ChrisWeigant.com

Who Will Quit, And When?

[ Posted Monday, February 24th, 2020 – 18:18 UTC ]

Bernie Sanders emerged from the Nevada caucuses as the man to beat in the Democratic presidential nomination race. He is now the lone frontrunner, having outpaced Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden by significant margins. In fact, he is now positioned to become almost unstoppable, should he do well in South Carolina and, more importantly, on Super Tuesday. The question for those who would stop Bernie is now a very stark one, because it basically boils down to which candidates will quit, and how soon they'll bow out.

Bernie's good fortunes with the voters are causing the moderate and establishment Democrats to absolutely freak out right now, because they see the pathways to stopping Bernie shrinking and falling away, one by one. Last week, it was conventional wisdom that Bernie had a built-in "ceiling" of support, and that this would never exceed roughly 25 percent of the electorate. After a rash of new polls was released showing Bernie much higher than this (north of 30 percent in multiple polls), the new storyline immediately became: "Bernie will not win a majority of delegates, so let's plot how to stop him at a brokered convention." This, again, assumed Bernie was not really all that big a threat, since he obviously would never received an outright majority of the delegates.

Nevada shot that concept down, though. Bernie is going to win not just a majority, but the lion's share of Nevada delegates, after blowing the field away. If he pulls off a similar performance in California on Super Tuesday (which seems to be what the polls are indicating), he will be well on his way to winning a clear majority of the convention delegates.

This is what's causing so much panic among the Democratic Party insiders. Much like those in the Republican Party in 2016, they are caught trying to unify the party's electorate against the guy who is out there getting the most votes. And the outcome may turn out to be the same, too.

Can the anti-Bernie forces stop him? Well... yes. Yes, they can. Only three states have voted, after all. But it's all going to come back to what could be an unanswerable question for the remaining not-Bernies in the race: who should drop out, and when should they do it? Here's the best way we've heard it put (from a Politico article about Democrats hitting "panic mode"):

"Everybody other than Bernie thinks everybody other than Bernie should drop out -- except themselves," said Chris Lippincott, a Democratic strategist in Texas, which votes on Super Tuesday. "Maybe the [South] Carolina results provide a little clarity as to who really has a fighting chance. Unless that happens, they're just crabs in a bucket pulling each other down."

This is the problem in a nutshell. Everybody else should get out and clear the field for me, so that I can take on Bernie in a head-to-head matchup. Interestingly, though, nobody dropped out after Nevada's results came in (unlike what happened the night of the New Hampshire primary). South Carolina is just one week away, after all, and Super Tuesday is only three days after that. Why not stick around until then, just to see what happens?

Also, seven candidates have now qualified for the next debate, which will likely be the most significant one to date. It'll be the last debate before Super Tuesday, and it could very well be the last debate for many of these candidates -- so they'll have absolutely nothing to lose.

But the chance to become the sole not-Bernie candidate is dependent on all the other candidates suddenly acknowledging that you have a better chance than them, which is a pretty selfless thing to expect from people running for president -- especially those that have made it this far. So lets take a look at all the not-Bernie candidates one by one, to try to see what the chances are of each candidate dropping out to clear the field for others. These are listed from the most likely to drop out the soonest, to the least likely to drop out at all.

 

Tulsi Gabbard

Yes, she's still running. No, she doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination. In fact, it really wouldn't matter whether she dropped out or not, since she has absolutely no following at all. Ironically, this makes it more likely she'll just hang on with her name on the ballot forever. But it would be meaningless, because she's never going to be the last one standing, period. So, essentially: who even cares whether she drops out or not?

 

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer, like Mike Bloomberg, is self-financing his own campaign, so his donors will never be the ones to tell him to hang up his spurs. He can stay in the race as long as he feels like burning through his own personal fortune.

However, Tom seems like a reasonable guy who will realize when he has no viable chance of winning. He invested very heavily in South Carolina, and he has perhaps his best chance there of any state. But even so -- even after having spent millions -- the best he can likely hope for there will be third place. And that's just not good enough to continue his campaign.

He could choose to go out on a high note right when the South Carolina returns come in, or he could stay in the race until Super Tuesday, which is only three days later. Either way, my guess is he'll be one of the first ones to exit the race, since after Super Tuesday it'll be painfully obvious that Steyer is just never going to be the nominee. And, like I said, I think he's smart enough to realize this. My call: Steyer drops out the night of Super Tuesday, or the morning after.

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar has almost no path to victory either. For all her vaunted debate performances, she's never seen any of them translate into a national bump in the polls. It worked within New Hampshire, but even that last-minute surge only propelled her into third place. And third place is the best she's done yet. Right now, she's running sixth in the Nevada count, behind Tom Steyer.

Klobuchar dropping out makes the most sense of any of the anti-Bernie candidates. She has only marginal support, but whatever small percentage it is could be added to someone like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg or even Elizabeth Warren to very good effect.

Klobuchar is running out of money, and may be forced to end her campaign for that reason alone. It would make the most sense for Klobuchar to quit after yet another back-of-the-pack finish in South Carolina, but this isn't going to happen. After all, Minnesota is a Super Tuesday state this cycle, and (not surprisingly) Klobuchar is seen as the favorite to win her home state. So she could go out with a bang on Super Tuesday night, after winning Minnesota but doing poorly everywhere else. She could announce her win in a home-state victory party, but then immediately follow it up with her concession speech. Which is what I'm predicting will happen.

 

Joe Biden

Joe Biden was the not-Bernie candidate who was supposed to go the distance. He was supposed to be the one in the inevitable two-person race to the finish with Sanders, just like what happened with Hillary Clinton. But that dream now lies mostly in tatters.

Biden is counting on his South Carolina "firewall" of black voters. This may hold for him -- he may well win the state, which would give him a first-place finish in the first four contests (something only Bernie and Pete Buttigieg can now claim). But even if Bernie edges him out in South Carolina (which now seems possible, but only remotely), Biden will not bow out until after Super Tuesday, since there are lots of states voting then with significant African-American populations. The problem for Biden, though, might be matching his results in South Carolina in other states where he hasn't even campaigned.

Ironically, Joe Biden has been running as an old-school candidate, and his campaign might come to an end for a very old-school reason: the money men (and money women) inform Joe that it's over. More than any other candidate, Biden has gone the traditional route of funding his campaign mostly from the big Democratic donors. But they're already panicking, and they've reportedly put a halt to infusing his campaign with more money. If Joe wins South Carolina, it might buy him a little more time, but if he doesn't do as well as expected there then the donors might just sit Joe down and explain that it's time to get out of the race to improve the chances of other not-Bernie candidates.

Biden may try to outlast others by waiting for people like Klobuchar and Warren to drop out, though. This all depends on how he does on Super Tuesday, and where the delegate count stands afterwards. If Biden is worse than third in delegates at that point, it'll likely be the end of his campaign. If Biden is third or second in delegates, obviously, he'll stay in. But in the end, it'll likely be mainly the donors' decision. Not knowing how Super Tuesday and South Carolina are going to vote, it's impossible to predict when Biden will exit the race. If he does well, then the answer is "not for a while yet," but if he doesn't do well, then I'd expect him to quit within a week after Super Tuesday.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is the only person remaining who is a "not-Bernie" candidate but also not an "anti-Bernie" candidate. She's not a moderate or establishment Democrat, in other words. She's not making the case that Bernie is some crazy fool for all the things he's running on, as the others are.

This complicates the question of when she'll drop out. For her, dropping out will improve Bernie's chances, because most of her support will quite likely shift over to Bernie's team. This is not true (or nowhere near as true) for any of the other candidates. So the pressure on Warren is going to come from a different direction -- and it may be muted, if Bernie racks up a few more blowout victories. If Bernie's doing really well even with Warren still in the race, then there's no pressing need for her to drop out. If things are closer, then this pressure will increase.

What this really means is that Warren will likely have the luxury of deciding when to drop out based solely on her own results. So far, she's done fairly well, but not great. Short of starting to come in second and third in the Super Tuesday states, however, she's going to soon fall behind in the delegate count so badly that there simply will not be a viable path to the nomination for her. And she is definitely smart enough to know this.

If Warren does really badly on Super Tuesday, I could see her exiting the race soon afterwards. But it wouldn't surprise me to see her continue until a lot later in March. Especially if she's not eating into Bernie's numbers in any significant way.

 

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg can brag (and doubtlessly will brag, in tomorrow night's debate) that he's "the only candidate who has beaten Bernie Sanders so far." This is technically true -- or at least it is for now, because his victory among the state delegate equivalents in Iowa is now down to a razor-thin margin measured in the hundredths of a percentage point. And a recount is now underway in a few dozen counties which could change that.

But while he is right about being the only one who has come close to dethroning Bernie, this argument ignores the trajectory of his record to date. Give him the Iowa win, even though Bernie got more votes. Buttigieg then lost a close race to Bernie in New Hampshire. In Nevada, Mayor Pete was badly beaten and only wound up in third place, a long way behind Bernie. And Buttigieg is not expected to crack the top three in South Carolina.

In other words, the trendline is going in the wrong direction. As time goes on, Pete does worse against Bernie. If this continues, Pete is soon going to be faced with the choice of dropping out in order to give some other contender a better chance.

This may be tough for Buttigieg to do -- tougher than some of the others, at any rate. Unlike Klobuchar and Warren, Pete doesn't currently have a day job he can fall back on. His prospects for winning a statewide office in Indiana are pretty slim, due to the overall redness of the state. So he has no clear path forward in his political career other than running for president, at least for now.

Pete, for the time being, has plenty of money and a decent donor base. So unlike candidates like Biden, he likely won't be forced out by being broke any time soon (although it certainly could happen eventually). Pete also seems overwhelmingly convinced that (1) he's the one with the best chance to beat Bernie, and (2) if only Biden and Klobuchar would get out, Pete would start beating Bernie again in the primaries. Which all makes it rather unlikely that Buttigieg will quit any time soon -- my guess is the end of March, at the earliest.

 

Michael Bloomberg

Bloomberg has now reportedly spent a half-billion dollars on advertisements. He initially committed to spending at least one billion dollars in his campaign. Those numbers are staggering, and they all come directly from his own pocket -- Bloomberg has no donors to please.

Bloomberg more than any other candidate (other than Tom Steyer) can afford to keep going just as long as he likes, no matter what the voters are telling him. He's aired tons of ads in all the Super Tuesday states, which no other candidate can even come close to matching. His strategy of staying out of the first four races has so far borne fruit for him, because he is thus insulated from having to explain away poor showings. This is already taking its toll on all the other candidates (not named Bernie Sanders), but Bloomberg has avoided all of it.

How he does on Super Tuesday is going to be very interesting to watch. It's a political theory put into live practice -- skip the first four states and spend a fortune on Super Tuesday, and see how many people react positively. If he places second or even third in the delegate count on Super Tuesday, then he's the one who is going to be arguing that all the other not-Bernie candidates drop out. If he does worse than that, then people will be calling on him to exit, but he will still be free to ignore them.

My guess is that Bloomberg will not drop out at all. Until Bernie clinches a majority of the delegates, at least, if that's the way things play out. Bloomberg will stick around in the hopes of being the last man standing against Bernie, and he may well prove this right in the end.

 

Conclusion

My guess is that at some point after Super Tuesday, the field will narrow down to four viable candidates, most likely: Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden. Then it will narrow again to three, but I have no idea which will drop out (Biden, most likely, although Pete could also decide to exit). Either way, though, the not-Bernie vote will likely remain split at least through the end of March.

Now, this narrowing could be accelerated by the voters themselves. If the moderates start rallying being one of the not-Bernies, it could even be enough to unseat him as the frontrunner. Bernie's ascent is in no way guaranteed -- he could perform worse on Super Tuesday than expected, which would make the entire race a whole lot closer. The attacks on Bernie have ratcheted up a few notches since the last debate, and they're likely to get a whole lot more personal and sharp in the next debate. The party establishment is already freaking out over the prospects of Bernie winning, so look for an absolute flood of such Bernie-inspired pessimism in the media over the next few weeks. This could all take a toll on Bernie's chances.

But assuming for the sake of this article that Bernie continues to do well, my guess is that Super Tuesday will winnow the field further, with at least two of the top seven candidates (sorry, Tulsi, but once again I don't care whether you drop out or not...) deciding to exit the field. This could go as high as three or four of them getting out, but that might take a few more weeks. But it's hard to see a sudden mass exodus from the race which would leave only one or two candidates running against Bernie in the near future. And that may well guarantee that the not-Bernie vote continues to be split all throughout March.

At this point in the race, the most important developments are going to be which candidates quit, and when they do so. That is the real question the pundits should be speculating about right now, because the decisions about dropping out are going to change the dynamics of the entire race.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

42 Comments on “Who Will Quit, And When?”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Who will quit and when is the right question.

    But the one non-Bernie you didn't mention in the article that could easily outperform Bernie is the Bernie that has not dropped IN to the race yet- the small donor only Bernie.

    That is the only Bernie that can give the right answer to the right question when the right question is asked about the right subject- Who will quit taking big money to run their campaigns- and when?!

    Non-Bernie can bring in the non-voters and end the nonsense.

    When are you going to give the right answer to the right question- are you going to quit treating non-Bernie as a non-issue when non-Bernie gives the Dems the best chance of beating Trump while simultaneously beginning to purge the Dems and our political process of the corrupting influence of big money?

    The big money establishment Dems are panicking and are at their most vulnerable so now is the time to strike.

    It's time to chop off the "creature's" head while it's down instead of dropping the ax and running away so the creature can get up and do more damage.

    Democracy is knocking with an opportunity.

    "...open the door, let' em in."
    -a Beatles or McCartney song

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Look, I'm with you on Big Money in politics, but thou must answereth this question: it'd be great if Bernie took the small doner pledge, but there's a bleeping billion dollars all teed up to re-elect Trump. Don't you think that it'd be political suicide to forego the hundreds of millions Bernie will need to vanquish the Dark Side of the force?

    With an understandably jaded electorate, Bernie being the only contender to swear off big money IMO most likely be regarded as some gimmick... i.e. small doner only works if BOTH SIDES renounce the big bucks. Just sayin'.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC,

    DH

    Does anyone here really believe that it matters that much if one person is more guilty than another guilty person?

    It depends on what one is guilty of..

    Are their various degrees of guilt?? Abso-frakin'-loutly..

    Am I the only one that believes that it's the being guilty part that matters more then the how guilty part?

    Yes...

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Nevada shot that concept down, though. Bernie is going to win not just a majority, but the lion's share of Nevada delegates, after blowing the field away. If he pulls off a similar performance in California on Super Tuesday (which seems to be what the polls are indicating), he will be well on his way to winning a clear majority of the convention delegates.

    Again, I have to ask.. Is this a GOOD thing in your opinion??

    Didn't you support Bernie in the 2016 primary??

    Also, seven candidates have now qualified for the next debate, which will likely be the most significant one to date.

    ANOTHER one??? :D

    You Democrats sure love yer hyperbole.. :D

    Joe Biden was the not-Bernie candidate who was supposed to go the distance. He was supposed to be the one in the inevitable two-person race to the finish with Sanders, just like what happened with Hillary Clinton. But that dream now lies mostly in tatters.

    Not to toot my own horn, but....

    BEEP BEEP

    One of these days ya'all will realize that a FACT OBJECTIVE-based analysis will beat wishcasting and delusion every day of the week and twice on Sunday..

    Joe Biden was never going to be the nominee...

    Party Purity was always going to reign supreme...

    And the gods watch upon and chortle with glee at the games mere mortals play...

    2020 is going to play out exactly like 1996 except in reverse... :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    You haven't mentioned one factor in the ascendancy of Bernie..

    Obama...

    The 1 thing that might slow down Bernie Sanders is a very, very long shot

    (CNN)The 48 hours since Bernie Sanders rolled to an across-the-board victory in the Nevada caucuses have been filled with skittish Democratic establishment types coming to this realization: Not only is stopping the Vermont democratic socialist going to be very difficult, the time may have already passed when it was even possible.

    "If no one drops out by Super Tuesday, is it even possible to stop Bernie Sanders?" NBC's Chuck Todd asked former Obama White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer on Sunday. "I do not believe it is," responded Pfeiffer.

    Pfeiffer is very likely right. But if there is a way to stop -- or at least slow -- Sanders, most Democratic insiders are convinced it's this: Former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama get behind an alternative candidate to the Vermont senator. Not only that, but the Obamas make their endorsements soon -- like pre-Super Tuesday -- and they urge all of the other candidates to get out of the race ASAP.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/barack-obama-sanders-endorsement-2020/index.html

    Would be VERY interested to hear your take..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    2020 is going to play out exactly like 1996 except in reverse... :D

    The only real question in 2020 is will Democrats be able to hold onto the House..

    And the Democrats' and their faux impeachment coup answers that question pretty readily.... :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why Democrats Shouldn’t Keep Taking Minority Voters For Granted

    It is insulting for the left to think black and brown voters will always vote en masse for the Democratic Party.
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/24/why-democrats-shouldnt-keep-taking-minority-voters-for-granted/

    Democrats are in for a HUGE (and RUDE) awakening when it comes to minority voters... :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Minority Voters Know What Is Best for Them
    Election results bear out the above assertions. Donald Trump won in 2016 partly due to sizable percentages of Hispanic-American (29 percent) and Asian-American (29 percent) voters. Who knew this many deplorables were in the ranks of brown voters?

    By all accounts, Hispanic and African-American support for Trump in 2020 has been steadily increasing. Oh, the racists! But the not-so-secret sauce for this burgeoning support has been their rising employment and increasing wages. It turns out that actually making people’s lives better economically counts more than empty gestures, such as talking endlessly about racism.

    President Trump has REAL and TANGIBLE benefits for minorities he can point to..

    Democrats?? All they have is false cases of racism they always point to..

    Jussie Smollets proved that beyond any doubt..

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-

    No, it would not be political suicide to run a small donor only campaign.

    3% of presidential election cycle voters averaging 100 dollars in contributions would total about 500 million.
    5% would be close to a billion.

    So Bernie would have plenty of money to compete. And by making the pledge he would need less money.

    The way big money works is not spending more big money than your big money opponent. It's having only two big money candidates to choose from to price anyone else out of the picture.

    It only works if BOTH candidates are in on the scam.

    So one lone small donor candidate can be successful because that candidate will offer citizens more than a choice between two big money candidates.

    And making that commitment could attract many non-voters and third party voters that the big money Dems do not appeal to.

    This would price the big money candidate running against a small donor candidate out of the most important market in an election- the votes.

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I must admit I got a bit of a chuckle out of the small donor commitment being seen as just a gimmick.

    The scary thing is you may be right.

    It would not be much of a surprise if the people currently being fooled by the small average contribution gimmick that is a gimmick were ti think that the real thing was just a gimmick.

    Perhaps I am projecting my ability to see the obvious difference on to people that are not capable of recognizing, learning from and therefore not correcting their mistakes so they continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

    It's so much easier to let someone make promises about future action instead of citizens personally taking action now.

    What's the slogan for that?

    Make America Grovel Again?

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And the answer to the question about should Bernie forego the hundreds of million of big money dollars that he needs to compete is:

    YES.

    First, as demonstrated in comment 9, he doesn't need that money.

    Second, taking that money IS THE PROBLEM. Foregoing that money in favor of small donor money is the solution.

  12. [12] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    The scary thing about your yes answer about me being the only one here that thinks the guilty part is more important than the how guilty part is you may be right.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The scary thing about your yes answer about me being the only one here that thinks the guilty part is more important than the how guilty part is you may be right.

    That's the problem with Demcrats in general and Democrats here in Weigantia..

    They want to speak in absolutes when it's President Trump and want to speak in nuance and gray areas when it comes to the incompetence, malfeasance and downright criminality of their own fellow Democrats..

    Compare the cases of Roger Stone and Andrew McCabe vis a vis how Democrats perceive things....

    A PERFECT example of Party slavery at it's worst..

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And Trump/Republican supporters are different how?

    Why is they do it too or they do it worse a reason instead of an excuse for doing something you shouldn't be doing which is certainly at the very least implied when discussing people that are guilty?

    Being guilty does not imply that they are guilty of being too honest, righteous or doing the right thing. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Trump/Republican supporters are different how?

    Because we're loyal to a MAN...

    Not to any Party...

    Being guilty does not imply that they are guilty of being too honest, righteous or doing the right thing. :D

    No.. It's the facts that determine that..

    And, to date, the FACTS have all seemed to go President Trump's way...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to recall SOMEONE here bragging about how down ballot Dems are going to be helped and will overwhelm the GOP....

    Bloomberg internal poll claims Bernie would sink downballot Dems

    Mike Bloomberg's campaign is shopping an internal survey that shows the liberal Vermont senator could be a millstone around the necks of vulnerable House Democrats.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/bloomberg-internal-poll-claims-bernie-would-hurt-downballot-dems-117290

    Apparently.... NOT :D

    Hell, we may be looking at SUPER MAJORITIES for the GOP in the House and Senate if Bernie is the Dem nominee.. :D

    How AWESOME would that be, eh?? :D

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    If Bloomberg says it- it must be true.

    Or is it that if it fits your ideology or you want to believe it it's true?

    You have so much in common with the those poor unfortunate victims of Dem Party slavery.

    What facts show Trump is being too honest, righteous or doing too much of the right thing?

    Or for that matter pretty much anything honest, righteous or the right thing?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Bloomberg says it- it must be true.

    Bloomberg is simply one of many who have made the same claim with poll numbers to back it up...

    Who would have predicted that the electability faction would stay home if Bernie won the nomination..

    Oh.. Wait.. :D

    You have so much in common with the those poor unfortunate victims of Dem Party slavery.

    Actually, I have nothing in common with them..

    As I said... I have NO loyalty to any Party...

    What facts show Trump is being too honest, righteous or doing too much of the right thing?

    That fact that he is still in office.. This proves that he is more honest and righteous than those who are trying to overthrow his legitimate government..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Dire Warning: Bernie Sanders’ Candidacy ‘Built On False Premise”

    CHICAGO (CBS) – Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had a clear warning for Democrats: A primary victory for Bernie Sanders puts the whole future of the party at risk.

    “His candidacy is built on a false premise, strategically and policy-wise,” Emanuel, who served in both Clinton and Obama administrations, said of the far left candidate on CBS This Morning.

    Sanders, he said, is playing with political fire by dismissing moderate Democrats.

    “Bernie Sanders view is, I don’t want these moderate and fickle voters. We just have to turn out our base,” Emanuel said. “His view is, forget the center, we just want to be left. And that’s never been tried.”

    Emanuel pointed to six elections—the four presidential wins by Clinton and Obama and the two midterms in 2006 and 2018—in which a center left strategy and “big urban and suburban turnout” were the keys to victory.
    https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/02/24/former-chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuels-dire-warning-bernie-sanders-candicacy-built-on-false-premise/

    No matter how ya'all want to spin it, a Bernie nomination spells doom for the Democrat Party and the Democrats' ability to hold onto the House..

    Hell, even VICTORIA agrees with me on that..

    :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, she'll deny it.. But the facts are clear..

    A Bernie nomination is going to depress down ballot Democrat candidates and will drag down the entire Democrat Party..

    This is fact..

  21. [21] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And Trump/Republican supporters are different how?

    Because we're loyal to a MAN...

    Not to any Party...

    Yep...glad you finally admitted to being in a cult! That’s the first step in recovery. Now if you only could see that Trump is loyal to Putin and not the American people or the Constitution!

    That fact that he is still in office.. This proves that he is more honest and righteous than those who are trying to overthrow his legitimate government..

    Really? Seems to me that a corrupt person that has taken over the Republican Party could just as easily still be in power...and is.

    70% of the public thought Trump was guilty and should have been removed from office in the impeachment trial, but all but one Republican Senator voted to acquit. They don’t deny that Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections for his personal benefit, they just think that is OK because Trump tells them it is OK.

  22. [22] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    And Trump/Republican supporters are different how?

    Because we're loyal to a MAN...

    Not to any Party...

    Yep...glad you finally admitted to being in a cult! That’s the first step in recovery. Now if you only could see that Trump is loyal to Putin and not the American people or the Constitution!

    That fact that he is still in office.. This proves that he is more honest and righteous than those who are trying to overthrow his legitimate government..

    Really? Seems to me that a corrupt person that has taken over the Republican Party could just as easily still be in power...and is.

    70% of the public thought Trump was guilty and should have been removed from office in the impeachment trial, but all but one Republican Senator voted to acquit. They don’t deny that Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections for his personal benefit, they just think that is OK because Trump tells them it is OK.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not a fact. An opinion.

    And for anyone that believes that their opinion will become a fact, that's what the people that thought their opinion that Hillary would beat Trump would become a fact thought.

    That is a fact.

    As previously stated my opinion is that Bernie is the most likely to beat Trump and inspire voter participation in those that could not bring themselves to vote for Trump or Hillary in 2016.

    Your claim of belief that Trump would beat Bernie is no more believable than the people you keep quoting.

    It is obvious your false bravado is just you trying to convince yourself that what you want to believe is true or just want to waste time in pointless ridiculing of Dems.

    That's an opinion that you will undoubtatedly prove to be a fact with your follow up comments. :D

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A Bernie nomination is going to depress down ballot Democrat candidates and will drag down the entire Democrat Party..

    This is fact..

    No, that is an opinion... you think you’d have learned the definition of “fact” by now...but not you!

    I also recall everyone thinking that Trump’s nomination would have dragged down the Republican Party in 2016...but with outside help, Trump ended up winning.

    A big reason that so many people voted for Trump in the primary was that they were sick and tired of the GOP establishment lying to them all the time. Trump infuriated the establishment, and voting for him was the base’s way of giving the GOP the middle finger.

    Bernie is the Democrat’s base way of telling the Party that change is coming...so get on board or get out of our way! Moderates swear that only a moderate can win the election...but Trump proved the world wrong on that one.

    The difference being that Bernie is not a compromised Putin asset nor a conman like Trump is. He has actual plans for how to fix the problems facing our government...he doesn’t just say that has the BEST plans without offering any details and we accept it as fact. His ideas aren’t perfect, but they are a good start.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep...glad you finally admitted to being in a cult!

    You said a cult, not I..

    At least yer admitting yer part of the Odumbo cult..

    Really? Seems to me that a corrupt person that has taken over the Republican Party could just as easily still be in power...and is.

    Of course you would think that.. Because you are ruled by your hate and bigotry.

    And the fact you can't handle that you lost.. and KEEP losing...

    70% of the public thought Trump was guilty

    Not factually accurate..

    Again, an opinion solely based on your hate and your bigotry..

    They don’t deny that Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections for his personal benefit, they just think that is OK because Trump tells them it is OK.

    Even if it were factually accurate, it's OK because there isn't a law against it. MORON..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    The difference being that Bernie is not a compromised Putin asset nor a conman like Trump is.

    He is as much of a Putin asset as Trump was..

    Irregardless, yer going to lose Russ..

    How do ya like that? :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the fact for ya, Russ..

    Bernie is going to be the Democrat nominee..

    And will lose the General Election to Donald Trump..

    Bernie's socialist candidacy will so depress the Democrat Party turnout that Dims will lose the House..

    In other words, yer fucked.. :D

    DOUBLY so because I'll be here after 3 Nov 2020 rubbing your nose in it every single day... :D

    Won't that be so much fun!!?? :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Divisiveness Among 2020 Democratic Hopefuls Hits New Low

    No one has tagged a rival with a bully-boy nickname like “Sleepy” or “Liddle.”

    But as push comes to shove in the Democratic primary, candidates and their surrogates have descended to a level of personal animus that was rare before the era of President Trump.

    On Monday, Joseph R. Biden Jr. launched a digital ad in South Carolina saying Bernie Sanders “can’t be trusted” after weighing a 2012 primary against “our first African-American president,” Barack Obama.

    After Pete Buttigieg attacked Mr. Sanders’s victory in Nevada, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York lectured Mr. Buttigieg on Twitter, saying “not to be so smug when you just got your ass kicked.”

    And lest last week’s Democratic debate recede into history (it was just five days ago), one memorable and searing moment was a highly personal exchange in which Mr. Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar dripped contempt for each other, with Ms. Klobuchar saying, “I wish everyone was as perfect as you, Pete.”
    https://dnyuz.com/2020/02/25/divisiveness-among-2020-democratic-hopefuls-hits-new-low/

    But!! But!!!

    Democrats don't do personal attacks against Democrats..

    Russ said so!!!

    Just one more thing Russ has been WRONG about.... :smirk: :D

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Of course, she'll deny it.. But the facts are clear..

    Deny the words Lying Mike makes up on a regular basis and assigns to other posters on the forum? Yes, I most certainly do.

    Not content to spam this forum regularly with his cut-and-paste bullshit from the right-wing lunatic fringe, Mike is prone to fits of fantasizing and inventing emotions and feelings and assigning them to other posters so he can get his jollies based on his own fiction.

    Me, Barack Obama, the Clintons, and all these Democrats are still desperately searching for a way out of Mike's cranium. We're looking for a brain cell we can deprogram from its cult worship of the money laundering con artist so we can find a way out of Mike's obvious madness.

    Once free of Mike's pathetic mind, we're plotting our way out of Donald Trump's ass. All we'll have to do then is crawl out from under that giant rock to freedom.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    27

    Bernie is going to be the Democrat nominee..

    Bernie is done.. His campaign is over..

    ~ Mike

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

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    “My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden.”
    -Joe Biden, Feb 2020

    Sometimes people make mistakes and sometimes people are wrong..

    If yer Victoria, yer **ALWAYS** wrong...

    BBBBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "Hillary is going to win Florida"
    -Crack Whore Victoria

    "Hillary is going to win Pennsylvania"
    -Crack Whore Victoria

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Victoria is ***ALWAYS*** wrong.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I simply cannot wait until 4 Nov 2020... Granted, it's not going to be as much fun as our annual family cruise in April, but it's going to be right up there for fun times for me.

    The utter and complete SHAME and EMBARRASSMENT ya'all will experience.... The tons and tons and TONS for crow ya'all will have to swallow????

    It's gonna be pure unadulterated heaven for me.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    David Pepper, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, lamented that the last debate, which smashed records as the most watched Democratic presidential debate ever, was so intensely negative. “My worry is that everyone looked so mad at each other,” he said. “When every person on the stage has their oppo ready to go and delivers it with such ferocity, you may win that individual skirmish, but you’re giving away the bigger picture — the need for people to be inspired.”

    But!!! But!!!!

    Democrats would NEVER go negative!!???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Blue on Blue civil war!!! :D

    LOVE IT.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is simply an UNDENIABLE FACT.....

    Forget the awesome economy, forget the huge inroads that President Trump has made with hispanic and black Americans.. Forget all of that stuff which GUARANTEES a President Trump re-election..

    President Trump could have been removed from office by the Democrats' faux impeachment coup...

    If Bernie Sanders is the Democrat nominee.....

    On Sunday night, Mr. Sanders praised Fidel Castro for Cuba’s literacy program on “60 Minutes.” Many responses from fellow Democrats were searing, including two congresswomen from Florida with sizable Cuban electorates. “As the first South American immigrant member of Congress who proudly represents thousands of Cuban Americans, I find Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on Castro’s Cuba absolutely unacceptable,” Representative Debbi Mucarsel-Powell, one of the Florida congresswomen, said on Twitter.

    Fernand Amandi, a pollster and political consultant in South Florida, went further: “Democrats, nominating this man will absolutely re-elect @realDonaldTrump and end our Constitutional republic,” he wrote.

    President Trump would STILL win re-election...

    :D

    That is how scroo'ed the Dumbocrat Party is... :D

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    As I was saying: Me, Barack Obama, and the Democrats all live rent-free in Mike's head. Mike obviously gets his jollies by making up fake quotes and assigning emotions to us all in his warped fantasies... the highlight of Mike's pathetic existence from his doublewide trailer swamp shithole.

    So to recap: Mike isn't interested in discussing political issues; he's here to spam CW's blog with entire articles lifted from the right-wing lunatic fringe and to make shit up and troll anyone not a member of his Trump cult that is "loyal to a man"... a criminal con man.

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [35]

    Yep. I kinda feel sorry for the guy. Desperately trying to get a reaction out of people. I mean, what a sucky lifestyle choice. It's ironic that Michale is the one suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome," not us, because he's the one with the mancrush on Cheetogod
    ,
    not the rest of us.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Was my answer to your question satisfactory to allay your fear of Bernie running a small donor campaign?

    There is very little risk of a small donor campaign causing vote blue no matter who people from voting for Bernie and a huge possible reward in gaining some non-voters and third party voters.

    The recent report on non-voters by the Knight Foundation said that 20% of non-voters cited big money in politics as the main reason they didn't vote.

    That's two in ten of the 40% that don't vote.

    One in ten voting for small donor Bernie in addition to the VBNMW voters would add 6% of the vote to the Dems total and blow Trump out of the water.

    Bernie needs your help to encouraqe him to earn the trust of voters and non-voters by showing he trusts them to fund a small donor only campaign for the general election.

    He needs you to get other Bernie supporters to encourage him to run a small donor only campaign.

    He needs you to encourage CW to get this idea into the public discourse so Bernie doesn't miss this golden opportunity to blow Trump out of the water and take the next big step to get the big money out of politics that is now available because he took the small step of running a small contribution campaign in 2016.

    Without taking the next step now the progress made by the small step taken in 2016 will wasted and unproductive.

    The small contribution was a START- not the end game.

    Level one is conquered.

    Time to move on to level two.

    There is some risk, but it is the only way to reach the end game.

    You say you are a Bernie supporter- give him the support he needs.

  38. [38] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    VBNMW?

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Vote Blue No Matter Who.

    That was an explanation- not advice.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i almost hate to mention it, but guess who else was loyal to their man, even years after his party, his country, his continent and himself were all ashes.

  41. [41] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't see any reason to pay attention to Iowa SDEs. There are caucus-goers, and there are actual delegates to the national convention. Both are real people. SDEs are just a step in the computation from one to the other.

    I think the party establishment should throw their weight behind my favorite candidate, because she's the only non-Bernie candidate who could plausibly be acceptable to Bernie's base as a compromise candidate at a contested convention.

  42. [42] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
Comments for this article are closed.