Election 2020

Will the Democrats' Go-for-Woke Strategy Cost Them the 2020 Election?

A New York Times poll of six swing states shows the progressive candidates faring worse against President Trump than comparatively moderate Joe Biden.

|

One lesson of 2016's presidential election was that Democrats needed to do a better job courting socially moderate working-class voters who disdain woke progressivism—the kinds of voters who hate political correctness and are distrustful of the social elites who enforce it. This demographic flocked to Donald Trump, handing him narrow victories in the key swing states that decided the election.

This is a phenomenon that could very well repeat itself in 2020, if a recent New York Times poll is any evidence. The survey shows Trump losing to Joe Biden, the comparatively moderate former vice president, but besting both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I.–Vt.).

The poll homed in on six states that will likely decide the election: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida. Here's what they found:

"The Times/Siena results and other data suggest that the president's advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016, raising the possibility that the Republicans could—for the third time in the past six elections—win the presidency while losing the popular vote," writes The New York Times' Nate Cohn.

As Cohn notes, we are still a year away from the election and a lot could change. But historically, these kinds of head-to-head polls have been very accurate, even when taken a year in advance. "On average over the last three cycles, head-to-head polls a year ahead of the election have been as close to the final result as those taken the day before," writes Cohn. And Trump's base of support has proven remarkably stable over the course of his presidency, suggesting that new developments over the next year might not effect his standings.

What these numbers really show, though, is that the strategy adopted by most of the major Democratic candidates—running to the left on virtually every issue—is dangerous. The most notable exception, Biden, is the best bet to beat Trump. Warren, who more closely embodies the left on both economic and cultural issues, could very well lose the election because she's just too woke for a small number of key swing voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania. There aren't a lot of people who would vote for Biden over Trump but not Warren over Trump, but there may just be enough of them to make this president a two-termer if she gets the nomination.

"Of voters who support Mr. Biden but not Ms. Warren, 52 percent agree with the statement that Ms. Warren is too far to the left for them to feel comfortable supporting her for president, while 26 percent disagree," the poll found.

The Democrats really need to treat this like a wake up call. So far, most of the candidates have behaved as if the key to ultimate victory is mobilizing Oberlin College students. While some candidates have expressed skepticism about Medicare for All, on a host of other progressive policy issues—the Green New Deal, gun confiscation, whether transgender child activists should pick the next secretary of education—the debates have seemed like a competition to be the most woke. Beto O'Rourke, who recently dropped out of the race, went as far as to say that churches should lose tax-exempt status for opposing gay marriage. His pivot, from a moderate Democrat who performed well against Ted Cruz in the 2018 Texas Senate race to an out-of-touch progressive scold, predictably doomed him.

An extremely progressive Democrat could very well wipe the floor with Trump in the national popular vote. After all, most anti-Trump people are going to vote for the Democratic candidate regardless. But the national popular vote did not make Hillary Clinton president, and it is just as irrelevant to this election. The Democrats need to pay attention to the swing states, where there is indeed a cost to running so far to the left.

NEXT: Supreme Court as Superweapon

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Will the Democrats’ Go-for-Woke Strategy Cost Them the 2020 Election?”

    More than likely, yes.

    1. One can only hope.

    2. I don’t buy this pol.I think Bernie has a shot. Whereas, Trump would wipe the floor with Biden who stands for nothing. Warren, I just don’t know.

  2. It will likely cost the Democrats 2020. But, after that, it is a strategy that will pay dividends. I do not see any Republican candidate being capable of emulating Trump’s unique brand of brashness, which is really the only way to stem the tide of the Marxist assault. Republicans seem far too comfortable, as a general matter, to settle into the role of a referee in a fight over civility. Democrats, on the other hand, are more than willing to punch the referee in the face.

    1. Trump threw his hat into the ring on a lark, and look what happened. Who knows what other bombastic buffoon will toss their hat into the ring in 2024?

        1. Maybe some right-winger in Hollywood or something. Is Chuck Norris still alive? He could kick some ass. Perhaps Adam Baldwin will run on an “I’ll be in my bunk” platform. Who fucking knows?

          1. Jon Voigt 2024!
            If you don’t vote for him, he might bite you

            1. Joe Pesci – he don’t take shit from nobody

              Tom Selleck – talk to the stash

              Ben Stein – Voters? Voters? Voters?

              1. Gary Bussey: Whaaaa?

        2. There is nothing more American than a political dynasty.

      1. McAfee will be back, jack.

        1. I’d register to vote if he ran.

        2. Count me in.

          He bring out the HODLR vote for sure.

      2. Ross Perot got 19% of the vole in 92. He may have won if he didn’t go cookoo in the middle of the campaign. He ran on issues similar to Trump’s. Note to LP, open borders and one way trade won’t even get you elected to Dog Catcher.

    2. Maybe. The problem is that losing the election and likely the Congress with it is going to create a lot of problems for the Democratic party. The sane members will blame the lunatics. The lunatics will blame the sane ones for nothing allowing them to be bigger lunatics. The party could have a very hard time uniting behind a new candidate in 2024.

      I am not sure what happens after Trump on the Republican side. You are right there will not be another like him. But remember, Trump won and will win again if he does because he rejects open borders and free trade at any cost. I think if the Republicans run a candidate who has the same positions, they would have a chance at keeping his coalition together.

      1. Trump won and will win again if he does because he rejects open borders and free trade at any cost.

        Does this mean you admit that those policies have a cost?

        1. Those policies do have a cost. And they are rejected by large portions of the electorate. Amazingly, people are not that interested in suffering for other people’s principles and benefit. Who knew?

          1. Amazingly, people are happy to break windows because they see all the economic activity that it generates.

            http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

            1. When that activity benefits other people and costs them their jobs, not so much. Again, if you think free trade with anyone under any conditions even when they don’t allow access to our markets, use slave labor, steal our intellectual property and it results in our being dependent on an adversary for huge swaths of our manufacturing and even that related to national security, good for you. Go run on that platform. I wish you luck.

              1. Like I said, seen and unseen. It’s counter intuitive. So most people don’t get it. Which means running on the unseen is guaranteed to fail. Doesn’t mean it’s not better economics.

                1. There is more to life and to national policy than short term economic growth or cheap consumer goods. Moreover, the arguments made by people like Bassat and Richardo assume two nations operating under more or less the same legal regimes. If one side is operating under different laws and conditions that allow it to use slave labor for example or without regard to intellectual property, then Bassat and Ricardo’s models don’t work.

                  Also, even to the extent they do, they only claim to result in more wealth overall not necessarily for every party or nation involved. Yeah, totally free trade between the US and Mexico will result in greater overall wealth, but that doesn’t mean the US is better off than it would have otherwise been. It may be that it isn’t but that Mexico is so much better off that the aggregate of the two is greater. Good for Mexico but not a very good deal for the US.

                  1. I asked this in another thread, an interesting hypothetical I came across.
                    If Nazi Germany didn’t invade/go to war with anyone, just carried out the Holocaust entirely within their own borders while building up a formidable military machine, would restrictions on trade with them be wrong?
                    Would the free traders here demand tariff free imports in that case?
                    Genuinely curious

                    1. I’d be interested to see Don Boudreaux’s response to that. You should email him. Maybe he’ll respond on cafehayek.

                    2. Remember South Africa and apertheid?

                      The response would be more intense.

                    3. If Nazi Germany didn’t invade/go to war with anyone, just carried out the Holocaust entirely within their own borders while building up a formidable military machine, would restrictions on trade with them be wrong?

                      Restrictions on trade *imposed by the state*? Well yes, because in every case where the state imposes sanctions for some moral reason, it is because the state is substituting its moral judgment for that of the people.

                      If it’s morally wrong to trade with the Nazis, then the state doesn’t need to impose this moral belief on the people by force. Individuals will freely boycott Nazi Germany products by their own choice.

                      If you really support freedom of association, then you have to support even the freedom of association of Nazis. And if American Nazis want to trade with German Nazis, then the state shouldn’t stop them – again, based on your hypothetical, where they are not in a state of war with the US.

                  2. I don’t see economics as a competition between people who are bound by political boundaries.

                    1. That pie is fixed. There are only so many pieces and I won’t hear otherwise.

        2. Does this mean you admit that those policies have a cost?

          Of course.

          However, your reference to Bastiat suggests that perhaps it is a cost that you are not seeing.

          When John references ‘free trade at any cost’ he is suggesting that attempting to engage in free, honest, and open trade with those who are not doing so is a fools game.

          When Trump offered such at the beginning of his tenure he was laughed at–and he probably knew that such would be the case.

          Because there are empires available to be skimmed from the farce so many defend as ‘free’ trade.

          And by ‘free’ trade I mean managed trade deals wherein the claws of the US are pulled in the name of free trade, while the claws of those the US trades with are sharpened–the better to pull huge gouts of bloody lucre back to the cash-starved managed economies who deaths would only become more violent without them.

          It is not a question of broken windows–it is an instance of a thumb on the scales

      2. “Trump won and will win again if he does because he rejects open borders”

        Wrong. Remember what Nick Gillespie says: more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” This proves the Koch / Reason open borders agenda has gone mainstream.

        1. South and Central Americans? Sure thing.

        2. Yes, immigration is good. Unlimited immigration without restrictions is not. This isn’t a hard concept to understand.

          1. Freedom of movement, housing, renting, selling, buying and working are even simpler.

            1. Just so long as I don’t have to pay for their movement, housing, rent, food, education, etc. by welfare dollars forcefully taken from me and handed to them I would agree with you.

              If you’re going to take money from me against my will to provide things to other people, can’t I at least ask that the other people be legal citizens and not criminals (including immigration law-breakers) if nothing else?

      3. But remember, Trump won and will win again if he does because he rejects open borders and free trade at any cost.

        Trump actually doesn’t reject free trade. He’s made blatant proposals for completely free trade with other nations–Canada, for example–but on the condition that it’s not a one-way street. We’re talking no restrictions, no tariffs, nothing, but that’s why they get rejected out of hand, because no country with its own self-interest in mind will have completely free trade, even with the United States.

        Whether deliberately or not, Trump’s showing the fallacy of proposing a truly free trade international market. When the rubber hits the road, no one on earth will actually implement it, even ones with ostensibly friendly countries.

        1. Fair point. He is just endorsing the country act in its own interests.

      4. I’m not a fan of Trump, but I can see his power and if a future candidate runs on those policies they’ll probably win and they’ll be begging for Trump’s recommendation and support just to get the voters.
        Imagine that. Future republicans actually wanting Trump’s approval as president. It’s like a movie.
        This comes back to the original problem. Liberals don’t take the time to think those few extra steps ahead. They wanted a world where the marginalized minority had a vote and they gave them all the tools to have it. The minority they didn’t like used it much better. In fact, they had to lie about their minority, but people with jobs (or those who no longer had jobs) didn’t have to lie and won.
        If you look deeply into it all there is a certain beauty to it.

      5. One plus is that the Never Trumpers have lost any semblance of credibility on the Right. If Jen Rubin likes somebody, literally nobody else will.

  3. OK because you motherfucker are stupid.

    Trump voters don’t trust you, and they don’t trust pollsters, and they refuse to participate or give answers that spoil the results.

    Congrats. You’re getting played again.

    1. when did you turn into a right-winger? i am so confused

      1. When I left my screen name unguarded during a rampant meth fueled sock puppet binge.

        1. “”a rampant meth fueled sock puppet binge.””

          Come on, you are no Hihn.

        2. Either way Kiddie Raper, you’re a big pedophile and generally an evil piece of shit.

        3. Whenever I do that I wind up having strangers over for sex and end up with more meth. I don’t often change political views.

      2. This is the new, improved, silicone butt plug, not the old wooden model.

      3. He doesn’t have to agree with Trump voters to recognize that pollsters got rolled by the Trump voters who were/are unwilling to tell pollsters that they want to vote for Trump or are at least going to hold their nose and do so.

    2. If I remember correctly, it was found after the 2016 election that something like 50% of Trump supporters & 25% of Hillary supporters lied about who they’d support during the election, saying either a 3rd party or the other candidate. Since trust in the media has only gone down since then, and most polls try to get a few more dems then GOPs (ex, the “Should Trump be impeached poll”), they can say that Biden’s gonna beat Trump all they like, the truth will be quite different.

      1. most of us just don’t answer the phone anymore.

  4. “But historically, these kinds of head-to-head polls have been very accurate,”

    So it had Trump crushing Hillary in the electoral college like he did?

    Oh.

    1. Please give that username back to the real Mr. Buttplug. It was unfortunate when he lost his password and had to create the “moneyshot” account. I’d hate to see him have to do that again.

      1. It’s like an alternative universe today.

        I agree with Butt Plug; never ever thought I’d see the day.

        1. Ah, the glory of stealing things when the owner is sockpuppeting.

      2. “I’d hate to see him have to do that again.”

        Ok, that was funny.

        1. Indeed. OBL hit a home run with that one.

  5. “While some candidates have expressed skepticism about Medicare for All, on a host of other progressive policy issues—the Green New Deal, gun confiscation, whether transgender child activists should pick the next secretary of education—the debates have seemed like a competition to be the most woke.”

    This is a good thing for us Koch / Reason libertarians. The Democratic Party — which still pretends to oppose the billionaire agenda — has almost totally embraced Charles Koch’s position on immigration. Why did that happen? Because of “wokeness” — Democrats became convinced border enforcement is inherently racist.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders

    1. By the way, Elizabeth Warren would beat Drumpf easily if she gets the nomination. Don’t trust those polls.

    2. and they’ve dropped feminism and gay rights in deference to welcoming ultra-conservative Muslim immigrants with open arms.

  6. The survey shows Trump losing to Joe Biden

    Given that Joe Biden makes Grandpa Simpson sound coherent, I wonder about this. I just have a vision of Biden showing up to the next debate without pants on because he forgot to put them on.

    1. He has a staffer that takes care of that. Not in a Katie Hill kind of way.

      1. he probably has one of those too

      2. Ms. Hill can be my staffer in charge of pants.

    2. Even the Democrats I know admit Joe isn’t playing with a full deck anymore. And Warren is completely devoid of charisma or likability. The only candidate they have who I think could have convinced the country to like her and let her in their living rooms for four years was Gabbard, and most Democrats hate her guts.

      1. I see Warren as Hillary 2.0. Every statement is preplanned, none of it is believable, she looks down on the middle class (to say the least), and if she laughed she would have to rehearse it in advance.

        Basically, Hillary without the overt criminal corruption.

        1. Hillary without any hint of economic centrism. Hillary understood enough to at least pretend to not be a socialist. You can’t say the same for Warren. She is Hillary without any of the few good qualities Hillary had. Hillary is a liar and a crook but I don’t think she is a full on socialist the way Warren is.

          1. Not sure how good of a thing that is. Warren is a (phony) socialist. Hillary is a full-blown Hillaryist.

            1. Hillary at least could be counted on to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Hillary just wants to punish her enemies and stay in power. She is smart enough to realize destroying the economy is a real hindrance to doing that. Warren in contrast is a true believer and could be counted on to always do the wrong thing no matter what the cost.

              1. Listen….The moniker ‘America’s Mother-In-Law’ fits Senator Fauxahontas to a T. She is thoroughly unlikable (just like Heels Up Harris) and she just cannot connect to the average American.

                Did you see her YouTube spot on beer? Fucking ridiculous. People look at that, do the huge-ass eyeroll, and say to themselves, “Is she fucking serious?”

                That Pete Butthead guy is the one to watch for.

                1. She is absurd but she does have a following among Democrats. I don’t think Butthead does. He just creeps people out.

                  1. I think you’re underestimating Buttigieg. The dems would vote for him if he can stay alive through the purity tests of the primary, he’d earn back a lot of midwest people and he’d appeal a lot to independents.

                    His main issue is getting through the primary.

                    1. Pete is a Georgia Governor truther. That is going to hurt a lot.

                2. “The moniker ‘America’s Mother-In-Law’ fits Senator Fauxahontas to a T”

                  Been telling my friend that for months.
                  No self-respecting male will ever vote for her

          2. But Bernie said she’s a capitalist!

            1. From which of his homes did he say that?

          3. “She is Hillary without any of the few good qualities Hillary had.”

            Fucking awesome, John. Who would have thought being a fucking bitch would be a good quality!

          4. I think Hillary is an economic centrist. Who else is going to feed the Clinton foundation money except billionaires?
            Warren is going to be getting much money from billionaires, so she doesn’t think there should be any.

        2. She’s also Hillary minus the warmth and friendliness.

      2. I could see Buttiegeg getting the nomination if he can show that his inexperience isn’t gonna kill him. He might even be able to win the general if he walks everything back and stops endorsing crazy liberal shit, but honestly, he’s a long shot. I don’t think him being gay is gonna hurt or help him, I feel most folks are going to focus on policy, and anyone who won’t vote for him because he’s gay wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. He and Gabbard are the biggest threat imo because they can be likable and can appear moderate if the looney left gives them a chance to get past the primary. (I’m not endorsing him, I’ll take Trump over any of these clowns, and I’ll take a competent Libertarian over Trump)

        1. Oh, there are certain demographics that a significant portion of will decide not to vote based on the D candidate being gay.
          And those demographics are vital to D chances

        2. If the DNC runs a rump ranger they can kiss the Black and Latino vote goodbye.

        3. ” I don’t think him being gay is gonna hurt or help him…”

          Speak for yourself. If he did debates in a leather harness surrounded by twinks and drag queens he has my vote.

    3. I don’t believe those numbers for a minute, for two reasons.

      First, as we saw in 2016 national polling tends to understate Trump’s support by 1-2%, so Trump is even or comfortably ahead of Biden in all six states.

      Second, Biden is ahead largely because the voters are supporting the image of Lovable Old Joe from the Obama Administration, not Doddering Old Joe from the retirement center. Especially since Joe will be obligated to throw sops to the Left in order to get their support for the nomination.

  7. I agree with Rageaholic… 100% of the Dem candidates raising their hands when asked if their National Health Plan would cover illegal immigrants was the moment they lost.

      1. Youtuber. He can rant like nobody else. Entertaining for the sheer rantiness of his rants.

        1. Ranting is a by product of addiction to rageohol

    1. Just play it over and over in a campaign ad.

    2. 100% of the Dem candidates raising their hands when asked if their National Health Plan would cover illegal immigrants was the moment they lost.

      it bugs the hell out of me the Republicans will not capitalize on this.

      the costs are horrifying, but they are secondary. Citizens don’t want to pay for illegals to have healthcare. Period.

      1. Give them time; they don’t need to do anything now.

        But when the nominee becomes clear, they can use that massive Trump campaign war chest to fire a devastating double-barreled salvo of banning fracking and welfare for illegals at the nominee.

        And because the Media willhave coddled the Democrats throughout this entire process they won’t know how to respond.

        1. Don’t forget the “hell yes we’ll take your AR”. Beto might have said it, but no one else on stage disagreed, and a few also jumped in with their own shit.

      2. No point hammering on it now. Find out who the opponent will be and THEN blast them.

  8. Please, “home in” not “hone in”.

  9. I see Warren as Hillary 2.0. Every statement is preplanned, none of it is believable, she looks down on the middle class (to say the least), and if she laughed she would have to rehearse it in advance.

    Basically, Hillary without the overt criminal corruption.

  10. comparatively moderate Joe Biden.

    To accept this framing we would need to accept that “moderate” Dems believe Mitt Romney Republicans want to literally re-enslave blacks, in his words to a black audience they want to “put ya’ll back in chains”.

    As it happens I agree this is moderate for a Dem politician. I just want everyone to understand what they are agreeing to.

    1. And that “moderate” dems believe in government funded healthcare for all immigrants who want to come here.

    2. If the Democrats really wanted to win, they would draft Mitt Romney as their candidate.

    1. Then when the entire internet called him on being such an idiot, he comes back and says “apparently people were really triggered by my asking a simple question.” Any time a blue check says something stupid and gets called on it, they claim everyone was just “triggered”. Ah, no, you said something stupid and people laughed at you. No one was triggered about anything.

      1. I didn’t read any of the followup tweets and I really hope people didn’t say anything awful… but it tells me something’s very wrong with… ok I don’t even know what… I didn’t get “taught” that in school so I can’t blame “the education system” at least not directly. I suspect the problem is more meta than that.

        1. you’re new to Twitter, I see. Saying awful things is the point.

        2. I can understand him not knowing what each color is. What I can’t understand is him not knowing that it is the result of agriculture and having no idea what it was. Just what does that idiot think they do with the land out there? It amazes me someone could be that ignorant.

          1. I remember as a teenager when I first started to see circular fields- which I believe are called “Center Pivot Irrigation”. When I was a young kid, I didn’t remember seeing them and then suddenly they started popping up more in my elder teenage years.

            But I just can’t imagine someone doesn’t know what agriculture in general looks like from a plane unless you’ve never been out of the goddamned bubble.

        3. And ironic that the guy who defines himself as “populist left” doesn’t even recognize farms when he sees them.

          Is that a rumbling I hear from the grave of William Jennings Bryant?

        4. The thread is worth a read.
          Good riffing.
          Didn’t see anything too mean

      2. Does it occur to him that maybe asking such a question on Twitter removes all doubt about what a colossal ignoramus he is?

        Sharing every notion that pops into head is never a good idea.

        1. I agree with FoE below. I kinda feel sorry for him. He’s entered adulthood, has attained a blue checkmark and is confounded by very basic things that are… literally in flyover country.

          1. “Hey, guys! I actually looked down from the plane window, and guess what I saw!”

      3. I think a part of it is that terms like “triggered” and “snowflake” really sting the lefties, so they try to redefine the terms to deflect them on to their opponents.

      4. “Sorry my wonderment isn’t sufficiently cultured or edgy.”

        That’s . . . not the thing.

    2. I feel sorry for the guy. The hate is unnecessary. But, then, I’ve always been a person of love.

        1. I love Mr. Turner’s thought provoking book on feminism, ‘Women’s be Thinkin’ too Much’.

      1. it’s not hate, its a learning experience. Let him see what it feels like when the shoe’s on the other foot. I’m not nearly as nice a person as you.

      2. I would feel sorry for him if he and his kind, who can’t identify agricultural land and don’t know the difference between Holsteins and Herefords didn’t spend so much time trying to tell me and other farmers and ranchers how to do our jobs.

    3. If someone told him it’s “Global Warming” he would have believed it.

      1. In the thread someone did mention global warming tongue in cheek.

  11. The woke think that opposing affirmative action is racist, opposing gay marriage is homophobic, and wanting to build a wall on our southern border is xenophobic–and Liz Warren is campaigning on promises to stop such people from being able to speak their minds on social media.

    One of the biggest reasons why Trump won in 2016 is that progressives convinced erstwhile Democrats that they hated them if they were white, blue collar, middle class, or especially Christian. The same thing happened in 1980 and 1984, which is why Ronald Reagan kicked the Democrats’ asses so hard.

    “Reagan Democrats no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos and other groups.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat#Overview

    The same thing could have been said about the registered Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016–and it’s the same way today. Notice, we’re talking about the same states, too. It was the rust belt swing states that gave Reagan his huge victories, and it’s rust belt swing states that put Trump in office, too.

    I know it’s hard for progressives to understand that when you tell white, blue collar, middle class people that you hate them for being white, blue collar, and middle class long enough, those people might start to believe them. After all, self hatred is a big part of what being a woke progressive is all about. Unfortunately for woke progressives, self-hatred doesn’t sell as well in Peoria as it does in New York and Los Angeles.

    Makes it easy for someone like Reagan or Trump who shows up in town and makes like he really likes you–rather than hates you.

    1. The woke think that opposing affirmative action is racist,

      Not just opposing AA, but also thinking it’s ok to be white:

      http://www.kmov.com/news/it-s-okay-to-be-white-flyers-found-on-university/article_0ef8eaf5-b07f-5e5b-a320-30210ef2f8b3.html

      ““Have no doubt that we are treating this as an attack on our university community and making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished. I am fully committed to the absolutely necessary goal this does not happen again. We must be ever vigilant to protect our university against these hateful attacks,” Clark said in a letter.”

      1. The left is literally making war on the white middle and lower class. And everyone is too afraid to say anything about it. If something isn’t done, there is going to be a serious white identity movement in this country.

        1. “A serious white identify movement.”

          And that is how real nazis get made.

          1. Yes it is. If reasonable voices are not heard, then they will be replaced by unreasonable ones. All the cowardice by the mainstream right over this issue accomplishes is to make truth tellers out of the white supremacists.

          2. Sometimes it seems like they secretly want to create reactionaries.

          3. And that is how real nazis get made.

            Nick Fuentes, could you please pick up the white courtesy phone?

    2. Ken….Please stop helping them. 😛

      1. The woke can’t stop hating the white, blue collar, middle class and telling them about it because hating the white, blue collar, middle class and telling them about it is what being woke is all about.

      2. I’ve directly told them this same thing, and they just blow it off because they’re utterly convinced of their moral superiority.

    3. “Makes it easy for someone like Reagan or Trump who shows up in town and makes like he really likes you–rather than hates you.”

      Is Tom Hanks like Reagan or Trump?

      1. Tom Hanks a millionaire Hollywood actor?

        1. I’ll make sure to ask him next time he shows up in town and makes like he really likes me.

    4. Mondale and Dukakis would be Republicans now.

  12. I can’t help wondering what those who will support Biden will do if he is not the nominee. The poll suggests they will go for Trump but will that really be the case. In 2016 Trump was the disruptor and won. In 2020 the title of disruptor may not be as clear cut. Both Warren and Sanders have, like Trump before them, set the goal to change the political culture. So assuming the election in the battleground states is Trump v Warren both candidates will be arguing to disrupt the system. The deciding votes could in this case go either way.

    Finally two things to consider, one Warren has not spent a lot of time in the battleground states and that will change later in the primary. Her presence could sway reluctant voters. Second, if Warren is the nominee she will need to reach out to moderates. I don’t think she will go into November a red hot fire brand.

    1. Warren would be the least appealing candidate to the black community the Democrats have ever run. She would have zero chance of getting the levels of black turnout Obama did. And without that kind of black turnout, it is going to be very hard for any Democrat to win.

      1. What is the basis for this comment? We know that black communities like Biden. I don’t think there is any evidence that they don’t like Warren.

        1. http://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/02/elizabeth-warren-black-voters-support-2020-016649

          She is currently getting 10% of the black vote. That is up from 2% a few months ago. That Politico article at the link is a puff piece and the best they can say for her is “sure she never had any significant support before but now she has 10%”. There has never been a Democratic nominee in my lifetime at least who garnered so little support among black Democrats.

          1. The main issue is what turnout amongst black males would be with a Warren candidacy. Nearly all black women will pull the D lever no matter who’s nominated, but the men will typically choose between that or staying home if they don’t actually like the candidate.

            Trump did better than Romney with black and Hispanic voters. Black men went for Trump by 13%–if he improves those numbers, or at least causes a depression in voter turnout, which a Warren candidacy just might accomplish, then there’s not much the Dems can do to get back the “blue wall.” It just further solidifies them as a coastal, megacity, idpol yuppie party.

            1. Not just black males but Hispanic males as well. A bitchy old white woman is not going to command a lot of support among black and Hispanic men or really any men who are not totally woke and voting Democrat anyway.

              1. I’d say any man that has a modicum of self-respect won’t vote for a woman who acts like a hectoring, know-it-all mother-in-law. That’s a big reason why Biden remains so viable despite demonstrating signs of senility–he comes across like some goofy uncle that says funny things, not a finger-wagging scold shrieking that she wants to speak to the manager.

                1. “I’d say any man that has a modicum of self-respect won’t vote for a woman who acts like a hectoring, know-it-all mother-in-law. ”

                  Wow, a little misogynistic are we not?

                  1. No not at all. Rejecting overt misandry is not misogyny. Warren and the entire left hate men and mean them harm.

                    1. Doubling down I see.

                    2. On pointing out the obvious, yes I am.

                    3. John let me translate prog speak for you: calling out misandry is misogyny don’t you know?

                  2. Oh hey, the old “if you don’t agree with me completely you must be a (input your choice of -ist here)”

                  3. Not at all. Tulsi Gabbard is far preferable to Elizabeth Warren.

            2. It’s something how Black people actually vote their economic interests and White people vote for things like who is the least woke and on abortion. Question: are Black people smarter than White people— or, I guess the question might be: are poor Whites the dumbest demographic in American politics. I mean, i’m Pretty well-off so Trump is basically ok with me if I could get past his douchebaggery and lies, which— as a family value’s voter— I can’t.

              1. And your wife is Morgan Fairchild.

                1. To whom I’m married.

              2. So you are saying blacks are going to vote for Trump. Blacks currently have the lowest unemployment rate in history.

                That is a bold prediction.

                1. I’m wondering how poor Blacks are going to vote vis-a-vis poor White people. The former vote on economics. The latter on whether someone can go to an abortion clinic. Who’s smarter?

                  1. So you’re actually going with “voting for a politician based on their promise of economic gain” is smart?

                    So Trump voters are smart you’re saying?

                    1. ‘Smart’ is relative. For example, from your perspective, everyone here is a super genius.

              3. “…Question: are Black people smarter than White people—…”

                I have a suspicion that quite a few of them are smarter than a fucking racist like you.

                1. As are most canines of all colors.

            3. “Nearly all black women will pull the D lever no matter who’s nominated”
              Not a gay one though. If Buttjudge won the nomination, Black women would stay home.

    2. Mod4ever….You ask a good question: I can’t help wondering what those who will support Biden will do if he is not the nominee.

      My guess is 90% of them will support the Team D nominee, no matter who it is. The remaining 10% go to third parties, and distantly – POTUS Trump.

      1. The most interesting question of 2020 is whether or not Trump garners significant support from the black community. I am still skeptical he will. But, for the first time ever, I am willing to admit it is a real possibility. Things have gotten appreciably better for blacks under Trump. That hasn’t gone unnoticed. Also, while blacks are liberal and Democrats, they generally are not the sort of lunatic woke progressives that many white Democrats are. It is a possibility Trump could get 15 or 20% of the black vote. If that happened, it would be game over for the Democratic candidate.

        1. he won’t, but I think Black people stay home this season.

          1. That would be my best guess too. But, I think it is possible that he could get well over 10%.

          2. Agreed. President Trump has provided to much material for black people to stay home. Start with Charlottesville, add his comment on s-hole countries, sending black women home, round out with his comments on black reporters. Ya they will come to the poles.

            1. And the lowest black unemployment rate in history and prison reform. For the first time since forever a President will run for re-election with fewer black men in federal prison than when he took office.

              And actual black people don’t give a fuck about Chancellorsville. There were no black people there. It was a fight among groups of retarded white people. It is funny as hell when woke white people who live in entirely white bubbles project their neurosis on black people.

              1. The Heffalumps have so many great things they could use to attract black voters:

                Just run the SOTU speech where Trump brags about record low black unemployment and show the Heffalumps applauding while the Donkeys sit on their hands with the over-voice:
                “Which party really cares about black people ?”

            2. “add his comment on s-hole countries”

              Illegal immigration has negatively impacted black employment and small businesses. They’d likely applaud that one.

        2. the problem with this analysis John is that it’s probably true that Black people are more intelligent than White people and have more common sense and are therefore able to see through Dear Leader’s lies. I’m sorry you are dumber than Louis Farrakhan [whoopsie, he’s a Trump supporter] Jesse Jackson, John, but the facts on race paint a perfectly clear picture.

          1. They had 8 years of obama and absolutely nothing to show for it. Three years of Trump and they have prison reform and record low unemployment. I think they are no longer so enthralled with following orders from racist Progressive whites like you.

            1. Are you sure about that, John, or have you been listening to fellow Trump supporter, Louis Farrakhan, who called Obama a race traitor?

              https://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf

              1. So you’re saying balcks supporting Trump are proof blacks don’t support Trump?

              2. All you have are lies. You don’t fool anyone.

      2. The question is who remains home if they don’t get there choice. In my view the centrist are also practical. It is usually those farthest from the center who are most recalcitrant. So you have the individual who proclaims Bernie or Bust, but to my knowledge no Biden, Buttigieg, or Kloubochar or Bust. So it seems more likely for a Biden voter to accept a Warren nomination, that a Warren voter to accept a Biden nomination. I think your right that most Ds will fall in line who ever the nominee.

        1. Most will. Most always do. But most isn’t enough to win an election.

    3. In 2016 Trump was the disruptor and won. In 2020 the title of disruptor may not be as clear cut.

      Are you kidding? In 2020 Trump is the disruptor.

      And he will remain such until the left understands that screaming and throwing fits will not alter the fact that he won.

  13. Beto O’Rourke, who recently dropped out of the race,

    F

  14. Wilder prediction, but if the Ds go woke (more specifically Marxist) in 2020, there will not be a Democrat party for 2022 or 2024. The Democrats underestimate the size and seriousness of their more moderate members. They will leave the party and they’ll just tune out from politics. They hate Trump’s buffoonery and antics and want some more Obama-like decorum, but they’re reluctantly with him on many aspects of the culture war like, capitalism and free markets, enforcing the border, smaller government (Yes I know Trump hasn’t been great on this), etc.

    I’m 26, most of my friends are 24-27. Out of the 10 of us, 3 of us are registered R with a hard Libertarian leaning, 1 is an avowed Socialist, and the other 7 are independents. None of the Is are registered to either party and they approve things on a case by case basis. They inherently distrust the Rs (welcome to the club) but really do hate how Marxist politics have become mainstream.

    1. are they White? because the cultural Marxism is really all about hating White people.

        1. A right-wing bigot, who prefers Hitlerism — look at his handle.

    2. I can’t believe more than a small minority of people really are this stupid. Sure 25 or 30% but not 45 or 50%. The bottom line is that things have not gone badly under Trump whatever you think of him. The economy is good, we haven’t gotten in any new wars, there hasn’t been a massive terrorist attack or anything else like that. So, I think most people outside of the fringes look at this whole thing and wonder what the big deal is.

      I think the Democrats could win if they ran some empty suit who seemed reasonable and just promised to quiet things down for a while. But, I don’t think there is anyway in hell they are going to win running some woke socialist.

    3. Wilder prediction, but if the Ds go woke (more specifically Marxist) in 2020, there will not be a Democrat party for 2022 or 2024.

      Let’s deal with reality. Dems aren’t going anywhere. Even in their current insane stage they are likely to control the presidency again in the next three cycles.

      1. I think that largely depends on Trump’s second term.

        1. I think that largely depends on Trump’s second term.

          Not unless he can run again. He has no credible successor. I’d love to believe we can take turns running down the Boston phone book – or better yet the Fort Worth phone book – but it’s not going to turn out that way.

          1. “He has no credible successor.”

            5 years out. So, yeah.

            And, 5 years is a long time for Dems to break themselves going after him. Which was more the point.

    4. “Out of the 10 of us, 3 of us are registered R with a hard Libertarian leaning, 1 is an avowed Socialist, and the other 7 are independents.”

      3 + 1 + 7 = 10?

      1. The socialist was counting.

        1. Naah. It was some guy in the 57th state.

      2. I’m glad I’m not the only one that caught this.

      3. Still better at math than Warren.

    5. There will still be a Democratic party. It’s just that they will be far more blatant about advocating for socialist government programs, minority group supremacy, completely open borders, and third/fourth-wave feminist griefing. Most of the remaining white men will get pushed out unless they happen to be self-loathing ethno-LARPers like Robert Francis O’Rourke, who can appeal to the white suburban housewife vote.

      The Republicans, on the other hand, will continue coalescing around the white working and middle class, although minorities who don’t like high taxes and want immigration controls will probably leak over from the Dems as well.

  15. But the national popular vote did not make Hillary Clinton president, and it is just as irrelevant to this election. The Democrats need to pay attention to the swing states, where there is indeed a cost to running so far to the left.

    Yep. Democrats don’t seem to understand this. The only way to defeat Trump is to get swing voters who barely convinced themselves to vote Trump over Hilary to come back to the Democrat candidate this time.

    I’m pretty sure it’s a VERY small number of those fickle voters who chose Trump because Hilary wasn’t *communist enough*.

    The Dems are making a huge tactical error.

    1. Like I say above, if the Democrats would just run an empty suit who promised not to destroy the economy, they would probably win. But, they seem to have no one to run who doesn’t promise to do that.

      1. As Soave cleverly put it, “So far, most of the candidates have behaved as if the key to ultimate victory is mobilizing Oberlin College students.”

        They seem to have fallen into a vortex, fueled by an estimated 20% of registered Democrats who are most media savvy. They are judged according to their wokeness, and that will be their downfall.

        Now the interesting part will be what they do when they lose and the established rules of the game [elections, electoral college, etc] are not going to work for them [such a clever design by our founders, thankfully]. Will they turn violent?

        1. I don’t think so. They are too sheltered and too out of touch with reality for that. They live in a world where talking is all that matters. I find it hard to believe any of them will ever actually act.

        2. They seem to have fallen into a vortex, fueled by an estimated 20% of registered Democrats who are most media savvy. They are judged according to their wokeness, and that will be their downfall.

          A big part of the problem is that a lot of the Dems’ power base (politicians and political courtiers, mass media, and various NGO grifters) spends all day fucking around on Twitter, and they think that the echo chamber they’ve concocted for themselves there represents the mood of the entire country. The reality is that most of the country can’t actually stand these hectoring assholes, but they maintain their influence by virtue of the very fact that they’re deeply embedded throughout the various cultural cathedral institutions.

          The day the rest of society decides it has nothing left to lose by telling these griefers to fuck off, is the day their power diminishes.

          1. That already happened in the Republican party with Trump. The entire party establishment, and assorted media and think tank grifters lost their minds over Trump and did everything they could to keep him from getting the nomination. They were so isolated from the rest of the country they didn’t understand that Trump was at the head of a full on revolt against them and represented a complete rejection of their sorry record of failure. Sure enough, the actual GOP voters told them to fuck off. Most of them have never gotten over it.

          2. The day the rest of society decides it has nothing left to lose by telling these griefers to fuck off, is the day their power diminishes.

            And given that Obama himself recently threw them under the bus, I think that wave has crested.

            1. And given that Obama himself recently threw them under the bus, I think that wave has crested.

              I’d hold off on giving him too much praise for that, considering his wife was sitting right next to him complaining about white flight.

              1. He could easily have joined the chorus, but didn’t. Obama probably has more clout than any other single figure on the left, and his saying “don’t do this, your only hurting yourselves” is major.

  16. The Democrats really need to treat this like a wake up call.

    Likely the intent. I have come to view pollsters as not reflections of the mood of society but would-be shapers of it.

    I remember that polls told me Hillary was going to be president. (How could the polls predict she wouldn’t find Wisconsin on a map?)

  17. “So far, most of the candidates have behaved as if the key to ultimate victory is mobilizing Oberlin College students.”

    Robby win the Best Political Observation contest for today.

  18. Re: woke culture

    When I was a wee lad there was all this concern about satanic daycares and whether Timmy was getting diddled by A manifestation of Beelzebub when Timmy’s parents left him at Tiny Tots. I wonder if worrying about what’s on Lena Denham’s Twitter page might be part of this {my reaction is I don’t care} and/or if an agenda is being concocted to deflect from the reality that— more or less— Americans are working harder for the same wage and all the free shit that capitalism was supposed to deliver hasn’t come about. Gotta keep the people in line some way.

    1. “all the free shit that capitalism”

      So, you don’t understand what capitalism is?

    2. “…Gotta keep the people in line some way.”

      Easy when you’re dealing with fucking ignoramuses like you.

  19. it wouldn’t surprise me if it does. The number of bubble dwellers who wholeheartedly believe they lost the 2016 election because they didn’t go more progressive is alarmingly high.

    “I know what it’s like to lose. To feel so desperately that you’re right, yet to fail none the less.”.

  20. It’s funny that none of these articles recommend that the Left give up on these issues, only to keep quiet about them until after they get power.

    “Shhh, Beto! Don’t tell them you’re going to send stormtroopers to kick in their door at 2 AM if they own an AR-15, tell them you’re running on Hope and Change and a Return to Normalcy! Then, after you get elected, there will be plenty of time to send in the stormtroopers.”

  21. Biden is fading among Democrats, and even if he makes it out of the primary I think there is a good chance he fades among independents once they see more of him.

    Buttigieg is setting himself up to oppose Warren. It’s early but it wouldn’t surprise me if he ended up being her biggest challenger.

  22. When the LP resumed its original pro-choice position in 2016, the substitution curve just increased 3x to 4 million votes, then to 16 million in another two years. Admittedly we do better in mid-terms, but still, there is no reason do doubt the LP could have 14 million votes–more % than the Peeps commies of 1892, and the kind of showing that turned the GOP into ku-klux Dixiecrats after George Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote before there was a Libertarian Party.

    1. The LP’s ORIGINAL pro-choice position was abortion up to delivery .. an ANTI-liberty position that I spent two National Conventions trying to change, on the platform committee.

      My proposed plank would have banned all post-viability abortions, entirely, without denying the woman’s right to expel the fetus at any time. But a viable fetus must be delivered, NOT aborted.

      The humber of such late events is so small as to make adoptions relatively simple, especially by genuine pro-life conservatives
      Somehow the LP was OPPOSED to equal rights..

      That was about 20 years ago. For about 20 years before that, I had been on one national committee or another but mostly Platform. I left the party, which had abandoned liberty, and become anti-gummint. Note that Johnson/Weld had ZERO policy proposals in 2016. when Americans were open to even radical change. Indeed, the entire libertarian establishment has ZERO viable policy proposals … for anything.

      The current LP platform is a cop-out on abortion, with a lame excuse for the position. Cowardice.

      1. So what does knowing that your entire life amounted to nothing and that you’ll be instantly forgotten except by the people who mock your descent into irrelevance feel like?

        1. WOW! SO MATURE!!!

    2. the kind of showing that turned the GOP into ku-klux Dixiecrats after George Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote

      Dixiecrats were Democrats moron.

  23. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.

    A Fox News poll released Sunday did not have great news for President Trump. His approval rating was 42 percent, with 57 percent of registered voters disapproving of his job performance and 46 percent strongly disapproving. A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn’t even running, 43 percent to 41 percent.

    1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

      1. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.

        “A Fox News poll released Sunday did not have great news for President Trump. His approval rating was 42 percent, with 57 percent of registered voters disapproving of his job performance and 46 percent strongly disapproving. A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn’t even running, 43 percent to 41 percent. …

        .(smirk, again)

        1. so remind me what happened the last time she let him in one of those polls

          1. so remind me what happened the last time she let him in one of those polls

            WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
            SHE’S NOT EVEN A CANDIDATE … AND WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD TO IGNORE THE ACTUAL CANDIDATES

            I KNEW somt Trumpster would ask that, from a much greater level of ignorance. But since you ask ….

            * Hillary beat him on the popular vote.
            * Trump got a record number of anti-votes ( AGAINST Hillary NOT FOR HIM.
            * Nearly 10 million voted against him, including a record number of write-ins,
            * His “Electoral College ‘landslide’ was indeed notable … won it by 39,000 voters … in three states COMBINED, (LOL)

            You turn. How difficult was it, to swing a mere 39,000 voters … for Russia, Wikileaks and Comey COMBINED?

            Anything else?.

        2. “…(smirk, again)…”
          Fuck off and die again, Hihn.

        3. .(smirk, again)

          Michael, we’re all really at a loss regarding what you, a leftist and supporter of creatures like Hillary would be smirking at.

          The ‘polls’ said similar ridiculous things in the last presidential cycle–and they left you all screaming and having tantrums for what is going on three years now.

          Do you truly believe that these ‘polls’ are any more valid than they were last time? Or even AS valid–since you are all working while shrieking and throwing feces in your interminable hissy-fit?

  24. So, Biden is the reasonable one?

    Of all the historical simulations our post-human descendants are running – I guess *someone* has to be living in the worst one.

    1. no, that’s where Harris wins.

  25. It might cost them the 2020 election, but it also might secure them the 2024 election on an even more explicitly socialist platform. A crisis and a charismatic leader would do the trick.

    1. Yep. 2020 looks to be a fascist vs a socialist for the White House
      The fascist lied, shamelessly and repeatedly, to defend his neo-nazi and white supremacist supporters, who launched such vicious violence in Charlottesville.

      The socialist will have lied, shamelessly and repeatedly, about tax fairness, the massive middle-class subsidies in the personal income tax, and the REAL failures of socialized medicine (yet to be discovered om the right!)

      And America’s majority will remain voiceless, amidst all the lies, screeching afn hatred by the less tha

      1. Fuck off, Hihn, you ban evading piece of shit.

    2. mtrueman
      November.4.2019 at 8:15 pm
      “It might cost them the 2020 election, but it also might secure them the 2024 election on an even more explicitly socialist platform. A crisis and a charismatic leader would do the trick.”

      Oh, oh look! trueman making a prediction for 2024!
      You.
      Are.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

  26. Yep. 2020 looks to be a fascist vs a socialist for the White House
    The fascist lied, shamelessly and repeatedly, to defend his neo-nazi and white supremacist supporters, who launched such vicious violence in Charlottesville.

    The socialist will have lied, shamelessly and repeatedly, about tax fairness, the massive middle-class subsidies in the personal income tax, and the REAL failures of socialized medicine (yet to be discovered om the right!)

    And America’s majority will remain voiceless, amidst all the lies, screeching afn hatred by the less than 40% still loyal to Team Red and Team Blue, combined.

    By 2024, the America we once knew may no longer exist..

    1. sadly you’re very old and senile and will probably be dead so no one really cares what you think

    2. “…By 2024, the America we once knew may no longer exist..”

      We can hope that you will no longer exist much earlier than that; the world will be a better and more intelligent place.
      Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the place, Hihn.

  27. Their go-for-woke nonsense has already cost them the election. Biden may cling to the lead for now, but will lose once the commies start to drop out and consolidate on a single stooge. Hickenlooper was their only chance, but he didn’t have the national base that Biden had to avoid getting ground up in the proggie meat grinder.

    National polls of low information voters always favor the Dems. Start doing state by state polls of likely voters and no surprise, Trump is still in the real lead.

    1. Biden doesn’t stand a chance given the amount of corruption and dirt in his background, on top of his inability to form a coherent thought or sentence.

  28. “head-to-head polls a year ahead of the election have been as close to the final result as those taken the day before,”

    in other words, all of the campaign contributions and political ads amount to nothing, so why bother?

  29. What’s going to cost Democrats the election is that their candidates are bad. Biden is a corrupt, senile idiot, and the rest of the Democratic field is socialists, bigots, and racists.

  30. Wait until you see what happens to Uncle Joe’s poll numbers when most of the country starts to realize for the first time that he’s in the early stages of dementia.

  31. Dems will lose presidency, senate and house. Trump will increase his previous electoral margin.

    Day in and day out, everything turns up rosy for Trump and terrifying for Dems. Here’s the latest stunner:

    Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.

    During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

    Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”

    1. Trump won the Electoral College by a 39,000 voters margin …in three states combined. A record number of voters voted AGAINST his opponent, not FOR him

      Without a link, your Hunter Biden story looks like a another pile of Trump crap

      THIS has a link

      Hillary Clinton leads Trump in a new Fox News poll. Yes, in November 2019.
      She’s not even running. Trump SMASHED by Fox News
      https://theweek.com/speedreads/876179/hillary-clinton-leads-trump-new-fox-news-poll-yes-november-2019

      “A Fox News poll released Sunday did not have great news for President Trump. His approval rating was 42 percent, with 57 percent of registered voters disapproving of his job performance and 46 percent strongly disapproving. A year before the 2020 election, he is behind all of the top-tier Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden (51 percent to 39 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (46 percent to 41 percent), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (49 percent to 41 percent). Even worse, Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton, who isn’t even running, 43 percent to 41 percent.

  32. ANOTHER ONE for America;’s top fraudster
    TRUMP defrauded … OUR VETERANS with a fundraiser … then THE SLIME pocketed THEIR money

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-donald-trump-ordered-pay-2m-collection-nonprofits/story?id=66827235

    President Donald Trump ordered to pay $2M to collection of nonprofits as part of civil lawsuit

    President Donald Trump has been ordered by a New York State judge to pay $2 million to a group of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement in >a civil lawsuit stemming from persistent violations of state charities laws.

    The payment is the final resolution to a case brought by the New York attorney general’s office after the Trump Foundation held a fundraiser for military veterans during the 2016 campaign.

    The televised fundraiser took in nearly $3 million in donations that were dispersed on the eve of the Iowa caucuses as directed by then-campaign chief Corey Lewandowski.

    The two million must be paid by President Trump himself for breaching his fiduciary duty to properly oversee the foundation that bears his name.

    “I direct Mr. Trump to pay the $2,000,000, which would have gone to the Foundation if it were still in existence, on a pro rata basis to the Approved Recipients,” Judge Saliann Scarpulla wrote.

    The lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general accused President Trump — along with his children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka — of conflating charity with politics, repeatedly using charitable donations for personal, political and business gains, including legal settlements, campaign contributions and even to purchase a portrait of Trump to hang at one of his hotelsThis was a civil verdict for repeated criminal actions. Guess what’s next?

    Remember, Trump was the first President EVER forced to pay a $25 million settlement … for FRAUD … while in office.

    What kind of SCUM screws veterans charities and nonprofits … to enrich himself …. and his campaign … by FRAUD?

    Look for MANY more crimes and/or lawsuits, as Trump is forced to provide ever mote financial records.

Please to post comments