*NEW* Morning Consult - Biden 32%, Sanders 20%, Warren 19%, Buttigieg 8%... MB 2%

[Skya Rhen]

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

[ritapria]

1. Thanks for Posting

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2019, 09:31 PM - Edit history (5)

More Morning Consult Polling Data : Early States ( Ia. NH , NV , SC ) Biden 29% Bernie 20% Warren 19% Buttigieg 11% Steyer 7% Harris 4% ....TYT's Cenk Ughyur just endorsed Bernard ... Look at Bloomberg's Favorability Numbers : 33% Positive vs. 26% Negative .. That is horrible …. …... Breaking News : Iowa Hawkeye Poll from The University of Iowa : Warren 23% Sanders 18% Buttigieg 16% Biden 15% Yang 3% Gabbard 3% Steyer 3% Harris 2% Klobuchar 1% Castro 1% …….Amongst Iowa Caucus Voters Strongly Committee to First Choice : Warren 22.4% Bernie 21.6% Biden 19.7% Buttigieg 10.7% Yang 10.9% Gabbard 7.8% Harris 3.1%

[TidalWave46]

24. Cenk just endorsed Sanders?

With the nature of issues last go around and Cenks awful history talking about women that is a train wreck of an endorsement. Cenk is a slightly more stable H A Goodman. Thanks for highlighting it. It’s a step worse than being endorsed by Sirota. Sanders can’t catch a break.

He has AOC keeping him afloat. She has damn near become the headliner. So sad what is happening to him at the tail end of his career.

[Eric J in MN]

32. Cenk Uygur was a Republican in his youth. He's older and wiser now. NT

NT

[TidalWave46]

33. Yes, he is older and "wiser."

He is padding his bank account by delivering propaganda to the lowest common denominator.

[WheelWalker]

2. The material question remains, how will the undecideds break?

That will decide our nominee.

[LakeArenal]

3. Keep on keeping on, Joe. We are with you.

[Thekaspervote]

4. Go Joe go!!

[WA-03 Democrat]

6. Oh Yeah!

GO JOE GO!

Beat tRump like a drum!

[peggysue2]

5. Steady as you go, Joe!

I'm guessing Biden's town hall last night will boost those numbers even higher. Good show!

Thanks for the update, Skya.

AGO4JOE2020

[Funtatlaguy]

7. Biden is the nominee unless Warren or Sanders drops out.

[Demsrule86]

13. I think that is their only chance. You are right. But I am not sure all of the support would go to

the remaining candidate...so no sure it would work. And I can't see either dropping out anytime soon.

[Funtatlaguy]

15. Not all but most.

[Demsrule86]

17. Could be so...I won't argue. But I still think electability plays a roll.

[Celerity]

27. 2nd choices from this poll

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Very interesting. Cuz someone was just saying all Bernie votes

Would go to Warren and vice versa if either dropped out.

[Celerity]

31. that is why I posted it, they have different demographics of supporters ofttimes

That said, Bernie is clearly hurting her chances o a point, just not to the extent many think. I think a Bernie drop-out and then endorsement of Warren would push her into a commanding lead atm, but Bernie will not drop out.

Bernie has no chances to hurt, he is the far left Charge of the Light Brigade. He MIGHT do some sort of deal at the convention IF he can swing enough delegates to put Warren over the top on a first ballot, but I do NOT see them having enough combined delegates to hit 50% plus 1. IF they did have the numbers and if they did do that, it imperils the general to a huge degree, as Schultz and maybe, maybe Bloomberg will run as indies to block her.

I unfortunately can see many paths to chaos that end in a Rump reelection, most all of the involving 2 huge prerequisites:

1 The economy remains stable and suffers no real downturn or even grows a bit

2 We really, really cock-up the Impeachment

If we do ok with the Impeachment, and Biden wins on a first ballot, and picks a great VP, then I can see Rump surely going down, unless he goes completely batshit crazy (it is a possibility with him, I think him capable of ANYTHING) and declares a State of National Emergency, which gives him VAST, near or actual dictatorial powers (including suspension of the election, which he CAN do in theory.)

The only way then to get him out is to hope the Rethugs in the Senate finally do something (which they MIGHT but I am not even sure if he would honour a conviction and removal at that point), or the Cabinet and VP uses the 25th Amendment remedy (doubtful) or barring those, the true nightmare scenario of a military coup d'état. IF the military sides with him, and the other 2 things fail, then we are off and running to an eventual civil war in some shape or form, and the world's future is in grave danger. ZERO hyperbole at that point.

A true dictator Rump could unchain Putin to vacuum up vast swathes of Eurasia (goodbye Ukraine, goodbye Baltics for sure, plus who knows what else), Turkey to go wild in a real Caliphate attempt, unleash Israel to nuke Iran, and allow China to do multiple smash n' grabs in SE Asia (goodbye Taiwan, goodbye even partially free Hong Kong, etc etc, hell they might make a move on other nations as well.)

Dog only knows what NoKo would do, but if I were Japan and SoKo, at that point, I would be looking out every window for incoming nukes (Japan) or millions of rounds of artillery tube and other style bombardment followed by 5 million NoKo ground force troops invading (SoKo).

I wish I were having a laugh, but I am not.




The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers



https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

snip

But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.

1. “A LOADED WEAPON”

The premise underlying emergency powers is simple: The government’s ordinary powers might be insufficient in a crisis, and amending the law to provide greater ones might be too slow and cumbersome. Emergency powers are meant to give the government a temporary boost until the emergency passes or there is time to change the law through normal legislative processes. Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, the U.S. Constitution itself includes no comprehensive separate regime for emergencies. Those few powers it does contain for dealing with certain urgent threats, it assigns to Congress, not the president. For instance, it lets Congress suspend the writ of habeas corpus—that is, allow government officials to imprison people without judicial review—“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined “executive Power.” At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.

The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.

snip

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. This is such an important post that really needs to

be an op in GD, Celerity! I fully understand the reasons for separating forums but WHO we nominate along with what our party's message is - and - the supreme dangers you talk about, of a Trump reelection, are intrinsically linked.

Separating the forums is a metaphor for what seems like the reality to me. That we are acting like this is an ordinary election. It is not - because the dangers you mention are catastrophic.

If it is so difficult for us, who are so knowledgeable on trump attrocities, to sort out the millions of balls trump has thrown up in the air, what about the masses? And, what about the balls that haven't been thrown up in the air...the ones he's kept under the radar? His removal of sound and needed regulation is probably a gold mine.

Highly as unorthodox as it is (so what, it's an emergency), the Dems would be very wise to go on a week long workshop to figure out how to beat the monster. Just like a strategic planning session that businesses conduct. Hire the best in the business to lead. Break out groups that can pull together all the balls on each topic - Russian ties, environmental and immigration related travesties, harm to foreign relationships, gutting of healthcare, etc, etc.

Then, the group as a whole, by process of elimination, determines which travesties rise to the top. Aided by pollsters, strategists, Mad Ave admen, and top contributors with deep pockets, the result could be a way forward for the party as a whole and to get generic ads out there ASAP.

Example..trump reversed a President Obama regulation that stopped coal companies from dumping sludge that had proven cancer causing materials into our water!! What US citizen, other than the cold hearted, would not be affected by an ad of kids splashing in a brook with this information superimposed?
How could trump possibly rationalize his action?

Bottom line, now is the time to save our country and think outside the box.

[Celerity]

35. [phone]

Love the weeklong (or more) workshop idea!

The last part of my reply was an OP if mone (the article only) but it got little attention.

The chaos scenarios are new, however.

Somehow, the POTUS (the office itself) needs to be dramatically lowered in power. It has gained far too much over the last 50 to 60 years. Executive orders in so many cases are madness to me overall. It is often a pure dictatorial power grab from what is supposed to be a co-equal branch of our tri-partite form of Constitutional governance (Congress.) That is but one small sliver of the 'Imperial Presidency' thorn bush that needs to be substantially trimmed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. Exec orders can indeed be power grabs if the president's party is the majority in Congress. If we

Had veto proof margins now we could pass legislation to negate any trump order. Or if he hadn’t stacked the SC we could sue. So there are remedies but trump has placed his blockers in AG and SC. And he threatens GOP into submission with horrible tweets or withheld endorsements.

[HerbChestnut]

8. Wow, favorability for Bernie is off the charts good.

Sad to see Warren beginning a decline.

[quickesst]

9. K&R

Excellent news for Joe and his supporters, and I am proud to be one of them.

?itemid=14991406

[Cha]

12. Yo tambien, amigo!

Nice graphic you got there!

[quickesst]

19. Thanks Cha

Always looking for new ones.

[Cha]

21. Thank you.. Keep up the Good Work, quickesst!

[quickesst]

23. You too...

Keep doing what you have been doing. Your positive attitude is inspiring.

[Cha]

25. Mahalo, quickesst and definitely

backatcha!

[Thekaspervote]

18. GREAT gif!!

[quickesst]

20. I don't want to leave any doubt....

.... as to who I believe is the best person to be our next president.

[MustLoveBeagles]

29. Cool

[quickesst]

30. Thanks

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Hillary was 19-28% ahead of Obama in November 2007

Depending on the poll.

So much for the inevitability mythology...

[Cha]

11. BS & EW are neck & neck..

Steady as you Go Joe!

[Demsrule86]

14. Joe is moving ahead...go Joe!!! Warren is slipping I think.

K&R

[Joe941]

16. Bernie has staying power and Warren is starting to fade.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. K&R

[emmaverybo]

26. Give us a J give as an O give us an E. What does it spell?

Last edited Wed Nov 13, 2019, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Our nominee hopefully!
You go, Joe
America and the world need you.

[Sloumeau]

37. Skya Rhen, Thanks for posting this. :)