Rick Wilson reminds me of my wicked smart uncle, the eldest.  The most conservative of his generation, and can generally slice through any of my bullshit, should I venture any.

"How Democrats are losing 2020, already: Trump must not win reelection, but the candidates lining up to beat him are giving a good chance"

I personally want to see more swinging from Trump at the candidates -- like Buttigieg and Harris and Klobuchar, who haven't yet recieved a good label like "Creepy Uncle" ...

A funny bit from Steve Bannon ...

A Harris-O’Rourke ticket stands the best chance against Trump in 2020

Quote

[...]

Bannon also speculated that if Democrats don’t have a presidential contender that has “broken out of the pack” by the end of this year, the Democratic Party will begin to look outside the current pool. That includes asking Hillary Clinton to run, again, the strategist contended.

“People should not count her out,” Bannon said. “She’s going to be sitting in the bullpen waiting for the call.”

[...]

The 'loyal opposition' to President Trump is I think going to be rather disappointed with the "Let's Demand Tax Returns" gambit.

Every previous candidate/President who has released (some) tax information has done so voluntarily. I don't see how a demand will be finessed. In the end, the privacy of the IRS client seems to take precedence over any actual "need," although I am not 100% sure of my grasp of the details. "Yes, Marge, I know you want it. But you ain't gonna get it."

Here is Mick Mulvaney putting the kibosh on the gambit, on FoxNews: "Dems will never see Trump's tax returns."

I like this woman's poise. Anybody put money on Harris win place or show? Even if the steely grace is a false front, there is a certain gravity in her performance. Will the presidential nickname stick?

The Canadian Election will be done and dusted (it is scheduled for on or before October 21 this fall) before the very first Iowan fires up the minivan to head to caucus.  That first opportunity to make preferences known in a non-scientific opinion-poll is in two hundred and twenty one days.

Having provided that temporal context, can I speak to a 'frontrunner' in the pack of grifters, losers, ham sandwiches and communists who believe they have a chance of being selected as the Democratic name on the November 2020 ballot?

Nope. 

Anyway, the candidate that interests me is Kamala Harris. She is up on stage for the second part of the musical chairs initial 'debate' schedule, which kicked off yesterday in Miami.

221 days. Till anybody votes. What horses will be still be sweating it out at that time?  I have no idea.

See also Michael's dedicated thread:

Peter Taylor also furthers discussion with a separate topic thread:

"Kamala Harris wielded her shtick fairly effectively at the game show formal whoopup in Miami.  Building on her law order justice rap back in California, when she turns her steely eyes on you, it feeds electricity into the moment." [Edited for Twitter-friendly]

That is what we could call charisma or native talent. The ugly business of Vote4ME is often the 'screen test' for the various actors. I have sampled a whole lot of individual opinion on last night, and conclude that she probably had the most 'impact' of the second and third-tier candidates, those between zero and eight percent in opinion surveys ...

Does this woman have the brains and ability and money and 'talent' to push herself out of the middle?  I don't know. But she is attracting the right kind of attention: critical.  This from Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason.

Kamala Harris Won the Democratic Debate by Fudging Her Record.

On 6/27/2019 at 11:17 AM, william.scherk said:

221 days. Till anybody votes. What horses will be still be sweating it out at that time?  I have no idea.

See also Michael's dedicated thread:

Michael pointed to a Drudge round-up of opinion which indicated some folks were most happy with the representative from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, in the first night of the game show:

Added: 5 minute Fox News report on Harris's shtick-y moments. Fake 'juice'? Did 'juice' get her atop her party's front bench from California? More juice, please. 

President Trump suggests that Kamala Harris was given too much credit for her performance in the second game show in Miami:

Quote

[...]

The president also weighed in on the first Democratic debates that took place this week in Miami, suggesting that Harris’s performance was overrated and that former vice president Biden could have responded more effectively to her criticism of his opposition to federally mandated desegregation busing in the 1970s.

“She’s been given too much credit for what she did. It wasn’t that outstanding,” Trump said. “He was hit harder than he should have been hit.” Asked his own position on busing to desegregate public schools, Trump said he was developing a policy related to the issue that would be revealed in four weeks but declined to elaborate.

Trump also praised Mexico for stepping up immigration enforcement, stated that his administration was developing a “smart person’s waiver” to allow successful foreign college students to remain in the United States more easily after graduating, said the administration would appeal a federal judge’s ruling to block the use of Pentagon funds for a section of a proposed border wall and called another judge’s decision to stop the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census “horrible and ridiculous.”

[...]

"All Polls Are Wrong," and this one proves it (story by Arial Edwards-Levy at the Huffington Post):  

Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris Looked Like Winners At The First Debates: Poll

Quote

[...]

So Who Won The Debate?

Whether or not a debate actually lends itself to a single “winner” is itself debatable ― among other things, it’s unclear whether voters really treat the event as a zero-sum game. But the first two debates each saw a clear standout.In the first survey, 59% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters who watched at least clips or highlights of the debate said Warren did the best job, with Castro a distant second at 16%, and the remaining candidates all in the single digits.

The second debate saw a similar divide, with 59% of the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters who watched at least highlights or clips saying Harris did the best, 16% naming Biden, 11% naming Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and everyone else polling below 10%. [...]

I don't know exactly why some folks figure Marianne Williamson could become a front-rank contender. The next round of candidate debates will occur in the fall, and the cut-off criteria will force a drop out by anyone polling -- like Marianne Williamson -- under 2%^** ...

On edge: 2020 Dems face prospect of being cut from debates

Quote

[...]

Of the 20 candidates who qualified for the first round of debates in June and July, just six are sure to appear in the September-October round, when the Democratic National Committee requires participants to hit 2% in multiple polls and 130,000 individual donors. Though many campaigns are worried, DNC Chairman Tom Perez has resisted pressure to relax the requirements.

“We put our rules out for debate participation months earlier because we wanted to give people time,” Perez said in an interview. “We want to be fair to everyone.”

There’s still time for struggling candidates to recover. All 20 contenders who appeared on the debate stage last week will return for the late July debates. And, for now, only a fraction of votersare paying close attention to the unfolding Democratic contest.

But failing to qualify for the September-October debates could be lethal to any candidate, regardless of whether they formally drop out of the race.

Currently, the only locks for the fall debates are former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, California Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. 

[...]

On the other hand ... from Jonathan B Last at The Bulwark: Twitter Got the Democratic Debate Wrong.

And yet ... some anonymous person at the Conservative Treehouse says, "The Struggle is Real: Crazy, Creepy, Spank-Me and How Position for 2020." In this case, Senator Kamala Harris appears to be "Spank-Me."  Will Mr Trump pick up the nomenclature?

Senator Harris took Biden’s scalp knocking a solid ten percent from his pre-debate polling by accusing him of toxic whiteness/institutional racism.  Ever the opportunist, Spank-Me positioned herself as the heir-apparent to the grievance vote.  Booker attempted to regain grievance position, but his ethnic linguistics only made him look silly.  Down twinkles.

It could be that a large block of opinion would prefer "Vaccine Barbarella" to "Spank-Me," but I think that bloc is unlikely to be Democratic-voting.  In which case, the bloc of actually-Trumptastic-voters-to-be might think that Vaccine Barbarella is the absolute worst, next to Tulsi Gabbard.

All other things being equal, can Vaccine Barbarella move on up the rankings and meet the criteria to appear on stage with the Final Six in autumn?  I think not.

_____________

** from Morning Consult via RealClearPolitics:

Days until Iowans choose to caucus under the Democratic Party banner: 214;
Days until the Democratic Convention 2020: 378;

Impetuous headline of the day: “DEMOCRATS WANT A KILLER”: KAMALA HARRIS EXPOSES A HARD TRUTH ABOUT BIDEN.

'Biden has always suffered from verbal incontinence and a lack of focused thought. Kamala’s debate night attack was about as spontaneous as Liberation Day in North Korea. But she also showed why she’s likely to be the nominee. Trump wages hard campaigns, and Biden has lost a step.'

Caucus Countdown!
All Polls Are Wrong!

Hiring for a Kamala Harris Nickname Contest director-general. We have a few on the table, notably from Peter Taylor.  

For dorkmeister wonkery on who is raking Harris over the coals most effectively, I will report back in a month. At the present time, it is the Berniebro and circular firing squad of 'not black' and 'not black enough' and 'Kamala Kop Killer" and "Jails Blacks, Ain't Black" and "Truant Nazi Kamala."  None so far with any bounce. The woman knows how to get a headline, though.  

The worst next to Ali Alexander 'she is a disgusting fraud' (calling herself black) is --  wouldn't you know it -- Sean King, whose blackity-blackness is itself conditional on political stripe. 

Another fun aspect of the "What is there to say about Kamala Harris?" initial Trumpist discourse is found at HA Goodman's Youtube account. For the last two rapid-fire Tim-Pool-ish uploads, he ignores Senator Harris to the point of only referring to her as a "California senator."

'Grab 'em by the balls/pussy!' 

Make sure to keep up with the thread on the main forum, "2019 Dem Primary Watch":

... when fishing, one can never have enough tools.

How did The Prosecutor make her Millions?

"How many days?"  Plenty.  

Bend Over Bernie will bow out to whoever cheats him, he can’t be Commander in Chief you demented idiot.

"You demented idiot."

I am open to other descriptions. What am I to call a deranged fool who thinks Bernie, who bent over on command for Killery when he discovered she cheated him, is somehow going to have a spine and stand up to world powers? Your grasp of human psychology and how the world works is at the toddler’s level, Billy. You write profoundly stupid things, how can I not notice?

Anyway, quit whining and get back to your climate doom hysteria blog where you walked away from multiple engaged OL members, coward.

I am writing a book of fine literature and I am calling it, “At Last Shirked.”Naw, too derivative.  I’ll pretend I am from the most northern province of The British Empire, Canada and call it, “Atlas Sherked” after contributor William. Naw . . . . I don’t want to upset The Crown but our William is fair game.

William, People Magazine had an interesting article about the next British monarch and his wife who will be queen when Elizabeth steps down, if she ever does. Perhaps when she needs to walk with a cane Elizabeth will finally pass on the royal scepter. I can see the headline, “The Commoner Who Will Be Queen: King Charles and Queen Camilla.”

Or if Charles decides to not accept, or Camilla is too old to do her royal duties, or when Charles abdicates, etc., it will go to Prince William and Kate. King William and Queen Katherine has a certain ring too and I bet a few Brits are looking forward to some younger royals. I know the paparazzi are. In the meantime, To the Queen. Hoist a pint! May Elizabeth rule until her one hundredth birthday or longer. She has been married to Prince Philip since 1947, and he is still driving a car but be wary around the old gentleman.   

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"You demented idiot."

See Billy, the way you would behave if you were here for intellectualism, is you would address the substance about his spine.

When you focus on your feelings you present as someone focused on their feelings. Like little girls are. Understand?

You seem to want two things that you don’t understand are in conflict:

1) To be treated like a serious person who engages in serious discussion (as opposed to walking away from discussion when you are losing, as you are doing to Jonathan, Ellen and Michael, etc., right now, or whining about the accurate name you got called.)

2) To post about your feelings, like a little girl.

When you embrace 1 you will be treated as a 1.

When you embrace 2, as you have for about three years now, then you will be treated like a #2.

Get it yet, twat?

Soros should have hired you. You would make a better Greta.

16 minutes ago, Peter said:

I can see the headline, “The Commoner Who Will Be Queen: King Charles and Queen Camilla.”

I believe it is more likely that the Duchess of Cornwall will be styled "Her Royal Highness, The Princess Consort," when and if Charles accedes to the UK throne. 

Thanks for the info. Will those grandkids, next in line, be similarly labelled? Consort sounds a bit tart-ish to an American. Sort of like concubine. 

Shouldn’t you be pushing the Ukraine thing? Have you already figured out that you dumb shits walked into basically the exact same trap you have walked into 319 times since 2016? If so then you are getting better, good job! This is the soonest you have figured it out compared to the previous 318 times.

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

Consort sounds a bit tart-ish to an American.

Perhaps. It's also used the other way, Peter -- Queen Victoria's spouse was styled Prince Consort -- and more recently, Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh.  In any case, only one person shows up to work as the monarch -- playing the constitutional role assigned by law and custom. There is no consortium, so to speak. 

2 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Perhaps. It's also used the other way, Peter -- Queen Victoria's spouse was styled Prince Consort -- and more recently, Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh.  In any case, only one person shows up to work as the monarch -- playing the constitutional role assigned by law and custom. There is no consortium, so to speak. 

 

I hope that PBS shows some more "Victoria's," though Albert died young. Bad joke. Perhaps Queen Kate (or consort) will be allowed "on top" more often in the royal bed chambers. I could picture that. I can't stop picturing that.