RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/most-accurate-2016-poll-shows-biden-warren-sanders-beating-trump/

Most Accurate 2016 Poll Shows Biden, Warren, Sanders Beating TrumpBy Mairead McArdle

The poll that most closely predicted the outcome of the 2016 presidential election shows Joe Biden and several other Democratic candidates beating President Trump in a 2020 general-election matchup.

Biden would beat Trump by twelve points in a general election, garnering 54 percent support to Trump’s 42 percent, according to the September IBD/TIPP poll. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Kamala Harris of California also lead Trump by three to four points, close to within the margin of error.

Among voters who lean Democratic, Warren currently has 24 percent support, up from 17 percent last month, according to the poll. Biden meanwhile slipped two points from August to 28 percent among the same voters. Support for Sanders remained level at 12 percent, keeping him in third place. Harris saw her support drop this month from 11 percent to 6 percent. South Bend, Ind. mayor Pete Buttigieg and New Jersey senator Cory Booker trailed them, polling at 5 percent and 4 percent respectively.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/thinkprogress-smears-dan-crenshaw-on-universal-background-checks/

Dan Crenshaw has every right to oppose a ‘universal background check’ bill.

At ThinkProgress, Josh Israel miscasts Dan Crenshaw’s argument against the “universal background check” bill that the House of Representatives passed earlier this year (and which Crenshaw opposed):

“With universal background checks, I wouldn’t be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves,” he tweeted.

It is unclear why Crenshaw does not believe his friends could pass background checks to get their own weapons or to borrow his. If they are convicted felons who are not allowed to possess weapons, it would seem important for Crenshaw or other friends to know that before arming them.

Israel’s reading of Crenshaw’s tweet is based upon a misunderstanding of the bill (H.R. 8) that Crenshaw opposes. Under current federal law, Crenshaw is allowed to loan, gift, or sell a gun to any adult within his home state of Texas, provided he believes that that adult is permitted to own one. If H.R. 8 were signed into law, this would change. Specifically, H.R. 8 would prevent Crenshaw from selling a gun to anybody without the buyer undergoing a background check; it would limit his ability to gift or loan a gun to recipients within his own family; and it would narrow the circumstances in which he could effect a “temporary transfer” dramatically, to those in which the temporary transferee feared “imminent death or great bodily harm.” Because he has read H.R. 8, Crenshaw knows this, and he knows, therefore, that if H.R. 8 were to become law it would prevent him from loaning his friends guns per se — not because his friends are unable to pass a background check, but because there would be no such thing as loaning a friend a gun.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-marquette-poll-trump-trails-biden-by-nine-points-in-wisconsin-but-ties-warren-and-harris/

According to the latest Marquette Law School poll of registered voters in Wisconsin, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump 51 percent to 42 percent, while Elizabeth Warren and Trump are tied at 45 percent. Trump is also tied with Kamala Harris at 44 percent, while Bernie Sanders narrowly leads Trump 48 percent to 44 percent.

The Marquette survey is another data point backing up the argument that Biden is actually more electable than his Democratic rivals. He leads Trump by 9.4 points in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, while Warren leads Trump by 3.6 points in the RCP average and Harris leads by 3.0. 

In 2016, of course, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 points, but lost the Electoral College because 78,000 voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan gave Trump the edge.

Trump can afford to let Pennsylvania and Michigan flip in 2020, but he would still win the Electoral College 270 to 268 if he holds Wisconsin and the rest of the 2016 map stays the same. 

4

Wisconsin remains a strong contender to be the “tipping-point” state in the Electoral College in 2020, and Biden will likely be touting the fact that the “gold-standard” pollster in Wisconsin shows him with a big lead, while his rivals would make the race a toss-up. 

Biden’s rivals can counter by pointing out that at this point in the 2016 presidential race (when Trump had been running in the GOP primary for less than three months) Marquette showed Hillary Clinton leading Trump 51 percent to 35 percent.

DPS Note: 

Excellent analysis. But on a tactical level from where I sit. Whether it is Biden with a veneer of not-crazy-left, or flat out crazy left, the Democrat Party’s lurching leftward trajectory is as clear as clear can be. So whether a Democrat President’s agenda would be quickly or incrementally implemented shouldn’t provide high cover for you to vote that way if you kind of like and admire America the way it has evolved and has been since 1776. Scoop Jackson, Dan Inouye, Pat Moynihan, Joe Lieberman, where have you all gone? Heck. Jack Kennedy’d make a fine Republican candidate today. No matter how you slice the Democrat Party baloney, you’re gonna get a socialist sandwich. The only question is how much baloney (a/k/a socialism) will they pack into that first bite? Not saying there isn’t plenty to fix in our system. But the Democrat Party’s drivers don’t appear to think we are “fixable.” So I guess the question you gotta ask yourself (This is DPS3 plagerizing Dirty Harry) is, do you feel lucky? Because the “big structural change” promised by the Party’s animating forces are no different than Dirty Harry’s Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum. If you pull that trigger you may get a lot more than you bargained for.

PS: Here’s the real McCoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0lvp7a7pmk

https://www.nysun.com/national/socialist-scenario-may-pose-risk-for-the-democrats/90817/

Call it the socialist scenario — the risk that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could combine forces to defeat Joseph Biden in the Democratic primary.

The RealClearPolitics polling averages have Biden leading Sanders and Warren nationally and in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. These same polls, though, show the “not Biden” vote represented by Senators Sanders and Warren to be larger than the level of support for Vice President Biden.

If that vote were combined rather than split, the socialist scenario suggests, it could result in a Democratic presidential nominee who is either openly socialist, like Senator Sanders, or an ideological ally of Mr. Sanders, like Mrs. Warren, who says she is a capitalist but who is campaigning with a call for an annual wealth tax and for what she calls “big, structural change.”

The possibility is generating concern from Americans who are more cautious about “big, structural change.” The concern is heightened because Mr. Biden is old enough that he can seem vulnerable rather than inevitable.

As is often the case with socialism, however, the fantasy is some distance from reality. The primary campaigns of the previous presidential cycle are familiar precedents and somewhat reassuring ones, at least for those who aren’t enthusiasts of either Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Warren.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/02/gillibrand-has-launched-part-2-of-her-vp-bid/

She Can Be ‘Any Woman You’ve Ever Imagined’

e have nothing to fear but fear itself,” was the rallying cry during the Depression for which history remembers FDR. “It’s morning again in America” was Ronald Reagan’s inimitable, softly spoken re-election slogan.

But the catchphrase that will go with the, as of last week, ex-presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand to her grave is: “I’m just trying to get some ranch.”

As the Democratic junior senator from New York babbled on in an Iowa City restaurant about “the bold ideas that the base and the grassroots care about,” those were the words of a female college student conducting a Bible study upstairs as she squeezed past Gillibrand looking for something more tethered to the real world: her preferred condiment.

It was an example of how the plenty of America leads to a great deal of disinterest in politics, with peoplemore focused on their own lives than keeping up with the various layers and happenings of government, as well they should be. (Although “ranch girl” Hanna Kinney reportedly leans left.)

But a less frivolous soundbite came from Gillibrand herself, in the last debate, conducted by CNN at the end of July. Gillibrand contended that “as a white woman of privilege … I can talk to those white women in the suburbs that voted for Trump and explain to them what white privilege actually is, that when their son is walking down a street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not [sic] being shot.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kirsten-gillibrand-ends-her-empty-suit-fake-feminist-presidential-campaign

To no one’s surprise, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, ended her presidential campaign on Wednesday. Her short tenure on the national campaign stage was notable for abysmal poll numbers and mediocre debate performances. Though Gillibrand was one of only a handful of female candidates in a crowded field of men, she lacked star power and any real voter base.

Her failure might come as a surprise: Democrats have long pushed for more women to hold elected office. Yet Gillibrand’s campaign reminds us that a woman’s physical characteristics don’t automatically make her any more — or less — suitable for office, and that any other conclusion is just woke sexism masquerading as progress.

Before her departure, Gillibrand’s RealClearPolitics polling average stood at only 0.1%, hardly a blip on the screen. But it’s all she deserved, as her campaign consisted of little more than identity politics largely focused on feminism. Most especially, she voiced loud and consistent support for abortion rights.

In short, the Gillibrand 2020 campaign was an empty pantsuit. On paper, a leftist, female senator should have done better, right? But even Washington Post writer Monica Hesse noted Gillibrand’s almost singular focus on women’s issues:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/29/september-debate-set-discussion-can-hand-free-stuff/

Wednesday was the deadline to qualify for the third Democratic presidential debate in Houston next month, and only 10 candidates will participate making it the one-night event on Sept. 12.

In a race where progressives have dominated the top-tier field of candidates, few moderates qualified for the September debate, setting the stage for a debate of more versus more, who can offer the American public the largest welfare state.

Below are the candidates who met the DNC’s threshold to participate in the event hosted and moderated by ABC News:

Joe Biden, former vice president
Elizabeth Warren, U.S. senator from Massachusetts
Bernie Sanders, U.S. senator from Vermont
Kamala Harris, U.S. senator from California
Cory Booker, U.S. senator from New Jersey
Amy Klobuchar, U.S. senator from Minnesota
Beto O’Rourke, former U.S. representative from Texas
Julian Castro, former U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Andrew Yang, tech entrepreneur

The most moderate candidate on stage will be Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, outnumbered by progressive candidates promising “Medicare for all” and the radical expansion of the U.S. welfare state. While former Vice President Joe Biden has tried to brand himself as a moderate opposing Democrats new signature healthcare proposal and criticizing the idea of decriminalizing border crossings, a closer examination of Biden’s record reveals no moderate.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-doesnt-stacey-abrams-want-to-run-for-senate/

Something ‘s afoot here….Stacey Abrams a sore loser without any national prominence was chosen to give the opposing  party’s rebuttal to the president’s State of the Union speech in 2019. Until 2019, all previous responses were delivered by contemporary senators, representatives, or governors. She is being groomed and aiming for a place on the National ticket…..rsk

Life just got a little more complicated for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The 2020 elections looked challenging but manageable, needing to defend Colorado’s Cory Gardner, Maine’s Susan Collins, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, and Arizona’s appointed senator Martha McSally. The risk of losses were somewhat offset by some low-hanging fruit in Alabama Democrat Doug Jones, an open seat in New Mexico, and maybe some chances for an upset in New Hampshire or Michigan.

But now Republicans have to worry about an open seat Senate race in Georgia, as Senator Johnny Isakson said today that he will step down from office at the end of this year due to complications with Parkinson’s disease.

Yes, Georgia is a Republican-leaning state. When Stacey Abrams calls herself the legitimately elected governor of her state and refuses to concede the race, Republicans can point out that the official final vote count in 2018 put her down by 54,723 votes, not exactly a small margin. But Abrams did do better than almost any Georgia Democrat running statewide in a generation, with 48.8 percent, and came within 1.4 percentage points of winning.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/28/bernie-sanders-has-earned-his-sandersista-label/

Sen. Bernie Sanders has said publicly that he doesn’t believe government should own the means of production. Yet he appears on national television last week and agrees there should be a “federal takeover” of the energy sector. His Marxist slip is showing.

“When I use the world socialist — and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it — I’m saying that it is imperative” to “create a government that works for all and not just the few,” the Vermont Democratic lawmaker said in 2015.

“I don’t believe,” he continued, “government should own the means of production,” which of course is a hallmark of socialism.

That version is quite different from the 1976 Sanders, who said “I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries.”

2015 Sanders is also inconsistent with the Sanders of spring 2019, who, according to People’s World, which claims to be the “voice for progressive change and socialism” in America, “will propose workers take ownership of individual plants and businesses, removing them from the hands of the bosses and financiers who back them.”

Ownership won’t change hands unless a coercive government becomes involved and socializes business. The workers can’t simply vote companies over to themselves.