that is normally the case, but for the 2020 election I think that I would have to disagree...Trump is the going to be the motivating factor that will push GOTV volunteers to register voters in larger numbers than ever. Republicans have used FEAR as a great motivator to get their base to vote...this year, the Democrats will use the fear of Trump to rid themselves of Trump.

    Yea, but you also said that President Trump would be removed from office with the faux impeachment coup..

    Let's face reality, sunshine.. Yer credibility for making accurate President Trump predictions is in the toilet... :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Oh, I will be very surprised if Dems don't unite, regardless of the nominee but, do you really think Trump will lose to Sanders or Buttigieg? Seriously?

    Sadly, they ARE serious about it..

    But take heart... They have never predicted ANYTHING accurately, so things are gonna be OK... :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg is also now picking up a whole lot of African-American support.

    I'de like to see the facts that support this claim..

    Given Bloomberg's 2015 quotes, I find the claim completely unbelievable...

    The guy that was supposed to be more electable than anyone has now chalked up a fourth place and a fifth place finish, which is remarkably bad news for his main argument.

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen??

    Oh.. Wait.. :D

    I have to admit that, like Klobuchar's rise, I did not see this development coming.

    There's a reason for that.. :D

    Bloomberg is on the rise in a big way (again, more about him tomorrow),

    If that ignores Bloomberg's 2015 racist quotes, your journey to the Dark Side will be complete.. :(

    What it all means is that Democrats are going to have a contested convention...

    I would love to hear yer thoughts on THAT, CW.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    On 10 Nov 2016, you asked:

    "Will somebody please tell me that everything is going to be alright ..."

    And I told you that everything was going to be alright..

    And here we are..

    Things are much much MUCH better than just "alright"...

    :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:
  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said..

    Sanders Is The Front-Runner After New Hampshire, And A Contested Convention Has Become More Likely

    But the model needs post-New Hampshire polling to make sense of a chaotic race.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-is-the-front-runner-after-new-hampshire-and-a-contested-convention-has-become-more-likely/

    Looks like Democrats are heading towards a contested convention.. :D

    It's truly astounding how all the fortunes are lining up to benefit President Trump... :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Came across a choice quote when I was perusing some past Weigantia commentaries.. :D

    "The difference is, Democrats will for the most part, I suspect, actually respect the office. :)"

    That one goes into the quote jar!! :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democratic primary is in a confusing state at the moment. And our forecast model is a little confused, also. It’s making a couple of assumptions about how the polls may react to New Hampshire that may not be entirely right. The model is also limited by the lack of polling in states that vote after New Hampshire, most notably Nevada and South Carolina. So we’d encourage you to take the model with a large grain of salt until some of that post-New Hampshire polling comes in.

    But the two takeaways that the model feels most confident about are two things that I’m happy to vouch for:

    Model takeaway No. 1: Sen. Bernie Sanders is the most likely person to win the Democratic nomination.

    Model takeaway No. 2: The chance of there being no pledged delegate majority — which could potentially lead to a contested convention — is high and increasing.

    Much as CW says that Biden should do the right thing by the Party and bow out....

    Democrats should do the right thing by the country and bow out...

    They have absolutely NO PATH to victory...

    There is NO VERSION of this where Democrats win the White House and keep the House..

  28. [28] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yea, but you also said that President Trump would be removed from office with the faux impeachment coup..

    I hoped that would happen, but even I admitted it was unlikely.

    YOU, on the other hand, swore there was no way that Trump would be impeached in the House. You were wrong.

    You also claimed that I lied when I said you had admitted that you had only been an MP in the military and that you also claimed to have shot a woman. I provided you with your posts and the dates where you did say everything that you accused me of lying about. Shall I repost these conversations once more so your memory will be jogged? I am happy to humiliate you with your own lies...just say “when” and I’ll do it again!

    You are the LAST person here who can EVER attack anyone else’s credibility....do not forget that!

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    But New Hampshire is also good news if you’re hoping for chaos. Our forecast has the chances that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates up to 33 percent, its highest figure yet, and roughly double what it was before Iowa.

    Oh yes... By all means.. Chaos....

    A big heapin' helpin' of Chaos...

    And keep 'em comin'!! :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hoped that would happen, but even I admitted it was unlikely.

    Bullshit.. You said it WAS going to happen..

    You were wrong..

    And you can't admit it...

    Just like you accuse President Trump of..

    YOU, on the other hand, swore there was no way that Trump would be impeached in the House. You were wrong.

    Yes, I was wrong.. I admit it.

    See?? THAT's how a mature adult discusses things.. :D

    You also claimed that I lied when I said you had admitted that you had only been an MP in the military and that you also claimed to have shot a woman.

    You did lie..

    And it's STILL a lie..

    You are the LAST person here who can EVER attack anyone else’s credibility....do not forget that!

    That's your opinion.. And it's an opinion based on your own hate and bigotry and, as such, is meaningless...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You also claimed that I lied when I said you had admitted that you had only been an MP in the military and that you also claimed to have shot a woman.

    You did lie..

    And it's STILL a lie..

    Wait a tic...

    You switched things around on me.. :D

    Yes, I was an USAF LEO when I was forced to shoot a woman in self defense...

    I am not sure what you are trying to say, but THAT is factually accurate...

    In my defense, you lie about things so often, one has to pay close attention when you slip in a nugget of fact every now and again.. :D

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    It's looking very much as though I was wrong about Biden being the nominee. So I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Republicans in the Senate knew more about it than I did, and decided not to make the impeachment "trial" all about Biden.

    The guy that was supposed to be more electable than anyone has now chalked up a fourth place and a fifth place finish, which is remarkably bad news for his main argument.

    The argument was that he could appeal to non-college-educated white guys in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin who pay so little attention to politics that they won't decide which party to vote for until about Halloween. And somehow, the correctness of that argument is measured by the votes of people in Iowa who are so motivated and so partisan that they'll go through an hours-long meeting in January to have their say on their party's nomination.

    Looks like Democrats are heading towards a contested convention.

    Probably not. It's much more likely than it has been at the same point in any election cycle since the start of the current primary system, but it's still below 50%. At the moment, the odds of no one winning a majority of pledged delegates stand at 36% on https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/. And an actual contested convention is somewhat less likely, because there's the possibility that the plurality winner will need only a few extra delegates who will be lined up before the convention. That could happen either by another candidate releasing their delegates on the first ballot, or by a scripted convention that has the first ballot cast as pledged and then nominates on the second ballot without any real contention.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Almost everything went well if you’re rooting for a contested convention. Sanders won, but with a smaller share of the vote than the model expected. Moreover, the second- and third-place candidates, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, may or may not be poised to take advantage of any post-New Hampshire surge they get, having begun the evening at just 10 percent and 4 percent, respectively, in national polls, and not having any obvious strength in Nevada or South Carolina.

    Contested Convention...??? Here come the Democrats!! :D

    It's gonna be glorious.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's looking very much as though I was wrong about Biden being the nominee.

    And ANOTHER mature adult who knows how things should be discussed..

    We're two peas in a pod, DSWS!! :D

    Well, counting JL and Liz, 4 peas in a pod.. :D

    robably not. It's much more likely than it has been at the same point in any election cycle since the start of the current primary system, but it's still below 50%. At the moment, the odds of no one winning a majority of pledged delegates stand at 36% on https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/.

    And 538 gave similar caveats when they said Hillary would win..

    However, given the nearly divisions amongst the Democrat Party, I would predict that a contested convention is all but certain..

    We'll see come.. wha?? June???

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    With impeachment over, critics see Trump ‘retribution tour’

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In the week since his acquittal on impeachment charges, a fully emboldened President Donald Trump is demonstrating his determination to assert an iron grip on government, pushing his Justice Department to ease up on a longtime friend while using the levers of presidential powers to exact payback on real and perceived foes.

    Trump has told confidants in recent days that he felt both vindicated and strengthened by his acquittal in the Senate, believing Republicans have rallied around him in unprecedented fashion while voters were turned off by the political process, according to four White House officials and Republicans close to the West Wing who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
    https://apnews.com/e613b755f0750a1df4127f054561d7d6

    In all the wild expanse of Weigantia, WHO could have POSSIBLY predicted that President Trump would be STRONGER after the Democrats' faux impeachment coup???

    Wait a tic... I think it was ME!!!! :D

    One of these days, you people will learn that I, by and large, DO know what I am talking about. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since then, Trump and his aides have moved with haste to clear his administration of those he sees as insufficiently loyal, reaching all the way back to the time of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    Democrats and outside analysts are raising red flags that Trump is exhibiting a post-impeachment thirst for vengeance that’s gone beyond bending norms and could potentially cause lasting damage to institutions.

    "Going beyond the norms" is ***EXACTLY*** why we elected President Trump...

    Elections have consequences, people..

    Surely you KNOW this, as it was your Messiah who coined the phrase...

    Bummer that ya'all can't seem to understand the concept that elections have consequences, when ya'all ***LOSE*** said elections.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump was asked what lesson he took away from the faux impeachment coup..

    “Democrats are crooked. ... They’re vicious, they shouldn’t have brought impeachment and that my poll numbers are 10 points higher because of fake news.”
    -President Trump

    Apparently, President Trump learned the proper lesson..

    His response has gone viral..

    :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It’s pretty clear the president of the United States did learn a lesson: the lesson he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, he can abuse his office, he’ll never ever be held accountable by this Senate.”
    -Senator Sherrod Brown

    Au contrair mon ami...

    The lesson that President Trump has learned is that Democrats are evil and hate him with a depth of passion virtually unseen in the history of politics.. President Trump has also learned that, no matter WHAT he does, Democrats will ALWAYS attack him, demonize him and vilify him..

    Given that, President Trump sees no other option but doing what he thinks is morally and ethically correct and to hell with what Democrats think or say...

    I fully support President Trump in this course of actions..

    Not only do elections have consequences.....

    Unsuccessful faux impeachment coups ALSO have consequences..

    If you are going to try and kill the king... You better KILL the king...

    "{Democrats} chose.... poorly"
    -Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump seeks to bend the executive branch as part of impeachment vendetta

    WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump is testing the rule of law one week after his acquittal in his Senate impeachment trial, seeking to bend the executive branch into an instrument for his personal and political vendetta against perceived enemies.

    And Trump - simmering with rage, fixated on exacting revenge against those he feels betrayed him and insulated by a compliant Republican Party - is increasingly comfortable doing so to the point of feeling untouchable, according to the president's advisers and allies.

    In the span of 48 hours this week, the president has sought to protect his friends and punish his foes, even at the risk of compromising the Justice Department's independence and integrity - a stance that his defenders see as entirely justified.

    Trump complained publicly about federal prosecutors' recommended prison sentence for one of his longtime friends and political advisers, Roger Stone. After senior Justice Department officials then overruled prosecutors to lighten Stone's recommended sentence, the president congratulated Attorney General William Barr for "taking charge" with an extraordinary intervention.

    Next Trump sought to intimidate the federal judge in the Stone case, badgering her on Twitter for previous rulings, and attacked the four prosecutors who resigned from the case in apparent protest of the Justice Department's intervention. Then Trump floated the possibility of a presidential pardon for Stone, who was convicted by a jury in November of tampering with a witness and lying to Congress.

    The president has openly encouraged his Justice Department to retaliate against a quartet of former FBI officials who long have been targets of his ire for their involvement in the Russia probe.

    "Where's [James] Comey?" Trump bellowed Wednesday in a stream-of-consciousness diatribe from the Oval Office. "What's happening to [Andrew] McCabe? What's happening to Lisa and - to Pete Strzok and Lisa Page? What's happening with them? It was a whole setup, it was a disgrace for our country, and everyone knows it, too, everyone."

    For months now, Trump has been enraged that these FBI officials have not been charged with crimes. And he has vented at length privately in recent weeks that James Wolfe, a former aide to the Senate Intelligence Committee, received a prison sentence of two months for lying to FBI agents about his contact with reporters during a federal leak investigation - a criticism the president repeatedly publicly on Wednesday.

    Some of Trump's top aides have counseled him against speaking out on legal matters, warning him that doing so could wrongly influence proceedings because officials at the Justice Department or elsewhere would then know they needed to please him or risk his wrath. Trump has often responded, "I have a right to say whatever I want," according to a former senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

    "He knows exactly what he's doing," this official explained. "He knows that he has more power than anyone else in the government - and when he tweets, everyone has to listen to him."

    A second former senior official, former chief strategist Stephen Bannon, said of Trump, "He is mad and he should be mad. The Democrats and the media wasted three years of the nation's time on a witch hunt. Now he understands how to use the full powers of the presidency. The pearl-clutchers better get used to it."
    https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Trump-seeks-to-bend-the-executive-branch-as-part-15052083.php

    Democrats created this "monster"... Now they whine and cry because they are being endlessly bitch-slapped... :D

    Me?? I am enjoying the show and some freshly popped popcorn.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woops... That was a bit of a long one..

    Apologies...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The lesson that President Trump has learned is that Democrats are evil and hate him with a depth of passion virtually unseen in the history of politics..

    To give this some context..

    There are likely thousands of John Wilkes Booths or Lee Harvey Oswalds out there who are just itching to take the President out.. If they could be assured of success and escape, nothing would stop them from the dirty deed...

    Democrats have already tried the quasi-legal version of a presidential assassination..

    I am sure there are thousands who are ready to escalate things..

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "What's the guy's name on first? No, Who's on first."
    -Rainman

    "It's comedy, Ray. It's not a riddle that you can figure out."
    -Charlie Babbet

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Look how terrible Trump is and how much more corrupted by big money the Republicans are than us big money Democrats.

    A pretty thin reed to be clinging to, at this point in the campaign by both big money parties to destroy democracy.

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    When you write about Bloomberg tomorrow will that be the entire article?

    Will it be another who on first type article or will it be about how Democratic voters should reject Bloomberg because of how he bribed the DNC to change the debate rules in the wrong direction to allow Bloomberg in?

    After all, one billionaire spending his own money to finance his campaign is far worse than a candidate taking 2800 dollars from forty billionaires.

    It should be about the good that could come from Bloomberg's campaign and the DNC selling out to him (not to mention all the other billionaires and millionaires) and how citizens could sign a petition to the DNC to change the debate rules to only allow small donor only candidates in the debates and which candidates (clearly not Bloomberg) might seize the opportunity and declare they will run a small donor only campaign for the general election.

    And whether it is worth voting for any candidate that doesn't step up and do the right thing when presented with the opportunity to take real action now on getting the big money out of our political process instead of taking big money to run their campaigns while promising to take action at some point in the indeterminate future.

    And that is also not a riddle that you can figure out. It is a riddle that has a clear answer that doesn't require figuring out.

    Stop being Rainman and use your BRAIN, man.

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    15

    Would you agree that, given what is knowable about the electorate, that the success of GOTV is heavily dependent on who the Democratic nominee is?

    Always... and you'll get tired of me saying this, but I've always believed the Democrats will form a tag-team of candidates. Remember, we discussed this a long time ago, and now we're getting closer to the election, you can see it starting to form:

    * Mike Bloomberg has promised to leave his very robust GOTV effort in multiple states in place... whether he is the nominee or not.

    * Beto O'Rourke -- another in a long list of candidates not going to be the nominee, but he's organizing a statewide GOTV in Texas. It was Beto's candidacy in 2018 that helped flip multiple heavily gerrymandered seats across Texas, and he's organizing again.

    Tag-team.

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It's absolutely true that Trump is a "freely and fairly-elected" (as Mike says), unethical, narcissistic, egomaniacal self promoter.

    It's equally true that you fumduckers (Democratics))are responsible for his election, and sadly, it appears more likely every day, that you are going to do it again!!

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    ok, let's make believe that you are appointed to be the next chair of the DNC. what would you do to set things right?

    JL

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It depends on how you define GOTV.

    If it's the same old Get Out "Their" Vote then it will be a 50-50 proposition on whether it will be enough to beat Trump and/or take control of the Senate.

    If it's a Get out "THE" Vote effort that would get some of the 40% that don't vote to join with the 50-50 proposition voters that will vote blue on matter who then it can be very successful and could even be a blowout.

    But these 40% will not respond to the false big money Democrats offering more of the same. That's a reason many of them don't vote or don't vote anymore.

    If the Democratic nominee runs a small donor only campaign it could inspire enough of the 40% and a few third party voters to vote for the Dems because it would not be the same old big money Democrat giving the Democratic nominee an additional 5 or even 10% of the vote.

    Any Democrat that believes the most important thing is to beat Trump would want to find out if this strategy could help beat Trump.

    Any Democrat that would not want to find out is lying when they say beating Trump is all that matters, even if they are just lying to themselves.

    Any Democrat that would not want to find out clearly thinks that preserving the big money interests control over our political process is more important than beating Trump or they would embrace a way that could get the big money out of our political process while at the same time increasing the possibility of beating Trump and also at the same time getting out THE vote instead of just THEIR vote which would most likely increase the size of THEIR vote as most of the 40% that do decide to vote would be responding to the small donor Dem candidate.

    So, CW and all the vote blue on matter who the only thing that is important is beating Trump commenters stop the bullshit and prove you really mean what you say by demanding the Democratic candidates declare to run a small donor only campaign to earn your votes and beat Trump.

    OR you can keep bullshitting yourselves, making pie jokes, snarky replies when you reply at all and try to hide in the bathroom from reality and lose to Trump again because you won't admit that backing the big money Democrats was and is the wrong choice.

    Hiding in the bathroom didn't keep Hedley Lammar from getting pie in his face in Blazing Saddles and it won't protect you from Trump.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    I guess you won't be asking me that question because you already know my answer.

    I would make sure the Dems have a real strategy to win.

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    "If you're going to use the f-word, go for the gold."
    -Lauren Bacall
    My Fellow Americans

  51. [51] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    poet

    Recruit an early middle-aged, super-qualified, heterosexual, politically moderate (center-right) person still married to his/her first spouse, and with the gift of gab. (Perhaps sorta an Obama2.0)

  52. [52] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Don Q [50]

    Thanx for departing at least momentarily from your tilting quest.

    Sorry, that's too much to ask from a guy of my generation. I could go with 'dumbphuquers', if that would help??

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's absolutely true that Trump is a "freely and fairly-elected" (as Mike says), unethical, narcissistic, egomaniacal self promoter.

    Not only is it TRUE... It's FACTUAL as well. :D

    It's equally true that you fumduckers (Democratics))are responsible for his election, and sadly, it appears more likely every day, that you are going to do it again!!

    Once again.. True.. AND factual.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CRS-
    You're older than Lauren Bacall?

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    16

    Back in 2016, Devon said he thought a candidate would have a much better chance of winning the primary if they waited as long as possible to officially jump into the race...because those who jumped in the earliest rarely survive. It makes sense, as long as you do not wait too long to jump in.

    In the modern political age where candidates are now numbering in the high teens and 20s, it is starting to make sense... moreso in the Democratic system where delegates are awarded proportionally than in the Republican system where South Carolina is winner-take-all.

    Bloomberg can outspend Trump easily and he seems willing to spend as much as it will take.

    And whether or not he is the nominee!
    Poor Donald. <--- Compared to Bloomberg. :)

    And not only is he flooding the markets with his ads — his ads are REALLY effective. Like his ads calling for “bringing ‘presidential’ back”

    Yes, his ads thus far have been VERY effective, and couple Bloomberg's ads with those of multiple Republican groups like "Republicans for the Rule of Law" and "The Lincoln Project"... it's priceless the number of targeted ads against Trump as well as multiple vulnerable spineless GOP senators and enablers.

    Have you seen the ad targeted to so-called evangelicals where Trump is shown for the fraud he is and how he's cheapening their faith along with that of America?

    https://youtu.be/yoglNFN5-Js

    Trump tells a group that if they don't support him, they're going to be so "GD poor." Now, how pathetic is that?

    Great post, Russ! :)

  56. [56] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    This comments section is a good reflection of the Dems problems.

    There are three people here that are telling you that you are making the same mistakes that you made in 2016 and have been making for decades.

    One just wants to gloat about it. One is not trying to help you. One is trying to help you.

    Yet you willingly engage the one not trying to help you and the one that wants to gloat and trade bullshit and talking points and ignore the one that wants to help you except to ridicule or purposely misinterpret this person's ideas so it fits in to your bullshit arguments because you can't argue against what the person is really proposing.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    One just wants to gloat about it.

    Yeppers.. I had soooo much fun in 2016.. :D

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    17

    While I believe that is normally the case, but for the 2020 election I think that I would have to disagree...Trump is the going to be the motivating factor that will push GOTV volunteers to register voters in larger numbers than ever. Republicans have used FEAR as a great motivator to get their base to vote...this year, the Democrats will use the fear of Trump to rid themselves of Trump.

    Russ, you make a very great point here... now how to fit it on a bumper sticker?

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    this year, the Democrats will use the fear of Trump to rid themselves of Trump.

    And how well did that work with the faux impeachment coup???

    You DO realize that it's a pipe dream, right??

    Don't just take my word for it..

    JL & DSWS both say the same thing..

    Oops.. I just appealed to authority :D

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Weigantia

    We got all the way to comment [18] -- thank you, Elizabeth and Russ -- before Mike showed up to once again turn a very nice political discussion here in Weigantia into a discussion about Mike and individual posters.

    Same shit different day.

    Mike's perpetual low self esteem wherein he must constantly spew his self-praise while simultaneously hurling insults at others is again duly noted, but Mike's need to self-soothe and get his jollies by insulting every one here isn't a political issue.

    Who wants to talk political issues? :)

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    it doesn't involve pie, so who cares?

    JL

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    51

    Recruit an early middle-aged, super-qualified, heterosexual, politically moderate (center-right) person still married to his/her first spouse, and with the gift of gab. (Perhaps sorta an Obama2.0)

    That's actually sound advice, Stucki. Good for you. :)

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT [62]

    C. R. Stucki
    51

    Recruit an early middle-aged, super-qualified, heterosexual, politically moderate (center-right) person still married to his/her first spouse, and with the gift of gab. (Perhaps sorta an Obama 2.0)

    That's actually sound advice, Stucki. Good for you. :)

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Thanx for proving once again how much space I have in yer head.. :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    showed up to once again turn a very nice political discussion here in Weigantia into a discussion about Mike and individual posters.

    I wonder if the crack whore hooker has enough un-fried brain cells to realize the utter irony of her comment.. :D

    I doubt it.. Her brain is rot...

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    61

    it doesn't involve pie, so who cares?

    I hear you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mobhve-g5Ls

    And I do some serious pie, but will you be needing to feed that need in every... single... comment... box? ;)

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    64

    Thanx for proving once again how much space I have in yer head.. :D

    My head? My head!? I don't have a head, Mike; I am a supernova living somewhere just beyond the outer reaches of the known galaxies, but if I did have a head, I wouldn't allow anything with an IQ smaller than its shoe size so you'd be shit out of luck in that regard and barred from entry.

    You make it quite clear, though, damn near daily, that it's your own head needing attention. It takes a special kind of peevish and pathetic neediness wherein every legitimate discussion about any political issue you can think of must be devolved into either:

    * A discussion about Mike... so Mike can pound his... man boobs; that's right, man boobs. Y'all know how Elizabeth Miller frequently likes to ask Mike if he'd like a medal or a chest to pin it on? The answer to Elizabeth's question is both. There is no chest; there are man boobs.

    * A discussion about someone else... where Mike brings up how they were wrong about something or other and claims they'll never be right about anything else and that's why Mike is superior.

    So to recap:

    * Honey Badger is a supernova with no head.

    * If Honey Badger had a head, people with low self-esteem and low IQs wouldn't be allowed into it.

    * Mike wants to devolve every political issue into a discussion about Mike or the other poster so he can put another medal on his man boobs and soothe his low self-esteem.

    * Pie.

    * Let's talk political issues; I'm not one.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, Victoria.. Thanks for proving how much space I have inside yer head.. :D

    90% of your comments are ALL ABOUT me.. :D

    Lil ole me.. :D

    Let's talk political issues

    Every one of my comments (sans the occasional car question or Trek comment) is about politics..

    You can't handle it because you are ALWAYS on the LOSING side....

    Even when ya "won" in 2018, ya really lost because the Dem candidates who won were GOP Lite candidates :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I expect such drivel from a crack whore hooker with no brain cells left...

    Y'all know how Elizabeth Miller frequently likes to ask Mike if he'd like a medal or a chest to pin it on?

    Actually, Liz has NEVER asked me that question, let alone frequently...

    Must be the crack fried brain cells in yer head..

    Yer a moron.. Plain and simple..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it IS interesting that you want to talk about my tits..

    Have you no tits of your own??

    Or did the crack shrivel them all up??

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Cry more. :D

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only a crack whore hooker would believe I am crying.. :D

    I am kicking yer ass all over the place :D

  73. [73] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet, Kick-
    My comments are about who gets to decide who gets how much of the pie.

    So whether you want to discuss pie or politics then you should be willing to discuss my comments as part of a rational political discussion.

    Asking who wants to have a political discussion when ignoring the discussion offered is not rational.

    It is also the domain of Liz and one of those is more than enough for any comment section.

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But I guess Brave Sir Robin's minstrels must follow the lead of Sir Robin.

    "When danger reared it's ugly head
    Brave Sir Robin turned and fled."
    -Robin's minstrels
    Monty Python and the Holy Grail

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Actually, Liz has NEVER asked me that question, let alone frequently...
    ~ Moron Mike "crack fried brain cells"

    I'm going to borrow that very nice phrasing of Russ: I am happy to humiliate you with your own lies...just say “when” and I’ll do it again!

    What do you want, Michale ... a medal, or a chest to pin in on?
    ~ Elizabeth Miller

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/07/27/ftp220/#comment-24218

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    I am happy to humiliate you with your own lies...just say “when” and I’ll do it again!

    What do you want, Michale ... a medal, or a chest to pin in on?

    No..

    But it sure would be nice to see ya'all as critical on Obama et al as I am on the Right...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/07/27/ftp220/#comment-24221

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    I am happy to humiliate you with your own lies...just say “when” and I’ll do it again!

    Better yet: Ask Elizabeth Miller. :)

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK crack whore, you got one..

    Where is this "frequently" you were lying about???

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Victoria..

    I heard that you had a kid or two...

    And they were all taken away because you were pimping them out to feed your crack habit..

    I can actually see you don't something like that...

    Are you going to lie and say it never happened??

    Bet ya are....

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, no "frequently" crack whore???

    Lying again...

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Whine more. :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, as usual, your lying again..

    Don't ya just HATE it when I always catch you in your lies???

    :smirk: :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I do feel bad for your kids... Tossed into the system because their mommy needed drugs...

    Sad sad.. No wonder yer a Democrat...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whassa matter Victoria???

    Why did you run away..

    Does the FACTS about you hurt???

    GOOD...

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Beg more. :D

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your begging for more??

    So you like the crack whore thing, huh???

    You're just all about it, eh??

    Why am I not surprised.. Yer a Democrat after all...

    :smirk: :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought you wanted to talk politics instead on conceding you are a crack whore hooker who had her kids taken away because you were pimping them out...

    So let's talk politics.

    Why are you afraid to wager about Trump winning the election??

    Do you not have faith in your own position??

    Must be...

    :smirk: :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, since my favorite chew toy went away crying, it's time to prepare dinner for my lovely wife...

    Since I am re-convalescing at home, I cook the dinners..

    And when she gets home, we talk about how awesome a POTUS President Trump is.. :D

    There.. This comment is about politics..

    Hasta lasagna don't get any on ya..

    Mmmmmm Lasagna sounds good for dinner.. :D

    :smirk: :D

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    One last thing in between putting a lasagna together..

    JL, Liz, DSWS and any other free objective thinker....

    I IMPLORE you to read the following article..

    After Attending a Trump Rally, I Now Know Democrats Have No Shot in 2020

    I’ve been a Democrat for 20 years, but my experience made me realize just how out-of-touch my party is with the country at large
    https://gen.medium.com/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07

    This is the most heartfelt HONEST and sincere commentary I have read in a LONG LONG time.. Probably 3+ years long....

    If you read no other link of mine ever again, you MUST read this one...

    Back to dinner..

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hooray for that person. They finally realized they were being duped and didn't just switch to Republicans to compound the mistake for the next twenty years.

    Does the walkaway movement also consist of people that have walked away from the Republican Party?

    If not it will be hard to take them seriously as anything other than a Republican organization.

    If that is the case perhaps the people in the walkaway movement that have walked away from the Democrats without compounding the mistake by joining the Republicans should walkaway from the walkaway movement and join together with those that walked away from the Republicans without compounding that mistake by joining the Democrats to form their own organization.

    Who knows, if they are truly wanting to listen to other options and ideas as the person in your link claims then they would probably like to hear about One Demand and might decide to make that their organization.

    But they would want to hear about it so they could decide for themselves.

    They are walking away, CW. From both parties.

    Are you going to leave the Republicans as the only option for those walking away from the Dems or provide them with the information to consider One Demand that could give them a place to go that would not help Republicans and could also help the Dems purge the party of the big money interests in order to win them back as well as win over those that left the Republicans?

    It's time to bring back the story of the man that died in the flood.

    As the water reached the edge of the man's property a national guard truck came by and offered to take him to higher ground.

    The man said I believe in God and God will save me. No thanks.

    As the water reached his front door and began seeping into his living room a boat came along and he was offered a ride to dry ground.

    The man said God will save me. No thanks.

    As the man stood on his roof knee deep in water a helicopter lowered a ladder to rescue the man.

    The man said God will save me. No thanks.

    When he got heaven he asked God why God didn't save him.

    God said "I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want?"

    One lesson to be learned from this story is if you have waited until you are knee deep in water and have rejected previous attempts to help you, you had better wise up soon and take the help being offered no matter where it comes from because there is no tomorrow if you don't.

    And President Trump is the proof that you are standing on your roof knee deep in the still rising water.

    Another lesson is don't listen to "the man". :D

  91. [91] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.