As of the head to head polling by NBC/Wall Street Journal on February 2, 2020, the president loses to each of the leading Democrat contenders: Trump loses to Joe Biden by 6 points, gets thumped by commie Bernie Sanders by 4 points, Pochahontas Warren mops the floor with Trump by 3 points, and the Butt Guy, Pete Buttiegieg squeaks past The Donald by 1 point. Look at the Fox News voter preference poll back in August (see graphic), trump got his ass handed to him by every damn commie running, to include the failed Kamala Harris.
And yet I saw with my own eyes that in the New Hampshire primary, where The Donald was virtually running uncontested, he got 118,000+ voters to brave the brutal cold to trudge to the polls and cast their vote for the Donald, wildly beyond the showings of past incumbent uncontested New Hampshire primary elections.
Additionally, the coverage of rallies by any of the Democrat contenders in both Iowa and New Hampshire are absolutely puny and pathetic as compared to The Donald when he showed up; he packed in his venues with tens of thousands unable to get in, while nobody seems interested in any of the current crop of Democrats, their rallies barely fill a high school gym (and that's if they pay enough lefties to attend).
But NBC and the Wall Street Journal give the Donald no chance of re-election. How can this be? I recall the same thing happening in 2016; the enthusiasm that Trump generated on the campaign trail dwarfed that of Hillary Clinton, and yet according to all the polls, he had no shot. No path to the Oval Office, stick a fork in him, he's done. He's toast. Fuhgeddaboudit.
One would think that these polling organizations would want to come close to getting it right this time around, and yet none of them are looking at the same thing I see: the enthusiasm for Donald Trump is triple or more of that than any of the socialists/commies that oppose him.
I have missed calling several elections in the past, simply because I didn't want to think about my side losing (again). But I think this time around, I can confidently claim a Trump landslide, and the GOP snatching that gavel from Nancy Pelosi's shriveled gnarled fingers.
Yes, a Trump landslide, and his coat tails will be huge. All the polls say otherwise. We'll see in about a little less than 9 months from now, won't we?
Whoever claims victory on the Democrat side of things in Iowa tonight will surely go down in flames eventually, since none of them...not a single one of them...has any credible idea as to how to make things better for Americans. Other than Donald Trump, that is.
The radical socialist communist left wing of the Democrat party now calls all the shots. The only reasonable Democrat still in the race (technically) is John Delaney (D-Md), and even he has some radical left wing ideas on tax rates, social programs and other ways to spend taxpayer money like a drunken sailor. And he is their most reasonable guy in the race, and has no shot. He is clearly not nutty enough for the left wing base, who is chomping at the bit to change America into a nation more like Communist China or Vladimir Putin's dictatorship in Russia.
Most of them on the ballot (Michael Bloomberg or Tom Steyer not withstanding) have never run a successful business, not even a lemonade stand; Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, NONE of those guys (and squaws) have ever met a payroll or made multi-million dollar decisions as to how to better a business's position in the market. And yet ALL of these dufuses (dufi?) are trying to convince voters that they and only they know how to best allocate American resources to the benefit of Americans. How on earth can they claim this as true?
And exactly how on earth can all of these idiots convince the majority of Americans that their lives suck right now, and that things are going down the crapper, when all anybody has to do is look around them and see that things are coming up roses on virtually every front under the leadership of President Trump. They are trying to convince us that it's raining, when in fact they are pissing on us. Only the dumbest Americans can possibly fall for all of their malarkey (as Slow Joe Biden might put it).
They can't continue this narrative with any credibility. But that doesn't stop them from trying. Nobody among these cretins currently running for president on the left has any ideas as to how best to manage the American economy, manage the American foreign trade/policy matters or anything else that is required to promote American interests, either foreign or domestic.
Yet every media outlet in the country is watching this horse race.
As if any of these clods will avoid a landslide loss in November.
Remember when John Kerry was campaigning for president in 2003/4 and called for a return to the days when we considered these Middle Eastern terrorists such as Sulemani to be nothing more than a 'nuisance' rather than imminent threats? These terrorists and their 'nuisant' ways have been responsible for perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths over the past few decades, to include Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis and even Russians and Iranians. You should ask the family members of those killed by this terrorist general and see how much of a 'nuisance' they consider this guy to be. Of course the Neville Chamberlains of the left will conduct massive shows of great wailing and gnashing of teeth at this war mongering president for authorizing this targeted drone strike, but let them. Appeasing the mullahs with pallets laden with cash money has gotten us nothing but body bags. Obama figured he could buy his way into a peaceful Iran with this foolish offering, and we see what we got in the bargain - nothing but more Iranian aggression and death for many Americans and their allies.
The Iranian mullahs are now promising a devastating response to this 'rogue' action. I say bring it. Afterwards, we will target all of those forces who generate anything close to revenge, and then sit back and see what else they got. Which is not much, as Iran has always been a weak bully in the region. We simply chose to punch the bully back. It works every time it's tried.
Depending on which poll you trust, Pete Buttigieg (D) wavers between a whopping 24% in the Iowa State poll, and hovering around 7 to 9% in most of the other polls of late. Should Mayor Pete pull off a major upset and win the Iowa caucus in February, he could be a serious challenge to the other mainstream Democrats (also called Socialists) in the field. Then again, it's that faith that you put into these polls. If we all recall, Donald Trump 'had no path' to the Oval Office just a month out from the elections. No chance, no way, no how. The polls had Hillary Clinton ahead by double digits, and yet that's not the way it went, not even close. I suspect that back in 2016, if a pollster asked you if you supported Donald Trump, you would tell them that you did not, lest your house get egged, toilet papered, or worse, set on fire by Antifa or another Democratic organization which is prone to violence. But left alone in that voting booth, all by yourself with just that chad waiting to be punched without anybody knowing, you knew what to do. Same thing happened to Mayor Tom Bradley (D-Ca) who ran for the California governor's seat against the ultimate victor in 1982, George Dukmejian (R-Ca) and yet Bradley lost despite a huge lead in the polls right up to the day of the election. The subsequent 'Bradley Effect' was applied to a white vs black contest, and the results of polling that had respondents indicating they would vote for the black and yet did otherwise, responding that they would support the black candidate out of fear of appearing to be racist to the pollster should they lean the other way. This effect can widely be applied to any number of electoral dynamics, such as the Trump/Clinton tilt in 2016, or in this case, not wanting to appear to be anti-gay and indicate support for openly gay candidate Mayor Pete, but once in that booth pulling another handle than the one they told the pollster. Mayor Pete and his supporters are clearly suggesting the the U.S. is ready for a gay president. I suspect they are wrong; most of the U.S. voters are not actively against the gay movement, but it is a very noisy, vocal and hostile constituency and to slight this crowd in any way will invite undesirable effects onto those foolish enough to oppose this movement publicly. Better to just bake their wedding cake and shut up. We will certainly see in a few weeks how this all plays out, but my guess is that Mayor Pete and his gay movement will fall by the wayside with a distant 5th or 6th place showing in Iowa despite the polls. The 'Bradley Effect', or something akin to it will surface, and Mayor Pete will diminish from the front page to become a footnote down the road, similar to the late Geraldine Ferarro (first woman to be tapped for U.S. Veep). We are still waiting for that first woman to show up on the winning ticket. And the first gay president is a long way off as well.
...not even close. Yes, he may have bamboozled and flim-flammed in addition to having bought his way into three terms as mayor of a liberal pinko large town, but if he thinks that his bazillions of dollars will buy his way into the heartland and the presidency, he is sorely mistaken. He thinks he's the voice of moderation among commie pinko socialists. Yes, he's slighly more moderate than Ho-Chi Minh, leans just a tad less left than Mao Tse-Tung, and is slightly to the right of Josef Stalin. He's as much of a moderate as Fidel Castro. Don't get me wrong, I fully encourage him to spend as much money as he sees fit and watch it swirl down the toilet. No amount of money can buy bad politics in Fly Over Country. It will not affect any of The Great Unwashed. The Dirt People out here aren't having any of it. Just ask Jeb! how much it costs per vote to convince people that your bad policies are good for them. Michael Bloomberg has been surrounded by yes men for who knows how long. And those shameless butt smoochers surrounding Bloomberg all to a man agreed that he could buy his way into the Oval Office. Not a chance. He also assumed that since The Donald could do it (he didn't spend anywhere near the Old Crone in the last election), so can he. Nope. The Donald is a showman. Little Michael is not. The Donald can hold an audience. Little Michael stutters in a monotone with his hems and haws, the guy is no public speaker. The Donald is 6'3" tall. Little Michael isn't. The Donald has led a nation out of a liberal malaise, and Little Michael hasn't. Sure, all of these things taken individually can be shrugged off. Added all up, Little Michael stands no chance of even getting the Democrat tap as candidate. The guy is just a grown-up Baby Yoda. A toad, and Americans don't elect toads to national office. In addition, Little Michael's policies are the stuff of certain defeat: grab all of your guns, close all the coal plants, and ban Big Gulps and Juul e-cigarettes, in addition to easing that Green New Deal in under the rug. Not the stuff that has mobs of admirers begging to sign up for any of that garbage. But he is certainly free to throw away great big huge gobs of cash chasing the dream. This is The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, he's free to blow as much serious scratch as he wants. And he has it to spare.
So this is now the standard for impeachment: the party out of power doesn't like the guy in the Oval Office, but controls the House: since they hate the presidents' guts, he's gotta go. Write up the articles of impeachment here (fill in the blank, doesn't matter, we'll get some lawyers and pinko professors to argue the details). The impeachment bar is now so low, that if a sitting president sneezes without saying 'excuse me,' he's out. Impeach the sumbitch. This standard, however low it is currently, was more than adequate to impeach Barry on any number of crimes/misdemeanors that Barry Obama had committed during his 8 years of regime: * Fast-n-Furious - any 2nd year law school student could write up reasonable impeachment articles on this one, the guy's hare brained scheme on getting rid of the 2nd Amendment got people killed. * IRS Scandal - again, that same 2nd year law student could argue this with credibility when Barry and his minions were weaponizing the IRS against their opponents. * Pallets of cash to Iran: a no-brainer high crime and misdemeanor giving aid and comfort to our enemy. * Tapping the phone lines of then-GOP candidate Donald Trump at his NY Trump Tower residence. Sure, he only had about a year left in office, but still... * Weaponizing the Justice Department assets against his opponents, as I am pretty sure that the culprits with their fingerprints all over this high crime and misdemeanor (Stryzok/Page/Comey/McCabe/Brennan/Clapper, just to name a few) would invariably rat Barry out as the master mind once the screws were put to them And the list of high crimes/misdemeanors is long and lots of bad things that Barry had a hand in didn't make the above list, chief among them was that almost everybody in the GOP ranks hated Barry's guts. They loathed the commie pinko. But they didn't impeach him, although they could have given today's standard, they could have impeached him ten times over...
Yes, Fredd the Luddite is going to cut the cable (or satellite, as it were). Our DirectTV invoice has now climbed to $136.47/month, and we don't have any fancy package, just the basic stuff. We've had DirectTV for about 20 years now, and have not really had a problem with it, other than no movie channels such as HBO and Showtime, Starz, none of that. Had we opted into those premium channels, and our monthly bill would approach two C-notes a month; way too damn much. Our daughter is pushing for Hulu with a Netflix account, and other than the $90 or so initial investment for the Roku box, it would run around $60/month, or 43% of what we are forking out now. Very attractive pricing, not only is Fredd a Luddite, but he's also a cheapskate. The missus, however, really wants 'The Hallmark Channel,' that airs those dopey predictable Christmas movies. Hulu does not include the Hallmark Channel. Additionally, Hulu does not include the Pac-12 Network, either. Luddite Fredd the Cheapskate is addicted to his Oregon Duck football and basketball teams, and has been jones-ing on coverage for the last 20 years because DirectTV does not have the Pac-12 Network, either. But Sling-TV has both Pac-12 and Hallmark, but not Fox News or Fox Business Channel (both of which Luddite Fredd cannot take another breath on this earth without). Apple TV has an enormous channel selection, but not Hallmark or Pac-12, but it has Fox News, but not Fox Business. Then there's Disney + just hitting the streets, it looks great. So many streaming services, all of them over half the price of our DirectTV account per month. But none of them have everything we want. What to do, what to do....... Luddite Fredd is paralyzed with indecision. But he's still a cheapskate. And DirectTV is on its way out.