02.05.2020 08:50 AM

I love Joe

My guy.

Brought back by a pal who was down there this week. Why do I think Iowa is good for him? When super delegates see him way down in Iowa and NH, they will stampede to support him in SC and into Super Tuesday. Iowa doesn’t hurt Joe Biden – it helps him.

57 Comments

  1. True but only pledged delegates to the convention can vote on the first ballot, so supers don’t have the power they used to.

  2. This race reminds me more of Clinton vs. Obama. Once the young Kennedys got Ted on board, it was all over for HRC.

    That’s what I expect this time with Pete being the ultimate beneficiary.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Joe says Pete is not Obama. True, but worse for Biden, he’s absolutely no Obama. At least Pete’s got something known as traction.

  3. Dawn Mills says:

    If what you say is true, the game IS rigged by the insiders and old school pols. The Democratic Party showed their corruption in the last go around with the jobbing of Sanders and the coronation of Clinton. And they will try it again?
    Shameless. The LPC must be bowing down in awe.

  4. Tod Cowen says:

    Follow the money. Biden is already lagging in fundraising and cash-on-hand. If that gets worse, he’ll be seriously hobbled–these campaigns are going through $2M+ per week (and that’s US dollars.) He’ll need to increase his pace of fundraising going into Super Tuesday, but it’s hard to see how that will happen unless lightning strikes in the Granite State. I’d hate to be making money calls for Joe this week.

  5. Steve T says:

    Whomever can beat Trump. That should be the only criteria. In my view, that means Biden or Bloomberg.

    Sanders may have some good ideas, but there is a lot of middle American who sees Sanders as borderline communist.

    Pete B is a great candidate as well, but his sexual orientation will again turn off a lot of knuckle-draggers who might otherwise vote against Trump. Have you seen the video circulating of the Dem delegate who asked to withdraw her vote for Pete once she learned he was gay? Atrocious, but sadly part of many people’s mindset. We think we’ve come so far, but clearly we haven’t.

    • Dawn Mills says:

      I watched that video and was struck by the tone. Both parties were respectful to the other…they listened to each other and never yelled, called either a name etc.

      I agree it was sad to see that this still happens, but then again, under what snow drift has this voter been living not to know her Man was gay?

  6. The Doctor says:

    I can’t believe the number of people who think the nominations, and the Presidential election, have essentially been settled in February.

    Trump supporters are doing victory laps, nine months before the election. Meanwhile, even in the Gallup poll, nobody seems to notice or report that Trump is still at a net disapproval rating. At 538, his net disapproval this morning is -8.7. At RCP it’s negative 6.9. To be doing victory laps with numbers like that is borderline delusional. I’m not saying he’s going to lose in November, but can we please remain on earth?

    People are claiming Biden is toast as a result of caucuses — not a primary — in a whitebread rural state that’s about as unrepresentative of America as a whole as you could possibly get.

    One pundit who is actually intelligent pointed out that it’s unprecedented for 5 candidates to all be above double digits in the Iowa caucuses. That’s actually news.

    People really need to keep their pants on. It’s February.

    • Fred from BC says:

      “In my view, that means Biden or Bloomberg.”

      In my view, either of those two will result in a landslide victory for Trump.

      “Sanders may have some good ideas, but there is a lot of middle American who sees Sanders as borderline communist. ”

      Agreed. Up here, Bernie would be the leader of the NDP.

      “Pete B is a great candidate as well, but his sexual orientation will again turn off a lot of knuckle-draggers who might otherwise vote against Trump. ”

      Also agreed (although The Narrative requires that anyone classified as a knuckle-dragger must already vote for Trump).

      ” Atrocious, but sadly part of many people’s mindset. We think we’ve come so far, but clearly we haven’t.”

      That’s why I say Bloomberg is doomed: anti-semitism is apparently on the rise even as anti-homosexual sentiment wanes.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Fred,

        Bloomberg has run up more flags of convenience than yours truly: Republican, Independent and now Democrat.

        Second and far more powerful knock: his Road To Damascus Conversion on Stop and Frisk. That’s more phoney and self-serving than an eleven dollar bill. Funny how his enlightenment never happened while he was still Mayor. Imagine that…!

        • Fred from BC says:

          Yeah, I researched him a bit the other day. He’s a piece of work, for sure…his arrogance may equal (or even exceed) Trump’s.

          If Bloomberg manages to buy his way into the next debate, (like Hillary did with the nomination) there might be open warfare in the Democratic Party.

    • Fred from BC says:

      “At 538, his net disapproval this morning is -8.7. At RCP it’s negative 6.9. To be doing victory laps with numbers like that is borderline delusional. ”

      You forgot to mention that these are Trump’s *highest* numbers yet (“Impeachment? What impeachment?”). What were Obama’s numbers at this point?

      “People are claiming Biden is toast as a result of caucuses ”

      No, Biden is toast because he’s a walking gaffe machine, and demonstrating early signs of senility.

      And if Trump supporters are amused, it’s because of what a complete GONG SHOW the Democrats have shown them so far: so, your app crashed? Really? And your two highest-ranking candidates so far are two of the least likely to actually win the nomination? Wow…

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Fred,

        To be fair, Trump is at least as cognitively impaired as Biden.

      • The Doctor says:

        Fred. A net disapproval rating is his highest number yet. Think about that.

        • Fred from BC says:

          “Fred. A net disapproval rating is his highest number yet. Think about that.”

          I have. You’re not looking at the big picture here, Doc…

          Barack Obama was 4 points lower at this same point in his presidency. Sure, Donald Trump has never had a ‘net’ (love that convenient little qualifier, BTW) approval rating…YET. But it’s coming, and soon.

          The thing you should be more concerned about is the fact that Trump’s numbers have goner up TEN POINTS since the beginning of the impeachment debacle. Think about that. Many people tried to tell the Democrats what a really bad idea it was to go through with that when they had no case and *knew* they had no case (gee, just like the ‘Russian collusion’ thing, right?). They refused to listen. Like a problem gambler who knows he has a bad hand but just can’t stop himself from going ‘all in’ and praying for a miracle. It failed, and now they’re going to pay the price.

          I’ve been saying this here for years, and I’ll say it again: you people are going to re-elect Donald Trump. YOU are. You and everyone else with your spittle-flecked shrieking of one ludicrous fabricated accusation after another (because Trump, right? It’s okay to LIE because he does, is that it?) .

          CNN’s histrionics and Nancy Pelosi’s childish theatrics won’t save you. The only thing that might is some much-needed adult supervision in the Democratic Party, which may then filter down as a calming influence on Hollywood, the MSM and all the other parties responsible for the rise in Donald Trump’s popularity . I won’t hold my breath.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Fred,

            I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion about Trump’s re-election right now. But I temper it by waiting to see who the Democrats actually nominate. That may be a game changer and it may not.

            I also look to the end of his likely second term to see if criminal charges will likely be laid against then Citizen Trump. That part of the story could quite conceivably be even more important than the political story. Maybe Trump will be sweating bullets and perhaps not. Who really knows?

          • The Doctor says:

            Umm, can you give a specific example of a ludicrous fabricated accusation that I have made?

          • Fred from BC says:

            “Umm, can you give a specific example of a ludicrous fabricated accusation that I have made?”

            Sorry, Doc. That was poorly written…I was referencing the collective ‘you’, not you personally. My bad.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “But I temper it by waiting to see who the Democrats actually nominate. That may be a game changer and it may not.”

            I agree. I just don’t see any of the current bunch as being capable.

            The front runners, that is. I like Klobuchar the best, but she hasn’t got a prayer (this time around), and I don’t know enough about Yang or Steyer to predict how either one would do.

          • It’s not just The Doctor. “Ludicrous fabricated accusation” are few and far between amoung Democrats. It was Trump who was ludicriously claiming it was Ukraine that interfered with the election.

    • Michael says:

      Doc,

      “is borderline delusional” you have succinctly summed up Donald J. Trump and the Trump presidency.

  7. Mike says:

    Damn right it will help him. It will light a fire under moderates everywhere. These caucuses are a joke. Who wants to hang around for hours and be harangued by people trying to get you to change your vote. Utter horseshit. And don’t even get me started with young idealistic types who would help Trump get re-elected in their pursuit of pie in the sky.

    • Mike says:

      If anyone saw Biden last night on cnn you saw a genuine caring individual. No where close to senility. That’s just a cheap shot at best. He is what the U.S. needs at this time.

  8. David says:

    Biden can’t keep up with the pace needed…plus his son shenanigans will hurt him plus Joe just does too many gaffes…time to retire

    • Mike says:

      The son thing is s b.s. Board members of big companies are almost always chosen for who they are as opposed to what they know about the particular company. It’s a prestige thing and the son of a Vice President has loads of prestige. Very good look for any company.

  9. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Re: The Impeachment Trial

    God Bless Mitt Romney!

    What a truly incredible human being. Most of us can’t hold a candle next to this gentleman. When God speaks, Romney listens. Others, not so much.

    • Mike says:

      Ronald, you damn sure got that right.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Mike,

        To put it succinctly, when Trump wildly embraced Gallagher, THAT said it all.

        Tonight I plan on hitting all the parties, over at my place, but will keep it generic since almost all of them act exactly the same way…

  10. Mike says:

    I’m always amazed at the projection from right wingers. Trying to paint Democrats with the Trump brush. Trump did play ball with Putin. I have no doubt Putin has the goods on him. He loves dictators and is just a lying scumbag. He a sick pathological mess. IMO anyone who defends him is also sick. Of course I think the far right are mentally unbalanced so it kinda taints my opinion of most Conservatives. The small c Conservative is going the way of the dinosaur, unfortunately.
    End of rant

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Mike,

      Not if MacKay becomes the leader. Peter is classically a moderate.

      • Mike says:

        I agree Ronald but he still does that attack the other side crap. I know they all do it to a point but Conservatives are far more “spittle flecked” about it, to quote one of the resident righties here. If politicians don’t come to realize we are all in the same boat and elevate the discourse we are all doomed. Disagree with policy all you want but the personal animus has to stop.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Mike,

          Virtue signalling and holier-than-thou is absolutely the wrong approach in politics. They work against big-tent politics and rallying around a candidate who truly has the national interest at heart. That unfortunate trait has been demonstrated by the current prime minister and the immediate previous one. It makes for great TV and the party base loves it but it’s not worth one shit in the real world where parties are trying to win national office on a truly grand, if not historic scale.

  11. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Biden and the other Democrats running for the nomination must be happier than pigs in shit: we are finally at Trump Absolutely and Positively Being Trump.

    With the firing of Sondland and Vindman (and his twin brother who has absolutely nothing to do with this), The Real Donald is on display for all to see. Trump lives and breathes to go A Bridge Too Far and BEYOND and I just can’t wait to see him in action between now and November.

    Trump will quite literally do all he can to destroy Trump. Stay tuned.

    • Fred from BC says:

      “With the firing of Sondland and Vindman (and his twin brother who has absolutely nothing to do with this), The Real Donald is on display for all to see.”

      Some political pundits (on both sides) are saying that Trump probably should have purged more Obama appointments than he did, but that he, not being a politician, didn’t understand the extent to which they could later interfere with his Presidency. Other incoming Presidents have done so, and for good reason.

      (and, just to forestall the constant nit-picking from the usual trolls who thrive on that sort of thing, I’m not talking specifically about Vindman, the US Ambassador to Ukraine or anyone else here…)

      Fact is, this isn’t going to hurt Trump at all. Any and all such appointments are *at his pleasure*, and he can fire any of them for any reason he wants, or even *no reason* at all (if he wanted to replace them with someone else, for example). So, he’s firing a couple of people who he feels were disloyal to him? He’s pulling John Bolton’s security clearance? GOOD FOR HIM. Given the number of people in government and the civil service who have been working from within to sabotage his Presidency, I would expect nothing less. In fact, I’d like to see criminal charges brought against any civil servants who use their positions to promote their personal political agendas by leaking classified or private information (in the US *and* in Canada).

      I don’t know, Ron. Either Donald Trump isn’t nearly as dumb as you seem to think he is, or he’s the luckiest man TO EVER LIVE.

      (again, though, we can probably thank his hapless opposition for a lot of his success, can’t we?)

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Fred,

        With respect, it’s one thing to fire someone who hasn’t delivered on a president’s agenda, it’s quite another to do so because that person thought it was his or her duty to respect a Congressional subpoena. Funny, if I get subpoenaed in a legal case, I go or there are legal consequences. That should be the standard, not stretching Executive Privilege into an unrecognizable pretzel. Sure looked fishy, to say the very least.

        Point is, Trump’s mindset is of absolute and totally unaccountable political licence. That means he does whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with no limits. That’s how Trump will bring down Trump. He’ll go way beyond overeach and pay the political price that comes with it.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          As for leakers, Washington D.C. and Ottawa leak like a sieve. Trump’s people leak in their own narrow interest against each other while Trump leaks against members of his own cabinet and Administration. Don’t get me started about bipartisan Congressional leaks. It’s like a pissing contest down there. That type of conduct will never be countered with enforcement, otherwise there would be no one left in Washington. Same thing up here. To wit: a source not authorized to speak about [FILL IN THE BLANKS.]

        • It is illegal to fire someone for testifying in court. What he did is another impeachable offense.

        • Fred from BC says:

          “it’s quite another to do so because that person thought it was his or her duty to respect a Congressional subpoena”

          The key word there being “thought”.

          In fact, it was *not* his duty at all: there’s this little thing called ‘executive privilege’ (long established, used by Washington and Jefferson, et al), and the Democrats were certainly *not* squealing like stuck pigs when Barack Obama used it to prevent Eric Holder testifying about Operation Fast and Furious, were they? Sonlund and Vindman made the conscious *choice* to testify against their boss, and they paid the price .

          (I said this earlier, but I’ll repeat it: when you have a bad hand, you have two choices. Bluff, or fold. These two gambled that their testimony would be enough to bring Donald Trump. They should have folded…)

          “Funny, if I get subpoenaed in a legal case, I go or there are legal consequences. That should be the standard, not stretching Executive Privilege into an unrecognizable pretzel.”

          I actually happen to agree with you, believe it or not, but that really means nothing since the Americans have had, and used, this particular legal maneuver for hundreds of years. Like the ‘electoral college’ thing, no one ever seems to complain about it when it is working to *their* advantage, do they? I’m a realist; I see things as they are, not as I *wish* they were (we have people like Darwin here for that).

          “Point is, Trump’s mindset is of absolute and totally unaccountable political licence. ”

          So…same as Clinton, Obama and every other President in recent memory, then?

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Fred,

            You know as well as I do that Executive Privilege offers you absolutely no cover in the courts if you are trying to cover up a crime. You seem to believe that 100% of what Trump did since being sworn in was not a crime. I don’t happen to share that view as we will perhaps both find out on the day following his last one in office. Now, if Obama committed a crime or covered one up re: Holder, then he should be charged as well. Period, full stop.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            In this Administration, possible crimes are in the eye of the beholder. That’s how Trump sees the world so…smooth sailing is not likely ahead.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “You know as well as I do that Executive Privilege offers you absolutely no cover in the courts if you are trying to cover up a crime. ”

            I do, but we’re not talking about any actual ‘crime’ here, we’re talking about the failed impeachment tactic just attempted by the Democrats…and the very reason that it failed is that there WAS NO CRIME. You expressed the opinion that the people who testified against their boss had no option, but they had two others: refuse to testify, or resign. They chose to testify, which means that they also chose to accept the obvious consequence that would follow.

            “You seem to believe that 100% of what Trump did since being sworn in was not a crime. ”

            Nope. But if it’s not a crime when Obama or Clinton do it, it’s not a crime when Trump does it, either. Was there a specific example you were thinking of?

            And if the Democrats in the House really, seriously believed that a ‘crime’ had been committed they could have (and SHOULD have) gone to the courts. They didn’t, and I’ve already explained why: because they couldn’t have gotten a ruling before the start of the next election, which made the tactic useless to them; if you needed any more proof that the whole impeachment thing was nothing more than a political maneuver designed to give the Democrats a fighting chance in the 2020 American election, THERE IT IS right there.

            Oh, they talked a great line about truth and justice and the protection of democracy, all right…but in the end it was just politics as usual. I find that shameful…you should too.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Fred,

            I agree with paragraph five.

            As for impeachment being shameful, I’ll go for that when Republicans call the Clinton impeachment shameful. And that won’t happen in a month of Sundays…

            In the final analysis, we can differ on whether a crime was committed — read obstruction of justice — but it’s not your or my call. THAT’s the call of federal prosecutors. If I was Trump, I would start sweating early and often. (Just my opinion.)

          • Soliciting something of value from a foreign national for an election is illegal https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

            Going through the courts to enforce a congressional subpoena has only been done in the last 100 years. Before the sargent at arms would enforce it himself. I think that’s how it works in Canada. In court the Trump administration has been arguing they do not have standing and subpoena should be enforced through the threat of impeachment.

      • The right these days is all about simplistic solutions:

        More jail means less crime.
        Give rich people more money and they’ll work harder.
        Give poor people less money and they’ll work harder.

        To be successful right wing politcians have to act dumb, like McKay, but it works much better if you are dumb, like Trump and the Fords.

  12. Mike Jeffries says:

    Biden! No.
    Dems. need a candidate with faster processing power than Trump to shine in the presidential debate. Someone older than Trump can’t.
    Pete demonstrated that well against Biden in the recent debate.
    No, Biden is yesterday’s man. In debates he keeps referring to his past accomplishments because he can’t process forward quickly enough to realize the 2020 decade has nothing to do with Biden’s past!

    • Fred from BC says:

      “Dems. need a candidate with faster processing power than Trump to shine in the presidential debate.”

      For sure, and that is definitely not Joe Biden. Between his questionable mental health and considerable political baggage (never mind his vulnerability on the Ukraine stuff), he’s the second-worst choice the Democrats could make.

  13. David says:

    Joe Biden to New Hampshire voter asking about why he lost in Iowa “you’re a lying dog-faced pony solider”

    He is losing it. Trump would walk over him in debates

    • David,

      No question this will hurt Biden a hell of a lot. What was he thinking? Of course, I won’t go any further because that would make me a concern troll. LOL.

      Full disclosure: I support Pete.

      • David says:

        It was silly to talk to a voter like that, but even above that it was such a odd comment. Lying dog faced pony soldier? Jeez

        • Fred from BC says:

          “It was silly to talk to a voter like that, but even above that it was such a odd comment. Lying dog faced pony soldier? Jeez”

          His ‘defense’ was that it was a quote from a John Wayne movie.

          Unfortunately, it’s not.

    • The Doctor says:

      Trump wouldn’t walk over Biden in debates IMO, but he could very well out-campaign, out sound-bite and successfully out-lie him.

      I think the 2016 debates (which most observers thought Hillary won) showed that for Trump and his supporters, it’s really not about winning Harvard Debating Society points.

  14. PJH says:

    “Biden calls voter a ‘lying dog-faced pony soldier'”

    Say G’bye Joe….

  15. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Doc,

    To use a recent Trump analogy, all Trump’s really got as a crutch is the economy, and if it tanks, à la Carter, between now and November, he’s done.

    • David says:

      Not sure about that; the alternative being Dems big spending programs , but will see! Just don’t Dems are on same side as mainstream voters on issues such as borders, paying for student loans, security etc but I agree there is a long way to go!

      Looks like Biden has cancelled the New Hampshire primary party tonight and has had already headed to South Carolina.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*