Quote :

"Isn't your whole schtick here about how the democratic party should be trying to win the votes of non-democrats?"

how many times do you need it explained to you that the democratic party can grow it's voter base without republicans?

2/12/2019 9:03:03 AM

But then again, Hilary came out with a popular victory. 2016 was decided by a very small number of votes in a few states. Overhauling the party and flying to the left is a big gamble - it might work, and you might win and get all your leftist wishes fulfilled. (More likely, you pull an Obama and get two years in which to do stuff before an intransigent GOP Congress Congress in and slams on the brakes) But if you lose, I'd argue it's no longer a matter of four more years of Republican presidency, bad but short of catastrophic. It's potentially irreversible damage to the country and the world.

^Right, through all the apathetic non-voting masses who will rise in one uniformly Democratic body as soon as you offer them enough socialism.

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 9:15 AM. Reason : Delenda est Trumpo]

2/12/2019 9:13:49 AM

I'd love to see polling data for people who voted for Hilary but would refuse to vote for Democratic candidate X. I'd love to see the same for those who voted for Trump but WOULD vote for Dem candidate X.

2/12/2019 9:16:48 AM

Me too.

I think it's very possible that I'm wrong - not in the sense that I'm wrong about far-left policies driving massive Democratic turnout, but about Donald Trump having any chance of winning against ANYBODY. It's possible that he's so deep underwater that you could run Trotsky's skeleton and beat him, in which case all my hand wringing is even more pointless. But we all kinda thought that in 2016, and I'd rather not take the chance.

2/12/2019 9:22:01 AM

grumpy wants more of the milquetoast "pro-business" "centrist" nonsense that has lost the party 1,000+ seats nationwide, engaging with any republican about the best interests of the party is a fools endeavor

2/12/2019 9:40:46 AM

The only thing I want is for a Democrat to be president after January 2021. I don't care if they're left, right, or center, as long as they win.

One of you says my arguments are invalid because I'm a Republican; the other says they're invalid because I'm a Democrat. It's fantastic.

2/12/2019 9:51:12 AM

the other person is saying you are already doing the thing you said people wouldn't do

2/12/2019 9:53:19 AM

Quote :

"But then again, Hilary came out with a popular victory. 2016 was decided by a very small number of votes in a few states."

Hillary campaigned for a popular victory since she was so sure of an electoral college victory. There was no reason for her to spend so much time in California and New York and not once visit Wisconsin, unless the popular vote was the only thing she was worried about. She only visited Michigan once before the last month of the election, when they started to realize the polling was too close for comfort.

2/12/2019 12:32:19 PM

Quote :

"The only thing I want is for a Democrat to be president after January 2021. I don't care if they're left, right, or center, as long as they win."

What would be the point of having a Democrat win the presidency if he or she is on the right?


If the entirety of your political goal is to unseat Trump, then you have very little to contribute to the discussion. Thank you, but your vacuous political insight isn't needed. Democrats actually need to engage in ideology and have a vision for constructing a better society. You seem to be more interested in the horse-race of politics rather than the actual outcome of political action.

2/12/2019 1:40:53 PM

Nah man. At this point, the best thing for this country and building a better society is any democrat over trump. Whether left, right or center. Anybody.

2/12/2019 1:56:02 PM

Quote :

"If the entirety of your political goal is to unseat Trump, then you have very little to contribute to the discussion"

2/12/2019 1:58:08 PM

Two different conversations, really.

The primary should be used to iron out the policy framework and direction. It’s fairly obvious that the party is moving left thanks to pressure from the progressive wing and the freshman in Congress.

I don’t think it’s unfair to say I’d vote for any Democrat over Trump in the general, though. The country simply can’t afford a further four years of creeping fascism and a GOP controlled Senate/WH. The damage to the courts alone would take generations to overcome.

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 1:59 PM. Reason : Autocorrect]

2/12/2019 1:59:34 PM

The country was at a crisis point at the end of W's second term, and we then elected a moderate Democrat who basically continued the worst of W's policies that gave rise to birtherism and Fox News Trumpism.

Maybe we shouldn't squander this opportunity to get an actual progressive in there who isn't afraid to reverse some of this pro-corporate, anti-labor, racist, sexist, militaristic, imperialist, and fascistic creep.

2/12/2019 2:22:46 PM

OK. So who do you think will do all that? It's not enough to be a bomb-throwing radical telling the rest of us we're too, like, square, man. Who you got? More to the point, who you got that can win?

2/12/2019 2:32:46 PM

As of right now? It's probably Bernie (who isn't even radical). After that, I guess Warren, but she really spoiled her brand by throwing herself behind Hillary last election instead of challenging her, on my opinion. But I'm afraid that the democratic gatekeepers are going to push Kamala or Booker, or Starbucks or Facebook man, instead

2/12/2019 3:40:34 PM

Quote :

"But I'm afraid that the democratic gatekeepers are going to push Kamala or Booker, or Starbucks or Facebook man, instead"

This isn’t a statement to be taken serious. Schultz has been universally condemned by all but the Frum’s and Kristol’s of the world.

2/12/2019 3:43:16 PM

^^ At least they demoted the superdelegates (for now)

2/12/2019 3:47:23 PM

I was serious about Kamala and Booker

2/12/2019 3:47:55 PM

I asked Wall Street insiders whether they’d prefer Elizabeth Warren or Donald Trump. It turned out to be a hard question.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/12/18220482/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-trump-big-banks

lol

2/12/2019 4:06:24 PM

"As of right now," Bernie isn't even running. And if he did, he'd be the oldest candidate - and the only one who makes Trump look relatively young and sprightly. I think those are problems. He also has vulnerabilities on race issues. And he carries baggage related to 2016, because clearly some people think he helped cost Hilary the win. These are liabilities I am not convinced his policy proposals will overcome.

Past and present Warren has been digging a deep credibility hole with the Indian thing, though I guess she is otherwise better off.

2/12/2019 4:15:57 PM

Every candidate has skeletons/dings, vote for the one that shares your issues and who would work hardest to implement fixes.

Grumpy will you vote in the Dem primary?

2/12/2019 4:35:52 PM

Quote :

"What would be the point of having a Democrat win the presidency if he or she is on the right? If the entirety of your political goal is to unseat Trump, then you have very little to contribute to the discussion. Thank you, but your vacuous political insight isn't needed. Democrats actually need to engage in ideology and have a vision for constructing a better society. You seem to be more interested in the horse-race of politics rather than the actual outcome of political action. "

Quote :

"my overriding goal is the defeat of Donald Trump, so that there will be enough of a liberal democracy left to build good policies on; and your overriding goal is to see your preferred policies represented, whether they win or not."

____________________

As an aside to this discussion, I will never, ever vote for Trump. I am practically screaming for a Democrat to vote for. I also know that's almost certainly not going to happen; the only hope is Biden, and that's IF he runs and IF he doesn't bolt to the left. As a data point, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton, absent her disgustingly cavalier handling of highly sensitive classified materials, and I almost did anyway out of desperation in the face of a potentially existential threat to the future of America (I waited until the polls were about to close to check and make sure she was on-track to win, before leaving the Presidential race blank.)

HOWEVER, if the Dems persist with this move to the left, my future ballots might well be straight-ticket GOP post-Trump, if the GOP were to return to some semblance of normalcy. If it suppresses the enemy within the GOP, and a hellbent far-left Democratic Party, I will start voting for GOP candidates that I, to date, would have found unacceptable.

So...yes, I agree with GrumpyGOP's point that while you might pick up votes on the left, and those who are otherwise uninterested, you will lose votes on the center, or outright drive them into the arms of your enemy. I am practically just begging for a Democrat to vote for right now, and I am also not especially hesitant to vote for any halfway well-adjusted Republican once Trump is gone, if the Dems continue their present trajectory.

This debate is poli-sci 101. That you guys are presenting the "energize the base" side of the debate over the "court the center" side is fine; that's why it has long been debated. What's troubling is that you are treating it like it's a foregone conclusion and there's nothing to debate here.

_______________________

I don't feel compelled to vote for "anyone but Trump, no matter what." The reason is that the trajectory of both parties is so bad, that my view is that either this is unsustainable and there will have to be a severe correction back to sensibility, in which case I don't need to enable the equivalent of Iraq vs Iran, al Qaeda-to-be vs Soviets, Assad vs ISIS, etc...

or that the trajectory will continue and I'll go live somewhere else if things prove unsalvageable. I'm interested in and committed to preserving the best of America, not continually propping up whichever enemy of that goal happens to be lagging the other at the moment. That works OK for having your external foes annihilate each other, but it's a recipe for destruction when you're doing it in your own house. I'd rather play to win, with the knowledge that I'll just fold and leave if it comes down to it.

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 5:04 PM. Reason : ^ i plan to register Dem if there's anyone worth a damn to vote for in the primary.]

2/12/2019 4:53:52 PM

Quote :

"I waited until the polls were about to close to check and make sure she was on-track to win, before leaving the Presidential race blank"

So in other words....

Quote :

"At best, a moderate Republican will abstain from voting for Trump. That's at best"

And then you go on to say this:

Quote :

"HOWEVER, if the Dems persist with this move to the left, my future ballots might well be straight-ticket GOP post-Trump, if the GOP were to return to some semblance of normalcy. If it suppresses the enemy within the GOP, and a hellbent far-left Democratic Party, I will start voting for GOP candidates that I, to date, would have found unacceptable."

which is why I said this, earlier:

Quote :

"But they're far more likely to hold their nose and vote for him and post-rationalize it with absurd rationale like theDuke just did above"

You are proving my point by using yourself as an example. That chasing your vote is a fool's errand because you will always prefer a crazy conservative to progressive because you have property and are afraid of taxes.


And to your point about "energize the base" vs "run to the center," well, that's not really the argument I'm making. A key difference is that I am not advocating for empty rhetoric and leftist language. I'm making a statement that bold policy that transforms the livelihoods of working poor Americans by lifting them out of poverty will drive them into the hands of a progressive Democratic Party. And I'm perfectly fine with you and other """moderates""" such as yourself leaving the party that you never really adopted to begin with in the process.

2/12/2019 6:04:54 PM

Quote :

"I'm making a statement that bold policy that transforms the livelihoods of working poor Americans by lifting them out of poverty will drive them into the hands of a progressive Democratic Party."

You don't get to make bold policy until you win an election.

You win an election through rhetoric and language.

Everything you've been talking about this whole thread has been with the presumption that you've already won, starting way back with your first vague language about "disenfranchised voters."

Quote :

"The reason is that the trajectory of both parties is so bad"

I think it's ludicrous to equate the extreme left of the Democratic party with even mainstream Republican shit at this point. I think a lot of the far left's proposals seem to think legislation is all that stands between us and the Big Rock Candy Mountain, where education and healthcare and high wages and full employment and green energy will burst forth from springs and drown us all in happiness. Some of those ideas may be dumb and they may be expensive and they may cause problems, but at the very least they come from a place of trying to help people, of trying to work within the framework of Constitution and American institutions; and worst case scenario, they cause a bunch of expensive problems and we fix them.

On the Republican side, meanwhile, we have Nazis with torches. Their bad ideas come from a place of "Let's get rid of all the Mexicans" and "I don't care how many people you raped as long as you hate abortion" and "The press is the enemy of the people."

I will happily vote for Sanders or Warren or Barney the Purple goddamn Dinosaur over that.

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2019 6:14:21 PM

Fucking Biden lmao.

Quote :

"would have voted for Hillary Clinton, absent her disgustingly cavalier handling of highly sensitive classified materials, and I almost did anyway out of desperation in the face of a potentially existential threat to the future of America (I waited until the polls were about to close to check and make sure she was on-track to win, before leaving the Presidential race blank.)"

Wait what? Don't you live in Florida? She LOST Florida.

And you are literally "...but her emails" guy smfh.

Your premise is you'll be happy to vote for democrats as long as they're almost Republicans. I frankly don't give much of a shit about how Trump is human garbage and is openly corrupt, that's a problem but it pails in comparison to the main problem. Which is that he is aggressively pushing REPUBLICAN POLICIES AND JUDGES.

And your response is that you'll just leave, which means you don't care about some imaginary "American values", you care about amassing and keeping as much money as possible. Which, I mean, do you, but why try to convince us the country should coddle you?

Quote :

"might well be straight-ticket GOP post-Trump, if the GOP were to return to some semblance of normalcy"

99% of elected Republican officials are all in for Trump. Do you expect all those people to be primaried or will you just wait for them to say "lol just kidding guys, Trump is a jerk am I right??"

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 6:19 PM. Reason : E]

2/12/2019 6:14:35 PM

Quote :

"Which, I mean, do you, but why try to convince us the country should coddle you?"

The unspoken premise here is that """""""moderate"""""" Republicans such as him and others like him are the "real" *ahem* Americans that have the political power to sway an election. And that the sea of poor Americans who are too economically depressed or have such precarious existences don't really count and aren't worthy of redress.

2/12/2019 6:22:35 PM

Quote :

"You don't get to make bold policy until you win an election. You win an election through rhetoric and language."

This actually isn't entirely true. A vast majority of New Deal legislation was passed and pushed through because FDR was able to convince the capitalist and business owning tycoons of the time that failure to relinquish some of their wealth would lead to outright revolution.

But yes, you do have to be in power before you can push forth an agenda. I agree with you on that, which is why I think it is important to push someone who has a vision you most agree with, and not settle for a Booker who wants to play politics like it's still the mid aughts and "reach across the aisle" to work with a party that has fuckin' nazi's in their corner. Republicans have mastered the art of leading when they are in power, and also driving the agenda when they are not in power. What democrats need is someone who see's them as opposition, and not someone who see's them as their co-worker or friend.

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2019 6:30:08 PM

Quote :

"Grumpy will you vote in the Dem primary?"

Yes, of course; even if I weren't so concerned about the Presidential election, the Democratic Primary is really the only election that matters here in D.C. Honestly the general election here is such a foregone conclusion that I'm not even sure I'd show up if my wife didn't make me.

Quote :

"But yes, you do have to be in power before you can push forth an agenda. I agree with you on that, which is why I think it is important to push someone who has a vision you most agree with, and not settle for a Booker who wants to play politics like it's still the mid aughts and "reach across the aisle" to work with a party that has fuckin' nazi's in their corner. "

See, I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that this is how Booker (or Harris, or whoever) would operate. For one thing, the President isn't king. Whoever wins, there seems to be a pretty good chance they'll be working with a much more progressive, left-leaning Congress than we've seen in some time. To work with that Congress (and probably to win the primary), any "moderate" candidate will have to tack left. It might not be the most sincere move, but laws are laws regardless of the sincerity of the person signing them. Would a moderate President enacting policies that you like be the worst thing in the world?

2/12/2019 6:42:55 PM

Quote :

"Your premise is you'll be happy to vote for democrats as long as they're almost Republicans."

...or what Republicans would view as "almost Democrats." Yeah. That's what I want.

and if you don't want to cater to me, then that's cool, you have your reasons, political or ideological. Just don't act like I'm the bad guy when you abandon me and I don't come running to you.

Quote :

"99% of elected Republican officials are all in for Trump. Do you expect all those people to be primaried or will you just wait for them to say "lol just kidding guys, Trump is a jerk am I right??" "

Well...yeah. Trump enjoys overwhelming fealty among Republicans, as long as his popularity among his base demands it...but it has always been a shotgun wedding to a significant degree. At any rate, I'm talking about a post-Trump GOP.

Quote :

"The unspoken premise here is that """""""moderate"""""" Republicans such as him and others like him are the "real" *ahem* Americans that have the political power to sway an election. And that the sea of poor Americans who are too economically depressed or have such precarious existences don't really count and aren't worthy of redress. "

1. "Moderate Republican" is an oversimplification; I haven't been registered (R) since 2015, and I have been only a tepid and occasional vote in the R-column for probably a dozen years before that. I'd say 50% at most, and I'm not sure I averaged that. I voted for probably triple the number of Dems that I did Republicans in the last election.

2. The rest is 2+ separate arguments. (a) People like me have power to sway elections at times because of our centrism, sitting out elections and specific races, voting for both sides (whether it's 50/50, 25/75, or 25/75 individually, it makes no difference in aggregate). (b) I think there's some case that America is, at its core ideals, neither "about" a coddling welfare state or a nationalist-populist, bigoted, know-nothing group of bottom feeders.

and (c), that isn't my argument, anyway, spoken or unspoken. My explicitly stated argument is that you can be attendant to me and people like me or not, but you can't have it both ways, and I don't think the political calculus is not as clear-cut and one-sided as you apparently believe.

and (d) to my point about "fuck it, I'll leave if I have to" is to explain why I'm all-in. I'm not going to support "shitty but survivable, jesus, i'll vote for any democrat no matter how godawful, because i have no choice." I'm in it to win, and if it doesn't work out, I'll pull the ejection handle.

Quote :

"And you are literally "...but her emails" guy smfh."

Goddamn right, proudly. What she did was appalling and, except in a case of some dystopian one-in-a-million nightmare like her running against Donald Trump for the Presidency of the United States, should be immediately and firmly disqualifying for the office.

2/12/2019 6:52:32 PM

Quote :

"who wants to play politics like it's still the mid aughts and "reach across the aisle" to work with a party that has fuckin' nazi's in their corner. Republicans have mastered the art of leading when they are in power, and also driving the agenda when they are not in power. What democrats need is someone who see's them as opposition, and not someone who see's them as their co-worker or friend. "

I actually agree with that to a way larger extent than you would think, in this insane case where, as you say, the other party has literal fucking Nazis in their corner.

I'm all for the Dems being hard-liners in their opposition (other than destructive idiocy like where the GOP lost our AAA credit rate over a quixotic fight where they had no chance). I mostly want the Dems, right now, to fight tooth and nail, grind the works to a halt, scorch the earth, smite the future generations.

I just want them to be viciously obstructionist in favor of sensible, moderate policies--not fringe ones. Extreme in the resistance against the GOP, not extreme in their policy advocacy.

[Edited on February 12, 2019 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2019 6:58:13 PM

The only democrat that would actually beat trump now in electoral votes is Biden

Trump 45% v. @JoeBiden 55%
Trump 47% v. @ewarren 53%
Trump 49% v. @SenSanders 51%
Trump 48% v. @KamalaHarris 52%
Trump 47% v. @BetoORourke 53%
Trump 49% v. @amyklobuchar 51%
Trump 49% v. @CoryBooker 51%
Trump 48% v. @SherrodBrown 52%

http://emersonpolling.com/2019/02/16/majority-of-americans-disagree-with-trumps-national-emergency-despite-a-plurality-agreeing-with-border-wall-extension/

However you’d hope the other candidates can only gain from this point...

2/17/2019 10:23:43 PM

i'm surprised that none of the rest of that loathsome field can beat Trump at the moment. You'd think that beating Trump at this point would be like clubbing baby seals. Not surprising that Biden fairs the best, and he's not even in the race yet.

I'm curious, though, why do you think the others can only go up? It seems that there's plenty of room to go down; right now they have the benefit to many voters (who are more casual observers than us) that, aside from anything else, they aren't Trump, and that's good enough. Once their shitty policies start getting fleshed out, I can totally see their support eroding.

[Edited on February 17, 2019 at 10:33 PM. Reason : at the moment]

2/17/2019 10:33:15 PM

You are assuming that people will care about their policies beyond "I'm not Trump." This is going to be an "anybody but..." campaign. Folks will only pretend to care about policies in the primary, same as the 2016 GOP primary.

2/17/2019 10:46:28 PM

I think when the Mueller report drops is going to be a big factor. The later the better at this point.

2/17/2019 11:08:16 PM

^^ Oh I think it'll largely be that--mostly tribal on both sides. I'm saying that I think that poll numbers will move up and down a little based on what people learn about the Dem candidates. What all of them have going for them right now is that they aren't Trump. A year from now, they aren't gonna be any more "not Trump" than right now, but both they and the downsides of the godawful shit they want to do will have been subjected to much more scrutiny and attack.

^ Fuck that, I hope it comes out yesterday, and is so damning that there won't be any choice but for the GOP to feed him to the lions.

2/18/2019 12:14:37 AM

At this point, I don't see how Kamala Harris is allowed within 200 feet of the Democratic Party. Her record as a prosecutor and then as AG are horrifying, including defending prison overpopulation by saying the state needed its slave labor to bring in revenue.

2/18/2019 9:41:39 AM

Quote :

"I think when the Mueller report drops is going to be a big factor. The later the better at this point"

As I said in the other thread, don't get your hopes up


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/11/special-counsel-robert-mueller-may-not-say-anything-russia-probe/1422892002/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/us/politics/mueller-report-release-trump.html

2/18/2019 12:55:50 PM

as long as democrats control at least one chamber of congress, they can subpoena the report or mueller directly

2/18/2019 1:15:47 PM

But would they let moron see it too?

2/18/2019 1:28:39 PM

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-presidential/index.html

oh we back

2/19/2019 6:46:16 AM

TheDuke, An honest question. If you vote less than 50% republican why do you register as such? Im not trolling just curious. I will be fair and say I vote more on the right but I still register as unaffiliated as I dont want any party to rely on my vote. Im wondering if you know something I can learn about why to affiliate given your defined “tepid” voting rate.

2/19/2019 7:22:42 AM

I don’t...I changed my registration to (L), I think in 2015.

I would go (I) or non-affiliated or whatever, but FL has closed primaries, so that’s even more pointless than registering (L). I don’t know why anyone would do that in FL, although I guess people do.

2/19/2019 7:53:55 AM

^you affiliate if you want to vote in a primary, that's pretty much it for most people.


Also the last panel here represents a few people in this thread

2/19/2019 7:53:56 AM

Quote :

"The only democrat that would actually beat trump now in electoral votes is Biden"

I'm still on the fence about Biden. On the one hand, he's a career politician in the worst way, and he's quite old. On the other hand, he's the only Democrat with any kind of foreign policy chops. And while I know that the Democrats of TWW (and really the country as a whole) are laser-focused on domestic issues, foreign policy is the sphere where the President can do the most.

Quote :

"However you’d hope the other candidates can only gain from this point..."

Nah. Some of them might go up as their name recognition improves, some will go down as they have gaffes or skeletons falling out of the closet. And whoever ends up with the nomination might find that their polling suffers as they're forced to commit to policies and suffer Republican attacks.

Mostly all you can take from those numbers is that the vast majority of people are pretty much locked in regardless of the candidate.

Quote :

"I think when the Mueller report drops is going to be a big factor."

I don't think it will be at all. It's taken so long, and the Republicans have spent that time working tirelessly to poison the well. By now, everyone has either decided the truth for themselves: either Trump is being slandered by a Deep State/media conspiracy and did nothing wrong (or at least, nothing so wrong it can't be excused), or he is a puppet of Moscow, held in Putin's thrall by pee pee tapes and real estate promises. When (if) the report comes out, the first crowd will denounce it as a pack of lies everywhere it doesn't exonerate the President. The second will almost certainly be disappointed, since there's no report that could be damning enough to match the list of crimes they've already convicted him of in their own minds. Still, they'll try to make it sound like the death knell of the Trump presidency, just like they've done 800 times before.

Best case, best case scenario, Donald Jr. gets indicted and daddy has to pardon him, which might look shady enough to sway the 4% of likely voters who are still somehow up for grabs.

2/19/2019 8:11:12 AM

You guys ready to feel the Bern?

2/19/2019 10:24:41 AM

You guys ready to feel the Bern?

Lol he might actually get my vote.

2/19/2019 10:25:02 AM

^^^ Polls seem to suggest that support for Robert Mueller and the Special Counsel investigation fluctuates, depending on the investigation's prevalence in any given news cycle. I'm not sure that the public's sentiments are as baked-in as one would think.

2/19/2019 10:54:37 AM

Duke, apologies. I read haven't as have. Makes a lot more sense now. I get the wanting to vote in primaries. I guess I ride the fence because I don't want any party feeling too comfortable with my vote. May be silly but it makes sense to me.

2/19/2019 3:22:08 PM

Yeah, I would absolutely be independent/non-affiliated, except that the only practical thing (as opposed to avoiding feeling like you constantly need a shower) that accomplishes in Florida is to ensure that you can't vote in any primary.

2/19/2019 9:07:13 PM

Quote :

"Polls seem to suggest that support for Robert Mueller and the Special Counsel investigation fluctuates, depending on the investigation's prevalence in any given news cycle."

Sure, "everyone" is hyberbolic, but only by a little bit. Like moron's poll suggests, about 4% of likely voters still seem malleable in their opinions. But my guess it that the Mueller report isn't going to shift them all one way or the other. The undecided half that gets a little bit more of its news from Fox will end up against it, and the half that gets a little bit more from CNN will support it, and nothing will really have changed.

Quote :

"You guys ready to feel the Bern?"

Sigh...leaving aside his electability, I just don't think Bernie would be a very good president. If he wins, the Republicans won't give him an inch, and even the Democrats are going to be less pliable than they might with someone else - after all, Bernie has spent a career of not being a Democrat, except when he wants to run for president. He's got no foreign policy at all; his domestic policies aren't all that terribly well-thought-out; and his trade policies would destroy the economy. Fortunately he wouldn't get to do too much with it because I don't think Congress would let him, especially after the midterms, when a Sanders presidency is guaranteed to bring in a Tea Part wave.

If we're going to go with that wing of the party, I'd certainly prefer President Warren.

2/20/2019 9:38:18 AM